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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)