At the end of every year, writers flood the Internet with
lists of the "best" games, these lists often featuring the most
popular blockbusters or whatever indie games happen to catch the imagination of
the industry. 2015 was no exception. With half of the lists featuring
Bloodborne, Rise of the Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, and Metal Gear
V: The Phantom Pain and the other half sharing Life is Strange, Her Story, and
Undertale, what should be a moment of discovery for readers becomes instead a
time of eye-rolling, as they say sighing "not another list with games I
already know."
This is not to say that these games are bad. My favorite
games this year are, indeed, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, and Undertale, and I
have much enjoyed Rocket League, Splatoon, Mario Maker, and Xenoblade
Chronicles X. However, these are games that everyone knows about. Instead of
praising these already well known (and fun) games, I'll list what I found to be
nine of the more interesting and lesser known titles of 2015. Or, at least, nine
titles that I think didn't get the coverage they should have.
Every January, I make predictions about the video game
industry for the following year. Of course, these types of posts are no fun
unless they are revisited a year after. For today, I would like to revisit lastyear's predictions for 2015 and see if they came true. Honestly... they were
hit-or-miss. Mostly miss...
Recently, it was reported that several school districts in
Oklahoma were to attend a summit to discuss shifting from the traditional fivedays a week schedule to a four days a week schedule.Needless
to say that the comments on the move have been split and the discourse has been
rather heated. Some praised the move suggesting that their kids would no longer
have to miss school days for appointments, while others critiqued the idea,
saying that it would make Oklahoma's already low ranking in education even worse.
It seems to me, however, that in order to understand if this is a smart move,
we need to think about this from all perspectives and understand the practical
application of the teaching and learning strategies used by teachers and
students.
When I first played Metal Gear Solid back in 1998 on the
PSOne, there was only one word that came to mind to describe the game -
cinematic. Back then, using the word cinematic to describe a game actually
meant something. Unlike today, when the term is used to limit the number of a
game's frames per second (cinematic aesthetics), sell a game that's lacking in
content (cinematic length), and forego complex play in favor of long cut scenes
with a few quick time events (cinematic play), back when Metal Gear Solid was
released, a cinematic game was one that featured complex narratives with
multilayered characters, compelling visuals with interesting use of camera
angles, symphonic musical scores performed by orchestras. Certainly, there were
hardware limitations - however, a game was not considered cinematic based on
hardware specs or visual resolution as much as for the elements outlined above.
Metal Gear Solid was, back then, a cinematic game. It
featured a story about a military guerilla in possession of a nuke and a lone
super soldier sent on a suicide mission. It featured characters with
interesting back stories and personalities, memorable moments, and compelling
play. I enjoyed every moment of it, and when I was finished, I put it on the
shelf and never went back to it again.
When Metal Gear Solid 2 was released, I was excited. The
opening scene in the boat was exciting, and I was looking forward to the game.
Then, Kojima made a bait and switch and stuck me with Raiden, whom I didn't
like. I placed my memories of the tanker mission in my "fond
memories" section of the brain and stopped playing. By the time Metal Geat
Solid 3 came out, I had lost interest in the Metal Geat franchise.
I bought Metal Gear Solid 4 at around 2010, but I left it on
the shelf until a few weeks ago. I found it incredibly enjoyable. The first
mission in the desert felt odd in the sense that it felt closer to Call of Duty
than Metal Gear, but I pressed on. I noticed the references and clever Kojima
jokes here and there, and ultimately my memories of Shadow Moses came back.
This is where memory comes into play.
In my mind, the cinematic Metal Gear Solid had incredibly
detailed visuals just a step down from Metal Gear Solid 4. Consciously, I knew
that my memories were wrong. I knew the PSOne couldn't output visuals anywhere
near that of the PS 3, but I ignored my consciousness. Then, at one point in
Metal Gear Solid 4, the game forced me to play through the opening moments of
the PSOne. It was pretty shocking. I didn't remember that the game looked that
pixelated. Shortly afterwards, the game had me go through Shadow Moses in PS 3
graphics for Snake's main storyline, and in my memories, that's how the PSOne
graphics looked.
That's all I wanted to share. In my memories, the old game
looked as good as the new one. The progress of technology updated my memories
and made it better than it actually was.
Not too long ago, Errant Signal put out a video where he echoed Gonzalo Frasca's comments regarding the ludology vs narrativity debate. Quoting Frasca, Errant Signal suggests that said debate, whose opening skirmishes are chronicled in Game Studies, "did not happen" because there was no "debate" as to whether games "should be narrative or ludic". And that's true. At no point was there a formal moderated debate where game devs argued whether games should be about stories or about play. But there was, and there still is, a very real conversation regarding whether video games are best understood as stories or as games. You can find my full rebuttal below:
In his same video, Errant Signal agreed with Jim Sterling and suggested that the term Ludonarrative Dissonance is useless and should be discarded because it predisposes the critic to make negative assessments about the game. Again, I disagree. Ludonarrative dissonance is a useful term, as long as it is considered as existing within a framework. My full argument below:
