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.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Monday, March 21, 2016
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.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, February 15, 2016
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.
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.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
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+
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+
Thursday, January 21, 2016
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)