Obligatory E3 post begins now:
So I"ve been playing Splatoon recently and I'm happy to announce that Nintendo didn't mess this one up, though was there ever any doubt? As the companies first foray into the third-person shooter they've been able to add their own twist to the genre - namely the fact that you score points by covering the ground with ink/paint with much less emphasis on killing everything on screen. Ok, I know that has nothing to do with E3 but truth is I was away from internets for the whole show and I've had to play catch up. And you know what? It's exhausting. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Bethesda, Square Enix, EA and Ubisoft all have presentations that are more than an hour long. But I digress...
Has anyone played Animal Crossing: New Leaf? A friend bought me a copy when I was in hospital and recently I've been getting a lot of enjoyment out of it. People normally conflate "Nintendo" and "traditional" but here is a game that is anything but traditional. It's much more like a zen garden that you're meant to tend to daily that ultimately ends up as an expression of how you've been playing the game so far. Security Blanket/10. Nintendo's conference was actually the first one I watched and it had everthing needed to make the fanboy in me squeal with delight. Odds are you've probably heard most of the announcments already so I don't see the need to list everything here.
Star Wars: Battlefront looks excellent. It's amazing how well the game has held up after all these years. It's hard to believe that it came out 11 years ago. Still, it's definitley still worth playing but it is a shame that it's only local play is two player. But if you need a more recent shooter to fill that hole in your soul then EA has got you covered: Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare. In it you can play as a sunflower with a gun. How is that not awesome? Answer: it isn't.
Ok, I'll try to stay on track. Ubisoft's conference was probably the most awkwardly funny to watch. I can't believe that executives believe that a hall full of dedicated gamers want to see a full 10 minutes dedicated to announcing the new Just Dance. Plus their show was full of anecdotes about how much their feeling were hurt when people said their piece of shit game Assassin's Creed Unity was a piece of shit. Poor Ubisoft, it much be tough having the job that everyone in that audience would kill for. Let's feel sorry for them.
Let's...
Let's play...
Do people still watch Game Grumps? I love the new Grumpcade crossover thing they're doing, especially since they had my favourite Youtuber, the Completionist, on. Sure they played Sonic and Knuckles which the Completionist had already done a Let's Play on, but the man is just so talented I watched that whole series anyway.
It's really hard for me to stay on track today. Ok, here we go, what I actually thought of this years E3:
Same as the last, plenty of stuff to get excited about.
The End. Thank you for reading.
Friday, 3 July 2015
Friday, 10 April 2015
Explaining the Unexplainable
Congratulations, dear reader! You've
decided to embark on this epic quest with me and you don't even know what I'm
going to talk about. Don't worry because neither do I. But that's ok because
that's the point. Do you ever play a game and find yourself asking why you
bother? Maybe you watch other people, rolling your eyes as they seemingly try
to accomplish impossible tasks, while at the same time they pretend to be an
elf or an orc. Deep down in the core of ourselves we understand the futility of
playing games. And I'm not just talking about video games. The loud and drunk
people in the corner of the pub, glued to the screen and cheering whenever
their team does something that they deem cheer-worthy. Even they know that
anything that happens in a game will have no impact on their real lives.
Nevertheless, those sport stars are paid millions to do what they do and video
game companies have no problem taking money from people who know what they
purchase is a meaningless distraction. The act of playing seems innate, as we
know children play all the time. But most gamers aren't kids. In fact, the
average age of a gamer is 31 years old. And even animals
can play games of their own. Every time we look for an answer, we'll find more
questions.
Maybe this is because we are dealing with
a paradox. This can be examined if we ask, "Why do we play?" We play
for fun of course. That answer opens up a can of worms, but we'll leave it for
now. Let's accept the preposition that we play for fun. Video games are
classified as entertainment products so that answer makes sense. Just like
movies and books before them, video games provide an outlet for enjoyment. But
are we really enjoying ourselves? Is it fun to die and restart from a
checkpoint thirty minutes ago? Is it fun for that to happen five more times in
a row? No! You're more than likely to throw your remote through the TV if
that's the case. So even the basic premise of "games for fun" doesn't
add up. We generally avoid failure, video games can make failures out of us yet
we continue to play even though we're exposing ourselves to something we'd
normally avoid. Maybe we're all masochists. But Jesper Juul in his book The Art of Failure sees
"a paradox that stems from the way we are torn between an immediate desire
to avoid failure and a longer-term desire for an experience that includes
failure." That's why he has multiple books and gaming credits and I only
have this blog. It seems as if we play for the experience, to say that we did
it.
Surely, though, there should be more
worthwhile pursuits than saving the goddamn princess another goddamn time. Do
video games actually offer us something in return? You may have heard the
argument about surgeons who improved their dexterity with Halo. Plus, video games can
offer a great chance for tangential learning - learning that happens beside the
main action. Whether it's via creating a game world based on a real place a la
the Assassin's Creed series
or by NPC dialogue that introduces a new way of thinking for the player. Games
such as Bioshock are great at explaining and dissecting
complex political schools of thought even if most of the game is just running
and gunning. Games clearly can offer as much as any other medium, but I'm
looking for something that is intrinsically about gaming.
Humans and animals both play games but
only humans have created such complex systems to achieve such a basic desire.
As technology increased its presence in our lives, our games migrated to
computers but an understanding of the not-so-old way of sports and board games
can help explain games themselves. Rules are important, in games and in real
life. However, real life is incredibly complex and the rules not always so
clear cut. They can vary from culture to culture, social situations or who
you're having dinner with. Rules in a game can be much simpler. In fact, they
had to be simple so that anyone could understand them. Football teams colour
code themselves, and a game of Dungeons
& Dragons has a Dungeon Master. These examples are humankinds
attempts to introduce order into a world that often seems to have none. Before
the rise of the console and single player game, people had to agree with each
other on the rules and who would be the one to take responsibility for their
enforcement. This highlights an important element that is so often overlooked
when talking about games - the social factor. Humans are social beings by
nature and play is one of the most harmless ways to achieve interaction. When
we play we know it's all pretend, as if entering some sort of magic circle
where the only rules are the ones of the game.
So today you've learnt that the act of
playing a game is the paradoxical act of avoiding failure by exposing yourself
to it. That existing in a game world can make you learn about Objectivism or
American Exceptionalism without realising it. And that games have rules, like
real life, and also like real life games can be very confusing. The trouble
with titling a blog post "Explaining the Unexplainable" is that by its
nature I can't explain it to you. All I can do is offer you words that may help
you understand the concepts we grasp for every time you lose a game.
So one last word then: Autotelic; Having a
purpose in and not apart from itself.
Two Youtube Videos for more on this subject:
Obligatory Social Networks:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/psykoticgamer
Twitter: @PsykoticGamer
Patreon: Coming Soon
Thursday, 12 February 2015
The Psykotic Gamer Completionist Tribute: Super Mario 3D Land
Greetings my fellow human beings. It's been a while since I've updated and you may have noticed that all the old posts are no longer viewable. This is part of my learning process as when I look back at the older blogs I just want to crawl under a duna and never come out again. So it's back to the drawing board. Firstly and probably most importantly I had to buy a drawing board. Now that that's been taken care of, I'd like to relaunch the Psykotic Gamer with a special tribute to a personal hero of mine, Jirad "Dragonrider" Khalil aka The Completionist. For those who've never seen the show, look him up on Youtube. His is a show that focuses on 100% completion of video games and he's covered everything from Skyrim to Sonic 06. Inspired by this crazy, crazy man I set out to complete a game of my own: Super Mario 3D Land. Why this game? Because it's my blog and I do what I want.
Story:
Say what you want about Nintendo (and most people do) they don't change what works. With such a heavy focus by other game companies on dark serious narratives in games nowadays, I always find it super refreshing to turn on a Mario game and get straight to business by jumping on things. That being said I doubt a game about a dwarf Italian plumber chomping on mushrooms and fighting dragon-turtles would make it past many marketing exceutives these days.
Presentation:
This game being on the 3DS means that of course it will be playable in 3D. In my books 3D doesn't nessacarily make a game (or movie) any better, though there are 3 or 4 little puzzles that take advantage of the system capabilities. Good luck using a 2DS though. The colours are very vibrant and level design impeccable, Nintendo having perfected this in the Galaxy series. That being said, the game overall feels very safe and doesn't really push the envelope to make this game stand out from its bigger brothers on the consoles.
Gameplay:
Super Mario 3D Land has been described by Shigeru Miyamoto as a blend of 2D and 3D Mario level design. That being said, the game plays very much like a 3D platformer with Mario having all his old jumping abilities like the wall kick, long jump and even a new move: rolling. While rolling doesn't shake things up much, it will allow you to perform an even longer jump (patent pending). Each level has a time limit for you to traverse the obstacle course and reach the flagpole at the end of the level - mechanics carried over from the 2D games. This game also sees the return of the Tanooki suit, last seen in Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES but that came out before I was born so there was no nostalgia trip for me. You can also grab the upgraded suit which is gold and lets you be invinsible for the duration of the level. If that sounds a little game breaking to you it should. The powered up suit will only appear when you die a certain amount of times on a level and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. It's more for unexperienced players who Nintendo has been catering more for in the recent years.
Final Level:
So you guide Mario through 8 worlds stomping on Goombas and Koopas alike to reach Bowser. Oops, should have put a spoiler warning there, but really if you play a Mario game you already know how it ends. The final boss battle is actually pretty exciting as it does away with the 3 hits and your dead idea and instead we get a fast paced platforming section as the King of Koopas breathes fire and throws barrels at you. When I first played this game I felt like a proper badass for beating Bowser and the fight is actually pretty difficult. I'd say it would be a contender for number 1 in my favourite Bowser fights.
In the end I feel like this is actually an incredibly easy game. Maybe all my years of gaming just means that some games are now beneath me... unless...
Completion Bonus:
For me this is where the real game starts. After beating the final level, you will unlock the special course - 8 more worlds filled with even harder levels. The difficulty here is turned up to 11 and the game is actually better for it. Without these levels this game would hardly deserve a recommendation to the more avid gamers out there. The special world is also where you unlock Luigi who can jump higher than Mario, but has less traction that his plumper older brother. For completionists you have to beat all the levels with both brothers while also collecting three hidden star coins. And after all that you have to make sure to touch the top of all the flagpoles. Once you're done, you have to redo your final fight with Bowser to 100% your game. On your game start screen your save will have 5 twinkling stars to prove to your friends that you're the best.
HOWEVER, if during your travels the golden Tanooki suit appears it will be impossible to get the twinkling stars. That's right, even if you never use the suit you lose the chance for twinkles. Sad face. One way to remedy this is to do a soft reset. If you see the suit, close your game and restart it. The game saves once you finish a level so you'll be put back right where you were. Unfortunatly, I didn't know about this rule until too late, so even though I did everything in the game and never used the suit once my stars will never twinkle. I mean, I guess I could just start the whole game over again but that's just too much wasted time.
Wrapping up this game is really, really, really great. Don't let that hiccup of a completionist bonus put you off because this is the best handheld Mario to date and well worth the time of any 3DS owner. While it does seem like that one design issue could have been avoided this is nevertheless a solid game. For those of you interested, there was a quasi-sequel to this game for the Wii U called Super Mario 3D World which fixes that one problem and also has better level design in general, if only because 3D Land was so cautious. You can also play as Peach and Toad in that one which is neat too. If you want, you can head over the the Completionist channel and watch his review of that here.
With that in mind guys, this game get my Psykotic rating of FINIPETE it (Finish it or Complete it).
And if you're still here I cannot stress enough how cool Jirard is. Seriously check out his channel. Plus he actually completes games fully, even if there is stupid shit in the way like a bloody system where you can't beat the game if you die more than 5 times on a level.
Story:
Say what you want about Nintendo (and most people do) they don't change what works. With such a heavy focus by other game companies on dark serious narratives in games nowadays, I always find it super refreshing to turn on a Mario game and get straight to business by jumping on things. That being said I doubt a game about a dwarf Italian plumber chomping on mushrooms and fighting dragon-turtles would make it past many marketing exceutives these days.
Presentation:
This game being on the 3DS means that of course it will be playable in 3D. In my books 3D doesn't nessacarily make a game (or movie) any better, though there are 3 or 4 little puzzles that take advantage of the system capabilities. Good luck using a 2DS though. The colours are very vibrant and level design impeccable, Nintendo having perfected this in the Galaxy series. That being said, the game overall feels very safe and doesn't really push the envelope to make this game stand out from its bigger brothers on the consoles.
Gameplay:
Super Mario 3D Land has been described by Shigeru Miyamoto as a blend of 2D and 3D Mario level design. That being said, the game plays very much like a 3D platformer with Mario having all his old jumping abilities like the wall kick, long jump and even a new move: rolling. While rolling doesn't shake things up much, it will allow you to perform an even longer jump (patent pending). Each level has a time limit for you to traverse the obstacle course and reach the flagpole at the end of the level - mechanics carried over from the 2D games. This game also sees the return of the Tanooki suit, last seen in Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES but that came out before I was born so there was no nostalgia trip for me. You can also grab the upgraded suit which is gold and lets you be invinsible for the duration of the level. If that sounds a little game breaking to you it should. The powered up suit will only appear when you die a certain amount of times on a level and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. It's more for unexperienced players who Nintendo has been catering more for in the recent years.
Final Level:
So you guide Mario through 8 worlds stomping on Goombas and Koopas alike to reach Bowser. Oops, should have put a spoiler warning there, but really if you play a Mario game you already know how it ends. The final boss battle is actually pretty exciting as it does away with the 3 hits and your dead idea and instead we get a fast paced platforming section as the King of Koopas breathes fire and throws barrels at you. When I first played this game I felt like a proper badass for beating Bowser and the fight is actually pretty difficult. I'd say it would be a contender for number 1 in my favourite Bowser fights.
In the end I feel like this is actually an incredibly easy game. Maybe all my years of gaming just means that some games are now beneath me... unless...
Completion Bonus:
For me this is where the real game starts. After beating the final level, you will unlock the special course - 8 more worlds filled with even harder levels. The difficulty here is turned up to 11 and the game is actually better for it. Without these levels this game would hardly deserve a recommendation to the more avid gamers out there. The special world is also where you unlock Luigi who can jump higher than Mario, but has less traction that his plumper older brother. For completionists you have to beat all the levels with both brothers while also collecting three hidden star coins. And after all that you have to make sure to touch the top of all the flagpoles. Once you're done, you have to redo your final fight with Bowser to 100% your game. On your game start screen your save will have 5 twinkling stars to prove to your friends that you're the best.
HOWEVER, if during your travels the golden Tanooki suit appears it will be impossible to get the twinkling stars. That's right, even if you never use the suit you lose the chance for twinkles. Sad face. One way to remedy this is to do a soft reset. If you see the suit, close your game and restart it. The game saves once you finish a level so you'll be put back right where you were. Unfortunatly, I didn't know about this rule until too late, so even though I did everything in the game and never used the suit once my stars will never twinkle. I mean, I guess I could just start the whole game over again but that's just too much wasted time.
Wrapping up this game is really, really, really great. Don't let that hiccup of a completionist bonus put you off because this is the best handheld Mario to date and well worth the time of any 3DS owner. While it does seem like that one design issue could have been avoided this is nevertheless a solid game. For those of you interested, there was a quasi-sequel to this game for the Wii U called Super Mario 3D World which fixes that one problem and also has better level design in general, if only because 3D Land was so cautious. You can also play as Peach and Toad in that one which is neat too. If you want, you can head over the the Completionist channel and watch his review of that here.
With that in mind guys, this game get my Psykotic rating of FINIPETE it (Finish it or Complete it).
And if you're still here I cannot stress enough how cool Jirard is. Seriously check out his channel. Plus he actually completes games fully, even if there is stupid shit in the way like a bloody system where you can't beat the game if you die more than 5 times on a level.
Saturday, 15 February 2014
The Last of Us: Left Behind DLC Review
Ok, so Naughty Dog released Left Behind, a downloadable level to the critically acclaimed The Last of Us yesterday. So, seeing as The Last of Us is one of the best games that I have ever played, I (or rather, my Valentine ^3^) bought this pack. The level is combination flashback to Ellie's early days, and filling in some holes from the main campaign. Needless to say, this review will contain spoilers so if you haven't played the main game or plan on buying the DLC, don't read this blog. I don't care if you have nothing better to do, there is a lot to say about Left Behind and all of it is spoilers to the main game as well to the DLC.
The Last of Us was my game of the year for 2013 and you can read my blog about it here http://psykoticgamer.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/game-of-year-naughty-dogs-last-of-us.html. In this blog I pretty much said that Naughty Dog's latest offering was tits on toast and absolutely worth a play. "Fluid and immersive", "an artform" and "a psykotic recommendation from me". So having such fond memories of this beautiful game, I didn't know what Left Behind would do for me. As only a 2 hour level add on for a 17 hour game, would there be enough game time to be as epic as the original? Well, no, there's not. Instead we're offered a closer, personal look at Ellie and what it means to be immune to a disease that has killed everyone you ever loved, as well as a further look at the gameplay ideas Naughty Dog had for it's game. And oh boy, does it deliver. The closest game I could compare this pack to is Valve's Portal. Portal is a suberbly crafted two hour experience, just like Left Behind is.
Well, the best place to start is the beginning. In the original game, player-character Joel is severely injured and it is up to Ellie to patch him up. Then the game skips forward to an almost recovered Joel. What happened during those months? Left Behind explains: Ellie takes Joel into a shopping mall to hide and then sets out looking for medical supplies that could save his life. While this main storyline unfolds, Ellie flashes back to a memory that was hinted at in the main storyline. In The Last of Us, Ellie tells the story of how she and her friend were bitten only for her friend to die and for her to survive. This DLC takes a closer look at the survival guilt of Ellie and how that story unfolded. We are introduced to this friend; Riley. Having disapeared weeks before, Ellie is relieved and pissed off at her friend who then takes her into a shopping mall to make it up to her.
So that's the bare minimum story. What about those refined gameplay mechanics? Well, look at any mechanic from the main game: the brick-throwing, enemy encounters, even the dialogue scenes have been spruced up. Sure, they're basically the same, but the studio has taken these ideas further. The car destroying competition, encounters with both infected and survivors at the same time, and being given a book or magic 8-Ball that you can interact with as many times as you like is super fresh. Specifically those dialougue options, even though the main game nailed it, the introduction of more player choice gives more player agency. Rather than watching two people have a conversation, this style lends itself more to support the fact that these are two friends hanging out.
Even the collectable artifacts are more thoughtful. Rather than just finding random letters between random people, each letter found is from the same person and the more letters you find the more you can discover about the horrible events that led these people to their end. And again, these collectables support the themes of survival against insurmountable odds and survivor guilt. The letters spell out the sacrifices that were made that ultimately led to Ellie finding the medical supplies she needed to save Joel. Naughty Dog hits it out of the park again.
However, my favourtie part of the game is when Ellie and Riley stumble upon an arcade. This scene is truly Naughty Dog at it's finest. Leave it to these guys to define Quick-Time Events in such a clear yet emotional affecting way. And the introduction of the new weapons for this pack: Water guns. The fights between Ellie and Riley are just as intense as the fight between Ellie and David in the original game. There are so many amazing things to say about this pack, but really this is a game that needs to played.
If you own The Last of Us you owe it to yourself to get this DLC. It's just... wow. Thanks for reading!
The Last of Us was my game of the year for 2013 and you can read my blog about it here http://psykoticgamer.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/game-of-year-naughty-dogs-last-of-us.html. In this blog I pretty much said that Naughty Dog's latest offering was tits on toast and absolutely worth a play. "Fluid and immersive", "an artform" and "a psykotic recommendation from me". So having such fond memories of this beautiful game, I didn't know what Left Behind would do for me. As only a 2 hour level add on for a 17 hour game, would there be enough game time to be as epic as the original? Well, no, there's not. Instead we're offered a closer, personal look at Ellie and what it means to be immune to a disease that has killed everyone you ever loved, as well as a further look at the gameplay ideas Naughty Dog had for it's game. And oh boy, does it deliver. The closest game I could compare this pack to is Valve's Portal. Portal is a suberbly crafted two hour experience, just like Left Behind is.
Well, the best place to start is the beginning. In the original game, player-character Joel is severely injured and it is up to Ellie to patch him up. Then the game skips forward to an almost recovered Joel. What happened during those months? Left Behind explains: Ellie takes Joel into a shopping mall to hide and then sets out looking for medical supplies that could save his life. While this main storyline unfolds, Ellie flashes back to a memory that was hinted at in the main storyline. In The Last of Us, Ellie tells the story of how she and her friend were bitten only for her friend to die and for her to survive. This DLC takes a closer look at the survival guilt of Ellie and how that story unfolded. We are introduced to this friend; Riley. Having disapeared weeks before, Ellie is relieved and pissed off at her friend who then takes her into a shopping mall to make it up to her.
So that's the bare minimum story. What about those refined gameplay mechanics? Well, look at any mechanic from the main game: the brick-throwing, enemy encounters, even the dialogue scenes have been spruced up. Sure, they're basically the same, but the studio has taken these ideas further. The car destroying competition, encounters with both infected and survivors at the same time, and being given a book or magic 8-Ball that you can interact with as many times as you like is super fresh. Specifically those dialougue options, even though the main game nailed it, the introduction of more player choice gives more player agency. Rather than watching two people have a conversation, this style lends itself more to support the fact that these are two friends hanging out.
Even the collectable artifacts are more thoughtful. Rather than just finding random letters between random people, each letter found is from the same person and the more letters you find the more you can discover about the horrible events that led these people to their end. And again, these collectables support the themes of survival against insurmountable odds and survivor guilt. The letters spell out the sacrifices that were made that ultimately led to Ellie finding the medical supplies she needed to save Joel. Naughty Dog hits it out of the park again.
However, my favourtie part of the game is when Ellie and Riley stumble upon an arcade. This scene is truly Naughty Dog at it's finest. Leave it to these guys to define Quick-Time Events in such a clear yet emotional affecting way. And the introduction of the new weapons for this pack: Water guns. The fights between Ellie and Riley are just as intense as the fight between Ellie and David in the original game. There are so many amazing things to say about this pack, but really this is a game that needs to played.
If you own The Last of Us you owe it to yourself to get this DLC. It's just... wow. Thanks for reading!
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Rescuing Princesses
A lot of games I play seem to involve rescuing princesses. To be fair, a lot of the games I play are either from the Mario or Zelda franchise so this may be understandable. I'd like to take a look at how storming a castle, defeating a fire-breathing turtle/ox only to find out that my princess was in another castle has affected the way I approach critiquing videogames. I'll compare Princess Peach aka Princess Toadstool to Princess Zelda to do this, but I'd also like to discuss how women have been depicted in games and how Mario and Link have contributed to this. Also, who would win?
Peach doesn't vary much from game to game whereas Zelda does, so we're starting with the Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom. After Mario dumped Pauline, he moved on to find a new dame. One day he found out that King Koopa has turned all the Toad's into bricks and since Peach is the only one who can change them back, he kidnaps her. Mario, finding out that "rescuing princesses" is part of the job description for a plumber in the kingdom, sets out to defeat waves of goombas and koopa - troopas. So started a long tradition of the Super Mario games. To be fair, some games actually let you play as Peach and sometimes Bowser isn't always the culprit. But the stories of Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine all the New Super Mario Bros. games and both the Super Mario Galaxy games follow the template, sprucing it up a bit by Peach always making Mario cake. Many people have pointed out that Peach is a terrible role model to little girls and even going as far to say that Mario games are sexist. I can see where they're coming from, considering the distastful Super Princess Peach where her powers are pretty much PMS and her attacks in the Super Smash Bros. franchise including frying pans. I can also see how the entries in the main series could influence power fantasies of boys wishing to steal away their crushes from their seemingly evil boyfriends but I feel that's beside the point. The point of Mario games are to be solid platformers and they are just that. Add in the length of the games and you can point out that the story of Mario games don't exactly matter. They just seem to build upon old fairytales of guys saving girls. It's a relic from an older age where this was more acceptable. While I don't find this portrayal of women to be offensive there is some merit there and I would like to see Peach get an updated character for her own sake. By the way, if you want to know about Peach's problems check out this great video from The Game Theorists:
Peach doesn't vary much from game to game whereas Zelda does, so we're starting with the Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom. After Mario dumped Pauline, he moved on to find a new dame. One day he found out that King Koopa has turned all the Toad's into bricks and since Peach is the only one who can change them back, he kidnaps her. Mario, finding out that "rescuing princesses" is part of the job description for a plumber in the kingdom, sets out to defeat waves of goombas and koopa - troopas. So started a long tradition of the Super Mario games. To be fair, some games actually let you play as Peach and sometimes Bowser isn't always the culprit. But the stories of Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine all the New Super Mario Bros. games and both the Super Mario Galaxy games follow the template, sprucing it up a bit by Peach always making Mario cake. Many people have pointed out that Peach is a terrible role model to little girls and even going as far to say that Mario games are sexist. I can see where they're coming from, considering the distastful Super Princess Peach where her powers are pretty much PMS and her attacks in the Super Smash Bros. franchise including frying pans. I can also see how the entries in the main series could influence power fantasies of boys wishing to steal away their crushes from their seemingly evil boyfriends but I feel that's beside the point. The point of Mario games are to be solid platformers and they are just that. Add in the length of the games and you can point out that the story of Mario games don't exactly matter. They just seem to build upon old fairytales of guys saving girls. It's a relic from an older age where this was more acceptable. While I don't find this portrayal of women to be offensive there is some merit there and I would like to see Peach get an updated character for her own sake. By the way, if you want to know about Peach's problems check out this great video from The Game Theorists:
What about Zelda though? Well the incarnation in my favourite game (because they're not all the same Zelda) in Ocarina of Time is incredibly fair to her. Zelda can sometimes be seen as the antithesis of Peach and the games that give her a proper role in the story are beneficial to the series because... well her names in the title. These stories should be about her. In Ocarina of Time you meet Zelda as a child and she has dreams of keeping Hyrule safe. When she goes into hiding and Hyrule falls to darkness you're only ally is the young boy Sheik until it turns out (SPOILER) it was Zelda all along. This not only kept her in the story, but made sure she played a vital role. On the flipside, in the second game Link's Adventure she's basically asleep the whole time a la Sleeping Beauty. Wind Waker also hides Zelda's identity to begin with, under the guise of the tomboyish pirate Tetra while the kidnapee is Link's sister. Again, Zelda is central to the story and is actually given a personality. But this relates back to what I was saying before about relateness to the story. The Zelda games are meant to be epic quests, so story is paramount here. Mario could do the same thing, and in fact has done in the various Mario RPG's that are out, but the core franchise are meant to be about platforming which require a completely different approach that uses reflexes and trial and error. Ever hated it when games remake you watch a cutscene after you die in a fight? Yeah, me too. (Just should point out again that even Zelda doesn't do that, but I'm just being a fanboy here).
But that's just a look at the role that the Princess's play in their own games. How does this affect me when I look at games? Well if you read those paragraphs you'd have a good idea. Obviously, I don't mind either. But when I look at the roles women have in other games, I subconsciously come back to the same idea: "Why is this person here?" and if the game has a story, "What is her story?" Peach is there so you run from flagpole to flagpole with carefully timed jumps. Zelda is there because it's her story and she needed to be central. In Mass Effect the women can join you on your space quests, and when you come back to the ship you can sleep with most of them. One's story is that she has PTSD. If you choose not to pursue a sexual relationship her story finishes. You literally have to fuck it out of her. You could deeply analyse how that story is a power fantasy for guys who want to help (and sleep with) women in their life that they see as "tragic". In Saints Row IV you can approach any person in your crew and ask for sex and they give it. You could deeply analyse this to be a parody of how videogames tend to treat such topics. In Prince of Persia: Sands of Time your companion, Farah, knows about the sands and helps you fight enemies. Add some well written dialouge and great voice acting and you have a memorable female character. Even two of my favourite games from last year had great female leads, Ellie from The Last of Us and Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite. Elizabeth even has gameplay mechanics centred around her!
As you can tell, my theory of comparing mechanics against story can be useful to evaluate, not just women, but characters in games. So how would I apply these principles on our two Princess's of Gaming? Well I feel both come out looking like winners to me. Especially since Peach is dressed like a lady, and Mario is always a gentlemen to her I think Peach is fine. Any other arguments I counter with dwarf-Italian-plumber-that-knows-parkour-fights-firing-breathing-turtle-dragon-while-eating-mushrooms. An updated character could be great, as long as it was kept light and comedic. And the Sage herself, Princess Zelda? Well, in the latest game Skywards Sword, I heard her role changed significantly where it is very clear that she is a love interest. That's fine for me (plus I haven't actually finished the tutorial yet) plus, she's actually being explored in a way that hasn't actually been done before and I'm always for characters getting explored. That's what makes them interesting. If only you could somehow explain "interesting" to game publishers like EA and how it would mean money, you'd be set.
Then again, I'm just a gamer with a personality disorder. Do you have good or bad examples of women being portrayed in games. Who's your favorite? Or do you think I'm completely wrong? Probably neither because you're spambots and you only like clicks.
Special thanks again to Anxious Gamer for getting those videos working in the browser.
Also, if you're this far, check out a mate of mines blog http://vgbarnman.com/2014/01/04/2013-games-of-the-year/. Smarter and better written than mine, I'll tell you that.
But that's just a look at the role that the Princess's play in their own games. How does this affect me when I look at games? Well if you read those paragraphs you'd have a good idea. Obviously, I don't mind either. But when I look at the roles women have in other games, I subconsciously come back to the same idea: "Why is this person here?" and if the game has a story, "What is her story?" Peach is there so you run from flagpole to flagpole with carefully timed jumps. Zelda is there because it's her story and she needed to be central. In Mass Effect the women can join you on your space quests, and when you come back to the ship you can sleep with most of them. One's story is that she has PTSD. If you choose not to pursue a sexual relationship her story finishes. You literally have to fuck it out of her. You could deeply analyse how that story is a power fantasy for guys who want to help (and sleep with) women in their life that they see as "tragic". In Saints Row IV you can approach any person in your crew and ask for sex and they give it. You could deeply analyse this to be a parody of how videogames tend to treat such topics. In Prince of Persia: Sands of Time your companion, Farah, knows about the sands and helps you fight enemies. Add some well written dialouge and great voice acting and you have a memorable female character. Even two of my favourite games from last year had great female leads, Ellie from The Last of Us and Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite. Elizabeth even has gameplay mechanics centred around her!
As you can tell, my theory of comparing mechanics against story can be useful to evaluate, not just women, but characters in games. So how would I apply these principles on our two Princess's of Gaming? Well I feel both come out looking like winners to me. Especially since Peach is dressed like a lady, and Mario is always a gentlemen to her I think Peach is fine. Any other arguments I counter with dwarf-Italian-plumber-that-knows-parkour-fights-firing-breathing-turtle-dragon-while-eating-mushrooms. An updated character could be great, as long as it was kept light and comedic. And the Sage herself, Princess Zelda? Well, in the latest game Skywards Sword, I heard her role changed significantly where it is very clear that she is a love interest. That's fine for me (plus I haven't actually finished the tutorial yet) plus, she's actually being explored in a way that hasn't actually been done before and I'm always for characters getting explored. That's what makes them interesting. If only you could somehow explain "interesting" to game publishers like EA and how it would mean money, you'd be set.
Then again, I'm just a gamer with a personality disorder. Do you have good or bad examples of women being portrayed in games. Who's your favorite? Or do you think I'm completely wrong? Probably neither because you're spambots and you only like clicks.
Special thanks again to Anxious Gamer for getting those videos working in the browser.
Also, if you're this far, check out a mate of mines blog http://vgbarnman.com/2014/01/04/2013-games-of-the-year/. Smarter and better written than mine, I'll tell you that.
Monday, 30 December 2013
Why Do I Want To Be All About Videogames?
I've mentioned on this blog before that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is my favourite game, like, ever. That's because it took me seven years to finish. Those who've played the game will understand, but for the uniniated here's why that is important. The story goes that you are a young boy, tasked by the spirit of the forest to quest forth and find Princess Zelda who will then task you to find the three spiritual stones and open the door to the sacred realm where the Triforce is hidden. However, once you open the sacred realm, the villian of the piece, Ganondorf, takes the Triforce and takes over the world. But because you are too young to fight him, your spirit is sealed away for seven years. So when I say that Ocarina of Time took me seven years to finish, that means that I played the first three dungeons but had never myself gotten to the sacred realm. Only when I returned years later was I able to save Hyrule from evil. And a lot of things can happen in seven years. My copy actually belonged to my eldest brother who passed away when I was sixteen so when I got to that last boss, it meant something that I can barely describe. So even though I know Ocarina of Time is heralded as The Greatest Game of All Time by a large part of the videogame community, that, in all actuality, means very little to me. I can tell you that the combat is tight, the music is serene and unforgettable and it took me four hours to beat the Water Temple. But I don't want to write reviews of games. Eventually I hope to be a game designer myself, and make something of the same calibre as The Last of Us or Portal. But what I would really love to make is a game that can affect people on the same scale as Ocarina of Time did for me.
I know that there are other forms of artistic expression, pretty much all of which are more highly regarded as art than videogames. My best friend wants to be a film director. And don't get me wrong, I love film. My favourite is The Social Network. During high school I was lucky enough to star in some of my friends films and when he went to film school I got the lead role in his final project. It's not finished yet, but you can check out the trailer and behind the scenes here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/delusions-of-grandeur-short-film. I even managed to trick him into letting some of my ideas into his many screenplays. And this relates back to videogames. People tend to compare videogames to films. The triple A game industry loves to look up to the summer blockbuster, which is why we get huge explosions and cut scenes and the like. I don't find anything wrong with that and I myself have been emotionally connected during some videogames that are pretty much interactive films, such as Telltale's The Walking Dead series and Quantun Dream's Heavy Rain. But when gameplay organically lends itself to telling it's own story, like you can do in role-playing games such as Skyrim, that's when I feel like I'm in the videogame world, rather than just an observer, like you would be in a cinema. I have found that acting is a closer form of art to videogames than film itself. You may have experienced it yourself, when you "act" or role-play in a videogame. Ever driven normally in Grand Theft Auto? You could've done it because you were bored or didn't want the cops after you but either way, you probably chose to do it and not because the game asked you too. That's the type of power videogames have. Throw in a well written script (because we know that good games with bad scripts are good, but bad games with good scripts are bad) and you're pretty much making art. The key here obviously, is interactivity.
I also like to compare videogames to music, but I can't take credit for this idea. That goes to Ian Bogost, who talks about it in his book How To Do Things With Videogames. "Music and games share a fundamental property: both are playable, offering listeners and operators an expressive experience within the framework of melody and rhythm." I love all art, and I love all music. Experiencing synesthesia while on LSD for the first time was... well pretty damn mindblowing. It's difficult to describe, almost like seeing music come to life around you. Similar effects can be felt while high on cannabis as well. I found that playing Mario Kart 64 with my housemates while we were stoned could be exhilarating at times. Talking shit while high with music on in the background always led to interesting times. Everytime I took ecstacy, someone would always put on Revolution Number 9 by the Beatles and you could feel tension fall and drop with the song. The last time I took it, I got so into Supremacy by Muse that I just started air guitaring. Of course, I'm not expecting everyone to understand where I'm coming from, so I'll put it like this. When you sing a song, play the piano or strum the guitar you're playing. Videogames can be approached like learning an instrument, because you are learning how to operate a system that has rules and must be played a certain way to get the desired outcome. You could talk about someone being in the zone, and you could be talking about someone pulling off an amazing guitar solo or getting 50 kills in a row in Call of Duty: Ghosts. (Or sports, but that's a whole other thing to get into).
Alright, so I'm writing about things I like about videogames and what I think it's like to play a game. But why do I want to be all about about videogames? One more anecdote. I like to dress up as Batman. I have a mask, a bunch of shirts and a pretty spanking jacket that I like to wear. I don't get high anymore but when I'm around my friends and they're smoking, I put the mask on. Why Batman? Well because my brother's Superman. But also, Batman is awesome, why not Batman? I like what he represents, especially in the first two Nolan films (I do like the third, but it doesn't say much about the character) and I especially love him in the Batman: Arkham series. So when it comes to picking a name for my character in any game that lets me pick one? Batman. Get it yet?
Was this article Psykotic enough for you? I have more to say on the subject, if anyone's interested but I feel this is enough for now. Thanks for reading!
Follow Me!
www.facebook.com/psykoticgamer
Twitter: @PsykoticGamer
http://psykoticgamer.tumblr.com/
I know that there are other forms of artistic expression, pretty much all of which are more highly regarded as art than videogames. My best friend wants to be a film director. And don't get me wrong, I love film. My favourite is The Social Network. During high school I was lucky enough to star in some of my friends films and when he went to film school I got the lead role in his final project. It's not finished yet, but you can check out the trailer and behind the scenes here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/delusions-of-grandeur-short-film. I even managed to trick him into letting some of my ideas into his many screenplays. And this relates back to videogames. People tend to compare videogames to films. The triple A game industry loves to look up to the summer blockbuster, which is why we get huge explosions and cut scenes and the like. I don't find anything wrong with that and I myself have been emotionally connected during some videogames that are pretty much interactive films, such as Telltale's The Walking Dead series and Quantun Dream's Heavy Rain. But when gameplay organically lends itself to telling it's own story, like you can do in role-playing games such as Skyrim, that's when I feel like I'm in the videogame world, rather than just an observer, like you would be in a cinema. I have found that acting is a closer form of art to videogames than film itself. You may have experienced it yourself, when you "act" or role-play in a videogame. Ever driven normally in Grand Theft Auto? You could've done it because you were bored or didn't want the cops after you but either way, you probably chose to do it and not because the game asked you too. That's the type of power videogames have. Throw in a well written script (because we know that good games with bad scripts are good, but bad games with good scripts are bad) and you're pretty much making art. The key here obviously, is interactivity.
I also like to compare videogames to music, but I can't take credit for this idea. That goes to Ian Bogost, who talks about it in his book How To Do Things With Videogames. "Music and games share a fundamental property: both are playable, offering listeners and operators an expressive experience within the framework of melody and rhythm." I love all art, and I love all music. Experiencing synesthesia while on LSD for the first time was... well pretty damn mindblowing. It's difficult to describe, almost like seeing music come to life around you. Similar effects can be felt while high on cannabis as well. I found that playing Mario Kart 64 with my housemates while we were stoned could be exhilarating at times. Talking shit while high with music on in the background always led to interesting times. Everytime I took ecstacy, someone would always put on Revolution Number 9 by the Beatles and you could feel tension fall and drop with the song. The last time I took it, I got so into Supremacy by Muse that I just started air guitaring. Of course, I'm not expecting everyone to understand where I'm coming from, so I'll put it like this. When you sing a song, play the piano or strum the guitar you're playing. Videogames can be approached like learning an instrument, because you are learning how to operate a system that has rules and must be played a certain way to get the desired outcome. You could talk about someone being in the zone, and you could be talking about someone pulling off an amazing guitar solo or getting 50 kills in a row in Call of Duty: Ghosts. (Or sports, but that's a whole other thing to get into).
Alright, so I'm writing about things I like about videogames and what I think it's like to play a game. But why do I want to be all about about videogames? One more anecdote. I like to dress up as Batman. I have a mask, a bunch of shirts and a pretty spanking jacket that I like to wear. I don't get high anymore but when I'm around my friends and they're smoking, I put the mask on. Why Batman? Well because my brother's Superman. But also, Batman is awesome, why not Batman? I like what he represents, especially in the first two Nolan films (I do like the third, but it doesn't say much about the character) and I especially love him in the Batman: Arkham series. So when it comes to picking a name for my character in any game that lets me pick one? Batman. Get it yet?
Was this article Psykotic enough for you? I have more to say on the subject, if anyone's interested but I feel this is enough for now. Thanks for reading!
Follow Me!
www.facebook.com/psykoticgamer
Twitter: @PsykoticGamer
http://psykoticgamer.tumblr.com/
Sunday, 29 December 2013
Troubleshooting; or; How I Learnt to Stop Being a Noob and Love the FPS
What do you think of when you hear the term "First-Person Shooter"? Most young ones nowadays will go straight for Infinity Ward and Treyarch's incredibly popular Call of Duty series. One of them might even light a candle for EA's Battlefield. Maybe you know some of the history. Wolfenstein 3D is credited for giving us the template and Doom wins the award for making it popular. But what happened in between? Growing up licking Nintendos feet I never had much experience with the genre. GoldenEye 007 brought the FPS to consoles, but I never owned it. I myself have a taste for sword combat, most likely because I'm married to Ocarina of Time. But now I'm older, and starting to take gaming more seriously than before, what do I actually think of First-Person Shooters?
Well, besides the obvious...
The first first-person shooter than I owned was Call of Duty 2: Big Red One. I thought it was alright. You know. You got to shoot Nazis. That's good right? Bit short, but one of the first games I ever finished as well. I do remember one part where one of the interchangeable NPCs gets killed and it was very emotional for everyone. You sure I can't just use a sword? Swords are fun. Halo was another one that was popular at the time, though I only played the multiplayer with friends. Again, didn't impress me much, but I'm hard to impress anyway. I never really felt like I was shooting something unless I was using human weapons. I understood that dual weilding needlers is meant to be cool, but the way it was just "pew, pew, pew" didn't impress me. (Oh no, a blog that noone reads doesn't like Halo).
Fast foward to 2007 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was launched. There was no escaping this one. Infinty broke away from the WW2 setting of past games and fully updated the game to a modern setting. Ergo, Modern Warfare. And yes, I did figure that out by myself, but that's not important right now. What was important about this new entry was it's multiplayer. Infinity Ward had stubbled upon a fantastic formula for online gaming, matching maps with perks and making gaming heaven. Activision was so impressed with its developers that they promptly fired them all once the game was finished. The same team is making the upcoming Titanfall if you were worried about an only multiplayer game being made by people who wouldn't get it. These guys didn't just get it, they invented it. Unfortunatly I only had a Wii at this point so I never got to play this game.
However, years later, my friend and I would get high and he would introduce me to none other than Call of Duty: Black Ops - Zombie mode. If Modern Warfare updated a series that needed it for a long time, then adding zombies to the mix... still doesn't make sense. But yet again they struck oil and zombies became another staple of the series. But the more I thought about it, the more I began to think, "Is this still an FPS? What is an FPS?" Then I realised I was still high and continued to waste two years of my life during which time, the "realistic" FPS fell out of favour, and each new installment to the series looked less like a game and more like a multiplayer map pack. To me, FPS was just another name for shit game (and frames per second because all my friends are film students).
Now the year is 2013. I've played Bioshock Infinite, Half-Life 2 and Borderlands 2. All these games deserved to be played just as much as any classic game like Ocarina of Time and Grand Theft Auto. I've begun to realise that a narrative told through a consistent viewpoint can offer storytelling techniques that other genres don't. I've learnt to appreciate the designer talent behind those at Valve who near perfected the genre. Of course I still do have gripes about current FPSs. I do get sick of the aim-down-iron-sights gimmick. The suck-your-thumb-until-jam-disapears mechanic. And the absolute non focus on furthering the medium of videogames that some developers have. But all genres have the similar problems that are unique to them. RPGs have random enemy encounters and grinding. Third-person shooters are in love with chest high walls. But still, Skyrim and The Last of Us are some of my favourite games ever. So I think that I've had enough of my hate for this genre and am ready to embrace it.
But I'm just a gamer with a personality disorder. What do you think of FPSs? What's a complaint you have about your favourite game genre? Leave a comment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)