Video Game Villains

I've always had a love for the villains in video games. Not particularly that I root for them to win, but there's something that draws me to them.

For my final project, I'd like to explore this and find out why the villains are getting almost as much attention as the heroes. I think part of it is due to the way characters are developed. I plan to choose a handful of Final Fantasy villains to discuss, ranging from Kefka to Sephiroth. I'd like to look at what makes them tick, as well as what change has taken place to give us reason to see them as more than an obstacle to be overcome.

Sex in Videogames, or Lack Thereof

What’s the difference between sexuality in video games and sexuality in real life? Not very much. What I mean is that although you’ll see more ass on screen than during the Democratic Convention, the whole topic is still a big social phobia in general. Video games mirror our own social fears of exposing younger people to any form of sex or sexual themes, mostly in lieu of violence that is somehow much more acceptable.
It’s rather confusing that nearly every strong female protagonist (or antagonist, really) is measured not only by the power of her arsenal, but her comparative lack of clothing. The best example of this is the Dead or Alive series of fighters. Every female fighter in the game is cartoonishly top heavy, and even moreso the game gives players the option of turning the bounce function off or on. While off, the fighters fight as normal, focusing mostly on the technique and strategy of defeating the opponent. While on, the women’s breasts bounce with a physics engine of their own, leading most players to wonder if it’s designed to be an innovative feature, or a way of playing dirty with distractions.
Oddly enough, these same characters were redrawn as something along the lines of Sports Illustrated’s swim suit edition and parents were up in arms about the videogame magazine showing borderline pornography. What’s the difference between the game and the magazine versions? The images were designed to be like photographs with a few of the women in mildly suggestive poses, more like pin-up girls than actual pornographic material like Playboy. Alternatively, I doubt the parents were exposed to the game before or after buying it. Parents can easily enough pick up a magazine and flip through the pages than figure out how to not only start the console but to actually have the motivation to play the game that their child is so drawn into.
The game makes a joke out of playing with the programming. It’s comical how the woman can be relatively still and their breasts are still bouncing like they were in a zero gravity chamber. But the people who play the games and are old enough to know what true pornography is probably looked at the magazine pictures as an interesting piece of art, since the art was very well developed and the pictures were actually really pretty to look at.
Other games, however, take the idea of sex and expand on it as part of the game’s mechanics. In this day and age, no retail level videogame store will sell Adult Only titles. Adult Only can refer to either excessive sexual themes or extreme depictions of violence. Publishers will bend over backwards to push the limits of what the ratings board will let them get away with without sliding into that Adults Only category. Manhunt 2 was originally intended to be much more visceral in how it portrayed the murders in the game. The violence level was pushed to the breaking point in both its brutality as well as its realism. The ratings board recommended that they make changes in order to drop their rating from Adults Only, to Mature with a warning label.
Rockstar had this same dilemma when they were developing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Luckily, they had the foresight to disable the coding for the notorious Hot Coffee mini-game before they released it as a Mature title. The game had garnered enough mutterings from conservatives due in part from the violence, but mainly because you get the option to date a few women throughout the story. If the date ends favorably, CJ is invited into their house for a cup of coffee along with suggestive invitations from the women.
Consequently, some kid was playing around in the coding of one of the versions and found this disabled mini-game coding. Through contorting oneself and jumping through enough hoops, he’d developed a way to unlock this mini-game, which allows the player to play an interactive mini-game of CJ having sex with his given girlfriend at the time. Suddenly there was a massive backlash about how Rockstar was at fault for creating such a game and going so far as to leave this length of coding (which was never meant to be accessed by the general public) available for the customers. Parents went into hysterics about the horrible game and how it was even worse now than before because it was somehow finally accepted that killing cops was part of a game, but sex is completely over the line.
How this mini-game is somehow unacceptable while few people whined about the ability for the player to pick up a prostitute off the street, take her to a secluded area to have sex with her – which includes the car shaking, the controller vibrating, simulated moans and groans – will forever escape me. On top of it, the more heartless of players finish the deed, climb out of the car, and proceed to murder the woman in order to get your money back, in addition to the complimentary health increase. This part is relatively acceptable, but the mini-game of two consenting adults performing an entirely natural and arguably healthy part of a relationship is so horrible that the entire company should be boycotted.
Yet a few years later, we get a new Grand Theft Auto clone in the way of Saints Row 2 for both the Xbox360 and the PlayStation 3. Focused more on violence and the gang lifestyle, the game does have a mini-game where at certain locations, you can take a prostitute into a truck stop bathroom to have sex with her. The goal behind this is to use both analog sticks to find the ‘sweet spot’ and pleasure the woman. There’s a number of levels and the higher the level you get to, the more of a reward you get.
Incidentally, my friend found this mini-game while standing on an apartment building and shooting the cops that came to find him. At a certain point, after about a dozen cop cars were immobilized in the parking lot, he grew bored and ventured down to figure out what to do next. The entire police force was stuck behind a building just waiting for him to come around which sent him running towards the truck stop. He had three wanted levels and decided to kill some time with this nice new mini-game. By the time the novelty wore off, the police had forgotten about him and he was free to do whatever he wanted.
I have to wonder if the whole thing revolves around our social idea of sex being acceptable as long as it’s hidden away. In the prostitute missions of GTA, or the bathroom game in Saints Row 2, nothing is shown aside from either a (rocking) parked car, or a bathroom door. True, some people had a problem with the fact that that was in a game, but for the most part people ignored it. The Hot Coffee scene, which was never intended to be played by the public, caused an uproar in the media and across the internet that some people bought the game before the company could release versions without the coding in the files.
I’m not advocating full blown sex simulators as freely accessible, but why is it that sexuality is so shunned in videogames almost more so than real life? We can see sexual themes, women dressed in nearly her underwear as a heroine, sexual innuendo in voiceovers and dialogue. It seems silly to me that people are so caught up on accepting sexual images without admitting the sexuality part behind it. I don’t know if the comfort level will change in terms of videogames or in terms of social acceptance first, but I do hope that we can come to some sort of cautious understanding that one cannot stand without the other. Just because it’s not plastered across a computer monitor or television set, doesn’t mean that it’s completely gone. It merely means that programmers will get more creative about how to introduce these themes to the public.

Off Topic Rant

Why is it that it feels like I always have to choose between 'quality' projects and playing video games? Sure there are times where the projects can be put on hold and it's not that big of an issue, but it's entirely frustrating to have to choose between doing something that others deem as useful and playing a video game to relax to.

Case in point, I constantly have to keep thinking about assignments that are due anywhere from 24 hours to a few weeks away. If I end up playing a game, I still feel the stigma that I'm somehow wasting time. How is this different from hobbies that other people have like scrapbooking or reading novels? Granted, I miss reading novels and really should get back to them before my own writing starts suffering, but are videogames that much lower on the totem pole of useful hobbies?

I'm working on my hand eye coordination, or my reflex time in FPS. Maybe I'm working on character development in more of the open ended games and have a vested interest in how that turns out.

Is it because we get into that 'one more level' mentality? When we should be doing something else and something more pertinent, we always fall into that mode of thinking that one more level wont' hurt. The problem is that it turns into hours and one level turns into fifteen by the time we realize that laundry should've been put in the dryer three hours ago and the cat still hasn't been fed.

I'm not defending the people who get so lost in the game that they can't function on a normal basis of going to work and having some sort of actual life. What I'm defending is a system where videogames are held to the same quality as working on a classic car, or scrapbooking the fifth birthday party of the month that your kid went to. Where's the acknowledgement that finishing a game is something to be proud of and not something to be ashamed of while talking with family members?

Racism in RE5

The article http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/16/how-my-opinion-about-race-in-resident-evil-5-has-changed/ bothered me a little bit. I wasn't bothered because it's another discussion about how racism is portrayed or how the author felt unnerved with the game's demo.

What bothered me is that her solution to why she felt better about the actual full scale game was that it was somehow less realistic. The game is set in Africa, which means that most of the zombies will be African. The problem seems to be that Africans are black and therefore killing them is a racist motive somehow. The focus seems to overshadow the setting of the game.

Games have specific settings, and gamers get upset if the setting isn't true to the reality, some people get frustrated about the situation. If we're playing a hunting game and it's set in Alaska, most people would roll their eyes if you were suddenly hunting a crocodile. If the game is set in a specific place on the globe, then how much would we expect the vast majority of the inhabitants to be of African descent?

Do we get annoyed because the game is focused on killing the natives, or do we get annoyed if the realities of the game don't link up with what we know of the real Africa? Nobody seems to be offended if the zombies are white and it's set in midwest America. As long as the zombies and enemies are white guys, nobody seems bothered. The minute the nationality changes, we start talking about race and racism.

I totally understand the background for making an argument for racism for a number of cultures and minorities. However, sometimes it's not racially motivated, it's necessary to keep true to the game.

Business Casual

I really like the idea of a casual game for hardcore gamers. The problem, as far as I can see, is that if a game is considered 'casual', most hardcore gamers aren't going to bother with it for a variety of reasons. One of which is that a casual game tends to be too simple and almost sissy to a lot of people.

One good example is the entire Wii console. A good portion of the console is geared towards these casual games that can be played for a few minutes at a time. Whether it is a game like Raving Rabbids or Wii Fit, they're geared towards the people who prefer to play shorter pieces of games over a period of time. You can play Raving Rabbids for hours to unlock all sorts of accessories and the different mini games, or you can play a mini game or two with a friend to have a giggle.

And what's happened with the Wii? It's become a bit of a laughing stock among 'hardcore' gamers. The announcement that the Grand Theft Auto series would make its move to release a title was met with snickers and something of an "aw, look at the Wii trying to be a real console".

The closest we have to such games are those on the handhelds. They're designed for quick play - not so much because it's an acceptable form, but because the nature of handhelds are to be used when you have spare time while you're out someplace.

How do we respond to the idea of a casual game, without referring to it as some kind of sissy attempt at a game?

All Wet

Perfectly Adequate


These two words are what I use to describe the new game, Wet, for the Xbox 360. It’s a game that makes enough attempts at being new and novel to be fun to play, but it’s not really a huge step up from other games of its style. The game mirrors a combination of the old Kung Fu movies and games like God of War. What I mean by that is that the fighting style and feel of the game are very much like the cheesy old movies, partly because it’s set up like a movie. At chapter breaks, they advertise for different concessions and movies. When you get to a point that breaks the flow (like a game over) the scene comes apart as if a reel of film was being destroyed or broken in some fashion.
The story of Wet revolves around Rubi, who is an Americanized version of a martial arts master mixed with a cowboy sense of purpose and dress. She’s met by a businessman who shows up on her Texas ‘home’ and asks her to retrieve his son from the underbelly of Hong Kong. It’s shallow enough to keep out of the way of the action, but vaguely intriguing enough to keep the player moving through each level to find out another small piece of the puzzle.
The action varies between novel and overly frustrating. Rubi’s expertise is in shooting while doing acrobatic maneuvers. If she leaps into the air, runs along a wall, or slides across the floor, a touch to the right trigger initiates a slow motion mode where her firing rate increases and the player can take partial control over her aiming. A circle on a given enemy reveals where her primary target is at and where one of her revolvers will be aimed, while the player has control of the secondary fire in order to help take out two enemies at once. The slow motion keeps the action flowing and gives the player a sense of something extraordinary as Rubi takes far less damage in this mode while dealing a great deal more.
The problem with the mode, though, is that your regular running and gunning attacks are pointless. Her rate of fire is horribly slow and difficult to aim while running, which means that most of your time will be spent making pointless leaps and slides just to gain the effect of actually damaging enemies. The only useful attack outside of the slow motion is the sword attack, which actually does more damage than the guns. Most early enemies fall with one or two swipes from the sword, where the guns can take five or six shots per enemy to drop them.
In addition, her jumping ability is as accurate as my ability to balance a check book – which means it’s basically a hit and miss attempt. No matter where she tries to jump, whether it’s up a six inch step or over a four foot gap, she makes a dramatic flailing leap of faith. Unfortunately, Rubi also lacks enough common sense to grab a ledge while the player is still focused on shooting. More than once, I attempted to leap across a gap and gun the men down before catching the ledge. Sad to say, she failed go grab hold of the ledge, and instead she did a nose dive into the ground. Normally this would be a little damage if she landed on her feet and she’d get right back up and keep going. If she lands face first while still shooting at the wall she failed to grab, she dies and you’re left to start the section over.
Another area where the game breaks a good flow of action is with quick time events. There’s little warning when a cut scene will suddenly prompt you to hit a button. If you miss the prompt because you thought that you could grab a quick drink, you get to start over. They’re not horribly difficult, but the fact that they forget to give you some warning, tends to throw off the flow of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Despite the problems, the game is still not horrible by any means. The graphics are nice enough but don’t quite meet what the machine is capable of. The shooting and action is functional in that enemies fall if you hit them and the more dramatic you make your motions, the more bonus points you get to power up Rubi and her weapons. The game is linear, usually herding the player through a series of alleys, underground pathways, and the occasional open room of sorts with most of the exits blocked off.
The other novel idea is what they call Wet mode, being the namesake of the game. While traveling through the story, Rubi will occasionally make an attack on an enemy and be covered in blood. The first time this happens, she shoots an oncoming enemy in the head at point blank range, splattering her face red. She gets a borderline insane grin on her face and as play resumes, the entire world is colored in black, white, and shades of red. Killed enemies leave a hanging cloud of blood material, jumping off points are colored in a bright pinkish color, directing the player where to go next. She gains significant speed and agility while in this mode, which makes killing enemies simple and interestingly fun.
Is this enough to make the game really worthwhile? Not entirely. It’s novel and fun, but it’s a rather standard run and gun, get from point A to point B game. There’s not really a lot of exploration to be had and the few hidden collectables aren’t really challenging to find. It is fun for a while to make leaps and slides to kill enemies while tumbling through the air. It feeds on our desires for the old west style cowboy justice, and the Asian martial arts style of fighting. As I said in the beginning, this game is perfectly adequate for what it was made for. However, for the attempts at doing new novel things with it, they aren’t always helpful improvements.
I would highly recommend people who enjoy these styles of games to rent it and try it for a while. It has its merits, and its unique points. The trouble is that the game feels very shallow and lacking if people are looking for more in the way of stronger storyline and cohesive fighting style.

New Journalism?

Is this new discourse really new? or is it an extension and formal presentation of discussions going on between people? I tend to think that there's always been varied levels of discussion between people. The conversations I have with my best friend about videogames and the conversations I have with my boyfriend's gamer friends are totally different. It's not so much because the level of maturity isn't there, but there's a difference in how they approach games.
For instance, there's not much I have to explain to Jeff about videogames (Jeff being the boyfriend's friend). He's one of those people that you hand the controller to when you get frustrated and stuck. Unfortunately he's also the same person who will tell you how much you suck for not being able to get past it. Many times, our answer to any problem goes something like "Well, Jeff can do it" "well yea, he's Jeff".
When talking about games, Jeff and I can start from a better understanding and skip a lot of the overview about what's happening and the mechanics of it all. I don't have to explain Bowser's Inside Story, because he's already played it and beat it. So we jump right into the problems and merits of a particular game with an advanced vocabulary about what we think and how the other one is wrong.
On the other hand, my best friend doesn't play much. I helped her beat Scooby Doo once for the PS2 by finding a jump point she hadn't seen in her months of playing it. Whenever we try to talk about other games, the discussion is completely different because she probably hasn't played it, and if she has it hasn't been at the same level. She's not worried about graphics and sometimes worried about the lag between when you ask the character to jump and when he actually does jump. Because of this, our discussions seem to start at a much lower level and revolve around the "I like it" or "I don't like it" discussions.
Does that mean all this new journalism about videogames is 'new'? No, it just means that people are finding out that there are others out there who can start at that later stage in the discussion. If they refer to Sephiroth, then there are a lot of other gamers out there who will know exactly what they mean and they can skip all the dumbing down of the writing.

Are All Videogames Art?

Videogames are, at least mostly, considered a type of art. The question is whether all videogames are considered art or is there a distinction between them? Is it a matter of some games being art and others not, or is it merely the difference between some being better examples of art? I tend to agree with the latter. In general, they all have artistic qualities to them, whether it’s in the story or in the graphics; However, some are better examples than others. Just because a horse may not be fully healthy and may have deformities, it doesn’t mean that the horse is not a horse. What it means is that it’s not the best example of a horse.
There are some games with evident artistic intent. Games like Okami, where the art is done almost like a painting come to life, especially when the Japanese writing brush is used to alter the landscape, itself. The use of color and the overall feel draw the player in and being able to interact with the pictures on the screen reinforce this idea of playing a piece of art. Everything from the backgrounds, characters, and story were taken into account to give a beautiful and engaging piece of artistic presentation.
However, there are some games that choose between story or graphics and decide to focus on one particular part more than another. Would that make a game less artistic? Perhaps in some areas. In games that focus more on storytelling than on necessarily pretty pictures, they remind me more of novels. Some books contain pictures scattered through them and although the pictures are rarely very that awe inspiring, the focus is on the novel’s story. A lot of RPGs fall into this category, focusing more on storytelling than showing the story. For instance, recently I replayed Final Fantasy 8 for the PlayStation. At the time, the graphics were the best they could be on the technology, but replaying them nearly ten years later made it look quite poor compared to what we’re now used to. But that lack of graphics quality didn’t detract from the enjoyment of following the story laid out. The storyline was a piece of art, and that is what endures through the years and fond memories.
In contrast, there are some games that rely quite heavily on the graphics engine rather than any extensive storytelling. The example that comes to mind is the Metroid series. The newer games have been created with a lot of detail. Just some of the detail revolves around the weather effects on the visor, which can obstruct your vision as if you’re walking through fog, or water droplets obscuring your vision. However much detail was put into the graphics, there really wasn’t a lot of extensive improvements on the basic premise behind the series: get off the planet before it blows up. There’s more plot details that keep the player engaged enough to keep continuing, but the graphics is what draws the player into the environment. Once the player is engrossed in the environment and the feel for the particular level, there needs little motivation other than to get from point A to point B in order to defeat the boss.
At the bottom rung of the ladder lays a great many games that were made for the sole purpose of making money from the pure sale of the game. Granted almost all games are made with the purpose of making money, but some are put together with little thought to the artistic quality of it. More of the notorious games like this rely on marketing through the name association of the particular game, such as Batman (sans Arkham Asylum), Superman, MegaMan, and supposed sequels of older games. The graphics can be ok, but many times they’re glitchy like characters walking through walls or getting stuck within the structures. The storylines are often uninspired and are either shallow enough to be unable to support the action, or are overly complicated to the point that the player loses connection with the entire game. Does that mean that these games are not Art? Not necessarily, it just may mean it’s not very good art. It’s like a caricature: it’s made with some artistic intention but you’ll probably never expect it to be a masterpiece.
It’s not so much whether a game is art or not, but what kind of art. Just like the artist, the piece of work is often made with specific intentions and the decision is whether those intentions were successful or not. Some games will be amazing pictures of storylines or beautiful worlds we could hope to visit. It’s a lot like walking into a book store. You can find a lot of very good books but only a few are classics and a vast number of them are barely coherent. Much of art is the intention of what the artist wants to be perceived and enjoyed of any particular piece. The last little bit is the success of those intentions and how well they convey what was originally meant to be. Some are good, some are bad, but all are art.

What Is Wrong With Us?

Although I haven't had specific experience with a real royal jerk online directed at me, I do see a lot of online bullying - especially with games. Sometimes I think that people feel empowered to do whatever they want because they're anonymous. Like the old men going online to try and meet some thirteen year old little kid: it probably wouldn't be as bold in real life, but it would probably still happen in some capacity.

People who act like assholes online are usually to some degree the same in real life. I'm talking about the passive aggressive people who will make snyde comments about someone, or tease them behind their back. Online just makes it easier to do directly to a person while still having that 'behind the back' feel. They're still doing the teasing and the belittling, but they're doing it directly at the person. However, they're still hidden from view and from reprimand.

But is there a difference between this and the typical bashing we do while playing together? For instance, while playing with my boyfriend and his friends, there's a lot of trash talk and teasing. The difference is that we have clear knowledge of where the limits are and even if something wrong is said, we understand it's not meant to be harsh. I think some of this happens online as well, but we don't have the social context to take it the same way.

Does that mean we should accept treatment like in the article "Bow Nigger"? No. What I mean is that there are the absolute assholes that are doing it to be intently harming to another person. But there are some who are trying to take the same friendly-kidding trash talk that we do in real life and using it on online games. Maybe it's a combination of having more respect for people and being able to take a (possibly mishandled) comment here and there.

Just remember -
1- There's no social context online for when you're kidding.
2- Racial slurs or group stereotype talk is not ok.
3- Guys hate being beaten by girls - especially if it's pointed out in public.

I Have Chortles!

When I picked up the game Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story, it was very much like the last few installments put out by Nintendo. The graphics are similar to other Mario games, with the company opting to keep the cartoonish design. The animations are still fairly limited, considering it’s on the DS, but in keeping with previous titles it serves to keep the fan base feeling comfortable with the way the animations are done. There are no cut scenes with the characters looking realistic. All of the computer based storyline moments are kept within the same graphics to keep the game fully in tact and seamless.

The story itself is rather interesting which sets up a dual control scheme. We’re introduced to Fawful, the new enemy, who speaks amusingly bad English and manages to get the one-up on everyone – pun intended. He disguises himself and feeds Bowser a mushroom that compels him to vacuum up everyone within Peach’s castle, including everyone in it. Most of the game is played out with Bowser in the outside world while Mario and Luigi are working from within Bowser’s body to achieve a variety of tasks.

Bowser returns as his boastful, bullying self. One of the best parts of this game is that he actually takes center stage of the game, allowing the player to spend a decent amount of time as him. Peach, Mario, and Luigi are all there as expected. Peach, this time, is captured by our new villain, Fawful. He speaks in a broken sort of English, uttering phrases like “I have chortles” which basically means ‘I laugh at you’. He’s charming enough to share the spotlight, and even more so that he’s the villain to our beloved Bowser.

For the most part, the gameplay itself is reminiscent of the Gamecube versions. It’s an RPG feel with turn based combat but much like Thousand Year Door, where the player takes an active role within those turns. Play alternates between Bowser and the Brothers. When playing as Bowser those turns are controlled with the X and Y buttons. While playing as the Brothers, A and B are used for each character (Mario is A, Luigi is B). Both defending and attacking use both buttons in turn in response to the enemies. Each enemy has a certain tell, giving the player a heads up about how to react. The reactions for Bowser are either to duck and use his shell for defense or to punch the enemy. For the brothers, it’s either to jump or use their hammer.

The controls start out simple enough, but it takes practice to pay attention to the enemies’ tells and then reflexes to respond to them. In the beginning they are quite easy and as the game progresses, the enemies aren’t as evident in their tells, and at some point the reaction time to dodge attacks becomes very finicky. Timing becomes difficult both because of the small screen as well as the split screen. When an enemy launches something into the air it travels to the upper screen and as they drop down, the separation between screens can make timing rather frustrating. Most of the time, reactions come either a little too early or barely too late. There were many times when I released the button as the item fell, which meant that I was too late and ended up releasing as the item hit Mario in the head. Originally this isn’t much of a problem, but later in the game and the enemies start hitting harder, the difference between 10 points can come between another turn and a game over.

Boss battles are a nice balance between skill and effort. They aren’t easy in the sense that they’re push-overs, but they each have their own tactic to beating them. The battles are evenly balanced between Bowser, Mario and Luigi, and Big Bowser. There are some battles that invoke something of a fury from Bowser and he grows to be as large as his rival which is often a building. In these battles the DS makes use of the stylus as well as the microphone. When Bowser punches, the stylus is used to build up the strength of his punches. However, when he uses his fire breath, the player blows into the microphone as long as they can to increase the damage. The combination functions well, even if blowing into the microphone makes you look like a weirdo while people are nearby.

Between battles, the player can direct Bowser through the real world to find new areas and move between necessary areas. He gradually gains abilities that unlock new areas, such as the super punch or the ground pounding jump ability. These abilities keep Bowser from wandering into areas he’s not ready for but come often enough that the need to wander back through areas isn’t that great. More often than not, wandering through an area more than once is due to storyline and not necessity. You do acquire the option to transport Bowser from one area to another between translocation points, but the usefulness is more for finding missed treasures than a real need to revisit places.

The game’s strong point and weak point comes with the variety of mini games. Throughout the game, Mario and Luigi are used to travel through Bowser’s body and help him out when he needs it. They serve to stimulate Bowser’s leg power to push harder against things, revive him if he’s been knocked out, or even to make him sneeze from flower pollen when he gets lost in the scent of them. At first the mini games are novel as you coordinate Mario and Luigi’s actions. In one game, they take turns bouncing back and forth to stimulate Bowser’s leg muscles. Timing is important as well as using the right button press as each one lands. They don’t take much time, but they do break up the game play.

The problem with mini games is that some of them can be frustrating, couple that with the fact that they’re sometimes mandatory, it becomes a serious downfall. Mini games should be a relief from the story and do something minimal to add to the story, itself. In Bowser’s Inside Story, however, the mini games become an annoyance and I find myself repeatedly saying “oh crap, not again”. One game in particular, which helps to revive Bowser, takes a fair bit of skill since every time you get hit three times, you have to start the whole mini game over again. It wouldn’t be so frustrating, but there is also no way to practice them. Going to that area of Bowser’s body when he doesn’t need the help is the equivalent of entering an empty room.

In addition to the downfalls of the mechanics of the mini games, most of the time that you have to use them are times that the story won’t advance and you can’t do anything without winning. Bowser is incapacitated and the only option is to play Mario and Luigi through that particular mini game. The only solution is to keep replaying it until you win. Otherwise, Bowser stays unconscious while Mario and Luigi can’t do anything productive in any other part of his body. In effect it’s a Do or Die Mini Game.

Overall the game is successful because it is an RPG that keeps the player engaged with what is going on at every step. The battles get progressively more challenging, almost to a fault sometimes. The graphics fit with the traditional Nintendo titles and focus more on the fun of the story and the relatively simplistic controls. Most people can pick the game up and play it without too much difficulty and the story is both simple and insignificant enough that there’s not a lot to try and figure out apart from where your next goal is. However, the reaction times during fights can be a major problem if your timing is off. Any single turn can cost around an extra 40 hit points just simply from bad timing to avoid hits. Plus, the mini games can be fun for people skilled or stubborn enough to be able to beat them, but otherwise it can make or break the experience. It’s definitely a game worth a try if you liked the previous Mario & Luigi based RPG titles, or if you like them in general. Whether it’s worth finishing is another story.



Final Score – 8/10

Whatcha doin?

I've been playing Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside story

Artsy Fartsy Videogames?

Videogames are a form of art, but like any other piece of art there are different kinds. Coming from a writing and poetry background, there's always been the discussion of whether the author's intent matters or not once the finished product is presented. In a way, this is the same with videogames.

What I mean is that some games have a very specific message in mind. Like novels, they take the reader through a journey with one message or moral in mind. Each interaction and battle is composed to make a natural path to the end result which usually involves some kind of realization or moral lesson. Most RPGs are modeled after this novel style of presentation.

On the other hand, some games, like Infamous and Bioshock, leave the decisions up to the player, thus creating a less linear and more open experience. Like some kinds of abstract poetry, the story will require the player to use their own experience to make the game what they want. They can often choose between two or more paths. Even though they may have lessons or commentary at the end, the decisions about how to interpret and experience the game are made by the player.

Then again, some are made purely for the enjoyment of the moment. The games are made with beautiful graphics and stories that aren't entirely too involved. Games like Zelda or Okami, the story is there to guide the player but the real enjoyment is getting from point A to point B and making accomplishments in the mean time. Zelda forms the story throughout the game, but only to compel the player to travel through the different dungeons and side quests. The ending is satisfying enough to justify the time taken, but the real joy is within the play and the journey itself.

Art doesn't simply refer to the graphics, and while some games are certainly made with a more artistic driven style, the entire experience is an art in itself. The good ones draw the players to converse about them and take a vested interest. The bad ones are either bad because they fail to do what they set out, or they fail on a number of other levels. But in the end, it's the experience that counts.

What to do, what to do?

Videogames are used for so many different reasons: stress relief, escape, socialization. What happens when the drive to play is there, but the willingness isn't?

I love games. I have played all sorts of games and spent hours upon hours with games. The problem lately is that I get home and the thought of playing a game seems to be akin to doing laundry. I'm not sure how to break myself out of this funk and the blog seems to be drifting into a rant. But, my question is how do we get out of that funk? And how do we get in it?

I've always been a solo gamer, being an only child and friends who didn't quite see the draw to videogames. Is this normal?

Too Critical Critics

After reading through a few of our readings, I see a theme of critics being critical of other critics. In short, the gyst is that a lot of critics are too hung up on petty details instead of praising games that deserve them. I do agree in some sense. One example that comes to mind is the Zero Punctuation 'author', Yahtzee. He refers rather often to his Psychonauts review in which he said it was one of the best games ever made. After getting enough responses about his lack of finding problems, he adds them into his more recent reviews. His latest about Arkham Asylum is one of those that he praised and said was an excellent game, but it had its flaws.

Is this such a problem? As Simon Parkin said in his "Truth and Judgment" article, Games are defined just as much by what they don’t do as by what they do". True it's more often that we look at what a game offers in our decision, but what they don't do can take away from the enjoyment of the game. There's nothing worse than a good game with a horrible camera. Just recently I was talking with a store manager about one of the games he really liked, and the one downfall he said was that the graphics weren't as good as they could be. In a day where we have so much technological ability with videogames, is it acceptable for some to skimp on some of them?

True, the graphics don't make the gameplay. On the other hand, they can detract from the game. It's like the old NES games that most of us remember fondly and spent hours upon hours playing, yet when we replay them, they lack a little something. Many times its the old graphics that we find fault with. Case in point, Final Fantasy 7: I can't remember how many letters to the editor sections I've read where people are asking and pleading for a remake to that game for the new consoles. There's nothing wrong mechanically with the PlayStation version, but it would look amazing with the new Blu-Ray technology. Nobody is asking for battle system changes, or the materia system, but simply the graphics to show the game in a better light.

One other topic that's always a peeve of mine is whether reviews actually do anything. I think we need to remember that reviews are going to be an individual's take on the game. However, depending on what they say can sway readers. If a magazine rates a shooter 10 points out of 10, doesn't mean that everyone will rush out and grab it. I tend to suck at shooters, but every so often I have this urge to try one. The reviews do help figure out whether I'll at least tollerate the game or not. If I'm not good at patience and taking cover, then I realize that Gears of War isn't for me. But if I'm looking for a much more relaxed and straight forward shooting game, I might opt for Resistance or Left 4 Dead. At the same time, if I buy a shooter, I'm not going to get angry with the reviewer for saying it was a good game when I didn't like it. It's a tool just like the pictures on the box. You can get a good idea of what the game can be like, but the only way to be sure is to actually play it.

Culture What?

Even with having a BA in Philosophy, Mayra makes this chapter almost painfully complicated. After reading the chapter and the end summary, I have a hard time finding where he actually says most of what the summary explains. I can see where he's trying to go with the discussion by talking about how we convey meaning, but he seems to try and draw too much on philosophers that are more interested in either Language or Culture, not so much with both.

His use of Bertrand Russell's example of the game of Cricket being understood by one person and rightfully assuming the other party knew the rules seems out of place to me (pg 19-20). Russell was concerned more with language and the way certain words or concepts can entail specific rules or attributes. I realize he's trying to make a connection with how people can understand concepts, but I'm sure there are other more fitting examples and much more available quotes to use.

So far, I'm not really impressed by the author's attempt at exploring concepts related to gaming. Between last week's pettiness about vocabulary, he launches into this knot of a discussion about a culture.

I do agree that games have an outer-lying culture around the inner workings of the game. However, I'm unclear whether he's tying this in to our overall culture or if it's simply a bubble around the act of playing videogames? He uses examples from people discussing the greater view of a culture and seems to be trying to apply it to the act of playing games. Does anyone else get the feeling that he's trying to make a point but never quite gets to it?

I was surprised at how petty most of Kyle Orland's complaints are. On one hand, I do realize that he wants to find some standard of vocabulary for writing about video games. I agree with him that we need to come to some understanding about how we approach the writing. If you're going to write about Xbox, then you should at least know how to spell it properly. For something like PlayStation, most people probably don't know the difference whether the S is capitalized or not. For that reason, I think it's more about consistency than specifics. In philosophical writing, you never vary your words because when you do, you change the meaning. If you start out an article writing it as Playstation, I don't think there's a problem as long as you stay consistent in the spelling of it. It would be great if we could come to a general understanding of how we, as writers, want to spell it. The problem is that it will be a process to get there.
What I don't necessarily agree with is his desire to make the review and criticism an entirely hands off process. What I mean by that is when I read a review, I'm reading it for me. The phrase "a batarang will be used in the fight with Poison Ivy" is bothersome in that it sounds more like a random observation than an instruction. I don't necessarily mean that they all should be focused on instructing the reader on how to do things, but taking such an approach is taking away from engaging the reader.
On that same note, his argument against being creative is exceptionally bothersome to me. I've read many reviews where the author was being creative in his approach, or witty in his criticism towards certain aspects. Some people like Yahtzee make a living off approaching game reviews with a touch of creativity and wit. What you get is a personality behind the author and as long as they do so to directly make a point, I think that's better in many ways than to be completely impartial and practical. In his most recent review of Wolfenstein, he does the entire review in limerick form. It's not only entertaining, but he makes actual points about the gameplay. As long as the author isn't shadowing his points and his stance, I think creativity can be a way to draw people in and take interest in not only the game, itself, but in the way we view games as a whole.

Personal History

My history with video games started back with the NES. My father helped my grandfather build a barn and in return my grandfather bought us our first console. I loved the first Zelda games as well as Mario 3. I was young enough that I hadn't gotten into the longer games like Final Fantasy (yet) but I spent hours with the A and B buttons.
It wasn't until I hit 7th grade that we got our first computer. It had a massive hard drive (at the time) and had the newest Windows 3.1 version on it. I never really got into the games like Everquest or Doom. The ones that I really started to play for hours were the Sim games. To date I still have most of them. My favorite one was SimFarm, which was fun until I figured out how to win and I haven't played it much since. Another series that I liked was The 7th Guest. Basically it was a puzzle game with a pretty good story.
The PC held me over until I was about 17 and the Playstation came out. My parents didn't like consoles so I never had the Sega systems or even any later Nintendo systems. So getting the Playstation was a cool feeling, until I found out that I had to buy everything separately (another controller, memory card, cables, and the first game). Even then, it had some really good games and introduced me to the Final Fantasy series. I know all the Final Fantasy fans refer back to FF7 for the best one, but I played every one released for that system and although I adore the story and the atmosphere of 7, my favorite and most fun was 9.
More recently I've ventured over to GameCube and the Wii. I haven't found a great lineup for them, but they're fun for extras like Guitar Hero. I'm planning to get a 360 as soon as funds allow. If nothing else then to play some of the XBox exclusives. They seem to have a better RPG choice than Sony. It's not a bash to Sony, but they've been trying to focus more on action and shooters than the good ol' RPGs.
I do have a PSP that I've played mostly with LocoRoco and the Final Fantasy games. My DS hasn't got much love in the past year or so, but I've been eyeing a few of the puzzle games that seem worth the effort.

Welcome to my blog. Since I have two classes using the blogging, I have set up separate blogs for each. Enjoy my rants!