Ready For Anything.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who prepare and plan ahead, and those who just wing it. I, myself, fall into the latter of those two camps, and it's gotten me pretty far in life. However, I know that if I actually took my time and planned a little bit, and maybe actually give the future some thought, I would make it further. Recently, I finished playing The Witcher III, which is all about planning ahead.

The Witcher is a series that has been going on for a while now, and I decided to jump in on the third game. Turns out that was okay, because everything was so well made that I immediately fell in love with it. The game is unlike most others that I've played before. Sure, I have played Skyrim and The Legend of Zelda, but Witcher does things a bit differently. The game makes you choose. Now, most games will tout "game changing decisions" on the back of the box, but those are primarily binary choices between what is clearly good and clearly evil. Not so much with The Witcher, however. Witcher has players making decisions both narratively, and mechanically. 

What I mean by this is: that the player much choose how to go about advancing their character; not just with equipment and weapons, but also with perks and abilities that come with leveling up. In most games, players can level up, and up, and up, and up, until they become nigh unstoppable and a one man army that is close to godlike status. This is because the game will allow players to pick every perk and point along the way to the top of that characters tree (a list of perks and abilities that are placed along a path that branches out, resembling a tree), and let them keep each and every single one. Even the lower level ones that aren't even that effective anymore. The Witcher III only has so many slots that the player can designate these perks/abilities to, forcing them to choose what to improve, what ability to keep, which ability to sacrifice, and what ability to go with next. This doesn't prevent players from becoming stronger, but rather, it allows players to become more invested in the path that they take when forming their character.

How does the player want to play? Do they want to be stronger with magic? Do they want to be stronger with sword combat? Do they want to become more adept at alchemy, and making their potions and oils last longer and be more effective? This is how The Witcher III makes players choose and plan. Other RPGs will also force players to choose how to build their character, but those have set classes that they are constrained to. The Witcher III allows players to branch out a bit more, and create a character that is uniquely their own.

Another way in which The Witcher III helps players to better plan ahead is with its potions, oils, and decoctions. Potions are pretty common among video games of all kinds, but Witcher III treats them differently than most other games. Each potion has a toxicity rating that limits the use of them. Cutting off any player that wants to down a potion of regeneration, followed by a potions of greater strength, followed by a potion of damage reduction. Plus, players can also brew new improved versions of the potions that they have by finding the recipes and ingredients in the world of the game. Players can also learn the different kinds of plants and elements that they need for specific potions. Being able to find a specific plant and identify it in the world, is a pretty cool feeling, and knowing what it is for is even more cool. It gives off the vibe that you're a true survivor, and that you know the lay of the land and you can live off of it, because you're a tough guy/girl. The game itself also strongly advises the use of these potions that the player can craft as they are not invincible. Players should have a decent selection of potions to use before heading into a battle. Whether that is taking on a camp of bandits, or delving into a monsters layer, players need to be prepared.

Speaking of monsters, players are often encouraged to read up and research their prey. As the main character of The Witcher is a hunter of monsters, he should know a thing or two about them. Players can take a look at the bestiary and learn about the creatures that they have fought, and are going to fight. What their weaknesses are, what spells to use against them, what kind of creature they are, where they can be found, and what strategies to use when fighting them. The bestiary is a wealth of knowledge that I spent more time than I thought that I would reading. Usually codex entries in games are either insignificant, or just plain boring. The bestiary in The Witcher was not only useful, but it helped to build up the world of the game.

Finally, there is a sort of "detective" portion of The Witcher III. The main character of the game has super human senses that allows him to be a better tracker. Couple that with his extensive knowledge of monsters and the world around him, and you have yourself a pretty savvy detective. Often times, players will have to track down monsters, and solve problems of the local populace. This sometimes involves inspecting some gruesome scenes of mangled corpses. The game gives players the options to inspect these bodies in an effort to gain more information about what exactly they are dealing with. The descriptive dialogue that comes from the main character gives players insight into his thought process and give them a heads up about what they are going up against. My favorite part about this is how practical all of this is. While Geralt, the main character, might have superior senses, and he is also dealing with mythical beasts: basic sleuthing still gets the job done. Examining claw marks, blood trails, and the surrounding crime scenes help to gain information about what happened. Just like normal detectives do. With wit, cunning, and just plain smarts, players gain a huge sense of satisfaction from tracking down the truth.



Most other games don't really give players this kind of experience. They just trundle through them, with little to no involvement. Skyrim, for example, just has players faffing about in the sandbox that is the game world, taking on quest after quest, without having to worry about the consequences that they yield. Plus, as far as preparation is concerned, most players just get by with winging it. There's nothing wrong with that, though. Shooting and looting is the name of the game in Skyrim. Players can freely wander about the landscape, adventuring and having a good time. Clearing out dungeons, bandit camps, caves filled with monsters, and exploring ancient temples is fun, but all seems... rote. Don't get me wrong, I've spent a lot of time playing Skyrim, and some of the best adventures I've had have been going from one area to the next, exploring different monuments and landmarks to discover new things. However, because of my play style of purely magic use, I was death incarnate by about level twelve. It was a simple plan of attack: sneak as much as possible, then go loud and proud with firebolt. Nothing could stand in my way. If I ever ended up running low on mana, I would drink whatever potions I had found randomly along the path, and be back at it. If it ever so happened that I didn't have any of these mana restoring potions, I could just wait for it to refill, because it doesn't take all that long to refill. How is this different from The Witcher?



 Well, I feel more invested in all of the items that I have on my character. The potions I have are because I gathered the ingredients myself. The equipment I have is crafted by a blacksmith that I had to travel the world to find, so that I could have top quality gear. Some pieces of my loadout have a story behind them as to how I got them. In Skyrim, rarely do I get the sense that the things that I have on my person have any sort of bearing or investment on my character. Sure, some items were acquired after completing a quest line, though these quests were completed solely for the purpose of acquiring this gear. It's just another step to optimize damage output and self sustainability. I'm simply just improvising my way through the game. Some things that I pick up on the way only seem temporary. The weapons, equipment and spells that I pick up are only temporary.



The same could be said for the Legend of Zelda franchise. Players go through these games picking up specific items along the way. Some items are universally helpful, but for the most part, these items are only used in the temples that they are found in. They're place outside of these dungeons are rather pointless.They just occupy space in your inventory, never to be used again. This kind of reminds me of how I stumble through life.

I wish that I could be more well equipped like The Witcher. I wish that I could plan things out more. I'm sure that I have the capacity to do so. I like the feeling that The Witcher gives me when I am prepared. I feel so smart, knowing that I picked the right spells to invest in, the right potions to have equipped, the skills that I leveled up. I am invested into making the character the best that they can be with the limited amount of resources that I have, and boy do I know a lot about having limited resources. Careful thought and planning can change the outcome of the future. It's like when you study for a test, rather than just trying to go from memory of what you had heard in class. Some people are really good at paying attention in class, and listening to what the teacher had to say. Others are not. Perhaps it's time to make a change in my life where I maybe do some planning ahead, in stead of constantly trying to just wing it in hopes of putting one foot in front of the other without tripping over them.

That's One Giant Step...

Let's talk about fear. Not the kind of fear that you feel when you see a scary monster, or some kind of horrifying scene with blood and what not. I want to talk about the kind of fear that most of us experience daily: the fear of the future. Right now, I find myself coming up to a rather large fork in the road of my life. I could stay the course and play it safe, or I could take that turn and change things. I suppose that this option has always been available too me, yet the possibility for this change feels more tangible than it ever has before.

Last night while at work, I found myself stressing about this decision and mulling it over and over and over again. While I was having a self contained panic attack, I was also working at my job, which required me to push skids of boxes across the floor like Link from the Legend of Zelda pushing large boxes to solve puzzles.

This got me thinking about my boy Link, and what he was doing before he set off on his adventure that would earn him the title of "The Hero of Time". The aforementioned fork in the road of my life would be a dramatic change for me, as was the decision for Link to step outside his house and set off on his adventure. What I find to be confusing, and rather envious of, is Link's willingness to do so. Link does not stress about what he is leaving behind. Nor does he fear the potential failure of moving ahead. Link just heads out, without a second thought, because that's what he's supposed to do.

Life is nothing like a video game. Things are way too open ended. There are too many decisions to be made that can change our lives on a daily basis. We fear these decisions, because we fear change. We fear the unknown consequences that they will bring. Our digital heroes that we see on screen do not have these fears. Even though we are the ones who are controlling them, they do not worry. We, who have these fears and anxieties. Why do we fear so much? Why are we so afraid of change? Why do we hesitate to step out the door, and set off on adventure?

The consequences of playing a video game and failing is but a simple reset to the last check point, but failure in life could potentially lead to a permanent Game Over. The reason that I stress about this change: is because it's a big deal. It isn't a simple matter of a change of scenery, but also a change in the course of my life. I feel as though making this change could, well, change everything. Sometimes I wish that life were as simple as a video game, where I could follow the path, and end up being the hero. I wish that I didn't have the anxiety of potential failure, like the characters that I play in video games.

What if I took a page from Link's book, and just went out on blind faith that this change was going to be the next step in my quest?  Link does not fear failure. Nor does he worry about letting people down. Link strides out in confidence, and does not look back. I don't think that Link knows that this adventure would be as daunting, or thrilling as it turns out to be. Link doesn't become the hero that he is because he wants the fame that goes along with it. Link doesn't want to have songs written about him. I'm not even sure he does this because he knows that it has to be done. I think that Link takes this step out on faith because he wants change. What is Link doing at the start of every Zelda game? Pretty much nothing. Link is just a normal dude, doing normal things. When the opportunity presents itself, he goes after it.

So, here I stand, seeing that giant fork in the road that could change the course of my life. I'm not sure if it will be for the better. I'm not even sure if it is the right thing to do. But, maybe, I should take a stab at it anyway, because it could lead to a new adventure.

The Journey, Not The Destination

Throughout my life, I've always seen the goal of where I want to be. I've just never seen the path to get there. I had the realization last night, that maybe I should start enjoying life more, and maybe living in the present, as opposed to trying to figure out how to reach the goal. Don't get me wrong, it's important to have goals to strive for, but it seems as though we are a culture that is obsessed with reaching goals and accomplishing things. I feel as though we scarcely take the time to enjoy the things around us, or we are so caught up in trying to make ends meet, or doing what it takes to reach our goals, we don't really see what's around us. I think that if we took a page from the time that we put into video games, we might learn a thing or two.

Recently I completed The Witcher III: The Wild Hunt and its expansions. I played the main game and the first expansion the way that I eat my plate when I go out to eat: I finish the main course first, and then move on to the sides. I don't particularly think that there is anything wrong with this, especially since the writing in the story makes it seems as though I am so pressed for time, but perhaps I really missed out on enjoying the world of Witcher III. By the time I got around to obtaining the second and final expansion, Blood and Wine, I decided that I would do just that. It also helped that the expansion gave a nice change of scenery as well. I took my time with the game, and decided that I would hunt down side quests, and just explore. I was a pretty well experienced Witcher, and I had some good equipment to boot, I was going to go wherever the wind took me. Because of this, I enjoyed myself. I took on any side quest that I could find, and really enjoyed each one. They were filled with interesting characters and memorable moments. If I had gone my normal route of focusing on the main quest, I probably would have ignored all of these little moments.



Games don't often encourage side quests. They are constantly portrayed as something that is secondary, even tertiary, and yet the writers and designers spent just as much time on them to make sure that they would be a quality experience. Well, at least for the bigger side quests any way. Take for example: Batman: Arkham City. In this game, there are several side quests that the player can choose to pursue, and each one feels like it could be its very own game. The story and characters are well crafted, and the overall experience of them feels fulfilling. However, the game does nothing to stress their importance, even though during the course of these quests the lives of several characters are on the line. If Batman were to just ignore the precedent set by his psychotic foils, the lives of the innocents would be forfeit. It seems rather odd that Batman has the option to ignore saving people. After all, that's what he does. What if a game actually forced the player to focus on side quests?



Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games of all time. It's in my top 5. What ME 2 does, is just that. The game forces players to take on side quests, and each one is amazing in its own way. If you've never played the game before: Commander Shepard is at it again, fighting off evil aliens that are reeking havoc across the galaxy. However, because of the mystery of these evil n'eredowells, their tactics are just as confusing. The evil alien race in question are the Collectors, mysterious bug-like beings that only appear when they want to, seemingly at random. This time around, they are directly attacking small human colonies and abducting everyone there. As is befitting to their mysterious nature, the Collectors use hit & run tactics. They come, they abduct, they leave. So, during this time of the Collectors absence, Commander Shepard has some time on their hands. Apparently, a lot has happened with the crew since the good Commander has been gone, and some things need sorting out. These are the side quests of the game. Throughout, the player will find themselves being asked to speak privately with each crew member about something that is bothering them. Because of your attachment to the characters, and the need for them to remain focused during the final mission of the game, you happily oblige to hear them out. Each crew member tells their story of what has been on their mind, and through this, you learn more about their past and personality. To see each character reflected in the nature of the missions that are provided is something that is just way too cool! Each mission feels tailor made to the respective character. While Commander Shepard feels pressed for time in stopping the Collectors; them being gone puts my mind at ease while I'm helping out my crew members. This, I believe, is how side questing should be structured.



Side quests make up a majority of what RPGs are, and yet most of them get ignored, or are just a poor excuse for XP grinding. Side quests should enrich the world, as they are a good reason to explore it. They can be a way for players to learn more about the universe that they are exploring, and yet the most common side quest is something along the lines of "go to this place that I've marked on your map and bring back item X to me". That's it. That's all there is to it. The experience of doing such a thing turns out to be trivial and not even worth doing, as the in game reward isn't even worth it.

Now, maybe we have something in life that we can do with ignoring, and maybe there are some things that just aren't even worth looking into. What if, though, we took a chance and changed course? Our end goals will still be there, because the path is unclear. We may not know exactly how to get where we want to go, but if we keep working towards it, we might just make it. Even if that means taking a detour every once in a while.

Time to Let Sleeping Dogs Lie -THE END

Bring Back Splitscreen

When I think of gamers, what comes to mind is not a pretty picture. Gamers are a group of people that are foul mouthed, inane, insensitive, hateful, sexist, elitist, uninformed, vulgar, angry, pretentious, mean, apathetic trolls who don't care about anybody but themselves. When did it come to this? When I think of gamers back in the day, we were all friends. We would go to each others houses and play video games together. We would exchange cheatcodes, and learn from one another about different techniques in our favorite video games. What changed?

Well, the internet and online multiplayer happened.

Ever since its introduction, the realm of online multiplayer has been a hostile one. I remember when I first jumped on Xbox Live with Halo 2, and the horrible things that I would hear from kids who should not have been using the language that they were using. I mean, there's nothing wrong with trash talk, but there's no call for such hateful speech. The nature of competitive games is a hateful one: I beat you, so that means I'm better. This gets in the way of us gamers recognizing that we're all gathering in the same place because we love the same game, and instead of gushing over it and being passionate about this game, instead we throw caustic comments at one another because we don't like the way the other person is playing. Gamers speak with prejudice and inconsideration. They don't think that there's another person on the other end of that headset. They don't think that maybe it could actually hurt someone's feelings with all of this hate. If gamers were able to play in the same room together, I guarantee it would be a different situation.

There have been studies conducted that just fifteen minutes of playing the game Rock Band with another person can form a stronger bond between two people. That's because they're working together, and they're playing in the same room together. In my experience, my friendships have gotten stronger from playing competitive games together. Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Mario Party, Soulcalibur, and various other competitive multiplayer games have help make lasting memories for me. Those nights are the best! When all of my friends come over to play video games, and we just have fun. That's what those games are about. When playing online, you have to have a lot of patience, and the will to stay in it, even though you may lose time and time again. When you play with friends, it's different. Your opponent is right there, and you feel that connection with them because of their presence.

Video games these days don't have splitscreen anymore, or at least it isn't a priority for them. I don't know why. Well, I have a guess.

By making games a single player experience, with online only multiplayer, it forces gamers to buy more copies, because they can't play together. Yet, this method of multiplayer design constricts the community of players. Because of that anonymity between other gamers, friendships are difficult to make. Even if the other player was friendly and cooperative, the chances of playing together again are rather slim (for me at least). I know that games like The Division can't really be expected to have splitscreen, but imagine if it did. Imagine going through the streets of Manhattan with your best friend, and kicking butt together. That's fun. When you play online, it's more of a hassle than anything else. It involves scheduling, and coordinating, and hoping that you'll be able to end up on the same server. Sure, you have to set up a date with a friend to come over and play games together, but that's a lot easier. And there's also a high chance of pizza!

So, are the developers at fault for separating gamers? Yes, but in a small way. Gamers are also the ones who push other gamers out. Gamers are the ones who spit out hate. Gamers are the ones who don't care about anything but achieving victory in a video game, and are unconscious of the things that they say to one another.

Gamers! Unite as a group of people who enjoy video games together. Be kind to one another, even if the other player isn't as skilled as you are. Be encouraging, and always be willing to help. Help to cultivate a community that is friendly and accepting of one another and those who are new. Online multiplayer gives us as gamers to meet people from around the world, and form strong bonds of friendships. Do not look upon these people as their digital avatars, but as real people with feelings.

The Bigger They Are

The story of David and Goliath is one that everybody has heard at least once. It's a story of a young boy who defeats what is thought to be an unstoppable warrior. This fight was clearly one sided to on lookers, and it seemed as though the odds were stacked against young David. However, in spite of all of this, Goliath was defeated. Lately, I've been listening to various podcasts while at work, and one of them was discussing this very fight. The podcast was the TED Talk radio hour by NPR and the theme was misconceptions. The podcast opened up with this talk about David and Goliath, and spun it in a way that made it seem as though Goliath was the one who was truly at a disadvantage. Of course, this got me thinking about video games.

Video games always seem to put players up against seemingly impassable obstacles, and yet, every time, players surpass and overcome these blockages. What's the point of putting up these walls if the player is just going to knock them down anyway? It's to make the player feel accomplished. Often in video games the player is a one man, or woman, army who can topple any kind of defense that is in front of them. However, this isn't without some challenge. Players who are persistent will overcome anything. Whether that is an enemy army, or a giant that is so large that it can't even fit on the entire screen.

The game that illustrates the David v. Goliath scenario the best is, of course, Shadow of The Colossus. Players take control of a regular dude with a sword, that he really doesn't know how to use, a bow, that he's actually pretty decent at using, and his trusty horse, who is the best horse in all of video games. The player character isn't really anything special. He starts off pretty weak, he's uncoordinated, and he generally has no idea what he's doing. The character is pretty darn relatable, he's about as lost as you are. When players come across the first colossus, they are stuck with awe and terror. The same goes for every other colossus that follows. Because, again, you're just a dude, and you're not really trained in the ways of killing gigantic stone beasts with weapons that are bigger than a double-decker bus. Each colossus presents a seemingly impossible challenge. How is someone who is just a dude going to take down that enormous monstrosity? Well, with a bit of courage, and a lot of wit.

The thing is, that while these colossi are immense and extremely intimidating, most of them are slow and lumbering. Players are much faster than them, so agility is on their side. Often times, players will have to use the environment, and the colossus' rage to manipulate them and break down their defenses. So logic is on the player's side as well. These colossi may be huge and powerful, but each one of them can be defeated. It may seem impossible that a character that seems to hit the tip of the bell curve on every test can defeat these things, and yet he does. Every time. This is similar to the TED Talk that I referenced earlier.

The speaker spoke about the disadvantages that Goliath may have had, such as his abnormal size, and how people who are of that size can suffer from poor eye sight and slower cognition. The speaker also talked about how David knew exactly what he was doing, and how the sling which he used to defeat Goliath was no joke. Apparently, in the days of David and Goliath, the sling was used in artillery barrages alongside archers. Often times, soldiers who used slings were so proficient with them that they could hit a bird in flight. David most likely used his sling as a means of defense against predators to the sheep in the flock that he tended to. David could probably also hit a bird in flight with his sling. So, a very large man standing still across from him wouldn't have been that much of a challenge to hit right between the eyes as he did. While it may seem like David was at a disadvantage until the fight was over, it turns out that David had the upper hand the whole time.

This is the kind of scenario that players in video games are faced with every time. Whether it's one big enemy, or a whole army of them, players often fight and win these battles. Video games create the illusion that the odds are stacked against them, and that what they face cannot be beaten. Often times, that is true, but after a heavy dose of determination and even more retries, players come out on top.

I think that the same could be said for the things that we face in life. While most of us will not fight armies all by ourselves, or go head to head with a giant monster, we still have these things in our lives that stand in our way. It may seem impossible to get to where we want to go, or to get out of our dead end jobs, but with the will and determination to do something about these issues, often times, we can overcome and achieve our goals. It's difficult, and it's dangerous, but it is worth doing.

"It's Just A Game"

As we go through life, we experience much. We live, we learn, we love, we hurt. It's all part of the process of growing up. Along with growing up, we're also raised on certain things. Whether that's Star Wars, Disney Movies, Saturday morning cartoons, video games, or any other thing to keep us entertained. While a majority of society will see these things as merely for children, it impacts us in a way that they just don't seem to comprehend.

For me, video games are a huge part of me. They are so much more than a pass time. Video games have strongly affected me in the way that I think, solve problems, prioritize, work, and play. Games have changed my life. Games have SAVED my life. They mean something to me. For people to dismiss video games as simply a waste of time is to dismiss me as an individual. I have spent so much time with video games that they are a part of me I adore video games. I see them as something more than what others see. I find obscure angles and insight that others can't see right away. I have a very close relationship with my video games. They are a part of me. It isn't simply a way to spend an afternoon. I wouldn't say that is an investment, though it might be if my dreams come true and I become a video game journalist, but rather an appreciation of the medium of video games.

I find that too often people who aren't really a part of this generation, or into different fandoms don't quite grasp the emotion that we feel when we are around something that we love. I think back to when Jeremy Renner, the actor who plays Hawkeye in the Avengers movies, made an offhand comment about Black Widow's character. The internet, as it tends to do, exploded with rage. I didn't much care for his comments either, but I understood where the internet was coming from. These characters in the Marvel Universe have been around for a lot longer than these waves of movies have existed, and Black Widow is one of the more iconic characters. Heck, they all are. Fans of Black Widow look up to her character, they aspire to be like her. They appreciate her capacity to get the job done, and her confidence to accomplish her task. Black Widow is a really cool character! And when an actor who portrays one of those characters that fans look up to and admire is not invested into said character, simply because they are a work of fiction and they do not exist isn't the best thing for your image. Nor is it a very kind thing to say to fans of that character.

I've never met Luke Skywalker, but I feel like I know him because I've seen his journeys. I admire Luke Skywalker for his transformation from young, restless farm boy who longs for something more, to a Jedi master. I want to be like Luke. I want to be a Jedi. I want to be a force for good, and justice across the galaxy. While I can't actually travel across the galaxy and use a light saber, I can still take a few notes from Luke's book. The Jedi are not a real thing, but they are made up of things from this world. The Jedi are protectors of those who cannot defend for themselves, they fight against those who would do harm to the innocent, and they bring peace and balance wherever they go. I think that those are some things to aspire to. I'd like to live my life like a Jedi. I may not be able to move objects using the force, or pilot an X-Wing fighter, but I can do my best to protect those who can't protect themselves.

Art is something that is made to make a statement. It is something that is created by the artist to leave their mark on the world. It is a message to its audience to impact or influence them in someway. Sometimes for good, some for bad. But art is still something that affects every single one of us, and to deny that impact simply because it's "made up", or "just a video game (movie, tv show, cartoon, book)" is so harmful. People need heroes. They need someone to look up to. We can't all be Captain America or Superman, but we can try to follow their example and do what is right. These characters are models of virtue... well, not always, but they still have values that are worth fighting for. I can't always rely on the people in my life to show me what is right or wrong. We're human, after all. But these fictional characters, that can be crafted to be the very ideas of truth, justice, and righteousness can be a better role model.

So, no, it is not just a video game, it is not just a movie, it is not just a TV show, it is not just a comic or cartoon. It is something that is a part of us, and we look up to and aspire to be. We love our passions. We love our fandoms. We love our heroes. They may not be real, but they stand for something that is, and we can do our part by aspiring to be like them.

We Demand to be Taken Seriously

I have been writing passionately on this blog about video games for the past four years. I love doing it. Every post that I right is in celebration of video games as an art form, and the things that we can take away from them. I write this way because I believe that there is still a stigma that comes along with the moniker of 'gamer'. I write to dispel that superstition of gamers being basement dwelling wastoids who don't do anything but play video games.




This image kind of captures how I feel about my defense of video games. I just want to be taken seriously. I don't want to be looked down upon for my passion. Rejection sucks, and to feel a slight tinge of that every time that I mention that I love video games to someone who doesn't play or understand video games kind of hurts. I have such a passion that burns within me for the medium that it consumes me. I am all about video games, and I love them dearly. Video games have helped me through some rough times in my life. Video games have even saved my life. I know that video games have done the same for many others around the world. Gaming is more than just a hobby or a pastime; it s a cultural phenomenon.

Sure, I could go on about how video games have started beating out the box office since Halo 3 back in 2007, or I could talk about all of the scientific studies that show how much playing video games can improve one's mental capacity, but none of that matters to me. Those things are just heartless numbers and stats that gamers like myself would use to lean on to support the claim that video games are not a waste of time. I've once heard it said that writers often use statistics in the same way a drunkard uses a lampost: for support, rather than illumination. Basically a "nuh-uh!" but with numbers. Video games are so much more than the amount of money that they make opening weekend, or how much the entire industry has grossed over the past five or ten years. Video games are an experience, and developers work very hard to create the experience of their video games.

There are many people out there who speak just as passionately about video games as I do, though none really address the more abstract things that I do. However, the way that most game reviewers or journalists talk about games is in a way that seems stagnant and clunky. These people speak in a language that only people who play video games can understand. When I get the chance to be a writer for one of the more prestigious and more well known video game sites, I want to change that. I want to change the way that video games are talked about. I want people who don't play video games to know more about them.




Because the way that games are broken down in reviews talks about each individual element of the game, rather than speaking to the experience as a whole. I know that when I talk face to face to people who don't play video games, they can see the passion that I have for video games, and those same people can see that passion come through in my writing. I'm very proud of my voice that I've found in my writing. I want that to be the new standard of conversation among gamers. Because going through a checklist of items, and ticking them off one by one with a brief summation of what was subjectively good or bad about said item is so boring. Video games are not boring! or at least they shouldn't be.

Video games have evolved far beyond that of Pac-Man or Space Invaders. Games now tell stories, and engage the player in ways that were not possible back when they first came out. Games are no longer just about having fun, but telling stories in a way that only video games can. There is something that only the player experiences when they pick up a controller and play the game. This is an amazing experience. Having direct control over a character in a story is something that was only dreamed of before video games. Who hasn't read Harry Potter and thought about the misadventures that they would get themselves into? Who hasn't watched Star Wars and thought about becoming a Jedi, or joining the Rebels? These experiences can actually be found in video games, and it's awesome!

Video games are awesome, and I want people to know this. I want people to understand why I think that video games are awesome. Because they are more than something that just improves my mental capacity, or something that makes a lot of money. Games are more than just a brief summary of a story, followed by an analysis of its gameplay, followed by its graphics, followed by its presentation, in that order. Video games mean so much more to me than simply a waste of time. Video games have brought me before the gates of the deepest darkest places of my heart and let me fight my way out and overcome that darkness. Video games have given me something to lean on when nobody else seemed to be around. Video games understood me, and spoke my language when nobody else would listen. Gaming is a passion. It is a way of life, that for some reason is still looked down upon. Video games are here to stay, and they are not just some irrelevant way to kill time. Video games are leaving a significant impact on cultures all around the globe, and to deny them of that significance is a disservice to the advances that they have made over the years, and the ways that they have changed the lives of millions. Because we gamers play them all the time does not mean that we are useless. It does not mean that we are insignificant. It does not mean that we simply exist and take up space, only to waste time and the air that we breathe. We are gamers, and we love what we do. We matter, and we should not be overlooked or passed by because of our passion.

Hey! That's Me!

There is a lot of discussion revolving around the issue of representation in media these days. Some of it is kind of BS. Some studios seem to do it to hit a certain demographic, or maybe just to spice up their show or movie. On the other side of the conversation, people are actively apathetic about the whole issue and just miss the point entirely. That, "it really doesn't matter what age, race, gender, or sexuality the character is". Then again, this is probably coming from the perspective of people who have been represented by countless protagonists and main characters. IE white, straight, males. Now, being a white, straight, male, I'm okay with seeing these characters. On the other hand, I'd like to see some variety. Not just for my sake, but for the sake of the kinds of people that these characters would represent.

Representation in media is important, because it kind of sends the message of "if this character can do it, so can you", and that's a really cool thing. I don't see enough black characters in the video games that I play. When I do, they aren't very well written, and they don't serve much of a purpose to the story. That's another issue that I have, but I'll get to that later. The fact of the matter is, that everybody needs someone that they can look up to. There's a phrase that I hear all the time when I'm struggling with my depression, and that is "you're not alone", and I know that, I just wish that I could see more of it. If a character in a tv show, movie, or video game has a mental health disorder, that seems to be their only facet. Kind of like Eeyore, but less well rounded.

When I see a character that has something that does not adhere to the "standards of society", that fact seems to be their only character trait. For example: if a character is a lesbian, they will have a scene where they are making out with their lover. EDGY!!!!! and that character will serve no further purpose. As in, they will not help out the main character, move the story forward, will not be included in any pivotal scenes. They're just there. As if to check off a tick box on a sheet of paper that has a list of items to improve ratings. That isn't really fair. It isn't fair to the people who watch that show and are actually lesbians. I'm not a lesbian. In fact, I'm the antithesis of one, as mentioned earlier. However, I've met a few lesbians, and they're not bad people, and guess what? They do more than overtly make out with their girlfriends. How about that? It's kind of strange to me that the writers wouldn't flesh out a character like that. I see the same thing with characters who are gamers. The only aspect of their personality is that they play video games. They are ignorant to the world around them, and they don't care about anything but getting the high score. High scores aren't even a thing anymore. It's like when a TV show tries to make a computer hacking program, but the designers don't know anything about hacking computers.

Video games are kind of special, because they allow for character customization. I like Mass Effect for this reason. I like to play as the female Commander Shepard, because characters in the game will react differently to her because she's a woman. Who would believe that sexism still existed one hundred years into the future? I can also change the race and sexuality of the character. However, those only seem to be purely cosmetic choices as nothing really changes. The voice actress is clearly white, and nobody gets uncomfortable if my character is with an alien, or a character that is the same gender.

Saints Row IV on the other hand has great customization. I can make a character that is a large black woman with the voice of Nolan North. Why? I don't know. I just wanted to. The character is completely something of my own design, and nobody really cares. I can romance whomever I want, and I can always change the race, bodytype, voice, and gender of the character. It doesn't really matter who or what I am in that game. I still kick ass.

Then there are games that present me with characters that are out of my control. Games like Gone Home, or Life is Strange both have female protagonists that are going through some pivotal changes in their lives, and the characters feel well rounded and deep. These characters are cared about and respected by the writers because they want them to be memorable and likeable. Or dislikeable. These characters make decisions and act on their own, with their own motivations, and it makes the player feel for them. How about in The Wolf Among Us, with the character of Snow White? She does her best to keep things in order, but has some conflicts of interest because of the situation that befalls her. Yet she still tries her best, even if that means getting in the way of the player. These actions make the characters have a sense of autonomy, that they aren't just another NPC who repeats the same line of dialogue, or gives out quests. These are characters. Whether they are black, white, male or female, straight or gay, it is important that they matter.

We all want to be on the silver screen, but we know that probably isn't going to happen. That's why it's important that we see someone who is kind of like us up there, and we want to be cool. We want to be important. We want to help. Heck, we want to be the main character. Representation is important because it can kind of give us that chance. That we can see ourselves in those characters. It's important that writers of all kinds of media treat these characters with respect, because they are more than just that one facet. I really like video games, but I like movies too. I work a job, I have friends, I have good days, and I have bad days. So does everyone else in this world. I know that this argument has been made thousands of times before, by people who are way smarter than me, but I wanted to throw my two cents in. I may be the majority here, but I feel for the little guy. They deserve their time in the spotlight as well.

Remember This Old Gem?

If you go to any subreddit, forum, or Facebook Fanpage that is based around video games, you will undoubtedly find some kind of post relating to a game from the days of yore. Gamers are absolutely obsessed with the past. There always seems to be some kind of outcry whenever a new sequel, or even a new game entirely, is released and how it isn't as good as the old one. Because of this, gamers have an adversity to something new, and as a result: have a very closed mind when it comes to video games.

Gaming is something that most of us have grown up with in this generation. It was something that we all did as children, and it reminds us of those days when all we had to worry about was doing homework and waking up for school the next day. Admittedly, those were some good times. Now, things have changed. We have matured, in more ways than being able to play a game with a mature rating. We have responsibilities, we have (hopefully) experienced more in life, we've taken in new movies, books, television shows, and even video games. Yet, people have this strange fixation to the past. Whatever version of that thing that they first experienced is the true original and anything that tries to replicate or improve upon it is worse or wrong. What is the point of this?

It may be a bit extreme to say, but if we keep up with this kind of mindset, the gaming industry will never mature or expand. We will continue to have the same Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, and Pokemon game every year until they stop making video games (which they wont). The gaming industry feeds off of our nostalgia and the safety that we feel in the familiar. Gamers are too critical of adversity, which is ironic considering that adversity is the driving force behind every single video game ever created. Gamers act like children if things are not held to their ridiculously high standards, or are reminiscent of a game from their youth.

We, as gamers, need to be more accepting of new games. We need to be accepting, yet still somewhat critical of new games, even if they have flaws. We need to have a more keen eye when analyzing new games, as opposed to administering a blanket statement of "it's not as good as the original".

I revisit games of my youth all the time. Some of them still hold up, and some of them don't. I'd like to say that all of my old games take me back to the living room of my old house when I would sit on the floor in front of the TV and play them for hours on end. Yet, as I sit here writing this and looking at all of the games that I have amassed and played throughout my life and career as a gamer, I realized that my taste in gaming has changed. I still appreciate the games from back in the day, but more so in a manner that reflects how far we have come. There is value in the classics. As I said before, there are still some games that hold up and are still a lot of fun to play, but again, not all of them are.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with nostalgia. I think that going back and having fun with old games is perfectly fine. However, it is possible to have a sort of overdose on nostalgia, to the point where everything moving forward must be the same as it was in the past. Developers hear this feedback, and are thereby restricted on how they move forward. There will always be the small yet vocal minority who will shout from the mountaintop of every forum that is accessible to them, but this causes others to join in with them and grow their numbers. It's the reason that we have so many HD remakes of so many games, even ones that were released on the last generation of consoles less than ten years ago. Gamers pine for the classics and are not happy until they have the exact same experience as they remember. That's why the market is flooded with knock-off after knock-off that is "never quite as good" because it doesn't have the same name as the game that gamers remember.

I may be exaggerating a bit here, but I'd like to think that my point here still stands. I play lots of different games, and I keep an open mind to a lot of them. Yes, there are new games that are released these days that are genuinely bad, but there are a lot of games out there that are objectively good but still have a few flaws. I want gaming to progress. I want gaming to diversify. I want gaming to try new ways of creating games; in the way we play, in the way we experience stories, in the way that we game. Gamers have the power to shift the paradigm of the industry with what games they play. If Activision continues to see incredibly high sales numbers for Call of Duty, there's going to be another Call of Duty just like the last one. If gamers gravitated more towards indie games that try something new, that would change how the market looks. That developer would be able to continue to create more games that experiment with the idea of what makes up a game. I know that you can't change everyone's mind, but you can start by changing your own. Try out a different game that you might not even look twice at before. Try out a game that you've never heard of before. Play more games. Play different games. Above all: have fun.

Well, I'm an Idiot

I hate being wrong. In fact, I loathe being wrong. I hate having some kind of demarcation on my record that says that I’ve made errors. I want to have a good record, a clean sheet, or a high score. However, my relationship with being wrong has changed over the years. I’d like to think that I’ve matured, because of this change. At least in video games.

In video games, I can learn from my mistakes. Take for example: Portal. In Portal, I am taught the game’s mechanics and rules throughout the course of the game, and it is up to me to apply them in order to solve the puzzle. The game design is intended to teach its players the rules and the different things that you can do with the portal gun in order to solve puzzles. What makes the game great, is that there is no time limit, and there is plenty of room for the player to experiment and try different things. The game teaches the player without words in a way that the player can understand. Yet, the player still thinks that they figured the game out on their own.

Portal never directly says that portals can only be placed on concrete surfaces, but it does so indirectly. Portal’s game design is subtle and ingenious, so that it gives off the impression of the player figuring things out on their own. This is how game design should be made to teach their players.

Too many games these days directly say to do this or that to complete some objective or to move forward. This method of teaching does, in fact, not teach the player anything. It’s simply following orders, and connecting dots that are numbered. Players are not offered the opportunity to play on their own and learn from their mistakes.

Extra Credits, a Youtube channel and a huge influence on my perspective of video games, discuss gamifying the school system. This makes sense, because a lot of video games are forgiving to the player when they make mistakes. In Super Meat Boy, a puzzle platformer, if a player gets hit, they die immediately. However, when the player dies, they get brought back immediately. Super Meat Boy is absolutely brutal in its game design, yet forgiving. Each level is quick, and packed tightly with puzzles and obstacles for players to figure out the best path through. Shovel Knight is another example of this game design. While the gameplay is different than that of Super Meat Boy, players still have an unlimited amount of lives, and the game teaches players in subtle ways so that it feels as though they have learned themselves. This, I feel is how the school system could be improved.

In school, I remember feeling so much pressure to be right, to get the correct answer, because everything was riding on the experience of me going to school. Now, I realize the trivial nature of the industrialized school system, where answers are merely regurgitated instead of learned. Opportunities to learn are few or not there at all. If school could be more like a video game in its design, where students could learn on their own, make mistakes, and be forgiven and immediately given another chance, students wouldn’t feel so much pressure at school. It would be more of a learning experience, than whatever it is now.

We have this idea of what school should be, and we simply accept it. What if we could change it, though? What if we could redesign it so that students might actually learn something useful, or learn from the classes that are being taught to them without having the teachers feeling stressed about making sure to meet deadlines about grading papers? What if the school system could be a place where students are excited to learn, as opposed to begrudging getting up in the morning just to be assigned homework? I don’t remember much from my classes that were considered “academic” but I do remember the people that I met along the way, and the teachers who taught me more about myself than their curriculum. I have some good memories of school, and none of them came from a text book.

Get Lost!

I’ve been thinking a lot about this video. I have a terrible sense of direction. I get lost both in video games, and in real life. More in real life than in video games, but I hate getting lost in video games. Why? Why is it that when I get lost in real life, suddenly my trip to my friends house becomes an adventure, when getting lost in a video game is a frustrating endeavor?

I haven’t played Axiom Verge ( the game mentioned in the video), but I want to in order to experience what the narrator is talking about. So, with that in mind, I’m going to talk about different games.

So, let’s talk about Skyrim. The design of Skyrim is that of an “open sandbox”, a phrase used to describe games of this genre where players are given a large area to explore, and said area is littered with experiences and activities to do. I think that Skyrim is a good example of this, because the player isn’t really pressured to complete the story of the game. There isn’t any kind of rush. Players can just get lost in Skyrim. The experience of getting lost in Skyrim isn’t very dynamic, however. At first, when players are low level, and can’t do much on their own is pretty scary because of the random elements that can frequently happen. Over time, the player levels up, obviously, and grow stronger. These random encounters becom more of an annoyance, and raiding dungeons becomes a breeze.

In my game of Skyrim, I play a character who only uses magic. I am a master of the elements, and I’m not even level 15. I have the appropriate gear to make my spell casting its most efficient, and I can keep enemies at bay, and I don’t even take a hit. It becomes too easy. Skyrim no longer becomes an adventure when the adversities that come my way are more of an inconvenience than a challenge. I feel confident in my exploration, yet it now becomes a task to collect all the cool things in the world of Skyrim, and completing all of the guild quests. It feels more like a to do list, rather than a genuine adventure.

Then again, being that I am trapped in the box of Skyrim, I soon learn my limts, whereas in the real world, the limitations are much farther. When I get lost, I know that it’s not that big of a deal. I’m not worried about the gas in my tank, or that I’ll be attacked by bandits and dragons. I just missed a turn. I look about, and I see different street names, and landmarks. I attempt to get my bearings. In Skyrim, I can just take a look at the map, or look to the compass at the top of the screen where my objective is constantly beaming and telling me where to go. So, perhaps the adventure in getting lost is not knowing where to go? Though, wouldn’t getting thrown into an adventure where you find the treasure, before you know what its significance is, rather anticlimactic, and honestly kinda funny?

Perhaps that’s the theme of Skyrim, and the theme of life. Things don’t always turn out the way that you want them to. It’s not always going to be a grand adventure, and sometimes you don’t get to be the hero. Often times, it doesn’t take a great quest to find what you’re looking for. At the same time, though, you do have to take a risk and step out the door. The more that you get out, the easier adventuring will become. The easier it will be to talk to new people, to see new things. Perhaps I should follow my own advice here, but life is what you make it. If you want to go out, then go out. If you want to stay in, then stay in. What matters is that you enjoy your life. Whether you’re lost in finding the next step to move forward, or you’re just trying to find the right address.

Mystery Science Arcade 20XX

Nobody can deny that there are bad video games. There are bad movies. There are even bad books. Is there any value to these things? Yes, in a sense. They show us how it is not done. Also, they can be extremely entertaining with a friend or two.

Back when I was a kid, I got up early on Saturday mornings, not to watch cartoons, but Mystery Science Theater 3000 on the SciFi channel. It was the best thing to start off the day with. Terrible movies with funny jokes being told by a guy and two robots. Most of the jokes went over my head, but I still laughed at all the ones that I did get.




This was something that would stick with me for a really long time. Mystery Science Theater is timeless. The concept of making fun of bad movies has existed since before the show even aired back in 1988.

This concept has evolved to modern audiences on the modern platform of YouTube. Let's Players are the new MST3K. While that statement doesn't exactly do Mystery Science Theater 3000 justice, hear me out.

My favorite Let's Play channel on YouTube is the Game Grumps. I love their commentary, they always make me smile, and some of their best series come from the worst games.



It's always so great to hear their ridicule of these broken, or unfinished games. Random glitches, or poor design will usually be the topic of conversation, but the Game Grumps always have some good stories or jokes to tell.

From Iceland, there's BigirPall. These are just two guys who play bad video games, and try to break them by clipping through walls, and just by performing silly antics while the rest of the video game world turns.



It is always hilarious to see the silly antics of these two while the games themselves act so seriously. Games like Construction Simulator, or even Assassin's Creed attempt to create a genuine experience, but end up being ruined by these two, and the result is a riot.

Thirdly, there's the Super Beard Bros. of The Completionist crew. While not a regular channel that I watched, their playthrough of Saw The Video Game was very entertaining.



Jirard The Completionist and his best buddy Alex take on this terrible game. It's a drab and dull adventure highlighted with a few crescendos of genuine sadism, but over all the game sucks. With the commentary of these two best friends, they make it really fun to watch. On their primary show where they review games to the 100% completion rating, they actually did a review of the Saw game. It was mentioned that the games only saving grace was having a friend along to enjoy it with.

That's the reason that we enjoy these things so much. It's why they're so successful. It's because of the people that are involved. Whether you're with a friend and playing the game yourself, or watching a group of other people suffer through a terrible game, it can make for quite the time. Mystery Science Theater 3000 is awesome because of the quality writing, and that writing works because there are multiple characters to play off of each other. While Let's Plays have a more free-form and "improv" atmosphere, the commentators can still crack a few clever one liners.



Playing bad games is something that me and my brother used to do all the time. Well, they weren't entirely bad games, but Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Dynamite Cop were games that would have us laughing our butts off every time that we played. I'm not sure if these games intended to have stupid physics, or mechanics that just didn't work, but they were so much fun to play with each other. So, grab a friend, and play a bad game together.

Immobilized

Last week, I was stranded at my mom's house. I just wanted to go up for a weekend, but ended up staying for the week because the weather was less than ideal for travel. Plus, my car was in the shop for repairs, and there wasn't really a point to getting it since I wasn't going anywhere with the weather being what it was. Yet, I still had the need to be mobile, to move, to drive. Luckily, EA Origin was giving away copies of Need For Speed: Most Wanted to its members. I decided that free was indeed free, and downloaded it to my computer. I spent a lot of time with the game that week. I also realized that this is something that I do when I can't really go anywhere. I like to play games where I can drive around, and go wherever I want to at my own volition.



There is something freeing to open world games, but I guess that's the point. These types of games give their players the freedom to write their own stories, or just give them the opportunity to simply exist in another place and time. For me, I like games that give me some kind of vehicle to drive. I guess I just like being mobile and seeing things pass by as I roll past. Need For Speed: Most Wanted is not the greatest open world driving game that I've played, but I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, as the saying goes. It was nice to stretch my legs out, so to speak, and drive really fast, to where I wanted to go.



I hate car troubles, and I hate being without a car. I like to go places, even if it's just to work. I don't mind driving either, unless the weather is poor. In games like NFS: Most Wanted, I don't have to risk life and limb to drive somewhere. In fact, driving dangerously is what that game is all about.



Grand Theft Auto V was a game that I played a lot during the summer when my old car was on its last leg. It was nice to drive around in sunny Los Santos in a car that was much nicer than mine, and didn't bellow smoke every time that I stepped on the gas pedal to move away from a stop light. I liked having the freedom of driving on the high way, or going up north to Blaine County, and just driving laps around the entire island city of Los Santos. It was a liberating and introspective experience.



People have different places that they go, or things that they do to think about things and meditate. I often think a lot when I'm on the road. Sometimes I get so lost in thought that I occasionally miss my exit or turn. I kind of get the same feeling when I'm playing video games and I just have the opportunity to drive around without having to worry about gas prices, or how much fuel is left in the tank, or if my car is even going to start today. There is a knowing peace in having a reliable car that I don't have to worry about.



I think that games like these can offer serenity, and a place to think, because sometimes the world can be chaotic, and a loud cacophony of stress. Video games don't often have these kinds of stresses. They are an escape. Games can be a place to find peace, because they are a perfect system, of sorts. When we play a certain game, we understand its mechanics and rules. We know how things work, and sometimes we can break those rules and mechanics to have a bit of fun. Yet, there is still the understanding of the causes and effects that will occur when specific actions are taken. In this, there is harmony.

Wolfenstein: The New Order

Wolfenstein: The New Order is a game that came to me at a time when my appetite for video games could not be sated. I was still playing games, mind you, though none of them could really scratch that itch that I had. I knew that I was looking for a good shooter, but stayed away from Call of Duty and Battlefield because, while those games had really tight controls, it wasn't going to be enough. Enter Wolfenstein: The New Order. The game had been on my wishlist for a while, and when I finally caught it at a price that I could feasibly afford, I jumped at the chance to finally own it. After making the adjustments to the settings, I was finally able to play the game at a framerate that was playable.



Wolfenstein: The New Order is a game that comes to us from Machine Games. I've never heard of them, frankly, but that's okay. Wolfenstein: The New Order is a fantastic game, nevertheless. The franchise has a very near to my heart, even though I haven't played a Wolfenstein game since Wolfenstein 3D. I can't really say that this game keeps to the formula of a Wolfenstein game, but that doesn't matter because I love this game.

The gameplay and controls of Wolfenstein: The New Order are fast, responsive, and a lot of fun. This game is a shoot 'em up, through and through, and the only things to shoot are Nazis. There is something oddly patriotic about killing Nazis. Though, the game makes it feel more important, given the game's storyline.

The story goes, that the Allied Nations are making one final push on the base of General Deathshed. It's all or nothing. If the Allies lose this fight, they lose the entire war. Well, long story short, they lose, BJ Blaskowicz is in a coma for fourteen years, and it's the year 1960. The Nazis won, and rule the world with an iron fist. Thanks to General Deathshed and his crazy inventions, the Nazis have technology well beyond any other country, and they steamrolled over any defiance. It's up to BJ Blaskowicz to unite the resistance and fight back against the Third Reich.



One thing that I really appreciate about the game is its pacing. Wolfenstein allows players to use stealth in some places, and to go loud in others. Choosing stealth over force, can yield some pretty nice results. If players are found out while officers are still around, the alarm will sound and reinforcements will pour in, making matters a lot more difficult than they need to be. This also plays into the overall theme of the game. Because the resistance against the Nazi regime is small, there's a lot of sneaking around before ol' BJ can really take it to the Nazis. Once the wheels start rolling, it' loud and proud for the forces of freedom.


Wolfenstein: The New Order is much more than about killing Nazis, it's about fighting against what the Nazis represent. There are many different scenes of BJ Blazkowicz being in shock over how much things had changed. The cast of characters that represent different aspects over how the times had changed give the player, and BJ, some perspective on how things are. One of the characters: J, who may or may not be there depending on a critical choice made by the player early on in the game, is one of my favorites. J is supposed to be guitar legend Jimmy Hendrix, but I'm sure that Machine Games will neither confirm or deny if that is the truth. His purpose is somewhat questionable, as the rest of the crew at the resistance home base are all working on the next step to fight back against the Nazis while J strums on his electric guitar. Because of this, I spent a lot of time with the character, trying to figure out where he fits in. J turned out to be a critical part of the operation, because of what he represented. J was the only black member of the resistance, and the only artist. His perspective as a minority shook the world of BJ Blazkowicz who had very strong beliefs on the ways things should be. J calls out BJ for being the Nazi, before the Nazis. J tells BJ of how he was oppressed simply for the color of his skin. BJ makes a good friend, and so do the players.



At the end of the game, without attempting to give away too many spoilers, BJ Blazkowicz gives a monologue describing Lady Liberty while the camera focuses on the character Anya, who is of Polish descent. This to me, represents an idea that transcends nations. In the scene, Anya is holding a lamp, and lighting the way for refugees escaping the compound. It was just a powerful scene that struck me in a way that I wouldn't have expected a game with such violence and gusto to provide.



Which brings me to the one thing that I had a problem with Wofenstein: The New Order. While the game had great gameplay, and allowed for different playstyles with running and gunning vs. sneaking around and getting those stealth kills, the game is violent. Like, really violent. Exposed internal organs after enemies taking grenades, dismemberment from being shot in arm or leg, a scene where the players watch a man get his brain extracted while they are still alive. I think that violence can help to serve the tone of the game, but this didn't quite fit. This kind of violence was supposed to serve that of a pandering nature. There are plenty of old school shooters, that went the extra violent route, simply for the sake of being controversial (or so it seemed at the time). This kind of violence is almost comical, while at the same time being quite gruesome. If there was one reason I would tell people to stay away from this game, the excessive violence would be it.

All in all, Wolfenstein: The New Order is really a fantastic game, and it fills that need for a good shooter with a good story. Call of Duty and Battlefield have their mechanics on lockdown, but are lacking in other elements. Wolfenstein: The New Order has solid gameplay mechanics, a good story with a healthy cast of colorful and memorable characters, an incredible tone, and imaginative and memorable level design. This game isn't just a shooting gallery of Nazis, but a game that makes you have to think about approaching certain enemies. Wolfenstein: The New Order is a great game, that everybody should experience.

A+

The Myth of Redemptive Violence

Hello everyone! Svederik, here. My longtime friend ShuaLaw has wanted to contribute to my blog for a while, so he has.

Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat: I love video games.

I am a parent, a professional, a real-live-grown-up-man.

And I love video games.

I needed to get that out there. I want you to know that I love video games, because otherwise you might see what I’m about to say as a negative view of games, gaming, or even gamers. None of these things are true. Sure, I have a negative view of certain games and certain gamers—but only if they’ve come by it honestly and earned my negativity.

I like all sorts of video games. One of the biggest reasons I love gaming is that I get to truly enter an experience and become the hero. I love reading books, too. Books are great because they take you into a world that is at least a little different from your own, and you get to ride along an adventure unlike your real life. But video games, man; with games you not only ride along with the story, you shape the story, you become it.

As a grown up (debatable, I suppose, don’t ask my wife if I’m grown up), I can really appreciate immersion into an adventure I know I’ll never be able to live. For instance, I love the Mass Effect series. I love being Shephard and saving the galaxy. And I love that I’ll never have to do it “IRL,” as the kids say. I love the fact that I’ll likely never be in a situation where I have to take a life—any life—to save my own or my loved ones’. Heck, if all goes according to plan, I’ll never have to even hurt someone to protect myself.

This is where there’s a difference between video games and real life. In video games, I’m usually okay with following the mantra of the legendary Jayne Cobb: “Hell, I’ll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he’s gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there’s a woman, or if I’m gettin’ paid; mostly only when I’m gettin’ paid.” But in real life I know things are different.

I get a little scared that our society doesn’t realize there’s a difference. And I don’t mean “gamer society” or “kids these days.” I mean society, our primarily western, but perhaps global, society. We’ve accepted this idea that it’s okay to kill people or hurt people, or carpet bomb people, or torture people, or do any number of inhumane things to people and it can somehow make the world a better place. We forget that when we talk about all of this, we are talking about people. People who are probably more like us than different.

This is the myth of redemptive violence: the misconception that we can somehow make the world a better place through violence. Author Walter Wink, in his article, Facing the Myth of Redemptive Violence, writes about how our TV shows repeat the pattern endlessly (although he didn’t talk about it, it is certain that this holds true for video games), and how we come to believe the myth.
We have already seen how the myth off redemptive violence is played out in the structure of children’s cartoon shows (and is found as well in comics, video and computer games, and movies). But we also encounter it in the media, in sports, in nationalism, in militarism, in foreign policy, in televangelism, in the religious right, and in self-styled militia groups. What appears so innocuous in cartoons is, in fact, the mythic underpinnings of our violent society.

Walter Wink, Facing the Myth of Redemptive Violence.

Too many people either don’t see the difference, or choose to ignore the difference between video games and real life when it comes to redemptive violence. To accept redemptive violence as a reality, we must first inflate our ego to the point where we are sure that we are good and right and could never be mistaken about whatever our violence is meant to cure. Then we have to inflate our ego even further to the point where we determine that is our right—no, our duty—to be the agent of destruction for the force we have called evil.

Hey folks: in real life, it’s just not that simple. And video games, which sometimes enforce the myth of redemptive violence by telling us that we must prevail through war-like means to save the day/world/universe, also give us a lesson on why it’s really a myth.

Let’s go back to Mass Effect for a second. In the first Mass Effect, we use redemptive violence to defeat Saren, who has become a pawn for the Reapers. We do. We save the galaxy.

Except we don’t. In Mass Effect 2, we realize that the violence has only given rise to more violence, and we need to destroy the Collectors and the Reapers. Then, once you’ve done that, things get even worse and you have to try to save the world violently again in ME3. It just goes on.

But it’s simple in games. You know who is good or evil, or which side you’re on. In some really well-written games, it’s harder; maybe you know that it’s not black-and-white, and you know there is no perfect outcome awaiting. Even in those games, though, you use violence to try to make the world a better place.

Let’s circle this back to the beginning before concluding:

I love video games. Even violent games where I have to save the day/world/universe by blowing up all of my enemies. It can be fun, it can be liberating.

Let us remember, though, that video games aren’t real. Life is so much more complicated. Lot’s of things that work in video games just don’t work in real life. But the biggest thing in video games that doesn’t work in real life: making the world better through violence. In real life, violence gives rise to more, greater violence.

Game On; Live On.

- ShuaLaw

Gunpoint Vs. Witcher 3

Recently I played and completed 2 games. One was The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, an extremely long and engrossing RPG, while the other was Gunpoint, a small indie title that lasted only 2 hours. Why is it, then, that I find myself more fondly remembering Gunpoint than a game that I put twelve times the hours into? Personality.

Gunpoint is a concise puzzle/stealth game with a cool jazzy soundtrack. You take on the role of a freelance spy who seems to be doing jobs for parties that are at odds with each other. It's fun, it's great, and it's just plain cool. Gunpoint was challenging in a way that begged to be played again with different tactics, and collectibles that pushed me to think differently. I liked Gunpoint a lot because of it's witty writing and smooth, though pixelated, aesthetic. It was a fun game to play for a night, but a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

Witcher 3, on the other hand, is an enormous game with rich lore, and a deep history that makes callbacks to its previous installments. There are characters that are both distinct and diverse, and each one leaves huge impact on your memory. There are different cultures that stand out from one another, and enemies that require different tactics. There are many things to craft and combine to fight said enemies, and lots of different quests that keep players adventuring around the world of Witcher 3 for many hours on end. So, why is it that I was so hum-drum about this game?

I feel as though Witcher 3 had such a great degree of verisimilitude that the whole thing felt too real. I hate reality, that's why I play video games. Though it was a world filled with monsters and magic, the whole thing felt somewhat mundane. CD Projekt Red is a company that has the utmost respect for their games and their fans. The game doesn't treat it's players like children, but like people. The decisions that players must make are hard, and never do they feel like they are the center of the universe, as many other games do. Players have agency, but not everything hinges on their say so. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is an amazing game, with an extreme levels of attention to detail that make the world feel like an actual place. There are politics, cultures, and characters that breathe life into its world. It just didn't grab me.

This is just my opinion. I am not saying that one game is better than the other. Gunpoint just attracted me more than Witcher 3. It felt much more lively and fun than Witcher 3. 2015 was a great year of games for many; as for me, it was so-so. There were many games that came out last year that took the world by storm, but none of them captured my interest. During the Steam Winter Sale, I picked up Gunpoint, played it on a whim, and really enjoyed the game. I also played Undertale this year, and I've spoken about it too, but something about it didn't grab me either. 2015 was a weird year for me. There were many highs, but it felt as though there were just as many lows.

Gaming is my passion. I love video games. I live my life with my passion for video games. I fall in love with them. I court them. I spend time with them, and because I spent so much time with these games, I got to know them. I got to know that I was not in love with them, and because of that, 2015 was a very dull year for me.

U MAD BRO?

Scott Pell
Writer

Why is it that anger is a main trait of the gamer stereotype? Gamer rage is real thing, and it affects every gamer. Whether because of some kind of glitch, a player that killed us online, or lag. We gamers get very angry. Some would describe it as a kind of passion. However, it can be very destructive. The nature of gamers playing video games is that they should be more.... playful. There is a reason that we play video games, and that is because we enjoy them. All too often there are Youtubers, Twitch Streamers, and many other gaming personalities that just get angry at video games. Heck, Angry Joe and The Angry Video Game Nerd are two of the most highest subscribed Youtube channels out there. Why is this? Is it because we, as consumers and viewers, enjoy other peoples pain? Is it because that we are not the ones involved?

I watch The Game Grumps on a regular basis, and I always find it so much more entertaining when they are having fun. It is absolute agony when Arin and Danny get frustrated or angry at the games. Sometimes games are designed to infuriate and get some kind of reaction from the players, other times they are not. Either way, it kind of reinforces a notion that we play video games to torture ourselves.

Video games used to be really hard. So hard in fact that even Dio used them as a fake torture device in the music video for "The Last in Line". Seriously. It's weird. But! Gamers do enjoy a challenge, and when that challenge is finally overcome, we are awash with a wave of satisfaction of being able to complete that which we knew we could do all along. That is why we play video games. Not to torture ourselves. Sometimes we have our off days, though.

Online multiplayer in video games is probably the greatest source of gamer rage, and for good reason. There are many variables that are uncertain when entering into this realm. Video games these days enforce upon the player that they are the best, and that they are the heroes of their stories. All of that changes when they enter an online arena.  The rules still apply, yet other players have found ways to take advantage of them and manipulate them to their advantage. Plus, poor matchmaking algorithms mess up and pair new players with veteran ones. It is surprising how often that happens. However, this is a primary source of frustration, because of that aforementioned contrast of the single player mode verses that of the multiplayer. Gamers get it in their mind that they are the best, or at the very least, half-way decent at the game. What once was a fun challenge is now a confusing and frustrating slaughter against players who are far superior to you. It doesn't sound like much fun, but with determination, you too can grow to compete and even score a few points for your team. Yet that process is a very long and trying one.

All of that being said, video games are kind of what you make of them. Some of them can be relaxing, others can be a story, others can be a challenge. It comes down to what the player wants from them. Their choice and taste dictate what kind of gamer they are, and that does not speak for the entirety of gamers.

Death Loop

Scott Pell
Writer

So, the thing with video games is that they have save points. Obviously this is unrealistic, but have you ever been playing a game where you Amy have screwed yourself over with a bad save or something like that? There's just no possible way to go back, or resolve the situation because you're in this repeating death loop, or in an unwinable situation because you just don't have enough supplies? The only solution is to go back to the previous save and try to stock up for that which you got stuck in. It sucks having to retreat familiar ground, but don't you wish that you could just have that convention in real life?

Often times in life, we make mistakes. It happens. We are human, and nobody is perfect or has that level of foresight to ensure that nothing goes wrong, but things can, and often do, go wrong. It's kind of inevitable. I feel like I'm in one of those situations where I'm still fighting in an unwinable situation and I don't want to let it go and I continue to fight this impossible situation. It's fruitless, I know, but I continue to hold on. 

I've been fighting this for a long time, long beyond its passing, but it keeps me moving forward in a way. I know that there is no situation where I come out the victor in that scenario. But I still hold onto that save file. 

Sometimes I keep those old saves, and just create a new file. That's kind of what we do, don't we? We hold on to those situations where we know we couldn't win. It doesn't make much sense, and it's taking up hard drive space. So why hold on? We never go back to it.

I think that I hold on to those situations, because I want to remember where I was, and I can see where I am now and be proud of myself for how far I've come. Because I've reloaded that last save and reevaluated where I am in life, and I've decided to move on and become stronger. Maybe I can revisit that spot in this crazy adventure in life, but there's no telling. There's no harm in being leveled up.