Fallout 4 and mindless speculation!

                       Time for me to pretend to be a video game blogger again! If you don't know my massive love for Fallout, then you should return to my incredibly long post about why borderlands is a bad game ( I rave about Fallout for a bit in it). But now I finally have a new Fallout and I can ignore how buggy New Vegas was merely an appetizer, teasing my palate for the main course. And with any new trailer it's time for me to speculate and bullshit until the point where I go back to this post a year from now and remember how much of fool I am.

                        First thing I noticed about the Fallout 4 trailer is how it begins in a very similar manner to the teaser of Fallout 3. I often thought of the accompany songs as setting the theme of the game. For example, "I don't want to set the world on fire" is a song about a lover who is set on finding some sort of happiness, but does not want to engage in a systematic destruction of the world to get it. Comparing this to Fallout 4, the lyrics are selectively muffled. We hear the beginning of the song, " it's all over, but the crying." This opening lyric can signify a tone switch in the games. As opposed to a story of finding resolution, instead this will be game punctuated by constant loss, possibly due to the subtext of the impending nuclear war that keeps breaking through in the game. Perhaps the game exists to reconcile the difficult history that created the apocalyptic nuclear
wastelands. If that didn't sound like an over analysis, then you might be interested in the selected omission of lyrics via muffling or back dropping. The first omitted lyric is the mention of everyone else not crying, which is a classic fallout move. Fallout is very much a game of isolation and loneliness and how one copes with a horrible reality essentially alone. By returning to the line "crying but me" it emphasizes the sorrow felt by the individual. Again a beloved is set forth in the song as a desired individual, but instead of becoming focused on the beloved as what is insinuated in Fallout 3, the song suggests that the goal is to ignore the beloved. At that moment the game shifts to the confirmation of a nuclear strike. Now that is a tone shift that is being played out vis-a-vis the intertextuality of the song and the game. What it indicates is that this is a game that explores immense loss and as opposed to a sanctimonious solution such as Project Purity, we might come to far more depressing and deflating realization about human nature and the wasteland through the lore uncovered about the nuclear strike.

Welp that's just an eighth glance look at the trailer. I'm sure I'll be back to revisit some other aspects of the trailer. Hope you enjoyed my baseless speculation! 

What I expect from the new Star Wars and what I don't want to see

               So the second trailer has been released and put me down as intrigued and slightly excited. You have to understand as a Star Wars fan I have been conditioned to disappointment. The prequels were awful and recent changes to remastered versions of the movie were obnoxious. When I heard J.J. Abrams was directing I fell into despair. I'm not a huge fan of what he did to Star Trek. He made Star Trek fun some please exclaim. Yea, well maybe the sole purpose of Star Trek wasn't supposed to be action packed suspense with each moment. Oh well, back to Star Wars. The first trailer was interesting, but did not tell me much. This second trailer suggested a lot. So it got me thinking to create a wishlist of things I definitely want to see in the new movie and things I don't want to see at all. 

Things I want

1. A black main actor- It has been made clear that Finn (John Boyega) is going to play some integral role in the movie. The trailer seems to be heavily hinting to him as one of the leading main characters and that makes me just giddy. When was the last time you can remember a leading actor in a sci-fi movie being black? I honestly couldn't tell you. It's about time black representation in sci-fi become more diversified. Star Wars is the ultimate stage for that to begin. 

2. A strong main female actor that doesn't play the constant support character- While Leia was a strong character her damsel in distress role in the movie often made her an afterthought in skirmishes. I want a female actor that has similar ability of prowess in the movie to all the male characters. What I mean is I don't want them donning the blaster and making sly quick shots when no one is looking. I want them to fuck shit up. Honestly the Jedis were a bit of a boys only club, time for change. 

3. A passing of the torch moment-  We need to acknowledge that the main characters from the original trilogy are going to be making appearances. Notice I say appearances and not resuming their main roles. That's because their job in this movie isn't to be the action pack go lucky group to save the galaxy. Time to let the youngsters take charge. Of course there's going to be that moment where the old crew shows them how it's done, but in the end I want there to be a passing of the torch. My guess is Han Solo is going to be killed and passes the millennium falcon to the hotshot pilot in the film. 

Things I don't want to see

1. A swan song- I don't want to see the old crew relive their glory days the entire film. I loved their old characters and seeing them in an older state attempting what really should be left to the new generation would just be cheesy. I mean he looks like he's ready for a space skirmish, but is at risk to dislocate his hip at the moment of any strenuous physical activity.  I don't want to see a middle age Luke recreating his light saber scenes with the next sith goon. 

2. Do not copy the original trilogy- Remember Star Trek into the Darkness? Remember Wrath of Kahn? Remember how J.J. Abrams stole scenes verbatim from several Star Trek movies and passed it off as a tribute? Well he better not do that with Star Wars. Sure some scenes need to be hinted at and the movies should be a shared cultural capital that allows true fans to appreciate new material. However, do not try to stick in contrived references to the old film. Meaning, I don't want Han to shoot first at the first guy that wriggles his eye brows wrong at him. Do not, I repeat, do not try to recreate every iconic scene and squeeze it into the next three movies. Develop new material. J.J. Abrams has the opportunity to etch himself into sci-fi lore forever. The best way for him to make this film forgettable is by sticking to the script and play a non-stop fan service. 

3. No convoluted explanations of the force or over the top light saber fights-  Fuck midichlorians. I don't need a scientific explanation for the force it is clearly a physical manifestation of spirituality. It's supposed to be elusive. Don't explain it. Luke said " the force is strong in my family" not " my midichlorian count is over 9000.  Also, don't get stuck into Lightsaber hysteria. Lightsaber fights should be far and few between. They're intended to be metaphorical rather than just blunt tools for action in the movie. Your lightsaber isn't your life. It's a form of expression in the Star Wars world. 

Feel free to disagree :D. 

The issue with male video game stream watchers.

                    Female Streamers and their "inability" to cover up have been the new trend these days in the video game world. Sky Williams posted a few tweets and videos suggesting that female streamers who happen to show cleavage/skin/etc. are. in essence, degrading female streamers everywhere. This problem was something that I considered the other day as I was on a female streamer's twitch channel. I found the channel incredibly boring (and the title was misleading). When I voiced my opinion in the chat, a horde of angry followers rose up in defense. It seemed pretty clear that her following comprised of mostly men, many of which seemed to be projecting their own social outcast in the dating world onto her. And that just rubbed me the wrong way. But I realize now that the fact that men decide to use streams for purposes other than the intended purpose of the stream is a problem for only men.  But Raymond! Obviously if a streamer like Kaceytron has her cleavage showing, hordes of male viewers are going to watch her play not for the games, but for the cleavage. Ok. So what? That's Kaceytron's choice and any other female streamer's choice. Just because they are showing cleavage doesn't mean their intent is seduce men. They may not honestly give a fuck about whether men come or not. Maybe they just enjoy playing videos games in what ever their wearing. Even if women outright made it clear that they were going to use seduction to entice men to watch their streams that doesn't change the fact that men could simply ignore the streams. But what men cannot and should not do is demand women streamers to change their attire and shame women for not adhering to what they want. Stop it. I'm tired of crap like that happening. If you find her stream superfluous, then don't watch it. If you think it has great and riveting content, keep watching, cleavage or not. In the end of the day, women streamers don't have an issue, male viewers do. 

Tear down Gamer Gate!

      The mess that has become gamer gate has gone far enough for me. With the announcement of Movie Bob Chipman from the Escapist, I now realize that what I thought was a foolish and misguided mens right reddit internet torch and pitchfork session has become a bonafide movement that now is being supported by institutions within the gaming community. I saw Escapist as a website that rivaled Kotaku as a source of information for gamers. For a long time I thought I could look the other way, but now I realize that those who fight for social justice need to be heard in the video game community.
          So let me make this clear. I don't blog as much as I used to, but now I will and the goal of this blog changes today. Instead of reviewing old games, I will be doing cultural dissections using critical race theory as a lens for games and geek culture as a whole. I will be an incessant voice that constantly brings up issues of class/race/gender/sexual orientation and any other targeted identity that finds itself often shunned in the community. I will actively call out gamer gate and I may even create a reddit just to combat those who so far have a "louder" voice in the community. If you are a gamer and you believe gamer gate has become a racist and misogynistic parasite in the gaming community, then join me in voicing your opinions. Let's create our own materials. Our own games. Our own reviews. Our own discourse about what it means to be a gamer. Let's rewrite stereotypical characters and use the medium to make meaningful progress in the gaming community. You might think "pssh, I just wanna play my games." And I understand where that's coming from, but there are so many people who don't feel they can have a voice in the community because of the horrible actions of gamer gate. Geek culture has always had a mark of the outcast. Geeks by definition are unpopular and therefore confided in each other for community. Where will the outcast go if they are outcast by their own people? I will no longer be silent and I hope you are not either.

Note: Before I get lambasted by the technical nay-sayers, I'll make my own correction. Bob has stood fast that his leaving had nothing to do with his politic. I don't believe it and many others don't believe it. I certainly believe his leaving was planned, but the sudden removal certainly leads me to believe that politic was involved. Regardless, I got rid of the portion that suggested that was the main reason. 

The Old Republic feels weird in good ways and bad

                 I've finally made my way to The Old Republic and let me tell you, I was surprised. I didn't expect the narrative depth to be akin to the KOTOR series I loved so much. I didn't expect many of the characters to be memorable and fun to return to. This wasn't mindless grinding, it was changing a world. Or at least that's how I took it. In all honesty it amounts to mindless grinding. But the variety of missions! From ritual rites to investigations, you feel like you're actually accomplishing things in TOR. As opposed to WoW where you were just told to kill 10 of this, then 15 of this, then bring me 8 of this after escorting x. There I just gave you every WoW mission ever made. TOR is fun. So what's the downside? Why isn't everyone rushing to TOR? I think the combat system is overly simplistic. It's never clear whether I actually need my teammates in flashpoints. Perhaps I'm too low of a level to see it, which if that's the case then that's fine. But one critical tension I saw popping up stems from what's excellent about the game.

             I didn't want to play with other people. Why share my quests with other people? I want to make decisions. I want to convince others of my valor. I want to decide things for my world. Sharing it with other people who may disagree with me or worse, who may be on the darkside, seemed just wrong. It may be my natural narcissism when it comes to stories, but I honestly just wished the game was single player. However, that changed when I did a flashpoint.

           Flashpoints give you a unique social opportunity. Though the one I did was clearly made from the KOTOR mold, the multi conversational aspect of the flashpoint allows me to interact with my fellow republic troops in ways I couldn't even imagine. Now RolePlaying is a thing in TOR. For the first time I get a tiny glimpse into how my teammates view their character in this world. Are you brash? Are you defiant? Are you an evil asshole. All of these traits can be revealed about your character through a flashpoint. Couple that with the intense difficulty of going through a two hour to three hour ordeal and you have the recipe for incredibly meaningful gameplay. I'm still a low level in TOR, so if anything new and interesting pops up, then I'll definitely keep you posted. But the verdict is out. TOR is fun. I am super biased as I love Star Wars, so there's that. 

Digesting Ego Raptor's new Sequelitis

            If you love Zelda, especially if you love Ocarina of Time, then I really suggest you watch the 30 minute long critique of OOT done by Ego Raptor. While I don't agree with some of his criticisms, the ideas and analysis he applies to the game cultivate a robust conversation surrounding what the purpose of a Zelda game should be. Many people have been trying to mechanically debate Ego Raptor's argument, by refuting his entire video point by point. I can tell you that those attempting to do this did not understand the main argument that Ego Raptor was trying to put out there. Ego Raptor's video is not only concerned with Zelda, but an overall philosophy regarding video games.
        Before you engage with Ego Raptor's critique of OOT, you need to address his quasi-critique of Link to the Past. He argues that a shift occurs from the original Zelda and LTTP. Zelda in his opinion is oriented around free exploration. This free exploration is inhibited in LTTP because there is a clear order one must follow in the exploration of dungeons. He laments in the end about the conundrum of the shift, claiming that he doesn't know which philosophy is better, but this sounds a tad disingenuous. It's pretty clear from the video that he feels gameplay in Zelda should be as unrestricted as possible. Given that bias, he enters into OOT with a critical framework which equates freedom with good game play.Those who are attacking his point by point are doing so incorrectly. When he discusses the fragmentation of the exploration and the combat sequences of Zelda, he is making an argument within his original framework that one should be free to experience all facets of the game at the same time to have the best experience. People routinely argue that the fighting was: "not boring", "not repetitive", "did not have that much waiting" and so on. But what people fail to realize that the overall issue with the Z targeting system is a lack of freedom. The camera's fixed and restricted paradigm runs antithetical to Ego Ratpor's framework.
     One Zelda fan uncovers a difference in philosophy between himself and Ego Raptor when he tries to refute him point by point. In this post, he says, "story is fine as long as it doesn't replace gameplay." He doesn't realize that all of the hard work he put into his post was misdirected and instead he should have spent more time focusing on the notion that when a story acts as a supplement to game play, it is fine. This argument runs counter to a freedom framework. This argument says one can restrict the imaginative contours of the video game's narrative to derive more meaning as long as those restrictions don't serve as stand ins for the intended game play. I personally don't think this argument goes far enough. Regardless, if he can convince EgoRaptor that games can and should be restricted in a narrative sense in order to derive more meaning, then he would be well on his way to converting him into an OOT lover. But just plainly saying "the combat wasn't as bad as you think it was" isn't very convincing.
    The philosophy given by Ego Raptor is fascinating because it seems to be following a trend we can see in the Video game literature. The notion that video games intend to be simulations rather than representations is the vein of thought Ego Raptor is drawing from when he argues that players make their own narratives through game play. He isn't opposed to story, plot, etc. He just doesn't want those things defining his experience. He wants them to serve as sturdy metal skeletons, which he will flesh out with his own actions and achievements. I'm going to suggest a new critical framework. Enter new criticism.
   The notion that the text dictates the meaning of a text is one that has ushered in the wave of "close reading" and other scrutinizing activities we see in the classroom. I believe that video games should be criticized in a similar manner. Formal elements and specific game play details need to be taken into consideration. From there you need to ask what kind of experience does this make? The question of whether a game intends to simulate or represent is answered by the game, not by the critic. Some games will simulate and try to recreate the experiences germane to the game (e.g. Skyrim). Other games exist for representation and really are just peddling a story that you passively shape (e.g. Ace attorney at law). There is no better between them, they come from two different philosophies. I personally enjoy narrative oriented games, while my little brother enjoys simulation oriented games. OOT tries to do both and is very successful, but for purists it will never pass the test of unrestricted free game play. Link is the every person here, but he is still Link, He still has his own destiny and you playing through it in an attempt to live vivaciously threw him constantly become torned between wanting to be the hero and seeing the story unfold for Link. 

COD Advanced Warfare looks like it has some major flaws

   The gameplay for COD Advance Warfare hit E3 and it seems my Halo got mixed with my COD. Your super soldier has a suit (well I guess they call it an exoskeleton) that endows the soldier with the ability to jump really far away. Now I haven't seen the other advantages to the suit ( though I've heard it can be treated like armor and so on), but just from seeing the jumping ability, I became very skeptical of the fluidity of the gameplay. Call of duty play style is very slow compared to other shooters like TitanFall. The game is meant for a duck and cover system where you scurry through a map, looking for enemies, then proceed to kill those enemies without your own cover being blown. Sometimes you'll engage in full on fire fights, but often in COD the enemy kills you before you even know the enemy is there. Perks such as Marathon and lightweight allow you to move quicker, but even that speed is a brisk walk compared to the sprinting found in Titanfall. I'm not saying COD should be Titanfall, I'm just using Titanfall as an example of a game that uses superhuman capabilities to make for a thrilling game play experience. You haven't lived till you walked on a wall to the other side of the map, promptly falling behind the enemy sniper that tried to pick you off several times, then proceeding to snap his neck, while hitching a ride off your buddy in a Titan. It's euphoric. Something tells me that COD won't be having those kinds of acrobats in its core gameplay. So my issue becomes one of practicality. Why would I use my ability to jump high if it will blow my cover immediately? And it's not like I have significant armor (unless they's what they're adding, which may be the case), so chances are if the enemy sees me froffing about in the sky, my exoskeleton is about to become swiss cheese. Halo/2/3/Reach were fun games because you had significant armor that allowed you to take risks. You could potentially jump in the air, exposing yourself to multiple sources of fire, just to land that perfect sticky grenade. Is that the route COD is going? If it is, then good for them I suppose. I'm unsure if that's what they're fans want, but I feel we've had enough realistic shooters for this decade. Time to get all futuristic. Also, did anyone see Splatoon? It looks awesome.