With Bioshock: Infinite being released this week, surprisingly causing little controversy (only for being true to the time period, lots of racial discrimination and so on...), I've been thinking a bit about the subject of "controversy"... Why shy away from it? Why not embrace the taboo? I'm not saying to make games or movies about raping kids just for the sake of controversy, I'm just saying that what's considered taboo today shouldn't hinder developers from making whatever they want.
Why not include children in open world games? Why not have you play as an extremist terrorist? Why not strike where it will make an emotional impact? Because soccer moms and Fox News says it's wrong? Bullshit, we and the developers must ask ourselves, who buys games which has been deemed controversial? It's not the old, conservative, extremely religious or overly sensitive parents that buy these games, why cater to them?
The people being vocal about all these controversies are the ones not buying these games anyway. I doubt a radical feminist would ever buy a Duke Nukem game, so why would it be logical to censor it to please the radical feminists? We sometimes hear the phrase "if you don't like it, don't buy it", I wish we could use that phrase more liberally instead of letting non-gamers dictate what gamers get to play.
Surely I can't be the only one wanting to be shocked every now and then? I suppose it's like liking horror games, just an itch you want scratch, ironic too since horror games are rare today as well. Though, every now and then a game comes along that actually shocks me, not always because the content itself is very taboo but it's because it's emotionally shocking. The twist in Bioshock and Spec Ops: The Line as examples, hold your nipples I'm not going to spoil them, I'm just going to discuss emotions that they made happen. While I was uncomfortable at the time, Spec Ops: The Line specifically made my head spin, but afterwards I really liked what it did, it made an impact, it was memorable. I will remember that game a lot longer than lets say, Cod MW2 because it made me feel something other games don't.
Another thing that comes to my mind is Gta V, it's supposed to include animals, this is in my opinion a step in the right direction. It made me feel uneasy, any Gta player has at times just decided to drive over a bunch of pedestrians on the sidewalk, if you're one of them did you feel anything? I don't, random, virtual humans whom you don't know anything about won't make you feel guilty for driving them over, but what about a dog? Most people work that way, we hear about how millions are starving to death in third world countries, wars... We don't care, but when we hear about how some crazy person has killed a puppy or kitten? Then we see red, that person should die a horrible death, we've never seen the animal victim, but we just feel strongly about it. So what would happen then, if we play a game where we're used to running over people, we suddenly hit a dog? Well, just thinking about it makes me feel uneasy, uncomfortable, what to do about it? Well, it makes you want to avoid it, without forcing you you avoid it, without making them immortal (like the children in Fallout 3), that is how you should do it, IMO.
True freedom, choices, just like the real world, what's the point of being good if that's your only option. You're not really a good person if you do good things because that's the only thing you can do. However, the shock value here isn't in simply having it there, and avoiding it, it's in doing it by accident. You don't mean it, but it happened anyway, will you change your ways, or will it harden you? That's exactly what would make the game a more personal experience, games shouldn't always have to force these moments, they should just let them happen. Controlling moments that shock you is just another way to censor games anyway, the point is simply that I want more "taboo" things in games, not only moments but an ubiquitous theme perhaps that lasts throughout.
So that's my opinion for the day, more controversy and fuck anyone offended. Don't like it, don't buy it.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Battlefield 4, it looks... Okay?
So many of us have seen BF4 by now, if you haven't I'll put a link at the end... So here's my take on it, it looks okay, however maybe a bit too "okay". What I mean with that, is that while it looks fun and all, it doesn't seem to push anything forward or so, maintaining the status quo so to say. While there do seem to be a graphical update, and perhaps more impressive destruction, what else is there?
I previously made a blog post about how games are evolving, funny how BF4 then comes and slap me in the face. Sure it seemed more free, but the demo we saw was still pretty linear and were likely heavily orchestrated. To be fair though, this was the announcement peak, and kudos to them for showing a long demo too, and if we are to consider what they did with BF3 it looks promising. Remember when BF3 was announced? I think you do, it wasn't long ago really, however then they showed a 12 minute demo that wasn't really impressive to be honest, now look at how great the game was when we look past that demo, could they do the same thing here meaning were still to see a beast behind the "okay" demo? I hope so.
One thing that worried me was the fact that the enemy models were more or less identical to the Russians in BF3, could that be a sign that the game is being rushed? I mean, it is supposed to be released fall this year, sure they could change the models since it's not finished yet, but I don't know, it was something that stood out to me. What else are they being lazy with if they haven't even bothered making new models for the enemies?
As a Ps3 gamer, I feel they've made a mistake releasing it for current gen consoles. We all expected a big leap forward when they release another numbered installment, how big can that improvement be when they release it so late in the console cycle? The problem I had with it that I apparently shared with several forum dwellers on different sites is that it's not quite impressive enough for next gen, yet too impressive for current gen. We won't see what the demo showed on Ps3 as an example, however on Ps4 we might, though will we be impressed when other great looking titles are released during the same time? If BF4 is to impress those who go for it on Ps4 and Nextbox, they really should play on what they do good, big environments, destructible terrain and huge multiplayer battles, those things could be enough to make us impressed even though it's a game on both current and next gen platforms.
Oh and while it hasn't been announced yet, it will most likely also end up on next gen consoles, count on it.
Finally, I'd like to say that I really wished they would have done something besides modern military shooter, lacks interesting colors as well, what will they do to stand out, really? Sure it seems like a grim take on the genre (although a bit cinematic, "CoD-ish" but anyway), but Spec Ops: The Line already made a masterful take on it, will it pale in comparison? Only time will tell.
Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HVQXkeU8U
I previously made a blog post about how games are evolving, funny how BF4 then comes and slap me in the face. Sure it seemed more free, but the demo we saw was still pretty linear and were likely heavily orchestrated. To be fair though, this was the announcement peak, and kudos to them for showing a long demo too, and if we are to consider what they did with BF3 it looks promising. Remember when BF3 was announced? I think you do, it wasn't long ago really, however then they showed a 12 minute demo that wasn't really impressive to be honest, now look at how great the game was when we look past that demo, could they do the same thing here meaning were still to see a beast behind the "okay" demo? I hope so.
One thing that worried me was the fact that the enemy models were more or less identical to the Russians in BF3, could that be a sign that the game is being rushed? I mean, it is supposed to be released fall this year, sure they could change the models since it's not finished yet, but I don't know, it was something that stood out to me. What else are they being lazy with if they haven't even bothered making new models for the enemies?
As a Ps3 gamer, I feel they've made a mistake releasing it for current gen consoles. We all expected a big leap forward when they release another numbered installment, how big can that improvement be when they release it so late in the console cycle? The problem I had with it that I apparently shared with several forum dwellers on different sites is that it's not quite impressive enough for next gen, yet too impressive for current gen. We won't see what the demo showed on Ps3 as an example, however on Ps4 we might, though will we be impressed when other great looking titles are released during the same time? If BF4 is to impress those who go for it on Ps4 and Nextbox, they really should play on what they do good, big environments, destructible terrain and huge multiplayer battles, those things could be enough to make us impressed even though it's a game on both current and next gen platforms.
Oh and while it hasn't been announced yet, it will most likely also end up on next gen consoles, count on it.
Finally, I'd like to say that I really wished they would have done something besides modern military shooter, lacks interesting colors as well, what will they do to stand out, really? Sure it seems like a grim take on the genre (although a bit cinematic, "CoD-ish" but anyway), but Spec Ops: The Line already made a masterful take on it, will it pale in comparison? Only time will tell.
Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HVQXkeU8U
Friday, March 8, 2013
Games are evolving before our eyes! ...Maybe?
I'm pretty sure it's accurate to say that gamers today want more than straight down shooters, or open world games that only put you in a simple open world environment, or a horror game that only tries to scare you... You get my point, the core gamers don't want another CoD where shooting is the only main gameplay mechanic, while that might be good for the casual gamer, WE wan't something more.
Earlier this gen, it became more popular to add RPG elements to other genres, hack'n'slash, FPS, open world games... And it went over really well, just think about what a success Bioshock was, it was a unique game which had more to it than your average shooting gameplay. In fact, it's so common that we don't react to it anymore, FPS and RPG elements is no new thing now, it's almost expected. The latest example of that is Far Cry 3, that game juggled many things, decent FPS gameplay at the core, functioning stealth, open world, driving and RPG elements... Not many games does that much, and to be honest it's those games that's really going to give you value for your cash these days.
I didn't notice much about this... Change, until August when MGS: Ground Zeroes was announced, that's when I really noticed how stale gaming was getting. I looked at what they were doing with MGS: GZ, and what they were doing with their closest competitor, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, I know that some of you may not be as far behind as I was but it really hit me hard then... With MGS: GZ they're attempting to take the established Metal Gear Solid formula and evolve it big time, making it open world, letting you control vehicles, building your base and including so far unspecified cross-platform mechanics among other things, all this with a completely new engine! Then, we look at Splinter Cell: Blacklist, sure there's fuss going on about them changing the voice actor, but there's still some hype surrounding it, why? Because they're going back to what made the series good 10 years ago, you hear that? Their brilliant tactic for progressing is making the game like their older games, that's the selling point, fantastic! Yes, that was sarcasm.
Moving on, as mentioned Far Cry 3 is also one game that really stood out, surely this is a nice breath of fresh air but surely games evolving like this won't last long, right? Well, turns out Tomb Raider is the last game to really surprise me, here I was, thinking I'm going to play some Tomb Raider x Uncharted hybrid, oh how wrong I was... Sure it's not that exciting at first, QTE's and linear paths gets you through the basics, but when it starts to open up, just... Wow! I was surprised, I think it's officially classified as an adventure game, sure is a fitting label but it doesn't quite describe it fully, in my opinion. First off, I was surprised because it reminds me a lot of survival horror games, that's right, this game is not for those wanting a lighthearted Uncharted-kind of adventure, Tomb Raider can be downright terrifying.
Although, Tomb Raider is not a survival horror game, yes there's disturbing situations withing the game, complete with excellent music and sound that great survival horror games use so well... But there's also more quiet moments where you are free to explore your surroundings, that's perhaps what makes the more horror moments even more effective? Of course there's also those action filled moments, not so much earlier in the game though, but later on it really gets hot. The thing is it does everything it do so well, the combat is awesome, with good AI, fun to use weapons and an environment that lets you be creative. The horror elements are pretty effective too, even the most hardened horror enthusiast might feel creeped out... simply put is just feels like a really complete game unlike (somewhat) recent games like MoH Warfighter or Crysis 3 which only puts you into their linear world to go around killing anything that moves.
I don't know if we can call it evolution, perhaps revolution? As I said, I don't know, nor am I particularly interested in putting a label on it all, since that's kinda the point, you can't do that with the better games that pops up here and there. I don't even know if this "trend" is here to stay, of course I'm hopeful since it's those games that does all "that" that I like the most, that I keep going back to. Who knows, perhaps games that blend multiple genres will be more prominent next gen, honestly it's looking good, like the recent Tomb Raider, but lets not forget to look forward to other potential heavy hitters... Bioshock: Infinite, The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto V, MGS: Ground Zeroes and Watch Dogs (only random examples), these games are just some that might be surprisingly big in scope and won't tie themselves down to what is expected from the genre they're in, be it FPS, TPS or open world games.
I suppose I should wrap this up, I got a lot to say on the subject but alas I shouldn't go on for too long... Please feel free to agree or disagree, or why not add to these thoughts?
Earlier this gen, it became more popular to add RPG elements to other genres, hack'n'slash, FPS, open world games... And it went over really well, just think about what a success Bioshock was, it was a unique game which had more to it than your average shooting gameplay. In fact, it's so common that we don't react to it anymore, FPS and RPG elements is no new thing now, it's almost expected. The latest example of that is Far Cry 3, that game juggled many things, decent FPS gameplay at the core, functioning stealth, open world, driving and RPG elements... Not many games does that much, and to be honest it's those games that's really going to give you value for your cash these days.
I didn't notice much about this... Change, until August when MGS: Ground Zeroes was announced, that's when I really noticed how stale gaming was getting. I looked at what they were doing with MGS: GZ, and what they were doing with their closest competitor, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, I know that some of you may not be as far behind as I was but it really hit me hard then... With MGS: GZ they're attempting to take the established Metal Gear Solid formula and evolve it big time, making it open world, letting you control vehicles, building your base and including so far unspecified cross-platform mechanics among other things, all this with a completely new engine! Then, we look at Splinter Cell: Blacklist, sure there's fuss going on about them changing the voice actor, but there's still some hype surrounding it, why? Because they're going back to what made the series good 10 years ago, you hear that? Their brilliant tactic for progressing is making the game like their older games, that's the selling point, fantastic! Yes, that was sarcasm.
Moving on, as mentioned Far Cry 3 is also one game that really stood out, surely this is a nice breath of fresh air but surely games evolving like this won't last long, right? Well, turns out Tomb Raider is the last game to really surprise me, here I was, thinking I'm going to play some Tomb Raider x Uncharted hybrid, oh how wrong I was... Sure it's not that exciting at first, QTE's and linear paths gets you through the basics, but when it starts to open up, just... Wow! I was surprised, I think it's officially classified as an adventure game, sure is a fitting label but it doesn't quite describe it fully, in my opinion. First off, I was surprised because it reminds me a lot of survival horror games, that's right, this game is not for those wanting a lighthearted Uncharted-kind of adventure, Tomb Raider can be downright terrifying.
Although, Tomb Raider is not a survival horror game, yes there's disturbing situations withing the game, complete with excellent music and sound that great survival horror games use so well... But there's also more quiet moments where you are free to explore your surroundings, that's perhaps what makes the more horror moments even more effective? Of course there's also those action filled moments, not so much earlier in the game though, but later on it really gets hot. The thing is it does everything it do so well, the combat is awesome, with good AI, fun to use weapons and an environment that lets you be creative. The horror elements are pretty effective too, even the most hardened horror enthusiast might feel creeped out... simply put is just feels like a really complete game unlike (somewhat) recent games like MoH Warfighter or Crysis 3 which only puts you into their linear world to go around killing anything that moves.
I don't know if we can call it evolution, perhaps revolution? As I said, I don't know, nor am I particularly interested in putting a label on it all, since that's kinda the point, you can't do that with the better games that pops up here and there. I don't even know if this "trend" is here to stay, of course I'm hopeful since it's those games that does all "that" that I like the most, that I keep going back to. Who knows, perhaps games that blend multiple genres will be more prominent next gen, honestly it's looking good, like the recent Tomb Raider, but lets not forget to look forward to other potential heavy hitters... Bioshock: Infinite, The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto V, MGS: Ground Zeroes and Watch Dogs (only random examples), these games are just some that might be surprisingly big in scope and won't tie themselves down to what is expected from the genre they're in, be it FPS, TPS or open world games.
I suppose I should wrap this up, I got a lot to say on the subject but alas I shouldn't go on for too long... Please feel free to agree or disagree, or why not add to these thoughts?
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Insane Pre-Order, Extra Madness!
Gamers know about the pre-order bonuses that retailers use to get costumers to purchase from their specific stores... On paper it might be a good idea, for the retailers that is, and hey, who are we to complain since we get different bonus content, eh? Okay who am I trying to fool, this system is shit and we the consumers are indeed being screwed on different levels and it's been talked about before, so this is me giving my view on it.
No matter where you pre-order a game from the bonus content you get is on the disc, what you're downloading is unlocks for the content, this in itself is bad. If this was for all pre-orders it would be, well, more understandable, pre-order it to get extra stuff, not a horrifying idea (considering what's going on now at least), eh? But no, not that "good", what's going on now is that different stores gives you different unlocks for stuff on the disc, I think this is bullshit.
However, I live in Finland and buy most if not all my games from a Nordic online store and they usually give you all the pre-order bonuses while others just gives a slice. In short, I personally don't suffer from this due to lack of a "complete" package. Still, doesn't stop me from thinking that giving content that you've technically already bought as a reward for pre-ordering is just plain wrong.
Moving on, doesn't mean I'm not bothered with what follows. Pre-order bonuses still have to be unlocked and "downloaded" for you to use them, and for anyone who started gaming before this console gen should be able to understand this idea of mine, just putting the game in and start playing. Now you might say "Well just don't bother with the bonus content then...", screw that! I payed for that content too, didn't I? So I unlock it, not that easy of course... You got the codes, those 12 digit codes, not only that all those pieces of content got their own codes. Consider that the standard for games these days is to get maybe a bonus weapon or two, perhaps a multiplayer map and why not an additional skin, that's three separate unlocks, 36 digits.
Sure, I know this may appear as bitching, but if it's like this with every game, every time when you just want to play the game you first gotta go to the store, enter the codes, download, install, start game, wait for install and possible update... That excitement to play somewhat dies along the way. This is, in my opinion, a result of greedy publishers who want to bleed us consumers dry with season passes, micro transactions, online passes and so on... You have to make the most of what you get, you're already getting less content than you used to, cheats are close to extinct, a 10 hour game is considered long these days and do anyone remember when there were tons of unlockables in games which you unlocked by actually playing the game?
Although I wouldn't say we're completely screwed just yet, indie games don't do this, and some developers/publishers do try not to exploit our wallets too much... One very recent example is Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance by Platinum Games, that game has many unlockables which you get by, believe it or not, playing the game. Sure it did have a couple of different pre-order bonuses, but I have to say it felt pretty good when a message popped up saying that I've unlocked this by doing that or something like it.
I suppose I should wrap this up, and I think I'll finish by saying this to all the smart consumers: Keep it up, support the good ones and ignore the bad ones, EA hasn't had a big hit in awhile now, and they're the ones most infamous right now for trying to bleed us dry so maybe, just maybe, we'll see improvement sooner rather than later. If not, and they just keep increasing prices and doing DLC gaming might just become a true luxury, or what about about "Video Game Crash part II"? Food for thought.
No matter where you pre-order a game from the bonus content you get is on the disc, what you're downloading is unlocks for the content, this in itself is bad. If this was for all pre-orders it would be, well, more understandable, pre-order it to get extra stuff, not a horrifying idea (considering what's going on now at least), eh? But no, not that "good", what's going on now is that different stores gives you different unlocks for stuff on the disc, I think this is bullshit.
However, I live in Finland and buy most if not all my games from a Nordic online store and they usually give you all the pre-order bonuses while others just gives a slice. In short, I personally don't suffer from this due to lack of a "complete" package. Still, doesn't stop me from thinking that giving content that you've technically already bought as a reward for pre-ordering is just plain wrong.
Moving on, doesn't mean I'm not bothered with what follows. Pre-order bonuses still have to be unlocked and "downloaded" for you to use them, and for anyone who started gaming before this console gen should be able to understand this idea of mine, just putting the game in and start playing. Now you might say "Well just don't bother with the bonus content then...", screw that! I payed for that content too, didn't I? So I unlock it, not that easy of course... You got the codes, those 12 digit codes, not only that all those pieces of content got their own codes. Consider that the standard for games these days is to get maybe a bonus weapon or two, perhaps a multiplayer map and why not an additional skin, that's three separate unlocks, 36 digits.
Sure, I know this may appear as bitching, but if it's like this with every game, every time when you just want to play the game you first gotta go to the store, enter the codes, download, install, start game, wait for install and possible update... That excitement to play somewhat dies along the way. This is, in my opinion, a result of greedy publishers who want to bleed us consumers dry with season passes, micro transactions, online passes and so on... You have to make the most of what you get, you're already getting less content than you used to, cheats are close to extinct, a 10 hour game is considered long these days and do anyone remember when there were tons of unlockables in games which you unlocked by actually playing the game?
Although I wouldn't say we're completely screwed just yet, indie games don't do this, and some developers/publishers do try not to exploit our wallets too much... One very recent example is Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance by Platinum Games, that game has many unlockables which you get by, believe it or not, playing the game. Sure it did have a couple of different pre-order bonuses, but I have to say it felt pretty good when a message popped up saying that I've unlocked this by doing that or something like it.
I suppose I should wrap this up, and I think I'll finish by saying this to all the smart consumers: Keep it up, support the good ones and ignore the bad ones, EA hasn't had a big hit in awhile now, and they're the ones most infamous right now for trying to bleed us dry so maybe, just maybe, we'll see improvement sooner rather than later. If not, and they just keep increasing prices and doing DLC gaming might just become a true luxury, or what about about "Video Game Crash part II"? Food for thought.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, one complaint...
There might be slight spoilers for those who haven't finished AC3 below, you have been warned, says I!
Many complain about the fact that Assassin's Creed is now so popular that Ubisoft is milking the franchise, I'm not. The games still have effort put into them, and you don't have to buy each game, and the variety in setting pretty much guarantees that sooner or later a setting you love will pop up. As you might have guessed, that's not what my complaint is about, I don't mind it, the games are pretty fun and I feel that they really improved the fighting in AC3 even though that game was a bit lacking. My issue is about the "present time" story arch which wasn't finished in AC3.
You know, I still remember when Ubisoft said that they were planning to make AC into a trilogy, and we all know how that went... So after AC Revelations I thought it was about time to finish it, no more side games, then what happens? AC3 is officially announced, and with them being all nervous about the ending of the game, saying how it will end Desmond's story, I bought into that. Sure it ends Desmond's story, without spoiling too much I will just say that it still doesn't end the "present" story going on, which is f*cking annoying! I know that the ship had sailed (pun intended) for the game to be an actual trilogy but was it really asking too much for them to end the present story thing they have going? Simply put, I don't care anymore, and I don't know who does.
The sad thing is that while I'm excited about a "fourth" (lol) AC game that focuses on pirates all the excitement is brought down by the fact that it will be tied to whatever they're trying to do in the present time, trying to use the ancestor to find some item to defeat the enemy or a key to open a door to some ultimate weapon, who honestly cares anymore? The point is that if they would just be so kind to finish up that story so they could make games that actually focus on the different time periods without being tied to some future faffing about. I feel that the stories become a lot more predictable and both story lines just feels like filler as a result.
I understand that the Animus is a big thing in the series, and even if they finished up the present affairs that they would incorporate it in some manner, but that's okay as long as the focus could be completely on those unique time periods. I really wish they could finish the present shenanigans this time around, or perhaps the ending in AC3 could be the ending, it would be a crappy ending sure but an ending nonetheless. But who am I kidding, of course there will be cliff hanger after cliff hanger, odds are that they will find the series unprofitable and quit before they come up with a conclusive ending... Which is truly a shame since they do handle the time periods very well despite of the bullshit in between.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Far Cry 3 rape, totally ignored.
This blog contains some spoilers for Far Cry 3 and arguably Tomb Raider, you have been warned.
A thread on The Escapist (that's right, I didn't notice this myself) enlightened me about a rape scene in Far Cry 3. No I'm not talking about Buck, I'm talking about Citra, and you the player. When you get accepted by the Rakyat (the natives fighting the pirates) the leader, Citra, gives the player drugs as a part of the initiation ritual and he has plenty of hallucinations. Later, as Jason (the protagonist) wakes up Citra is on top of him, they're suddenly having sex which started while Jason was drugged and had never agreed to, well since that's what they show we have to assume that's how it went. Now, this is pretty much rape, sure Jason wasn't exactly unhappy about it, and you might disagree but that's the point, kind of...
Remember all the fuss about the rape attempt in Tomb Raider? There she was very aware of it all, she resisted, and ended up killing the guy, this is controversial but actual sex is not? Look at the Far Cry 3 scene in a different way, if Jason was a woman and Citra was a man, a tribal guy drugging up the woman and then being in the middle of sex when she wakes up, still the same thing? Yes, but it's probably not seen like that. This is what our modern equal society has come to, folks, a rape attempt that's meant to show how a female crosses the line is controversial but a man being pretty much raped but doesn't resist because of drugs is fine. In fact, there's another suggested rape where a male bad guy is supposed to have raped a friend of Jason, that has also not created any big controversy.
I know it might seem like I'm protesting against the rape scene itself, I'm not, what I'm trying to protest here is the horrible double standards. The original poster who brought this to my attention was also on this, I don't mind developers in any medium using controversial themes or actions if it benefits the story, but the issue is that the mainstream simply choose to ignore other similar stuff simply because it's more acceptable, for some reason. I feel this happens a lot with modern feminism these days, a big gruff bad guy tries to rape the female protagonist, not okay since women are fragile and all that, a woman rapes a man with the use of drugs and that's okay because that's a woman and she's sexy, why complain about that? You know, a local thing here in Finland reminds me of this, connected to the Eurovision Song Contest, a Finnish contribution have questionable lyrics, note it's a pop song, it's a woman singing about wanting marriage and says among other things "You are my master, I am your slave", feminists at least were in an uproar about this because they deemed the lyrics sexist. Fair enough, that might be a bit sexist, but it's just a pop song, someone wrote an article on it that we seriously needs to get some perspective on these matters, the article opened with something like "people are being murdered, some perspective please" and went on that you shouldn't accept everything but to focusing on small things when you could be helping actually abused women and so on baffled the writer.
So yes, we shouldn't ignore controversial subjects, but nor should we focus on one thing. I got a bit carried away there for a second but the point remains, Jason in Far Cry 3 was technically raped, he was drugged and also mentally unstable at that point, his normal self would probably not be so happy about cheating on his girlfriend either. If we are to ignore that while causing a riot about that Tomb Raider bit I think that says pretty much on the modern idea of sexism. As I've said before and I want to clarify it even further, I'm not the original carrier of this message, but I felt it was important enough to spread forward, I would love to hear more views on the subject!
Friday, March 1, 2013
Survival Horror, what?
This blog is inspired by a thread about The Last of Us and survival horror, link will be provided at the end... Now, as we all know the survival horror genre hasn't been strong this gen, there has been a few like Silent Hill: Downpour and Condemned 2: Bloodshot... Although with the recent release of Dead Space 3, considered by many a strong title, and it happens to put itself in the survival horror genre, so yay for us? Not quite, at least not from my perspective, if that classify as survival horror these days then the genre is truly in danger. I will not debate if the Dead Space games are good or bad, that's subjective, no I will try and debate about what it means to be a survival horror game.
Dead Space is often seen as this great alien inspired survival horror adventure, I was never sold on it because I'm not a big fan of jump-scares, it's like if that idiot friend some of us have which sometimes jumps out from behind a corner to scare us and then laughs when you twitch then would go on claiming to be a master off horror. Anyway, after Dead Space 2, the game I hear is the best one, became free on Psn Plus I gave it a go. I played it on normal, I always play games on that difficulty since I expect it to be the balanced middle ground, not too easy but not hard enough so I won't enjoy the experience. The game isn't very hard, I think, while the sense of desperately progressing is there, which should be in a survival horror game, I never felt very threatened, and that was the big issue. This is like a more action oriented RE4, uhm, RE5? The issue is that the game wants you to kill everything that crosses your path, therefore it also constantly provides you with the tools and ammo to do so, it must do that, otherwise the game fails on a very fundamental level.
As I walk around in the dark corridors in Dead Space 2, it becomes very obvious when enemies will appear, no, leap up towards me. What this does, is that the game becomes more like a shooting gallery rather than dynamically exploring the empty spaces within the environment. So basically, this game is about walking around, regularly being attacked by larger groups of monsters and shooting them down with the ammo the game provides you with. That my friends, isn't survival horror, what I would change to call it survival horror is give the player even less ammo and let the player avoid enemy encounters, let the player sneak around the monsters instead of forcing you to attack them. How are you ever supposed to be scared by an enemy that you know you can and must kill to proceed? Sure it can be stressful when multiple monsters are charging towards your position, but that doesn't make it horror, that makes it, eh... Stressful survival?
Okay, on that forum thread one person compared Dead Space to CoD, while I don't agree with that exactly it's hard to ignore the fact that they're in the same ballpark. Hear me out, does this sound familiar, proceed through many linear corridors, fight the enemy, pick up more ammo, proceed to set-piece, repeat... That formula doesn't make it CoD, no, but that very formula is the one of action games, not survival horror games. With this, I'm not saying Dead Space doesn't deserve any of the popularity and all it has, all I'm saying that it and all games like it shouldn't be called survival horror, even RE6 didn't classify itself as such. It's like calling Bioshock an RPG for having RPG elements, we don't, we call it an FPS with RPG elements, what would then be wrong with calling Dead Space an action game with survival horror elements? I'm not actually aware if the game is classified an action game officially though, that would make this point kinda invalid, feel free to correct me on this bit, too lazy to do the research here and now.
So that's my opinion on survival horror, and I wish there were more games that did it right... Make monsters something you want to avoid, not charge towards with a big rifle in hand, not saying that you can't make a survival horror game where you do have the option to use some force. I mentioned The Last of Us earlier, yes I'm a Naughty Dog fan but that doesn't change that that game really seems to pull of the right balance between action gameplay and the tense gameplay expected from a good survival horror. However that game don't focus on survival horror itself, and we don't know how well they pull it off in the final product but it definitely seems to be good survival horror elements in there. Watch gameplay from TLoU with the infected and you will know what I'm talking about, notice that he isn't running towards them shooting every monster in sight.
I want to finish off by taking a jab at Cliff Bleszinski for his recent statement about survival horror games not being worthwhile these days... How would he know? If we've learned anything with titles like Dishonored is that gamers are starving for different and fresh games. Gamers don't just want action shooters anymore, look at how well Journey did, awards and praised by fans, why? Because it was fresh and beautiful, I think a real survival horror game could do just as well or better if they simply put some effort into it. I hope these devs would dare to take some risks, dare step outside of their comfort zones and to dare bring back things we gamers love.
Thanks for reading (if you did)!
Link to thread: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/the-last-of-us-the-first-true-survival-horror-game-for-this-gen.452883561/#post-470595063
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)