Recently, the first game journalist came out with a partial backpedal. Mark Serrels wrote over at Kotaku about how he was wrong about all his prognostications on how all gaming will turn mobile.
While I expect more people to come out with similar pieces, it is in
all honest more likely that they will simply remain silent.
So, I would like to take this moment to reiterate my predictions:
(1)
Mobile casual gaming will continue to thrive, because everyone has a
smartphone. This is a different demographic than that served by other
markets.
(2) Nintendo will continue to dominate the portable
market, as it always has, with the DS family of systems and incredibly
polished high quality titles. They will serve a market of people who
enjoy gaming on the go but favor robust gaming experiences to clickers
and freemiums, and school age kids and college students.
(3) The
console market will continue to grow, although slowly. It will cater
mostly to high school and college students, as well as people in the
late 20s and early 30s who grew up with videogames.
(4) The PC will keep doing its own thing and ripping off console games.
My son was suspended from school for a day. When the teacher informed me about the reason by phone, she said that he "kicked a kid on the face". Naturally, I was both concerned and surprised. Concerned because I have not taught my son to be violent. I always tell him to be nice, and I have modeled for him a purely kind behavior. Surprised because my 6 year old son doesn't have a "high kick", or any kind of kick, in his less than remarkable list of fighting moves. So when I got to the school, I asked about the situation. "Well, he didn't really kick anyone", the teacher said, "but technically he did".
How can you "technically" kick someone while at the same time not kicking them? The teacher explained. My son was in gym class. The class went by without major incident. At the end of the class, the teacher asked the students to get in line to go back to the classroom. All kids got in line, except one kid. My son walked up to him and, as the teacher explained, "he gently tapped the kid on the back of the head with his shoe and said "the teacher said to go back in line", so I had to suspend him".
Bad criticism ruined Frozen for me. Oddly enough, I became
interested in watching the movie not because of commercials or controversies
(of which I thankfully remained largely ignorant until after my first viewing),
but because of toys. For those of you unfamiliar with videogames (or who don't
have kids), Disney Infinity is a videogame where players buy Disney figures /
toys, places them in a portal, and then use them in the Disney Infinity game
(think Skylanders with Disney). Before I even heard of the movie, I saw the
Frozen figures, and they looked really cool. I didn't know what movie they were
from, but the Elsa and Anna figures were cool enough to get me interested in
the movie. When the movie came out, I took my family to see it, and we had a
great time.
Elsa and Anna, sisters.
The story is about two sisters, one of whom has the power to
control ice (Elsa). Because of an accident, her parents ask her to keep her
powers hidden. The two princesses grow up locked in a castle, with Elsa
practicing how to keep her powers under control, until the day for Elsa's
coronation (at age 21) comes. During the coronation ceremony, she loses control
of her powers and flees to the remote cold of the mountains. There, in
solitude, she discovers her true self and creates magnificent structures using
her powers. The rest of the movie features Anna, the younger princess, trying
to help her sister realize that to control her powers she needs to open up and
that it's all about love. During the journey, Anna meets a prince, a commoner
with a reindeer, a talking snowman who wants to live in summer, and a host of
other memorable characters, both good and bad. At the end of the movie, Anna
discovers that love for her family (sister) is far truer and more important
than any kind of romantic love.
When it boils down to it, Frozen is all about love between
siblings. The movie explores romantic love in the form of Anna and the prince
(and later Anna and reindeer man), and judges it wanting when compared to the
love shared between family.
Yesterday I had the displeasure of overhearing a colleague
from Puerto Rico have a conversation with a representative of a certain
private, for profit institution that will remain unnamed. My colleague was
applying to the university's Master of Education program. The representative
asked him a few demographic and background information questions along the
lines of "Do you have a B.A.?" and "Do you have professional experience? "
Once the first round of questions was completed, they forwarded his call to the
admissions office. There, they asked the same routine questions, with an
additional one on top: "where did you obtain your bachelor's degree?"
My colleague answered "The University of Puerto Rico." This is when
the representative at the other side of the line said "I'm sorry, we only
accept students with bachelor's degrees from accredited universities."
In
my previous post I promised that today I would address the issue of
pricing in the "PC vs Console" debate. Both sides make the claim that
their chosen platform is cheaper. Console gamers explain that a console
costs about $400 when new, far less when customers spend a year to
purchase, while PC gamers claim that PC gaming isn't as expensive as
people make it out to be. As you probably read in the pieces that
prompted these posts, Gordon and Klosowski make these arguments in their
pieces. A quick read through the comments sections will show that
players echo these arguments.
Now, PC Gaming enthusiasts, go ahead. As a chorus: "I can build a gaming PC that can run everything on ultra high for 400$!!!"
There's a bit of an argument going on (again) over at Lifehacker about the superiority of PCs over consoles and vice-versa. Making the case for the PC, Whitston
Gordon argues that they keyboard and mouse are "better" controllers
than any other, that PCs have a higher graphics potential, that PCs are
more flexible and upgradable, that PC games can be modded, and that the
PC cost issue is a myth. Making the case for consoles,
Thorin Klosowski argues that consoles work "out of the box" every time,
that consoles are more comfortable to play on, that controllers are
better than keyboard and mouse, and that consoles get exclusive games.
Both of their arguments are valid, and I'll explain why in a bit, but my
issue of contention is that these two articles seem to be working in a
vacuum. Rather than working as a true series where one responds to the
other, they come across as two distinct and isolated "here's my list"
pieces. And so, in the spirit of figuring out what is better, PC gaming
or console gaming, let us tackle each of the points presented in both
pieces.
I
was working on a post talking about the best games of this generation,
but it started sounding a bit predictable. It had the usual Bioware
stuff (Fallouts, Elder Scrolls), the Mass Effect series, the Bioshock
series, the Assassin's Creed series, Catherine, the GoW series (both of
them), Journey, Beyond: Two Souls, Demon/Dark Souls, Lost Odyssey, Ni No
Kuni, The Great Indies (Flower, Unfinished Swan, Papo y Yo, and so on)
etcetera etcetera etcetera. I got bored of explaining why each of these
games were must plays as it read like any other review that can be found
in any game review site.
Instead of doing that, prompted by a comment by a friend and this post,
I decided to do a Predictions for 2014 instead. I should note that
these predictions are not based on any numbers or observations or
analysis. I'll leave those for later and post them over at Gamasutra.
Instead, I'll just make some "for fun, wishful thinking" predictions. So
here we go:
After over 250 (or so) hours of work spread out over six weeks, I have finally completed Twitch Plays Pokemon: The First Novel. The novel chronicles the exploits of Red, a broken Pokemon trainer from Pallet Town. In the day he was to set off on a great Pokemon adventure, he began hearing voices. The voices, in turn, began controlling his body. Red found himself helpless to resist the voices, and so he set off on a different kind of journey than he had originally imagined.
It is based on Twitch Plays Pokemon (an instance of Pokemon where hundreds of thousands of people controlled a single character at the same time) and the mythology that the community created. Because of the haphazard controls, unlikely events began to take place in the game. These events were interpreted by the community as "a story on top of a story", sometimes leading to the creation of religious interpretations.
The novel takes the community mythology, interprets it, and gives readers a comprehensive chronicle (with some authorial liberties taken) of the Twitch Plays Pokemon mythology.
The cover of the novel (above) was created by Mallius as a stand alone image (I hope you're ok with my using your incredible art for the novel - if not please let me know and I will take it down promptly).
Twitch Plays Pokemon: The Novel is a non for profit fan-based parody meant as satire. Pokemon is a registered trademark of the Pokemon Company and of Nintendo, and Twitch is a registered trademark of Twitch Interactive. Please support their products by buying the latest Pokemon games and checking out twitch.tv.
It seems like people don’t very much like Beyond: Two Souls. With a Metacritic average score of 70 points, negative comments about the game abound, even on positive reviews. Over at Game Trailers, Ryan Stevens writes that the game makes players feel inconsequential. Over at IGN, Lucy O’Brien writes that ““playing” it a very confusing and unrewarding experience”, while Ludwing Kietzmann over at Joystiq
writes that the scenes aren’t tied to one another, that there is no
chemistry between the actors, and that the writing is goofy. Ben
Croshaw’s Zero Punctuation
review was specially harsh. Certainly, the game review community
largely agrees that Beyond: Two Souls is a “bad game”, with some even
arguing whether it’s a game at all. Although some like James Wright over
at Impulse Gamer
write that it’s one of the more memorable gaming experiences to date,
the consensus is that it’s bad. However, I am not only inclined to agree
with critics like James Wright in that, yes, Beyond: Two Souls is one
of the most memorable experiences in gaming, but I would also argue that
games like Beyond: Two Souls (along with the other Quantic Dreams games
and Spec Ops: The Line) and are spearheading a new era of videogame
narrative which shows a grown up side to this form of media.
I
have previously written about the Fallout games, specifically Fallout
New Vegas, about the interesting choices it forces players to make, and
about how players can become more self-aware about certain aspects of
their personalities through play. The ending of the expansion titled The
Divide had the potential of providing another such moment of
introspection, but it dropped the ball at the end.
Last year, on December 27th, former chess world champion Garry Kasparnov took to Twitter to make some comments about the eSports scene,
specifically in Seoul. He wrote that although Chess and Go are far less
popular than eSports, because of the volatile nature of videogame
fandom, Chess and Go will still be a popular game-sport 100 years from
now, while League of Legends tournaments will be relegated to at best a
footnote in the history of competitive gaming (broadly defined to
include tabletop games). He wrote that ” the strategic purity of chess
(or go, etc) is timeless for a reason. No storyline to tire of, no
expansion packs to buy!” Despite the backlash from the (video)gaming
community and my own inclinations to prefer playing videogames over
tabletop games, I am inclined to agree with Gary. I don’t mean to say
that eSports won’t be around in 100 years – in fact, as technology
improves and we become a more technologically immersed society I expect
eSports to only grow in popularity. However, I don’t see League of
Legends tournaments (or Starcraft 2 tournaments, or tournaments
revolving around any given videogame) to be around 100, 50, 20, or maybe
even 10 years from now.
Despite ridiculous claims about how teachers “make too much money” because the private sector pays teachers less than the public sector [perhaps private institutions should pay teachers a more dignified salary], because teacher make an “obscene” 35$ an hour, or because a group of science deniers decided that teachers aren’t smart enough,
the truth is that the level of respect given to teachers in the US, at
least in national conversations regarding education, is remarkably low.
They are constantly framed as leeches who work for the sake of “paid
vacation” (never mind the fact that they work on a salary and that by
the time summer comes along they have already earned their summer pay)
or because they want an “easy job” (last I checked, teaching was not an
easy thing to do).
Earlier today we went over the 32 bit Fantasies, and it came
to light that 2 out of the 3 titles were really solid, whereas one was rather
mediocre despite having the more complex (and unlikable) characters of the
three. This brings us to Final Fantasy X. This Final Fantasy has incredibly
interesting characters and a solid, fleshed out story featuring interesting
protagonists. Featuring a cool mentor character (who happens to be undead), a
wannabe sports star, a summoner torn between duty and life and love, and your
hero trying to live up to his father's legacy who is torn from his world and is
suddenly forced to decide between going back home or saving the world, the
story in FFX is one that focuses on human sacrifice, human nature, the struggle
of humanity vs nature, control by religion, and a duality of realities. The
battle system which allows active switching of characters is also solid. What
keeps this game from possibly being one of the greatest Final Fantasies of all
time is the 'feel' of the game. The game world feels more linear than the
previous fantasies, and in a full chronology of the design of the Final Fantasy
worlds this would be the game to point at which led to the disaster that was
the full linearity of Final Fantasy 13. However overall, FF X was solid, and in
my mind it does represent a leap in quality. While subjectively it is not the
best game we have covered so far (in my mind that would be a tie between 6 and
7), objectively it does improve over the others so much because of technology that
we can consider it the superior title.
Last week we went over the 2D fantasies and explained how
Final Fantasy 6 was not only the pinacle of storytelling in any 2D final
fantasy, but also probably one of the greatest stories ever created. However,
despite all its narrative glory and its multi-layered characters (a playboy
king with brother issues, a knight struggling with the loss of a kingdom and
the afterlife of his family, a commander torn between loyalty to her country
and doing what's right and who is also a love interest for a treasure hunter
who is dealing with the loss of a loved one and his desire for this commander),
Final Fantasy 6 is not the most important fantasy in the series. That title
goes to Final Fantasy 7.
A battle from FF 7
Released on 1997 for the Sony Playstation, Final Fantasy 7
brought the genre of role plaing games to the mainstream. The visuals were
excellent for the time, and the low-poly models still look cute to this day.
Although the characters were fairly one dimensional when compared to those of
FF6 (here we have a kid with multiple personality disorder, a villain with
mommy issues, a 'nice girl' flower girl, the stoic goth vampire, and the
"everything that's wrong with African American stereotypes"
character), the overall story itself lives up to the epic proportions set by FF
6. While the story in 6 featured a corrupt empire, freedom fighters, the end of
the world, suicide, and the quest for identity, the story in 7 features a more
straightforward yet equally important story of a corrupt organization
exploiting the planet for the sake of profits and a deranged maniac bent on
mass genocide. If anything, the overall story of 7 gives players a better
premise than 6 (although it does fall a bit short in the implementation). The mechanics
are fairly standard. Normal exploration, turn based battles, and a new system
for learning skills (as is the trend of FF, to introduce a new skills system
with almost every game) are fairly standard fare. What puts FF7 over the top is
the Golden Saucer and its minigames. Chocobo Racing and the snow boarding
minigames (among others) give the game a very high replay value. In the end, how does FF 7 stack up to 6? It depends. If you
value story and characters, 6 comes out on top. If you value overall concept
and replayability, 7 wins. In my mind, they are just about the same.
The original Final Fantasy was releasedon December 17th 1987, almost a year after
the first Dragon Warrior. Following the Dragon Warrior formula of swords and
sorcery fantasy but improving on the exploration and battle mechanics, Final
Fantasy quickly became a prominent name in the RPG genre. Featuring a
turn-based battle mechanic and a large and somewhat open world, the game tickled
the imagination of those fortunate enough to play it.
Since this first title, the franchise has undergone many
revisions. Many fans of the series, as does my friend, have commented on how
the series began an exponential rise in quality which peaked somewhere between
Final Fantasy VI or Final Fantasy VII, and since then the series has been in a
steady decline. I'm here to argue that this is not the case, that the history
of Final Fantasy and the quality of its (main, numbered) games is filled with
ups and downs, and that, if graphed, it would look more like a cordillera than
a lone peak.
Young adult literature is kind of a big deal. Steadily
rising in popularity since the mid 90s and reaching massive appeal with JK
Rowling's Harry Potter series, young adult fiction has become one of the best
selling genres (broadly defined) to date. Young adult fiction is often
characterized by exploring multiple themes in a single book, having memorable
characters, and using clever writing that makes for intriguing reading
experiences. Furthermore, the major themes explored in young adult fiction are
those specially relevant to people in their mid to late teens, but that are
also pertinent to people of all ages. These include issues of identity, sexual
discovery, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, family struggles, bullying,
friendship, and love - among others. But what does any of this have to do with
gaming? Well, I thought it might be interesting to ask ourselves if there is a
videogame equivalent to young adult fiction, so let's do that: can games be
young adult fiction?
Today I want to talk about the
Steambox. In the works for a while, a Steambox is somewhat of a cross between a
game console and a personal computer in the sense that it runs a proprietary
version of Linux and its main purpose is to play games purchased through Valve's
highly overrated online distribution platform known as Steam. Techradar,
Digital Trends, and other places have raved about these machines at length.
They are put together by third party companies and sold at prices ranging from
$500.00 to almost $2,00.00. I don't intend to make announcements, or even rank
the different boxes in any order. Instead, I want to raise a question: who,
exactly, is the target audience for these pieces of hardware?
I promised last week that I would talk a bit about people
who are new to gaming. They are, after all, the only logical potential
consumers of the Steamboxes which were the subject of last week's post. And so, if you, dear reader, are not a gamer
but think that videogames seem fun and are thinking about getting into gaming,
this post is for you. And for everyone else, feel free to flame in the comments
section.
So you want to get into gaming. A lot of other places will
recommend whatever their personal preference of latest console is. Instead, I
will give you the lowest cost gateway.
Hypermasculinity: Drake, Gerald Butler, Joel, and Sam
(Here's a bit of semi-satire for you all.) Representations of women in media and their
effects in society seems to be a cool thing to write about when discussing
popular culture. With academics writing lengthy articles, endless video
commentaries and Anita Sarkeseean's popular series Tropes vs. Women inVideogames
taking the recent spotlight, it seems everyone, including my colleagues over at Pop Trends Otaku K and Random V, are writing about representations of women in
media. I wanted to take a different approach to this topic and explore the
other gender. Let's call this a study on masculinism. Now, it would be easy
enough to take the Sarkeesian approach and say "males are
misrepresented" and leave it at that, but instead let us go a step further
and discuss how these representations of men affects both men and women.
I find myself again in a bit of a whimsical mood, so rather
than writing some sort of analysis of some science fiction series, I'm going to
write about how fiction pushes reality forward by encouraging real life
innovation based on fiction. On 1968, Arthur C. Clarke wrote in his novel 2001:
A Space Odyssey, bout the Newpad, a tablet device that, even in outer space,
had access to encyclopedic texts on almost any topic and could in milliseconds
give all the headlines of every news publication. Of course, the popular
"fictional iPad" that everyone is familiar with is the Star Trek:
Next Generation tablet. This TV show, featuring one Captain Picard, began its
run on 1988, a year before the first commercially accessible pad-type device,
the GRiD Pad, was released on 1989. All of this is, of course, the foundation
of the tablet or cellphone you are reading this from.
Though Reality TV dates back to the mid
40s, the version of it we know today began with MTV's The Real World (1992).
Then, in the early 2000s, Survivor made reality TV even more popular.
These two shows are the ones that set the template for contemporary reality TV.
On the one hand, we have the Kardashians show, Duck Dynasty, Jersey Shore, and
other shows similar in structure. These are the "follow a group of people
around and see what they do" side of reality TV. On the other side, we
have the competition reality TV; that is, we have your Master Chefs, American
Idols, and Bachelors. Whatever other sub-genres they fit into (extraordinary
people, dating, law enforcement, etc), almost every major reality show will
follow one of these two formats: see people do things in their everyday lives,
or see people compete. And it seems that
with every new iteration of a reality TV program, these shows are becoming more
invasive and extreme. Join me now in a
flight of fancy as we think about the future of reality TV and its ultimate
unraveling as a tool of control and intimidation, rather than one of mass
entertainment.
Yesterday, Square Enix failed to celebrate the 20th birthday
of what many consider to be the company's crowning achievement in videogame
storytelling - Final Fantasy VI. I made a note of this to some friends who are
game enthusiasts, and a lengthy discussion regarding the current state of JRPGs
followed. Comments such as "Square doesn't care for good games
anymore" and "Square has redeemed itself with Bravely Default"
were tossed around, just as much in jest as in seriousness (we all know it was
thanks to Nintendo that the masterpiece that is Bravely Default made it to US
shores), until I finally volunteered that whatever else was in Square's plate,
they needed to hire the team behind the now cancelled Chrono Resurrection and plan
for a release of the game. It was at this point where my dearest friend wrote
sarcastically "Sure... Because -yet another-
revamp/rework/re-release is exactly what we need."
My friend is clearly against
remakes and re-releases. I assented only to partial agreement with her. I
explained that while it was true that the last thing the JRPG fan community
needs is another re-release of an SNES game with minor modifications, the whole
scene would be revitalized by a full remake of some of the old classics. I
explained that Chrono Trigger tells one of the more interesting stories found
in videogame form, and that if it were re-released with updated assets it would
both pander to a demographic in their late 20s and early 30s - those who grew
up with these games on the SNES - and expose a younger generation to these
classics. I took it even further by saying that Final Fantasy 6, the title
which prompted this discussion, should receive a similar treatment. Should we
get yet another digital re-release of these games? I think not. I'm not even
sure that re-releasing the games with the same assets in HD would be a
positive. In fact, I am openly critical of that horrible Final Fantasy 6 iOS
"remake" that looks more like a cheaply made flash version of the
game. However, I noted, Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger remade in the
Crystal Engine (of Final Fantasy XIII fame) with a re-recorded soundtrack by
the Tokyo City Philharmonic Orchestra (who have proven themselves magnificent
in recreating Final Fantasy music) and a revamped, or perhaps even completely
new, battle system would hardly be the same as "just another re-release."
My friend replied with a good
point. She said:
"Sorry
not to get on your bandwagon, dear - I hate nostalgia. Rather than
looking to the classics, I'd keep working towards other stories and concepts.
I'll always welcome an HD remastery of an old game, but not -every- classic
needs it. Some are fine as they are. Instead, let's learn from them - from the
aspects that made them as timeless as they are - and apply that to new
adventures."
A second friend, let's call her
Chicken Wing (due to her passion for the food labeled as such) agreed. She
wrote that:
"I
agree. with the current Reboot/remake trend in movies and games, I'd much
rather see new, innovative stuff. It's been quite a while since I've sworn
loyalty to a franchise since yonder final fantasy games. It'd be nice to see
some new stuff that isn't
necessarily indie made but still innovative. I'll cite back to The World Ends
With You. It was a whole new property that was good and innovative. We need
more of it. That being said, I would like legit ports of the classics. I
have chrono trigger for the ds and I for one am happy that it exists. I'd
rather have a good port and new franchises over the same remade games any day."
I began crafting a masterful
reply, but it became too extensive (that is "pedantic" for "my rant
became too long"), so rather than engaging them in private conversation, I
thought I would bring the debate out into the public.
There are nearly countless commentators who say that book
versions are better than movie versions and movie versions are better than the
game versions. There is, it seems, a hierarchy of media supremacy that ranks
the oldest media as the "best". It has to do with faithfulness to the
source material, it seems. "The book is better". It's a common mantra
of criticism that along with "the book has more details", "the
book has better character development", and " the movie is not
faithful to the book" seem to form a mantra of adaptation commentary.
Instead of repeating it, let me instead posit that the value of adaptations
should not be measured on how accurately it follows the original, but on how
well it uses the native elements unique to its given form of media.
I should have posted yesterday, but suddenly a wild thing I had to do appeared, so here's my "Wednesday" post on Thursday.
This past weekend I had the pleasure of participating in the ESO beta. I
created two characters, liked one more than the other, faffed around,
did quests, killed monsters, and by and large enjoyed every minute of
it. Sadly, I didn't have time to explore the entirety of the ESO world,
but what I did explore left me wanting more. Below some comments about
my travels.
