It's Under Control

I'll be the first to admit that I am no good at old school video games. I've been too pampered by these newer games that I've developed a new standard. Old games are tough, nobody can deny that, but They are tough for a myriad of reasons, one of which being that developers were under the idea that a game would most likely be the player's only game, and they would ramp up the difficulty to make the game last longer. That is true. For me, part of that difficulty comes down to the controller.

The old NES controller only had two buttons, and the directional pad. The other two buttons were primarily used for bringing up the pause screen or a quick change of equipment, essential but not the primary functions of most games. This was a limitation of control. It made sense, for the time, as most games were based off of the simplistic controls of their video arcade counterparts. Most arcade games only had a joystick and one or two buttons. Again, the design philosophy behind these games were that they were to be so difficult that the player would lose and lose, thereby extending the life of the game. Games were just things to occupy time for a few hours, and meant to be something more of a toy than what they would eventually become.



Video games apparently caught like wildfire, as the NES sold 61.91 million units since its release in 1983. That's quite a lot. As gaming grew to be something more than just a thing to keep the kids occupied for a few hours, so did the necessity for a more advanced controller. Gaming was getting more advanced with new emerging technologies. Video games could do more, and players would need a way to do more with them.




The way in which controllers have evolved, allows for players to have more control over their games. The amount of control that players have over the characters in the video game still has a great deal to do with the games' programming. However, with more buttons, analog sticks, and even a little bit of motion control, players have more functions to work with. With these functions players can do more within the game space. For most, all of these buttons seem a bit intimidating, though I feel that all of these buttons are out of necessity. Because each button corresponds to something within the game, the player has more control.

I think that I'm no good at the older generations of video games, mostly because I have been pampered by these fancy, new controllers with their multiple buttons, and games and their expansion from being something that challenges the player to engaging them. With the older generation of games, design philosophies were different, technology was different, and controllers didn't offer much control. Yet, they did what they had to, and they survived for their generation to bring us new and better things. Games, as well as their controllers are constantly evolving, and with that comes exciting new possibilities.

Can Video Games Be Monumental?

Video games have certainly come a long way. Not just in terms of technology, but also in the way that they tell stories, engage players, and the way in which developers are constantly shaping the way that we look at video games. Video games are now considered to be an art form by the government, and are protected by the constitution. Gamers everywhere have donated countless dollars to charities through livestreams, and Child's Play. Video games, and gamers alike have done a lot of good, yet I still feel as though they get a bad reputation. They're constantly shaping the entertainment industry, and are constantly evolving, but will they leave an impact on history? Will we be able to look back on video games, and say that they were something more than just a game. Could a game have such an impact on society, on culture, that it could be considered monumental?

Throughout history there have been great artists and entertainers, directors and writers. They have all left an impact on their societies and their names are known throughout the world. Shakespear, Mozart, Da Vinci, these are artists who are known by everyone. Will something such as a video game be able to rise to the level of these great creators? Games are indeed art, not just because the government says so. Games change the way that we look at narrative, and involve the audience in a way that no other medium has. Why don't games get this sort of recognition?

The trouble with video games is that they are a relatively new form of art. Video games have only been around for roughly sixty years. It seems to be tradition of society to want to banish anything that is new. It happened with rock and roll, it happened with comic books, and now video games are the current target of previous generations scorn. While video games have made great strides forward, they will forever be misunderstood by those who did not grow up with them. The video game console was originally marketed as a new kind of toy for youths, which is why older generations view them as such.

Another problem with games, are the people that play them. Gamers conduct themselves in the most inappropriate manner, and are the loudest and most foul people on the internet. The dregs of society exist on Xbox Live, and every single one of them has a YouTube account to write the most hateful things to people and organizations whom they have never met. Worse still, gamers fight among each other. Each generation of consoles, there is a new debate over which one is better. They go on and on about specs, and exclusives, and various things that in the end do nothing but separate us. This bigotry has to stop. Instead, we need to be united under the common banner of games. We all enjoy games, and we play and scrutinize them constantly. We love games, and that's why we spend so much time with them. We should be talking about why we like these games, and be able to openly discuss this without fear of being talked down to, or harassed, for our taste in games. Aside from our petty squabbles between us gamers, apparently the entire nation of gamers will lash out at anyone who says there is something wrong with video games.

Recently, Anita Sarkeesian posted yet another video in her series "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games", and the entire community of gamers attacked Sarkeesian for this. Ms. Sarkeesian brings up many valid points about the treatment of female characters in video games, most of which are negative. It may not take a detective to see that women get the short end of the stick in video games, but it still needs to be said. However, when someone does say something about it, namely Anita Sarkeesian, gamers will flock together to unleash a storm of hate and ignorance. THIS IS NOT HOW WE SHOULD CONDUCT OURSELVES! Not only as gamers, but as human beings. This is truly a sad time when someone gets run out of their house because of the constant threats to their well being, simply because they pointed something out that they feel needs to change. The gaming community cannot continue to go on like this. It's disgraceful.

It is important to have a strong sense of community when it comes to respecting the classics of a particular art form. It brings us closer together when we can all gather around something that we unanimously enjoy. However, part of what makes something monumental, is that it is universally recognized as something that is truly great. When the gaming community latches on to something, they close themselves off from any outside argument or standpoint. They shut themselves in from the rest of the world, and only look to whatever it is that they admire, and they wont let anyone else in. This is another pathetic display of the conduct of gamers. It isn't just with video games either. This mentality will not make us anymore mature, or help our communities grow. This is why I do not believe that games can be considered monumental.

For as much as I adore games, and for as much respect as I try to show them. I am but one small voice among a sea of hate. I want games to be respected, and I want to show the world what it is about them that I admire, yet with all of the other gamers out there who conduct themselves in such a despicable and apathetic manner, I will constantly be discounted as one of them. There are those of us out there who want to change the conversation of video games just as much as I do, and they sit up on high places so that they can be heard. But, the ignorance and belligerence of the gaming community discounts them just as much as it does me.

However, that doesn't mean that I should stop. There have been haters throughout all of history. Many great people stood up against those that stood in their way, and they pushed right on past them. I may not reach that status of greatness, but I will continue to write, and I will continue to change peoples minds about video games, because they are something that is worth talking about. Games have the potential to be monumental, and they have the potential to be something that is widely considered magnificent, and I truly believe that. I want to change the conversation about video games, and I want to open closed minds to what they are and what they have done for me. Video games matter, and they are art, and they are something worth talking about.




ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED 100G - Prolific
- Make 100 posts on your blog.

I did it! I've kept at this stupid little blog to write about video games. I don't know how many of you out there actually read this thing, but it's where I come to hone my writing skills and come up with new ideas to talk about games with, and I am thankful for those of you who have stood by me and gave me feedback. In other words, thanks mom. I love you.

The Boss is Coming, Look Busy

What is the deal with Boss Battles? This isn't some stand-up bit, I'm genuinely confused as to why video games think that there has to be some kind of boss battle as the form of conflict-resolution at the end of the story. With the levels of storytelling that is coming out of video games these days, boss battles seem like a lazy, and last minute, substitute for the end of the game. Personally, I blame Mega Man.

In my mind, Mega Man is the purest form of video game. Running, jumping, shooting, and challenges that nearly make you throw your controller across the room, this is Mega Man. Each level is designed as a challenging obstacle course that puts the players skills to the test. Mega Man was it's own game, and maintained the feel of an arcade game with its simplistic design and extreme level of difficulty. For its time, Mega Man was the perfect video game. To many, it still is. However, the evolution of game design has rendered Mega Man's format somewhat obsolete.

Video games have a way of telling stories that is unlike any other form of media that has come before it. It seems silly to relegate it to the format of : Challenge - Boss Battle. Games can be so much more than just that. Journey, The Wolf Among Us, The Stanley Parable, and many others have shown us how to do games differently. With the progress of technology over the course of the years, game developers are finding ways to engage with the player on many different levels. However it seems as though developers think that there still must be some kind of format to adhere to.

One of my favorite games of all time, Mass Effect 2, has some of the best storytelling that I've seen in a video game. I have lost many hours playing Mass Effect 2, and have enjoyed my many adventures as Commander Shepard. The universe of Mass Effect is one that is rich and full of character. The entire game of Mass Effect 2 is a memorable journey right up until the end. That end being a really lame boss fight.

The entirety of Mass Effect 2 is comprised of tight gameplay with intense firefights that take players through captivating environments with stories that engage and enchant. Then, at the end of the game, Shepard takes a crew and rides off to face down the end while the rest of the Normandy crew stays behind to cover the commanders back. The end of course, being a boss battle.

The problem with Boss Battles is that they change the rules. Yet, this has become expected of video games. It is standard practice for a video game to have its story, and have its challenges, and have its levels, all to end with a boss battle. It's lazy! Conflict resolution does not always have to end with a fight. It doesn't always have to end with fighting an enemy that is one hundred times larger than you are. Journey let players blissfully fly around at the top of the mountain and let them walk into the light in triumph and relief. The Wolf Among Us had players working to prove the guilt of the accused. The Stanley Parable throws all expectations of how a game should end, or even play, out the window and changes the rules of storytelling. Games can be whatever they want to be, and by assigning these expectations of having levels and bosses and challenge, you hold back potential for something truly amazing to emerge. Games are an art form the likes of which have never been seen before, and they are constantly evolving with emergence of new technologies and creative ways in which developers are finding to change the expectations of players and video games. Games don't have point systems anymore. Games don't have levels anymore. Games have changed, and they do not need to be defined by how difficult they were, or how high the players score was. Games are now experiences. Games can take players into the world that the developers imagined. Games change the way we think, the way we perceive things, the way we analyze things, the way that we move, the way that we live. Games have changed! For the better, as well. The video game industry is constantly moving forward. In small ways, and in big ways, things are changing. Whether it's some independent developer that is going to make something that stands out, or a large production house that takes the market by storm with a game that raises the bar. Games are changing.

All You Can Eat

There's something about crappy Chinese restaurants that is incredibly endearing to me. They're always good for hanging around with friends, and generally pretty cheap. I usually find that I get my money's worth when I go to a Chinese buffet, until about two or three hours later when I feel an insatiable hunger. Then, all of those feel good vibes from the Chinese buffet turn to mournful regret. I remember that the food wasn't all that great, and wasn't all that fulfilling. This is my experience with most open world video games.

All right, so that was a long way to go to bring the discussion around to video games, but hear me out. I don't much care for sand box and open world video games. To me, they never feel that fleshed out, and I never feel all that satisfied with them when I'm through. Reason being: sand box games are designed to never end. The focus of the game is just to jam around with the gameplay rather than the experience of the story and characters that the game has to offer.

If we take the two games that I've been playing lately: Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and Metro: Last Light. These games are completely different from one another, so it's rather pointless to compare them, but there are somethings that can be explored. For example: structure.

First let's take a look at Assassin's Creed IV...

AC IV is a game about pirates taking to the high seas and fighting against the Navies of both Spain and England in the Caribbean. A majority of the entertainment value comes from exploring the waters in your ship, attacking random vessels and raiding them for goods. It's fun, it's fast, it's exciting, yet there is no real point to it other than resource gathering. These resources are important, yes, and it does make for a good time to be had. However, this creates a vicious cycle of raiding, and upgrading to raid and upgrade. The game just loops and loops, all for the somewhat frivolous task of upgrading your ship. The ship is extremely essential to the game, but a majority of the unlocks come after going through a particular story mission. AC IV gives players the runaround something fierce, with forcing them to go through tutorial mission after tutorial mission just so that they can accomplish the most basic of tasks. This is where Black Flag falls flat on its face.

In addition to having a large amount of tutorial missions, AC IV is lacking in story and character. The timeline of Assassin's Creed IV is completely out of wack as it jumps ahead several years at random times, and characters that should be important show up for only a few moments and are immediately gone without a word. I found it very difficult to become motivated to continue on with the story filled with characters that are unappealing or barely there. Characters and story are very important to how a game moves forward. If the player has little motivation to continue through the story, other than the reason that it is necessary to progress in the game, then it isn't enjoyable.

Which brings us to Metro: Last Light....

Metro: Last Light is a game that is completely different from Assassin's Creed IV in story, tone, gameplay, and structure. However, Metro: Last Light is a linear game, everything that is meant to happen to the player happens. The game is laid out before the player in a manner so that everything can be experienced at the right time. This creates pacing, which is important to inflect the tones and the characters that the game has to offer.

I really enjoyed Metro: Last Light because of how well the pacing was done. Nothing felt rushed, and there was a lot of thought and care put into how the game progressed. While I didn't exactly have the freedom to roam around and do as I pleased, I moved forward through the game with purpose and I was motivated to move forward. However, all around me was a world that was filled with personality and color. What Metro: Last Light has that makes it a thoroughly enjoyable experience is verisimilitude in a completely fictional universe. The story of Metro: Last Light has humanity relegated underground to the subway systems, where they are forced to build their societies.

Assassin's Creed IV had some realistic portrayals of sailing and the like, but the towns all felt too video game-y. Towns had shops where players could purchase upgrades, there were random NPCs standing around, inexplicably flashing, waiting to give the player a mission. Assassin's Creed IV feels like a video game, whereas Metro: Last Light tells a story.

My issue with most sandbox games is this: everything feels mediocre. I suppose that it would be too much if each mission, area, and character were to be portrayed with the utmost of quality, but why not? What if every single mission in a sandbox game had something that was memorable to it, other than a piece of loot that you got, or the fact that it was a main story mission rather than a side mission. I know that there would be an insane amount of work from the studio that was developing it, and it would take a lot of time and money. However, with the kind of money that a development studio such as Ubisoft makes, why not take a year off of releasing a new Assassin's Creed game and spend time developing one?

While both games are completely different, I think that there can be a take away from comparing them. Letting players take control in how they go about playing the game is fine, but don't keep things locked away until they fulfill some fruitless task. Give players full access to your game. Who cares if they don't get around to completing the main questline until the very end? If you're going to make a linear game where the player is taken along a tight track, make sure that you create a world that players want to spend time in and one that they can understand from just going through it. Give your game good game mechanics that teach the player without having to put text up on the screen that describes exactly what to do. Have your linear game have a good story with characters that stand out, and can be remembered.


P.S.
I'm sorry for the delay in posting. For the past few weeks my job has had me working a crazy amount of hours and my body decided that it also needed a crazy amount of sleep to compensate. It was very difficult to take the time to write with only one night off a week, and little to no free time during the day. Thank you for being patient, and I plan to get back to a more regular writing schedule again.

Sorry, We're Closed

I've been playing Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag recently, and I've been having a blast with it. In the game you play as Edward Kenway, a pirate. As pirates go, Kenway is pretty fierce. He's got his own ship, his own crew, and on top of all of that, he's also an Assassin. But he can't do a thing with any of it. It took me roughly two hours of playing the game from when I started anew to get me a ship. It took even longer to discover that I could sail freely with it. Even then, when I finally got out on the open waters, it turns out they weren't all that open. I kept on getting hit with "this area is not available yet". AC IV is not the first game to do this, but it has been one of the more frustrating parts of the game.

First off, AC IV is about pirates; puckish rogues who don't play by the rules and do as they please. The fact that the player has to jump through hoops and follow the rules goes against the very nature of what the game is trying to represent. I had the money and the resources to upgrade my ship so that I could better defend myself on the seas, but couldn't because the game kept telling me that I had to progress further in the story to unlock something. I'm about 14 hours into the game now, and I'm still going through tutorials on how things work.

Granted, since I've discovered that I can go out to sea, I've been taking my time getting around to the main story. When the game takes its sweet time getting around to teaching the player the rules, it feels like an obligation to go through that rigamarole. I want to be a pirate, and I want to do what I want. The game keeps stuff locked away, and forcing players to go through the game. Besides, I'm smart enough to figure things out myself.

For example, there are forts scattered about the over world. These forts control the different areas of the map, and when defeated unlock things in the area (that kind of unlocking is fine. That kind of unlocking is EARNED). I figure that with the armaments  on my boat that I'd fire back. Lo and behold, my brilliant plan to blow the ever loving snot out of the forts defenses worked. I docked my ship, ran into the fort, followed the objective markers and completed the fort. I figured it out on my own. Here I am over ten hours into the game and I find a mission that details how forts work. That is bad game design, and poor planning. The game also takes it's time with getting around to the story as well.

The game is content with introducing new characters and bits of intrigue, but still in a very slow fashion. The game is Assassin's Creed, I should be assassinating Temlars and the like. It took seven hours to find out about the Assassin's guild. Now, I like the story of Assassin's Creed. An alternative take on historical events with an interwoven conspiracist theory plot. It's all very exciting, but AC IV doesn't seem to care much about getting the ball rolling. That's about the only aspect of the game that is pirate-like.

I'll admit, though, for all of the maddening tutorials that you have to go through before the game gets going, the game is a lot of fun. All though most of the fun is had with the non essential events. My favorite part of the game is just to sail about and hear my crew sing sea shanties. That honestly contributes to a majority of the time that I spend in the game. To get shanties, the player has to collect song sheets. Played find song sheets on islands and the like, and can find them by wandering around or by synchronizing with viewpoints and then locating them on the map. When you find a song sheet, the thing will fly away like a Will o'the wisp until either caught or it just up and leaves. Song sheets are a sort of tutorial of the free running aspect of the game. I didn't play Assassin's Creed III, I didn't know of all of the different ways to tree parkour, yes that's a thing. By chasing after sea shanty sheets I learned how. That's a good way to teach a player, and it rewards them with a cool prize.

Anyhow, sailing and raiding ships are the best parts of Assassin's Creed IV. There is nothing more swashbuckling than fighting a frigate, disabling its defenses and swinging aboard when your crew has pulled it in close enough. The cool part about raiding ships, is that some will have different objectives, though most are just "kill X amount of enemy crew". That's fun. That's satisfying. Going through long and drawn out tutorials is not.

If we go back a long ways, to a time when there was only 8 bits available, we'll find The Legend of Zelda. The original Zelda game was completely formless. Indeed, there were numbered dungeons, telling the player where they stood. However, The player could go in any order. Even if it was by accident, the player could stumble upon the last dungeon. This, is pure adventure. No tutorial missions, no direction. Just adventure. There are few games that have matched this. Skyrim comes close, but still requires the player to go through a few things before getting to the good stuff. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag suffers from this in spades.

I feel as though the main draw of the game is the pirating, open seas portion of the game. However, due to the way in which the game is structured, players can't experience this until much later on. I understand that there is a lot of new things that are introduced with each new Assassin's Creed game, however the layout is all wrong. If the game allowed players to tread into the dangerous waters, with enemy craft that is immensely superior to their own, that would be fun. The player would surely die, and have to reload, sure, but! They have learned from that experience. The player would then set out to strengthen their ship, so that they can put up a fight and maybe even beat out those bigger boats. If you want the player to go through with your story, reward them more. The missions in Assassin's Creed IV, hardly reward the player for completing them. With a little bit of cash and nary an unlock, there isn't much of a draw to completing them. Instead, players should be given a huge sum of cash, so that they may upgrade their ship, and take to the seas again. If the player needs to make a quick buck, they can take on the story, and maybe even get hooked on the plot.

Sorry for the super lengthiness of this post. I feel as though it's been a while since I just spilled out over a video game. What do you folks think? How should open world video games be designed? Should their be any structure at all? Did I talk for too long?

The Power is Yours

Games that are often considered linear, often have a negative connotation that go along with that title. However, there's nothing wrong with a linear game when it gives the players options. Deus Ex, Dishonored, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves are games that are linear, but they give players options to complete their objectives in whatever way they see fit. Choice is part of what makes video games special.

Lately, I've been playing Dishonored and it is quite proud of the fact that it gives players multiple paths and choices in how they do things. Having options for your players is all well and good, but to tout them about in the manner that Dishonored does is just bragging. This is how games used to be designed. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and Thief were all games that truly let the player play. Dishonored is a game that is comparable to those, yet boasts about something that all video games should have in the first place. Not all games have that element of choice, but those games aren't very good.

Contrast Dishonored with another game that I have been playing lately, Remember Me. Remember Me is a very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing game. However, the amount of choice and play that the player has is slim to none. This is a bad example of linear gameplay. Remember Me forces players to take the exact path that the game wants them to. The environments are confining hallways, and the acrobatic climbing sequences are marked with arrows directing players in the direction that the player needs to go. In order to break up the follow the leader pattern, the game has hidden small pick ups that minimally improve the character. Remember Me also offers the ability to customize fight combos, yet does not allow for variations on which buttons to press. All of the combos are set in their ways with the specific buttons. The level of customization comes down to the effect that the combo has, as players can assign damage, health regen, or special ability cool down effects to the combos. I'm no fighting game aficionado, but there is something genuinely thrilling and satisfying about hitting different buttons in a specific pattern that gives me a thrill. Because fighting is the main focus of fighting games, the combat is more refined, and can also allow for players to fight the way that they want to. Remember Me has none of this refinement. Combos are set in their ways, and cannot be altered or interwoven with other combos during combat, leaving players to do exactly as the game says, or there is no payoff.

While Dishonored differs from Remember Me in most regards, there is still a structure to how the story plays out. Players must go through a select sequence to get to the end of the game. Having order to a video game with where the developers take the player is okay to do. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a great example of how to properly pace a game. While it seems that, on the whole, Uncharted 2 is a nonstop thrill ride, the game does take time to slow down for moments of tension or serenity. The game also offers choice to the player with its combat and traversal. Level design is key when it comes to this element of a video game. Giving players large areas to figure out the best approach can give them many opportunities and routes to fight or sneak. Uncharted 2 has superb environmental layouts and enemy placement so that the player can make their choice of stealth or action. Even though a majority of the levels goes from one room to the next with confining hallways, the game does make an effort to make getting there interesting. Whereas Remember Me directly told players which ledge or pipe to grab onto next, Uncharted 2 lays out the ledges and pipes before the player but doesn't tell them where to go. There is a set path for the player to take in Uncharted 2 when it comes to climbing on things, yet the player has to find the next ledge themselves to figure out where to go next. Remember Me’s arrows leading to the next step, are unnecessary and makes the player frustrated because they definitely could have figured it out on their own.

Players are much smarter than modern game developers seem to give them credit for. By confining the player to a linear path with no options for experimentation and exploration, you end up making a bad game. Games should let players tool around, even if it's silly and doesn't go along with the narrative or the setting. Let the players play.

Walking Through

Recently I played Metroid: Fusion, because I was feeling a bit nostalgic. I remember playing this game to death when I was a kid and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, it took only minutes for me to hit my first wall. I’ve beaten Metroid: Fusion before, and I don’t remember being stuck this early on. I had spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what to do next, but nothing seemed to work. I had no choice but to look up a walkthrough.

I ended up beating Metroid: Fusion for the second time and feeling pretty good about it. I made it through all of the trials and tribulations that the game threw at me. The walkthrough merely told me where to go next. Besides, I used to buy strategy guides for games back in the day. Having the strategy guide by me didn’t hurt the experience of completing the game. There was plenty extra to the game that I could have gone back and played, and the strategy guide would have told me where to look. I played the games my way, and I felt good about it. Playing the game with a strategy guide is like having a friend who’s beaten the game before and will help you when you ask.

Strategy guides were cool, and were full of art and factoids about the game. The guides were arranged to have very specific and clear instructions alongside screenshots of the game that showed the player important landmarks to take note of. Nowadays, strategy guides are filled with statistics of the weapons in multiplayer, as a result of developers’ focus shifting towards online multiplayer as opposed to the single player experience.

Games these days don’t often require a strategy guide because they are so straightforward and streamlined that little is left up to the player for interpretation or imagination. Modern game design holds players hands and doesn’t let them explore, or experiment with different methods. Strategy guides and walkthroughs are just extra weight. Players should be getting lost in video games. Players should be adventuring and exploring and trying new things and going outside of their comfort zone in a certain sense.

What makes video games special is that element of gameplay giving players direct control of the action of the character. It’s okay to get lost, it’s okay to fumble, it’s okay to fall, and it’s all right to fail. Video games can teach us these things, and if we have to look at a strategy guide or a walkthrough to get over that one part, then so be it. There’s no shame in reaching out for help.