A Mature Zelda: A response to the argument from Dylan James

              Dylan's article so you know what fuck is going on: http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/comments/an-argument-for-a-more-mature-zelda

            Recently, my friend showed me an article written by Dylan James arguing for a "more mature Zelda" He claims that a more mature Zelda will enrich the series and push video games in general to a more mature and overall improved direction. He parallels the progression of video games as a medium with the progression of movies as a medium. Movies, much like videos games, was considered a form of pure entertainment that slowly progressed into the works of art we know today. I agree completely with this analogy and I agree that  video games need to take the step from pure entertainment into works of art, however I don't agree with the notion of Zelda becoming more mature. And truthfully I don't think Dylan wants that either. Instead what Dylan is advocating for through his examples is more depth in the Zelda series. While I love narratives with depth I'm going to explain why even that isn't the best idea either. Now before I get into the point by point, I want everyone to know that I think what Dylan is advocating for: the gradual maturing of video games as a medium, is something worth advocating for and should be demanded by gamers in the way we purchase and talk about games. But maturity as a medium doesn't mean maturity in a title. I'll explain using one of my favorite examples: Earthbound.
           Narrative Depth is not maturity 
          Earthbound, as many of you know, is in my opinion one of the best RPGs ever made. This is because Earthbound touches on so many themes integral to the human experience. However, Earthbound approaches these themes with the point of view of a child in mind. Earthbound as a piece of art is mature because it touches on a well of human emotions and experiences, but as a title it is very child like. If Earthbound had been "mature" as the way Dylan wants it to be, it would have been inaccessible to the very audience it was intended for. But many of you might be saying, well duh, titles like Earthbound are meant to be for children. Yes, but there is a universality to Earthbound that makes it enjoyable by adults and children alike. Since many of the themes and emotions in Earthbound are so mature and full of depth, even an adult can appreciate what the game is putting out there. This is a description of "depth" in the narrative. When a narrative has depth it allows the player to spend hours tussling with the messages and ideas the game is trying to put forth in tandem with the player. This is what Dylan is really advocating for in his article, not a "mature Link". I'll even use his own examples to prove it.
      The counter example example 
       I have never played Paper Mario (yet) so I can't speak to the maturity of that title. Though I can tell just by looking at the art design and from what others have told me that it looks like the classic Earthbound example (a game that takes the point of view of a child and expresses very mature themes). Now on to the example I do know. I loved the Avatar series and have watched every episode of Legend of Korra. He claims legend of Korra has a lot of maturity to it and cites the themes touched on by Legend of Korra. But the reality of Legend of Korra is that it isn't mature at all, and instead it has depth in its narrative (or at least some, no where near as much as the original Avatar series). My counter example is as follows:

Does this look mature to you?

It clearly isn't completely mature. Legend of Korra is intended for pre teens and teens. It doesn't completely alienate children from its audience, but it isn't for adults, you know, the audience mature titles are usually catered towards. What Dylan is describing is maturity in the art form, not the actual series itself. If he wanted to describe maturity in Korra a good example would have been how quickly the intimate relationships were developed in comparison to the first series. Avatar was made for kids (ages 6-12) and Korra clearly for pre teens ( the 6- 12 year olds who grew up watching the first series).

Why this wouldn't work for Zelda
            So now that I've made the distinction between depth in narrative and "more maturity" I'm going to explain why neither is right for the Zelda series. First, let me start off by saying both depth in narrative and more maturity has been implemented in the Zelda series already. These games were called Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess. Both were great games, but none of them fared as well as other titles such as OOT and WW. The reason why is because they were adding something that, while improved the games individually, did not cater to what audiences wanted or expected for Zelda(except maybe TP, let me explain).
       Let's start with Majora's Mask. My readers are lucky that I haven't written about MM yet. That's because when I do finally write about it, you will be given a whole month's worth of writing just on that game. It is one of my favorite games and might be my favorite game of all time. But as a Zelda game MM fails completely. Yep, you heard me correctly. MM is not a good Zelda game. That's because MM completely deviates from the Zelda equation. And instead of reinforcing this deviation with more titles like MM, Nintendo decided to go back to the Zelda equation with WW. This left MM in an oddball out situation where gamers certainly enjoyed the game, but it was hard to believe that it was a Zelda game. The story of Link in clock town isn't the classic story of the chosen hero. Instead it is more of the story of the random traveler who is just doing what he can for the people that happen to be around him. MM was an amazing game as it has all the depth (and some maturity) that Dylan was asking for. But it floundered in the regards of the Zelda faithful. When talking about the best Zelda game most will automatically put OOT on a pedestal (which I disagree with completely). Why didn't MM get the respect it deserved from Zelda fans? When you think about what Zelda is supposed to be it becomes clear. MM deviated from what the Zelda equation was. Link in this story wasn't the blank slate chosen one, he was just an ordinary person and that caused many Zelda lovers to be disappointed when playing. When an audience has a set of expectations for a title, it's often best not to completely let them down on them. You can play with the expectations by twisting them (i.e. make Link the villain at first), but never do you completely deviate from them.
    Now let's get to Twilight Princess (or as I've been denoting it TP). TP is a successful Zelda title, but it clearly was meant for older audiences. TP feels more like the Legend of Korra of the Zelda series. There are even some parallels between the two. Link's insinuated infatuation with Illia and then, later Midna is exactly like the string of relationships in Korra (for some reason adults assume that relationships are a critical function of growing up). Link also never gets older in this titles, plunging the player into the mindset of adult link to begin with. TP was heralded for having amazing graphics and probably one of the best overall narratives in the Zelda series, but even then it didn't reach the heights of WW and OOT. This is probably because Nintendo jumped the gun a little with assuming their audience grew. Or maybe people like the child like nature of Zelda games and were unsettled with this clear change of gears to cater to a slightly more mature audience.
     Make games with more depth, but leave classics alone
            What if the new Avengers movie decided to take the Dark Knight approach to their film? If the film had all the blurring of good and evil, then what was initially craved from the Avenger's film, classic super hero bad assery, would have been turned into a huge convoluted mess. Batman was clearly not a conventional super hero, so he was the perfect choice for that kind of plot. The point is pick and choose what titles to add depth and maturity to. I think the Zelda equation works and the gradual upping of maturity is great, but it might be time for Zelda to reboot the series and start catering to the new younger generation (perhaps a founding story may be suitable for that, oh wait... didn't one of those just get made?).

Secret of Mana

Secret of Mana
Overall: 2.2
Gameplay: 2
Setting: 3.5
Narrative: 1.0

            Another game that's supposed to be among the best RPGs ever made has succeeded in disappointing me greatly. Everything that is "revolutionary" in Secret of Mana has been lost on me because all I see is a Zelda clone in an RPG outfit. Secret of Mana is disappointing for many reasons, but it is not a horrible game. In fact, I feel if I had played it multiplayer I would have found myself enjoying the game more and more while I built a kinship with the fellow gamer who was unlucky enough to spend that many hours with me in the same room. Still, single player needs to live up to standards too and the issues with this game can be applied to both the single player and multiplayer. Before I prattle on I want to make clear that I did not finish the game in full. Why? Well, because it was so infuriating to play. I can play through horrible dialogue and tough bosses, but when gameplay feels sloppy and sporadic I just don't want to waste my time. I went ahead and read the story on Wikipedia and to no surprise it went exactly as I predicted. Not like the story matters, the game makes it clear that narrative means nothing in this world in the first five minutes, but I'll get to that when I talk about it in the next paragraph.
         So, narrative, or the lack thereof. The game begins with you naming your character, sending a message to the player that this is a representation of themselves in the game. This is awesome at first, until you realize the name is about all the ownership you will get over your character. Immediately your character is given an orphan back story and he stumbles upon a sword he wasn't supposed to touch. Turns out that sword has been keeping the world in check, so he's banished for being an idiot. A knight happens to be passing through the town while you're being banished and tells you that you need to charge the master I mean "mana sword" to oppose the evil Ganon I mean Thantos. Sounds familiar? Well, this wouldn't bother me except for the fact that from the beginning I have no motivation to charge the damn sword. I was just banished and claimed to be the chosen one. Truthfully, it felt more as if they were lazy and just waited for the first idiot to pull the sword to do some monster housekeeping. You might be retorting back with: wait Raymond, that's the exact same plot as Legend of Zelda; are you saying when playing as link you're unmotivated? No. And I'll explain why in a list: Zelda, Tetra, little sister, Saria, Illia, Midna etc. These are all the people you need to save or help during the game that motivates you to continue with the narrative. The beginning of Secret of Mana has you go it alone for almost 20 minutes. Not to mention when you do come into contact with your team of flunkies, the game ensures you feel little sympathy for any of them.
        I did not get kidnapped by goblins. I don't know why? Maybe I wasn't good enough for their kidnapping standards. But alas, I skipped the whole girl tagging along thing, going right to the sprite and killing tropicollo (or whatever his name is). The sprite is an asshole who tries to guilt you into giving him money. Then after he has guilt you out of money, they ask you to take him with you to find his lost memories. What? No. I don't want him with me he's an asshole. To make matters worse after you do the initial request (take him to the sunk temple or something) and get some of his memories, he asks you to escort him somewhere else and phrases it as if he's doing you a favor. Again, asshole. The girl isn't any better. She's all love driven over some guy who has been kidnapped. She joins you, but won't stop whining about the guy. Also, I understand why the sprite might be suitable for this kind of adventure (being a mythical creature and all), but a random love struck girl? It truthfully makes no sense. But then again, my character was just some random guy too and it's not like the game doesn't remind you you're nothing special with the requirement of tons of grind hours just to beat the next boss. Continuing along.
        I mentioned in the first paragraph that the game in the first 5 minutes lets me know that the narrative doesn't matter. How does it do that? By making my character talk. This is the first RPG where the character I named talks on my behalf. You might find this to be an improvement, but it isn't, it's just weird. That's because you're projecting yourself into the game through this character. When he says something, unless it's exactly like something you'd say, it feels as if the game is putting words in your mouth. This destroys immersion and makes me disconnected from the character, which is a huge driving point for me not to play. I don't care what happens to my character because he clearly isn't me and the plot that surrounds him is boring and uninteresting. Just because the world needs saving doesn't mean you instantly care. In fact, I wonder why my character even believes these jokers concerning the state of the world. All that happened when I pulled out the sword was that there was a monster whose shit I wrecked immediately. What about that encounter is supposed to make me believe the world is in dire straits? Chrono Trigger ensures player commitment from the beginning, making the first portion of the plot about saving Marle, transitioning into a future of Lavos, create the theme of getting stronger to beat Lavos for the entire rest of the game. In Secret of Mana, you don't know why you're doing anything. It's only because someone told you. Ahh, clearly you can tell I disliked this game's story so let's get to game controls.
       The controls as mentioned in another post are unintuitive. This becomes even more true when you get party members in single player. The action grid, which is never mentioned to you in the game, is the main way to tell your party members to do things. Except I don't know what the purpose of it is because all I told my party members to do was attack on sight. I can tell them what level to charge their weapons up, but this is an annoying and trivial detail. Different enemies require different levels of charging of weapons, so the frustration of constantly changing the level of charge is pointless and destroys the purpose of a real time action rpg. Seriously, it's as if the game developers used little to no common sense making this system. This is the conversation they should have had at some point:

Developer #1: Let's make the game real time to snub all those turn based games out there
Developer #2: Yes! But let's also make it so that magic can only be used by pressing the menu button, ensuring that any excitement that could be derived from the real time system is lost by the incessant need to click the menu for things.
Developer #1: That makes tons of sense, also let's not tell the writers about this they don't matter to the game making process anyways.

End scene
  Seriously, this game just seems misguided at every turn. The narrative is bad and the gameplay is clunky. I haven't even gotten through all the nitpicks I found. There are three main refutes I see coming. First the argument for multiplayer, which I'll accept, but argue that doesn't change the above criticism I gave. Second, the fact that the story "gets better". Even if that's true, that doesn't change the fact that the player has no motivation to get to that point. Third, the gameplay is actually good and I suck. That might be the case. But then again I found myself easing through: FF, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario. etc so if this is the only game I "suck at" then I'll live.
     

Why aren't you reviewing [insert generic popular game here]?

10 posts and over 300 site views later, I find myself realizing that at least a small portion of you have either been regularly reading my blog or are really bored and like to click on random links. Regardless of which party you're in, the above question has probably crossed your mind a few times. I know when you think Super Nintendo sure you think Chrono Trigger, but you also think Super Mario, F-Zero, Megaman X and so on. Also, why has this been regulated to only Super Nintendo games? There are plenty of old N64, Dreamcast, Gensis, NES, and even Gamecube and Xbox games that should be put on a pedestal. Well, yes, I agree and I'm going to explain what goes into some of the rationale I use when choosing these games. So I'm going to create a list, because they're comprehensive and it's easy to sucker people into reading them.

1. I'm not home, nor am I near any systems.
       The truth is I'm not home so vizzed is the best access I have to video games. I currently don't have a usb controller so RPGs make the natural choice for playing on my laptop. When I get back home I'll have access to more games and will consider making more reviews.

2. I won't review a game if I feel like I can't bring anything new to the table.
       Yes, Chrono Trigger and Earthbound have both been reviewed and heralded as great games, but what I was trying to do was to give a modern look on those reviews and also add some depth to the conversation of why these games are so great. Some games this has been done for extensively and I feel I can't really add more to the conversation. For example:

Egoraptor did an amazing video dissecting the gameplay aspects of megaman x, explaining why it was such an amazing game. I really found his video to be comprehensive and entertaining. If I were to explain why megaman x was so good I'd probably end up rehashing many of the same points. So there really is no point. Also, as you may have noticed I have more experience analyzing a narrative. I take into consideration gameplay, controls and other aspects, but I tend to contextualize them within narrative. This is why I focus on so many RPGs. Does this mean I'm only going to review RPGs? No, in fact I'm considering to do one on Donkey Kong Country as soon as I can get through replaying it.

3. Some games I don't have access to or I simply don't like
         My friend asked me to take a gander at Metroid Prime. I told him I was considering doing Super Metroid instead. He then insisted on how great it was, but in truth I played it once it came out and didn't find it to be all that compelling. While, the story was simple and clear in Super Metroid, I found myself constantly trying to remember what the story even was in Metroid Prime. I also liked the gameplay in Super Metroid and don't remember being a big fan of the gamecube transfer. Does this mean Metroid Prime is a horrible game? No, I just didn't like it much. I have promised him if I get access to my old gamecube and the game I'll replay it just to review it, but for most cases if I don't have access to the game or simply don't like it, I'm not going to play it. It's that simple.

Well I hope this clears up how I go about choosing games. Feel free to comment or suggest games, if I have access and I've never heard of it I will try it out.

Secret of Mana: Why departing from default controls is a bad idea

          Currently I'm working through Secret of Mana and I'm finding it a bit of a struggle. This is because as opposed to all the SNES RPGs  I've played and every single game with a menu button in general, Secret of Mana has decided to concoct their own unique way of cycling through the menu. The issue with this new way of doing things is it isn't intuitive.
         Intuition is a hard thing to predict in controls. The best way to predict it is by paying attention to precedent. For example, R trigger tends to be the shoot control in FPSs. If a game decided to change that and not immediately notify the player (in-game, nobody reads those idiotic game handbooks), you'd find most players frustrated within their first few fights.
        When playing through Secret of Mana you have two common controls changed. First, the game is a real time RPG that allows you to move freely and hack and slash at enemies. Below you is a bar that shows the accuracy of your attack. After an attack the accuracy is reset to 0, forcing you to wait till it recharges again. The idea behind this is that it simulates the constraints of a turn based RPG fight system, while giving the player the freedom they would have in a real time system. I dislike this system because I find it to be inorganic. You could easily incorporate this system with the way weapons work in the game by forcing weapons to "recharge" to land hits. While, the combat system was frustrating, it wasn't completely unintuitive. Eventually, after killing a few bunnies, it becomes obvious that you must wait till the bar goes to 100% to land hits. No, my real issue is with menu.

And how am I supposed to know this leads to other parts of the menu? 

      The first thing I do in a game is click all the buttons there is. This tells me what does what and how much skill and time I need to put into making certain actions happen. In RPGs, button pressing is usually used for the former reason. You need to know how to fight and how to get to the menu. In Secret of Mana I clicked a button (I believe it was the y button) and it gets me to what seems to be a menu. All you see is the sword you are currently wielding and nothing else. It doesn't even say menu, it just shows the weapon. When you click on the sword it begins to flash, indicating absolutely nothing to the player. Nor does anyone in the town tell you how to use these things. In fact, after purchasing a few items from the shopkeeper (the logical person to tell you how to access items) he tells me "not to forget to equip my items". Thank you for the words of wisdom. It took me a good 30 minutes into the game to click the quasi menu button again just to incorporate using my d pad clicking up. If I clicked right it would just cycle through more of my weapons. It makes no sense. Nothing was telling me to do that and precedent doesn't tell me that all my items were in that menu. In fact there have been many games I've played where only certain functions can be accessed through the start button (save, load, journal, etc) and others are only accessed through the select button (weapons, items, etc). The system made no sense and it wasn't intuitive. It required random guessing and that's when a developer needs to place a tutorial. And as I just noted it would have been so easy to do so by making the damn shopkeeper tell you.
        Well that's enough ranting for me. I'm going to try to power through this game, though I won't lie this RPG really hasn't made the best first impression.

Video Game Musings #1

There are some questions about video games I find myself making throughout the day. These are the type of questions that you ask in passing, never expecting to get any answer but your own rationale speaking to you as if you weren't thinking it yourself. This is a new section I'm dubbing as "Video Game Musings"

1. Why hasn't the Pokemon model been copied yet?
         The Pokemon games have been among the most successful games to be translated to handheld systems. Not only are these games successful in regards to units sold, but the games create the sort of life long allegiance to the brand most games can only hope for. People waste countless of hours with EV training and flocking to special events at "Poke Centers" to make sure they are competitive with any random passerby that happens to have a copy of their game with them. My burning question is why hasn't there been a horrible copy of this formula. It's simple enough. 1. Create a world with countless creatures. 2. Train said creatures 3. Battle. 4. Make a Tournament.  Seriously it's that simple. How many God of War clones have there been?

And let's not forget EA's baby 

The point is that while creating a carbon copy of God of War is pointless (because God of War was awesome due to too many elements), creating copies of Pokemon is not because the elements are simple. It's clear why people get hooked to these games, they really want to "catch them all". And it's not because every single one of them are still reading the manga or watching the anime. It's because the game incorporates a reward system that feels gratifying. I say create more copies of Pokemon, that way we can get something new and exciting (or at least challenge the status quo) 

I don't even know which professor this is. 

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

Overall: 3.8

Story: 3.5

Immersion:4 

Game Mechanics:2.5 

Synopsis: Mario is accompanied by a group of unlikely heroes to find the legendary seven stars to repair the star bridge that allows wishes to come true. In their way lies a villain Smithy, who initially destroyed the star bridge because he is the antagonist. 

      As you might have noticed from the score, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars is not a title I particularly enjoyed. However, I didn't hate it either. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the title, Super Mario RPG (also known as just Mario RPG) is the first RPG to feature the red hat plumber and the last Mario title to come out on the Super Nintendo. The game is considered by many to be among the 50 best RPGs ever made and is arguably the only true RPG for the Mario brand. 

   At this point you must be wondering why I disliked the game. Well starting with the story, the overall narrative was your simple Mario affair turned into the typical RPG save the world story. Mario begins the game saving the princess from Bowser, until a giant sword crashes down into Bower’s castle, expelling Bowser and the princess to distant places, while Mario helplessly watches. Eventually Mario has a run in with a fluffball looking tadpole, who later finds out he isn’t a tadpole (shocker!) and must embark with Mario to find his real parents.

Seriously, how did you mistake him for a tadpole

 Some sort of guardian of the star bridge tags along (in the form of a toy) with Bowser and the Princess joining afterwards (you heard me right, Bowser teams up with Mario). The main goal is to collect seven stars to mend the star bridge that allows wishes to come true. 

  I understand that Mario is catered to children, but Earthbound was also catered to children and managed to touch on some serious themes. Mario RPG is all fluff, all the time. But I didn’t mind that. I mean Mario has never touched on serious stuff in his games. He represents the carefree unlikely hero and I think I would have been more peeved if he started taking himself too seriously. What turned out to be the deal breaker with Mario RPG was the game mechanics or basically how they annoying they were.

   Mario RPG keeps its Mario bragging rights by incorporating platforming elements as much as it can. This means special attacks and weapons can crit only if you hit according to some logical timing mechanism. For some weapons this will be really apparent (punching with a glove can be turned into a crit when you click the a button right before hitting). But then others were a challenge to figure out (tossing a chomp chomp at an enemy). Also to get special items you will have to jump on a cascade of blocks. Remember the special items needed in Mario that were always placed in a difficult but completely optional area of the map. Well now they have only included these types of difficult areas in the game. And with the everything being in 3d, jumping is a sporadic game of where will I land?

So if I jump just right on the edge, I won't have to fight these guys. 

  Mario RPG isn’t horrible. It just isn’t one of the best RPGs ever made. There are countless other RPG titles that are better. If you’re a Mario lover go ahead and play it. But I don’t want to believe this is the best. Play Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, Kotor and so on if you want to play excellence. 

Breaking the "Fourth Wall" in video games: Transcending the pixelated screen

           In Earthbound I was struck with an odd request midway through the game. The game asked Ness (the main character) for the name of the player. At first I thought the game was asking me if I wanted to alter Ness' name, but then it clarified with "No, YOU! THE ONE STARING AT THE SCREEN". At that point there was no doubt in my mind, either I had been playing for far too long and was developing reality spill over (which does exist, I assure you) or the game was breaking the fourth wall. Now before I get into the significance of the way the fourth wall was broken in the game, I want to give some theory (that I've hastily come up with) to qualify what I'm about to say about the way Earthbound uses the breaking of the fourth wall.

      In video games, especially in RPGs, a developer has a crucial question to answer. What POV do you want the gamer to inhabit during the game? In literature POV ranges from first to third person, with third having two flavors: "close" (a narrative where the thoughts of only one character is known to the reader) or omniscient (a narrative where an all knowing narrator tells the story from his invisible perch).  In video games we see some of that mindset adopted, but it is of my opinion that POV needs to be approached differently in video games in regards to narrative. Yes, a shooter can easily be considered third person according to the camera angle the game it adopts, but when it comes to how the gamer is going to interact with the narrative another question needs to be asked. Does the player feel like he is the character or that he is observing the character? If the player feels like he or she is the character, then while the game might be done through a 3rd person camera it could easily have a first person feel. This is crucial for narrative decisions because it informs the developer whether the player will attribute the actions of the character to the character or to themselves. And this works conversely, with players who play first person games experiencing a more third person narrative. In Halo, nobody actually thinks they are master chief, but when playing multi-player the action of your character (who initially was identical to master chief) is ascribed to you. The reason for this has to do with the kind of characters the developers are creating and why certain characters can be inhabited by players more easily.

     When creating characters the spectrum lies between a character archetype (i.e. the peasant, the warrior) and a polished individual character (i.e. Master Chief, Laura Croft). There are several narrative and in game elements that inform players on what kind of character they are dealing with. For example, when a character in a game is given a bunch of exclusive powers only that character can access, the player will see that character as an individual given his unique abilities. However, if the player later finds out that many in the world have similar abilities, then the character will be contextualized in a more generic light. These in game elements are then combined with narrative elements within the game. Back to the Halo example, it was clear that master chief was given "special abilities" (he constantly was the one driving vehicles, given access to better weapons etc.), but as the game goes on it becomes obvious that others within the universe can access those "special abilities" as well. This is when the narrative elements of Halo make it clear to the player that master chief is a unique character within the universe. Now take into consideration Chrono from Chrono Trigger. there are little to no narrative elements that make Chrono a unique character. He is given special abilities, but his story (boy meets princess, comes over adversity) is that of every person you have ever known. Combine this with the fact that the game gives the player the ability to create insight within Chrono's character (there are points in the game where Chrono's responses and actions can reflect on his morality in the eyes of the player), it becomes clear that Chrono is merely a vessel for the player to inhabit. Chrono's actions become that of the player and make it so that the player feels as if they are Chrono (also the player can name Chrono and the entire team, giving even more ownership to the player.

    Now what does all of this have to do with Ness? Well, the POV the player is inhabiting is important to take into consideration when a developer is planning to break the fourth wall. If the player feels as if they are playing in a "first person mindset" then breaking the fourth wall will destroy that, disconnecting them from the character and possibly threatening any significance felt for the game. However, if the POV of the player is that of a third person nature (as it is in Earthbound), then it becomes clear that breaking the fourth wall will only hurt the overall immersion of the game and not the specific significance placed on the character, since the player knows the character is just a character and not them.

  Ness is an interesting character to take this introspection with because he is very much in the middle of the spectrum between an archetype and a polished individual. While, Ness is given special abilities and specific narrative elements ( divorced child, chosen one, etc.), the game gives the player the ability to customize many of those things (the naming of ness and the team, naming his dog, etc). In fact there is only one element in the game that tips the balance in the favor of unique character. The fact that the game rewards the player according to story progression. Power ups and so on, while certainly integral in the game, are not the end all of the game. In fact these powers are usually given on a need to know basis, endowed before boss battles or difficult portions of the game. Instead what is rewarded is the ability of the player to make the narrative progress. If the game was in fact interested in rewarding the player with armor, then it would have needed an extended universe with more monsters and more drops as opposed to the narrative based progression system where the player usually gains new weapons after every significant push in the narrative.

So now we have established that when the game broke the fourth wall it wasn't a huge intrusion in regards to how the player felt about Ness, it's important to take into consideration the  huge intrusion it did have on overall game immersion. And the game definitely makes up for this at the end. SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT READ ON IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE FINAL BOSS BATTLE RUINED.

In the game, when you make it to the third form of the final boss, Paula must pray to all of the friends and families of the group (the group being Ness, Paula, Jeff and Poo).  Their family members deal huge damage to the boss by praying for the group's safety. After exhausting all of their familial options they turn to prayer again just to find their efforts to be rejected ( I thought this was an indicator that I had to pony up and beat the boss with my team).  After losing all of my PP and wasting all of Jeff's objects I decided to pray one more time. This time the prayer was to all the little boys and girls out there. Then it said they were praying for our safety. Then it showed me something that blew my mind. On the screen it revealed" Ray was praying". And then again it showed "Ray was praying". At that moment I closed my eyes and prayed for the characters who I knew weren't real.

The moment a video game transcends it's ability to affect my life only in the form of button clicking to receiving a tangible reaction from me is a clear indicator that immersion has worked. It broke the fourth wall, destroying a little immersion and then made up for it all, by ensuring that the world of Eartbound will forever be apart of my experiences in life.

The "Broken Family" in Earth Bound

         Earthbound explores various topics within the course of the game, allowing the player to gain some introspection into the life of Ness. One glaring topic is that of the "Broken Family", which isn't directly addressed or talked about, but is prevalent within the game. Through clear symbolism, the game informs the player on how Ness feels about his situation by placing particular in-game importance on his missing dad.

      In the game Ness depends on his father for two functions: the ability to save and financial support. Throughout the game, monsters do not drop money forcing Ness to either come by money through treasure chests (I only found one the entire game) or through Ness' father's deposits. The deposits always come after some critical portion of the game was completed giving the illusion of a time dependent check, much like child support. Furthermore, the necessity of  calling Ness' father to save the game makes it so that there is more than just a financial need the father is filling up. 

      When these mechanics are contextualized within the reality of a divorced family, specific messages can be found. The fact that Ness needs more than just  financial aid from his father gives an idea of how crucial it is for a father and a son to remain in contact. This saving role could have easily been regulated to the mother, whose number you are also given. In fact, the mother provides mainly the nurture that is typically ascribed to the mother role. As one goes through the game, if Ness does not talk to his mother for an extended peroid of time he will develop "home sickness" where he refuses to fight until hearing his mother's voice (this was particularly annoying for me because I was in a dungeon with relatively low health when Ness decided to miss home). The father will regularly call, urging Ness to call his mother and take a break. The break was clearly an attempt to regulate young gamers' time spent on the console, but the suggestion to call Ness' mother served as both a warning of homesickness and dialogue the game was making on how a divorced couple can still be nurturing parents. 

     At the end of the game, if Ness calls his father he will be told something along the lines of "you don't need me anymore, it's your birthday next week, maybe I'll be there." This is the ending of the game and it is clearly rewarding Ness with the unhindered attention he always wanted from his father. When games incorporate a divorced family, they either make them dysfunctional or comical. At first, Earthbound seems to be taking the latter route, but then it is made clear that the game is neither completely comical nor a grim serious outlook on the subject. In fact the game serves to create a character and a family a child from a divorced family can relate to. 

     Video games do more than just entertain. They can inform people on the human condition. Earthbound does this concerning the life of a child with divorced parents. It heralds the child, not as a product of a dysfunctional unit, but as any other child who remains loyal and hardworking. 

I don't have a Super Nintendo and I'm not going to buy the gameboy version

I understand many of you might be reading some of my reviews and saying, "Thanks asshole, that game does sound awesome, but seeing as a copy of it will cost me 60 plus, I'm going to ignore it and buy myself some dlc for  (Fallout, Oblivion, Halo, Gears of War, COD, etc). "

Well, no fear! Go to Vizzed.com and you can play all of these games for free without having to download an emulator. Seriously, it was a godsend for me this summer. Go explore all the classic games you've always wanted to play, but never wanted to buy.

vizzed.com = free retro games

I  feel ya :( 

Earthbound

Earthbound:
Overall: 4.7
Story: 5
Gameplay: 4
Micro-Narratives:4
Immersion: 5
World: 5

Synopsis: A boy named Ness, with an affinity towards psychic powers, finds out from a warrior (who comes in the form of a bee) from the future that he is one of four chosen children who must eventually come together to find 8 spiritual sites in order to oppose the evil alien forces of the Gigyas.

           A Miyazaki film in  a video game. That is the best way I can describe Earthbound. It is a an RPG that is all about the story and doesn't need anything else. It is also one of the games out there that's really making an argument for video games as a function of art. But I won't get into how Earthbound speaks particular messages in this post. Instead I'm just going to make it easy for you, the random reader, to decide if Earthbound is a game worth spending your time on. While Earthbound is one of the best games I've ever played, anyone can recognize only a specific type of gamer is going to enjoy Earthbound. That's because Earthbound is only set out to tell a story.
          If you play your RPGs for the normal fantasy based, customizable character get up, where you can outfit your character in the best armor and class just to have the satisfaction of knowing your player is the Mufasa of your world (essentially what I'm saying is if you like Elder Scrolls), then this game is not for you. Earthbound is a game of peculiarity so if you want a run of the mill experience, don't pick up this game. In fact Earthbound starts slow so if you're expecting a fantastical world from the get go, this game will disappoint you. Earthbound is like those books that you begin reading and you find the first two chapters insufferable, but then suddenly you find yourself paying attention a little more and then the true magnificence of the book opens up to you. Earthbound is exactly like that.
       If you're trying to find a game that's going to compel you, Earthbound is definitely one of them. Anyone who wants to take a leap of faith and get transported to a wacky world of small armless creatures with ribbons and Dali clocks that will attack you upon sight, Earthbound is the game for you.

This is what I'm talking about

Micro Narratives in Chrono Trigger

                      As promised, here is an in-depth look at the various micro narratives you'll find in Chrono Trigger. A micro narrative, in the sense that I'm using, are stories that are created and resolved within the long term narrative of the game. The entire first world of Super Mario Bros. 3 could be considered a micro narrative, as you go through the entire story of chasing the princess and beating her supposed captors, while still having to continue on to other worlds to bring about a final resolution.
Warning: There will be tons of spoilers in this and I suggest that anyone who hasn't played the game refrain from reading this.


The amazing thing about the micro narratives in Chrono trigger is how the game allows the player to actively participate within them as opposed to barraging them with a mass of text.

This is really making me want to play through the story (Soul Calibur something) 

Or a pointless cutscene

I bet that won't get repetitive (Final Fantasy 13) 

For example, there is a scene in Chrono trigger where Robo runs into his 6 "brothers". They then proceed to tell him he is faulty and the scene ends, beginning in game action with the 6 brothers viciously beating on Robo. At that moment you control Chrono and have the choice to either jump in or let them continue. If you decide to jump in, you will find Chrono pushed back instantly, with Robo telling Chrono "Stop, they are my brothers". No matter how many times Chrono jumps into the fray to help Robo, he continues to get pushed back and Robo will continue to repeat that same phrase. The game could have just chosen to do this for you. In fact we constantly see gorgeous cut scenes that simulate high emotion parts of the game like this. The difference is that when you as a player get to participate within the situation, you feel the powerlessness of Chrono. 

  I can't wait to kick all of your asses. 

Another example of when Chrono trigger does this is the dream quest with Luca that allows her to save her mother. In this sequence Luca is allowed to go back in time to stop her mother from dying due to one of the inventions her father made. The player can choose to let Luca's mother live or die by actively putting in the password. The first time I played through this sequence it never occurred to me where the password should be put into. When I finally found the console it was too late. How often do we see situations like this in games, where just to avoid an awkward mishap (like missing the console) they forgo the scene with a simple "would you like to do this" yes and no box? When you take ownership away from the gamer, they feel invested within the moment in general. 

I will admit the trigger to this memory came totally out of the blue

These are just two of the many times Chrono Trigger gives the play the ability to control a micro narrative. More games need to allow the player ownership of these critical moments within a game. These moments don't always need to be combat. In life we don't always fight our way through situations and the same should apply to video games. These moments are what set Chrono Trigger apart from other RPGs. They make you feel invested within the characters and the world you are playing in.

Chrono Trigger

How the review system works:

• Everything is out of 5
• Nothing will ever get a perfect from me
• What I choose to rate is arbitrary and usually corresponds to the game I'm reviewing
• I only put this review system up for people who like numbers to reassure their decisions

Chrono Trigger: Overall: 4

Gameplay: 3

Story: 3.5 

Setting/world: 4.5 

Micro narratives: 5 

Synopsis: A boy named Chrono accompanies his genius friend and a tom boy princess through the realms of time, creating a rag tag group to prevent the future destruction of the Earth. 

           Chrono Trigger is a classic in the RPG department and has probably been reviewed by every aspiring game reviewer. I know this because before writing this piece I went around snooping through all the reviews previously written about Chrono Trigger. After scrounging the RPG forums for opinions, I've found two point of views to be prevalent when it came to the time travel based RPG. People either hate Chrono Trigger or love Chrono Trigger. I can understand where both parties are coming from because from what I found when Chrono Trigger was good, it was amazing and when it was bad, you were waiting for it become good again. 

          Chrono trigger doesn't have an amazing story. When one takes a step back and actually thinks about the story being unfolded it's hard to not find it to be incredibly cliche. I know many will snipe about its "novelty" and how that makes its cliche themes in fact original, but I got bad news for fan boys, literature has been using these themes for hundreds of years.But amidst all of my crankiness towards the cliche tendencies of the story, I really didn't mind it and that's because the story wasn't meant to be original. In fact the cliche laden story of Chrono Trigger was incredibly appropriate when one realizes what Chrono Trigger was actually setting out to do. This cliche story has allowed the developers to place colorful characters in a story the player finds comfortable.

         Which brings me to why micro narrative is rated. The narratives being told via the player in Chrono Trigger is superb. There are moments in the game where the reigns of the world are directly handed to the player, allowing the player to shape the world in the whatever way they find fit. These choices will speak to how someone deals with situations and what their sense of morals are. These moments in the game make it so that the player experiences the anguish and success of Chrono and the gang.  I'm going to give a more indepth look into these micro narratives in another post so please wait patiently for some details to back my claim. 

         Finally, Chrono Trigger is one of the first games to introduce different endings (12 of them apparently). These endings range from a "just girls" chat, rating the guy characters of the game in regards to datability and the more traditional "yay, you beat the game!" ending. There's even an ending where you meet the team that made chrono trigger. So the bottom line is, if you are a game enthusiast, you probably should or have already played this game. If you're looking for a fun rpg that has compelling narratives, Chrono Trigger is definitely down your alley. But if you're looking for a unique combat system and some tough bosses, pass on Chrono Trigger. 

             

My Biases

Before I begin going through some classics I want to lay out some of my biases that way you know when to take a review of mine with a grain of salt. I will do this by going through some common genres, explaining my tendencies with each.

Shooters:
     I am not a big fan of shooters, but that doesn't stop me from spending a good 8 hours on a halo reach session once in awhile. My personal philosophy with shooters is that the more simple the mechanics the better the game. I tend to enjoy skill and inventiveness more than simple default techniques when playing shooters. I detest the MW series and will constantly complain about it ( I do like MW4 so I'm not unreasonable). I will also criticize the campaign mode to these games regardless of the multiplayer content.

Adventure/Platformers: I love these sort of games. I'm not particularly amazing at them and can admit I've seen my little brother beat the Mario brother games far quicker than me, but these games are definitely fun to dissect. Also Legend of Zelda is an Adventure game and not a RPG. If you disagree with that statement, stop reading my blog.

RPGs: As a writer I tend to love the telling of a story, making RPGs a natural genre I gravitate towards. I detest pointless grinding (ahem final fantasy) and reward games that sacrifice game play hours for tighter narrative. I do take into consideration game mechanics and whether the system is turn based, real time etc. But A good narrative is all I need to convince me of the game.

My philosophy in general: A game needs two things to be successful:  a solid narrative and tight game play. One can make up for the other. For example, pong is the representation of two paddles playing ping pong. The tight controls and great game play make it so that there doesn't need to be a narrative. While this can be true for some games, I find that many games improve with a narrative. For example, the create your own player section in nba 2k 11 was more engaging when you were given the opportunity to "talk" with the press. That's because you as a player were creating a narrative of the basketball player who was "spunky" or "respectful". Narrative and game play are what my reviews will revolve around.

Ok enough pseudo intellectual verbiage and lets get to the game reviewing!

Reviewing the past and the future

Hello everyone!
 My name is Raymond Arroyo and I'm currently a junior at the University of Michigan studying English and Political Science. But that isn't what's important. You came here to hopefully hear about games and that's exactly why this website was created. Retrospect is a look back at some classics you may or may not have checked out and the occasional shout out to some games that are doing gaming right. I'll also write some opinion pieces on the state of gaming. I'm a firm believer in treating video games as a medium of art, but I refuse to lose sight of the practical purpose of a game, being the entertainment of the player. I sincerely hope you enjoy my writing and encourage all comments and criticism you might have.

                                                                                                     Thanks, Ray