The System is Down, The System is Down

As most my readers know my current system of choice is Sony's Playstation 3. Many of my readers also probably know that last week the Playstation Network was intruded upon by some rather unscrupulious characters. I've been meaning to write on this topic for a while but nothing has really come to mind. Yes it is a tragedy, no Sony didn't deserve it, yes the people that did do it should be shot in the kneecaps and thrown in prison, but that's aside the point.

What bummed me out last week wasn't hearing about how my credit card information may or may not be compromised, it was the reaction. Across every message board and comment page you would find the same ugly thing, fanboy's starting flame wars. This is one of the "being taken seriously as an industry" topics.

Right now video games are only taken seriously, in large, as a way to make money. There is not much we as "gamers" can do or say to defend that when tragedy strikes and the only way the majority of people know how to respond is by taking advantage of it to boast how superior they're system of choice is. It's just disheartening to see things like "Sony deserved it" and "all you retards that use PSN had this coming".

No matter where you go or what you do there will always be a concentration of bad apples. It just seems that there is a pretty ridiculously high concentration among our ranks. We need to stop and take stock of whats important; having fun playing video games, or arguing about why the system your mom bought you is superior to the system your friends mom bought them. We're not all grade-schoolers anymore people.

A lot of people are pegging the PSN crack on the fact that Sony sued Geohotz for cracking the PS3. Honestly, I was never on either side during this debate. I think that if you buy a machine you can do whatever you want with it. That said, cracking something is generally (read: almost always) used to pirate games and software. I think Sony has a right to protect their investment. Geohotz is not some robin hood, fighting for the people, and neither are the ones that broke into the PSN, but I think that painfully obvious now.

Substantially less funny IRL

The most terrifying part of all of this is that it could have been done in part or wholly by a "rogue element" of Anonymous. This group of hackers has their own agenda and claims to represent the voice of the people. I certainly would avoid doing anything to upset them, and that right there is the problem. This group leverages its unique power with fear to attempt to control or alter situations. How is that any different from the government or large corporations. It seems far to easy for a group like Anonymous to lose sight of its original goal.

If you were wondering, no I'm not going to jump ship from Sony. First and foremost the PSN being down didn't phase my gaming at all. My wife was able to play Castlevania: Lords of Shadow without issue and I was able to enjoy Folklore without error. I understand how the story is different for a great many people who enjoy playing online, but for me personally, it wasn't a big deal.

The people at fault here are those that would, without conflict of conscious, steal and attempt to sell the private information of millions. I don't care what system you own, that is wrong on a colossal level. Sony took a lot of precautions with the PSN, including encrypting customer data. Yes, you will find other websites on the internet that say otherwise, and honestly there is no way to prove it unless you work at Sony, but Sony has said as much and I'd like to believe them. The fact of the matter is that the people the Sony pissed off (unjustifiably) were very, very good at what they do.

Time For Wild Speculation!

The big N had a "leak" this week and it was a biggin. Provided all the information (from multiple sources, mind you) is true we will be getting a glimpse of a brand new Nintendo System at this years E3. This seems like a bit of a shock following so closely to the release of the 3DS, but with Nintendo's financial dominace the last few years this new platform has me curious.

Details are sketchy at best but preliminary reports indicate that this will indeed be a fully HD system, set to possibly even give the PS3 and 360 a run for their collective money... again. Also, while some reports are saying it will be backward compatible to the Wii, the primary focus of this console will be to grasp the "core demographic" once again. One leak has stated that the controller, as of now, features two analog sticks and a built in LED screen, which could possibly be a touch screen.

The code name for the project is "Cafe" which is odd, but hey, does anyone else remember the "Dolphin"? If I had to make a wild guess, which of course I will, I would say that "Cafe" is a good indicator that this system will be more focused on the social side. Nintendo has had issues with this before, the Wii was a bit of a disaster online, but the 3DS is certainly moving toward a social market and appeal. In addition, there will almost assuredly be 3DS interconnectivity.

Now that you have all the facts allow me to gush about how awesome this move is on Nintendo's part (please note I am in no way, shape, or form a Nintendo fanboy).

The Wii was a powerful force that took many by surprise. It was accessible but not to the point of alienating its core fans too much. While I do think the motion controls were gimmicky, it still managed to put out a fairly solid library of games, mountains of shovel ware excluded. Simply put, the Wii managed to put Nintendo in a very good position financially. You have to remember, Microsoft and Sony took a huge hit to the wallet the first several years of production while Nintendo was making a profit.

Now it is about 5 years later, the "average" cycle for a system, and Nintendo is ready to launch a new one... but where is the competition? Sony and Microsoft are both trying to stretch out the life of their respective systems for another 3, 4 or possibly even 5 years. That's why they introduced the Move and Kinect. That means Nintendo is going to be first to the market with a shiny new toy, and be the best on the market to beat.

Simply put, Nintendo is poised to dominate once again; core demographic, casual, social. Word is that Nintendo is already showing the build to third party developers, which could even mean a solid launch with good titles. Granted this is all just conjecture at this point. but the big N always seems to be a step ahead lately. There is a small, and I mean minute chance, that this system could go the way of the Dreamcast. There could be a gap in development between the established 360/PS3 crowd and developers might not be willing to take a chance on it. That said, however, this is a Nintendo console, so the majority of "must have" titles will be first party.

I don't know what will happen come 2012, but what I do know is that I am darn excited for E3 this year... maybe I'll try to get a press pass. I'm sure they wouldn't mind giving full press access to a nerd with a blog!

You Should Trust Me When I Say You Shouldn't Trust Me: A Meta-Review

A fair warning, this is probably the most pretentious thing I've ever written. That said, it is written out of love, not for the sake of hearing my pretentious opinions. Now then, on to today's topic: Fact vs Opinion.

I really like video games, but you probably already knew that. You probably also know that I like to talk about games. I will be absolutely honest with you; my opinion doesn't mean much. That's not to say it's worthless, it holds value to me and a handful of friends, but overall it's not very valuable to anyone who isn't me. Why bring this up? Well to be honest, and this is a big one, I feel that the game industry as a whole has lost a lot of journalistic integrity. That is not wholly the fault of the industry, far from it, it is simply the fact that there is no monitor for what is put on the Internet. From sites like IGN who present themselves as a professional source to Blistered Thumbs as the "indy scene" reviews and even previews are being presented in mind numbing fashion. That is to say, they are being presented with a heavy slant on personal opinion.

Opinions must be presented delicately when in a journalistic fashion because the people reading might not be able to separate fact from fiction. The unfortunate part being when someone mistakes opinion for fact and misses out on an experience because of it. It is all to common to see on message boards below a review "Yeh dis gai wus totaly rite, dis gaem lookd like it SUCKD". Granted, such jargon would usually be found under a video review, as the writer probably isn't to fond of reading. It is for this reason that when I review a game I never give it a final score or grade. There is simply no such thing as a universal grading system for games because Video Games are in themselves unique experiences and as such each person will have differences in approaching, playing, and reviewing them.

An Example: Let's say two people played Minecraft for about 20 minutes each. Your character begins life in a randomly generated world with nothing to his name but his fists and a penchant for punching trees. Player 1 immediately beings experimenting and discovers how to use the wood to build a work bench, tools and so on. Before long Player 1 has secured a cave home with a few torches to keep him safe. Player 2, on the other hand, spends the entire time harassing chickens and pigs until the sun sets, where upon he is killed by several zombies, a spider, and perhaps a Creeper for good measure. At this point Player 2 would likely comment how lame this game is and move on to something more stimulating to their own tastes. Meanwhile Player 1 is busy mining and building a new home and having a great time.

It is easy to see how these vastly different experiences will relate to vastly different reviews. Even to the point where the player's individual past experiences would make a difference. I know that my childhood spent playing with Legos and my love of the Harvest Moon franchise greatly contributed to my pleasant experience with Minecraft. Personally, I find that I disagree with the "professional reviewers" quite often. To the point where I have to wonder if some of them even have fun playing games. Again, this is all just opinion.

Just recently I saw a preview by Greg Miller, one of the foremost editors on IGN, declaring that he was not impressed with the current build of Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One. He didn't have a lot of fun playing it, fair enough, but that isn't true for everyone. Instead of just presenting the facts he is putting his own personal feelings into the mix. The same goes for Bennett the Sage from Blistered Thumbs. In a recent review he lamented how boring a game was and the tedium of "gaming now-a-days" (which by the way sparked that awesome rebuttal by Benzaie 'Gaming in the 90s Sucked'). As I said before I don't have a problem with opinion. What I have a problem with is personal opinion presented as fact.

Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame is just about the best reviewer I can think of. He makes it clear exactly what he is bias toward and against. Lets think about this though, Yahtzee will review a game, say, one that you really liked, and will tear it a new one. When asked why you didn't take his opinion it's easy to dismiss because hey, it's Yahtzee right? So why then would we defend the opinion of someone like Bennett the Sage, Angry Joe, or [insert IGN employee here]. What really grinds my gears is when a person presents opinion as fact, and it happens all the time. Every time a review professional uses relative terms like "boring" or my least favorite "repetitive" he is petitioning his subjective opinion under the guise of an objective review.

The fact of the matter is this simply isn't going to change, what needs to change is our perspective of reviews. It is, and will continue to be, simply one persons opinion, and it must be taken as that, just an opinion. The only person who will be able to tell you whether or not you will like a game is you.

Through our own individual experiences, prejudices and bias' we shape an entirely unique opinion. it would be a million to one shot to find a person to appropriately represent your opinion. You can find people with relatively similar opinions to latch onto, but relying on reviews, professional or otherwise, is a mistake. It's almost disheartening to think of how many people have passed on games they might have greatly enjoyed just because of a review.

Sorry for the rant, it's just my opinion.

TL;DR: Take reviews with a grain of salt

Only Slightly Delayed: A Review of Dante's Inferno

If you know me at all then I'm sure you are prepared for what I am about to say. Dante's Inferno is a good game.

Good, of course, is a relative term so allow me to explain further. First and foremost I suggest you watch this video by Benzaie (TGWTG), this is a topic I was planning on writing about and may do so in the future. Basically the game market today is very close to the game market of yesteryear. Back in the day (late 80's early 90's) popular titles were emulated, some were good, some were bad, most were just okay. This brings us to Dante's Inferno.

Dante's Inferno is a rip off of God of War in the same vein that Battlefield Bad Company is a rip off of Call of Duty. Both are good games and share very similar assets, that's all. For the sake of clarity I'll now disclose that I have not had much time with God of War, at the same time however, I am not ignorant to the features and game play. God of War, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, Dante's Inferno and more are all examples (some perhaps better than others) of the new breed of Hack and Slash. Quite frankly all these outrageous and over-the-top characters are what all the attempts at system "mascots" were back in the day. Nowadays though we need something more edgy so instead of a silly blue hedgehog or possum with a jet pack we get angry brooders or buxom seducers. Sometimes you just have a sword, sometimes sword and guns, sometimes...hair... and occasionally something sharp at the end of a chain. The important thing is not what you use to deliver the damage but how you do it. If the pain is delivered via combos, or more accurately, button mashing, then you are usually enjoying a modern hack and slash.

Dante's Inferno gives you plenty of visually appealing ways to deal with bad guys, but ultimately you can beat the entire game with two or maybe three combos. So if you are looking for depth and variety, feel free to avoid this one (go pick up Devil May Cry). If, however, you are like me and enjoy mashing buttons to a barrage of particle effects and blood, then read on. As I have said before the game feels very similar to another hacky-slashy-mad-at-the-afterlife-murderama, but what I'm trying to stress is that the similarities don't make it an inherently bad game. One slightly unique aspect of the combat is the ability to punish or absolve enemies, this gives you points to upgrade either holy or unholy powers, though to be honest not much is done with this.

On the character of Dante himself I find it almost funny how hard the development team worked to make him marketable. I mean, just look at his weapon, not only is it Death's scythe, but it's made of a spinal column. I think my friend Jeremy said it best: it's just so signature. That's the difficult part about our industry, you can't make something signature, it just happens. The dev team behind portal wasn't trying to make the most quotable game ever, it just happened because they wrote what they thought was funny. They had no intention of twitter becoming ground zero for cake related jokes because they were smart enough to know that you can't force that kind of stuff. If you do it usually just comes off as annoying or obnoxious. So yes, Dante was made to be a franchise character, but don't use that to judge against his game.

Our hero ladies and gentlemen

Based on the epic poem also known as the Divine Comedy it does take it's fair share of "poetic" (no pun intended) license with the source material. The story begins rather one note in that your soul goal (pun intended) is to rescue your beloved Beatrice. Once you get into the fire and flames though things change up a bit. Dante's Inferno obviously isn't as somber as the poem but the game still manages to delve into at least some serious and evocative territory. One scene in particular (SPOILER) finds Dante in the Suicide Wood were he is met with a surprise; his mother. Dante had believed all his life that his mom had died of fever, but here he is confronted with the undeniable fact that she took her own life.(END SPOILER) The scene was handled well and ended up being surprisingly powerful.

The story continues to grow and as you get deeper into Hell you learn more about Dante himself. The journey is always about saving Beatrice but the entire time you are forced through some very painful self reflection. Let's just say Dante hasn't had a life well lived. The story is told in three types; in game cut-scenes, pre-rendered cut-scenes, and animated shorts. The variety is great and each (particularly the animated) lends well to the over all atmosphere.

an example of the animated cut scenes

While it certainly won't win any awards for originality Dante's Inferno does have some awe inspiring art and architecture. The levels of Hell are all beautifully and disturbingly rendered. I've heard the jaded gamer cry out about how this game was just churned out of the industrial machine to appease "that" demographic, but honestly it is more than that. Many of the games stages are down right jaw dropping, not in pixel power and bump mapping mind you, but in concept and design.

The only major gripe I had with the game was eight completely out of left field "challenge circles" right before the last layer of Hell. This feels random and almost like a cop out, as though they couldn't think of anything for the semi circles of liars. It was lame and out of place. Also, the combat often occurs in the same way, you enter an area, the entrance and exit are cut off, fight wave after wave, repeat. I know this bothers a lot of people, not me, but it's a pet peeve of some. That aside, the boss battles are suitably epic and the levels are designed well.

One thing I will give the game kudos for is its use of tangential learning. It gives you the opportunity to learn more about the source material as well as the time period and people from it. There is some really fascinating information in this game. In a way it's almost brilliant, combing a poetic masterpiece with a hack and slash game to deliver something with enriching source material to a demographic that would otherwise never think of exploring it. I wonder where they got that formula... Obviously this game is no where near as important as the poem on which it is based, and yes the concept itself of making a game out of the Divine Comedy is a bit silly, but in the end we are left with a good not great action heavy game with some striking and powerful imagery and some very heartfelt moments. Due mostly to the character design it walks the line of parody, but chooses to play it straight. I honestly can't say whether that was a good idea or not, but I can say this game is a fun distraction at the least. Dante's Inferno the game isn't as monumental as the literary work, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

So yes, I managed to make it through this entire game without once likening it to "going through Hell" (har har har). No Hell would be more akin to playing Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, but I'll get to that later.

Things I Should Like, But Don't: Borderlands

A while back I reviewed Borderlands, calling it a fun and addictive but flawed game. I liked it, so why has it made the list of Things I Should Like, But Don't, you ask? Well it has to do with an interview of Gearbox's Creative Director Mikey Neumann. The interview was an open Q&A about "Anthony Saves The World" (a fun series by the way, starring Neumann and Anthony Burch of 'Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin' fame). Durring this Q&A a fan asked Mikey about his public resume (available on the Gearbox site), saying that he listed Chrono Trigger as his favorite game. The fan then asked if he had any intention of making an RPG. Mr. Neumann responded flippantly that he already had "umm little game called borderlands, if you've heard of it" the answer was rude, arrogant, and wrong... well kind of.

I respectfully disagree that Borderlands is an RPG. It has certain RPG elements, but having loot and leveling up does not make your game an RPG, certainly not one you can compare to Chrono Trigger. Simply put, I do not enjoy Borderlands as an RPG because represented as such, it is a complete failure. What if I tried to sell you Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands as an RPG. You certainly play a role and you even level up abilities. The game is fun, but one would not buy and be satisfied with PoP as an RPG. I enjoyed Borderlands as a First Person Shooter, not as an Role Playing Game, but if the creator insists it is as such then I have to say; I don't like it.

David Jaffe Doesn't Like Me

It's true, David Jaffe (creator of Twisted Metal and God of War) Does not like me. Why, you ask? Because I have the gall to claim that video games are art. My current frustration comes from a lengthy blog written by Jaffe as he procrastinated on Twisted Metal. To summarize he said that games are not art, and saying that they are art is damaging to the industry. Specifically he targets artistic games as follows:

"Shining the powerful media light on these sorts of games - that tell you they are important but are not really all that engaging/interesting play wise and are nowhere near as emotional or meaningful as most B rate, night time dramas on network television - means that the media light and publisher cash gets taken away from traditional games," he explained. "And because of this, traditional games are disrespected, devalued, and shown a lack of appreciation, understanding, and love for the very things the medium does so well, so effortlessly, and so successfully."

Look closely at what he said, first he undermines any emotional resonance that a game carries (and I'm not talking about nostalgia). Next he goes on to explain that these artsy games are taking money out of the pockets of traditional or "pure games" in his words. Then he claims traditional games are disrespected and devalued... I'm not sure what rock he's been living under but I believe I saw just last week that Black Ops was the best selling game in US history, the AAA market is still churning out hits on a regular basis, and those other studios producing "traditional" games are in no worse a position than they were last generation.

I just can't believe he would claim artistic games are devaluing traditional games. If anything AAA hits like his own God of War are taking funds away from other devs because that big name IP is a sure thing. If you're so worried about your "traditional" games not getting funding then how about giving the publishers no choice but to push that. Of course, that would mean dropping your two most popular IP's.

The final nail in Jaffe's coffin was this:

"To be going on and on about how games need to be/can be/should be/already are 'more' than 'just games' to me disrespects the joy and happiness traditional games bring to the world."

Striving to be more is disrespectful? I'm sorry, when I was young I wanted to be an paleontologist, then an archeologist, later a game designer. As I grew and matured the things I wanted to do and achieve changed. So is it disrespectful to my childhood that I did not stay on the same path and become a paleontologist. No, of course not, the very idea is absurd and immature.

By saying that games are not art Jaffe is showing arrogance of overwhelming proportions. He is not speaking for just himself, he is speaking for everyone who has ever played a game. I bet you didn't know that David Jaffe was the judge of every experience you've had with games. Coming from someone this well known to the industry that really hurts. Recall if you will when Roger Ebert said games are not art. This was coming from a man who had never even touched a game. That is why it is such an insult that something like this would come from not only an avid gamer, but a game designer.

If we give Jaffe's fears a reasonable basis it is that all the attention on artsy games is going to make developers think they have arrived as artists. I have news for you, they already have, yet developers still strive to create new artistic visions. Jaffe's fears of the industry become stagnant are baseless. Its just ignorant. All genres evolve. Since Jaffe was so keen on comparing games to movies lets stick with that. I'm sick of naysayers predicting the end of gaming as we know it. Do you honestly think Hollywood is going to stop making blockbuster movies because indie films are getting more popular. No, they will not, because blockbusters make a lot of money. The same goes for games.

Another argument Jaffe has is that the medium is to young to have true artistic value. Age shouldn't be the judge of art. Gilgamesh is just about the earliest example of a narrative, is that not a work of literary art? How about Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, a silent film and cinematic masterpiece. If one were to look at Missile Command in a different light, even a game as simple as that becomes incredibly powerful.

Traditional games aren't going anywhere and it's downright stupid to project your fears onto a certain group of developers. Also, on that note, to Peter Vesterbacka: No, the mobile market is not going to destroy consoles. The portable market didn't do it, an increase of available systems didn't do it, and your microgames sure as hell aren't going to take down the AAA market. There are too many big businesses invested in this industry for it to just vanish. It seems like gaming more than anything is constantly fighting rumors of its demise. Just calm down people, there is room enough for everyone; Big games, independent, artistic, portable, mobile. Diversity is not a bad thing.

One last bone I have to pick is with Jaffe picking on Flower. The opening of his article says "Just because there's wind blowing and a minimal soundtrack and vast open spaces to explore and a slow pace doesn't mean that the game your playing is art." That is a clear shot at ThatGameCompany (creators of Flow, Flower, and the upcoming Journey).
While he is correct in saying those elements don't make a game artistic I have to disagree that Flower isn't anything but beautiful and moving. The demo alone left me speechless. The people at ThatGameCompany are trying to do something different and because he thinks it's not fun suddenly it's not art. No sir, you are certainly not the gauge of what is artistic in this medium. Jaffe's games are fun (though I'll admit God of War has never held my interest) but his games are also just noise. I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at him, it's quite clear he thinks the games he makes are just a fun diversion, not art.

So Mr. Jaffe, if all you think you are doing is making toys for people to play with, then by all means continue to do so. But do not think that gives you the right to stifle others' artistic vision.

Things I Should Like, But Don't

I've been on a bit of a hiatus lately. While I've found myself with more free time technically I haven't been able to write anything in quite some time. Effective immediately that will change. I'm going to get back into the swing of writing about every other day, whether it's an update on the game I'm playing or a full article. Today I'm debuting a new feature I like to call "Things I Should Like, But Don't". I'll admit I got the idea from my good friend Chad.

Here I will put on display my prejudices. These will be things that Nerd, Pop, and Retro culture all say I should enjoy, but alas, I find my interest waining at best. Please take note, this is not an exercise in trolling, it's just my opinion. I can see why people are fascinated by the things I'm going to address, just know I'm not that person. This will include entries from Gaming, Movies, Music, and anything else I can think of. So without further ado I give you the first on my list (which is in no particular order)

Things I Should Like, But Don't: Rocky Horror Picture Show

I'm going to be brief with this one. I love the music, I think it's fun and catchy, but the movie itself just doesn't interest me at all. It's quirky in all the wrong places and there is nothing truly special about it. It panders by trying to be overtly sexual and risqué but just comes off as immature. I think Tim Curry is great, in fact he's the main reason I ended up seeing this the first time. Keep in mind I don't hate RHPS I just can't seem to have a very good time watching this movie. I won't deny that it has a cult like following, but much like Fight Club, I don't think it deserves it.