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.