Guffawing Graphics

          I am tired of seeing graphics being used as a benchmark for how great games are. It's really irksome and often a completely pointless exercise of finding the minute difference between two near-exactly identical games. The question needs to be asked, " what role does graphics serve in this game?" Then from there we can properly evaluate how well the graphics of the game are filling that role. Graphics can play several roles at once in a game. They can be critical in suspending your belief or necessary for being able to distinguish between wall and player. Graphics serve an end of some sort and when its reached, anything extra could very well be considered a point of diminishing returns. Sure, it's nice that you're able to read the identification number on that building, but the amount of immersion that's lost from not having it is probably minimal. That's not to give a free pass to developers to start making games that are graphically horrendous. I'm merely suggesting that graphics aren't a good thing to distinguish games by. Did the graphics of Wind Waker make it inferior to Twilight princess? No, and anyone who uses that as a main reason to reject one in favor for the other would be viewed as clueless. Graphics with today's technology is a given. Great graphics should make little noise, while horrible graphics should be ostracized. It would be fair to compare graphics to an offensive line.
        There are some games where the graphics comparison is reasonable. Simulation games such as Madden or 2k rely heavily on trying to bring as much reality as possible. The grittier the game gets, the better it is. So when comparing Madden 2012 to 2013 and hearing that it's "more crisp", I understand why that kind of commentary might be valued by the player. However, a comparison between Halo 4 and Black ops 2, in regards to graphics, tells us little about the overall playing experience (unless one of them have serious graphics issues). The point is that graphics need to give us insight on whether the game is better, not merely be a bragging right that a game (and in part idiot fans of the game) gets to flaunt. I'm not asking that graphics stop being analyzed, just stop using them as arguments when their effects are minimal at best.
      One final distinction I want to make is the difference between graphics and art design. Graphics can play a role in art design, but rarely is it the main star. Instead what is often sorely forgotten is the way games construct environments that are unique, yet familiar. Art designers need to decide how entire civilizations and landscapes look. The decision to make a level on an uphill incline, that has protruding thorns in a way to imply a scorched earth feel, is only partially fulfilled by graphics. This level design can be created in all range of graphics, but these decisions have a transferable in game experience.
     So my suggestion to most websites and gamers out there is to stop putting so much stock in graphics. Call out aesthetically poor games, but don't adopt this pixel driven mindset. Instead analyze art design and incorporate graphics there. Or only discuss graphics when it's pertinent. This will give reviewers and gamers more time to talk about the things that matter, like the fact that the zombies mode in Black Ops was seriously altered.

Dear Jim, Be Quiet: Why review scores are plagued in Video games

      I was watching a "Jimquistion" video on escapist.com. In fact, here is the video http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6582-Review-Scores-Are-Not-Evil# you can go watch it yourself, but I warn you it's a huge waste of time. The video was essentially a defense of the use of review scores in video game reviewing and why everyone who's upset with it can go fuck themselves. Jim claims that he shouldn't have to sacrifice accessibility for most users due to the incessant whining of a select few. What Jim refuses to acknowledge is how perverted the video game review system has become. Well, he does do a small 15 second acknowledgment of a "few issues" with the system, but decides not to talk about any of them because then it would make him look like a complete idiot. Instead I'm going to explain why video game review scores currently don't work. I'm not saying get rid of every review scores system. I'm just calling out big offenders like IGN and basically every other mainstream video game review sites that uses the same inflated bullshit rating system.

          The first issue with the rating system is how easy it is to create kickbacks with it. Reviewers can easily give a game an 8/10 (what ever that means) and then proceed to rail on the glaring issues of the game, without ever having to worry about seriously being called a hypocrite. That's because a good majority of people don't even read the reviews. Or for sectioned reviews they'll skip to the graphics section (because they can clearly tell the difference) and arm themselves with the review score and graphics score so they can brag to their friends. One might argue that if you get rid of the score system, kick backs will still happen. Yes, they will but then it's much easier to detect bullshit when you're reading someone trying to actively convince you a bad game is good. A score on the other hand gives you no way of knowing whether a game is good or not. 

     A good example of a game that received amazing reviews, while among most gamers being the worst game of the series is the infamous Fable 2. Fable 2 was rated one of the best games of the holiday season and panned out to be the most boring and dull game of the year. It was also a huge waste of money. But what did our friend IGN give it? An 8.8. This game deserved a nice 4.5 and that's generous. Yahtzee (someone who probably owes his initial big break to the creator of Fable) even refused to give the game kickback praises, referring to it as the same game with a dog. 

         The second issue with the rating system is how inflated the system is. For most websites the average game get's about a 7. God forbid a game gets below a 5. Games that are average should be given 5s. If you don't feel comfortable with that switch to the 5 star system or another point system that doesn't make you seem like a complete meanie. But there is no excuse for game review websites to continually churn out 7s and 8s for subpar games. Some argue that they're using number systems as one would grade exams. A 7 is the equivalent of a C- and so on. I'll get into why that doesn't seem to be the case later ( or more specifically why that doesn't matter). But the point is that there are way too many highly rated games. This is usually because the standards games are rated on are out of wack as well (another post some time). 

      The third and final issue with review scores is that there is no tangible way of analyzing them. Nobody really understands what reviewers are trying to say with their review systems. The argument that games are being rated like one rates a test is idiotic. A test is often easy to measure on a 1-10 scale because you do it based on how much of the test was completed correctly. The reason 7 isn't that great is because we expect a high level of mastery on most of the material. This isn't the case for video games. People don't go into reviewing a video game saying they want a certain amount of content covered and if it isn't all mostly covered it's horrible. Reviews use some basic parameters (and fancy one's if you have a good reviewer) and use them as a metric to describe the game. The final score should make it so that a 5 is average and 10 is the best. It's that simple. Other sites switch to different ratings systems, like the 5 star system. This is a good start, but again it's important that we fully understand what ratings mean and what weight they hold as a good comparative measure. 

      Now I know I can get called out for being a hypocrite because I use a rating system in my own site. However,I urge you to read my first post on this site to get a clear explanation on how I rate games. An expedited explanation of my reviewing system is that I can care less about review scores. I come up with game specific measures because I think what's more important is finding what shines ( and what's horrible) than to just look at the same 5 stock things every single time. 

   This isn't a call to get rid of the review system. All this is doing is calling out review sites for their nonsense reviews and telling Jim Sterling to respectfully shut the fuck up. Stop whining about how people are too stupid to understand rating systems and acknowledge that the relationship between the rating system and the video game community hasn't been a particularly smooth one. It's definitely a relationship that can be salvaged, but with videos like Jim's, we have a long way to go. 

The social barrier that is Video Game Nerdom

           This is probably one of the more touchy topics I've taken on this blog and that's because I'm challenging a social aspect of the current gaming culture that has been accepted as the golden standard of the community. Since the beginning of video games the image of the "nerd" has been associated with the subset of avid gamers. Often it is assumed that  people who are into video games must be nerds to be legitimate. This is false in so many ways. We are a diverse community that allows so much more than the nerd caricature. Football players love video games. Artists love video games. Even a hipster or a frat boy can be a lover of video games. The notion that the only people who are "true" gamers are nerds, who spend their time looking at games through the same watered down technical lens, is simply untrue. And we see this stereotype continue to be perpetuated in pop culture. But why is this such an easy caricature to create? Well it's really because of people like this

Chief Landless is a self proclaimed Halo expert who comes out with videos concerning a myriad of technical topics within the Halo, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed games. Some of his videos are actually quite informative and I'd suggest you check them out for basic information concerning Halo that you could have otherwise gotten from any major video game network. On top of that he makes "Let's play videos" where he plays the game and adds "witty banter" to create a unique viewing experience for his audience. Unfortunately, what Chief Landless doesn't know is that he's perpetuating the same uninspired approach to video games that currently exists in the media. Instead of asking what makes Halo Halo or why is a certain game mechanism so prevalent in a game, he merely compiles lists and facts that serve no purpose but to prove knowledge on the topic. He then presents this information as the only access point to the medium and game, completely shutting down any further conversation. 

    This is what we need to be getting away from. The idea that true gamers spend more time knowing things about games, than knowing about the game themselves. People like Chief Landless shouldn't be completely discounted, but they shouldn't be a majority either. Instead we need to be more supportive of a more critical tone in the community. People need to be willing to view video games through multiple lenses. If Chief Landless really wants to be a "Halo expert" he should have his own unique view and opinions on Halo that make his musings on Halo meaningful, not just a compilation of already know information about the game. I suggested this to Chief Landless on one of his videos, but instead of taking it as a serious suggestion he laughed it off and called me ignorant. 

     We need to stop this false deification of nerd culture in video games. Nerds are not the only ones who have a claim in video games. Everyone does. And the sooner we have more multifaceted voices in the community, the quicker you'll see the community grow into a more successful advocate for why video games are art. 

Note: Just because Chief Landless is ignorant and obnoxious doesn't mean you need to be. By all means comment on his pages, youtube video, etc, but don't deride him for being an idiot, it'll just make it two idiots bickering. 

Halo 4: A crash course on how to make an uninspired mutliplayer shooter

              I could explain why narratively it made no sense to add loadouts to Halo 4, but I'm not going to. Partially because I know that the people who keep asserting that Halo 4 is better with the addition of load outs tend to be the people who don't really care much for narrative. So to level with their stupidity I'm going to explain purely from  a gameplay perspective why the addition of load outs (which isn't a huge leap from the mistakes of halo reach) completely muddles Halo gameplay and changes the experience for the worse.
           Let's analyze what made Halo a successful shooter when it initially came out. One might argue it was the space marine setting that drew people to Halo. Others could claim the extensive weapon selection and multiplayer were the deal sealers. But I argue it's the limitations placed on master chief that made Halo a tension filled experience that allowed players to quickly negotiate different scenarios of their impending death. When ever one got into a conflict in Halo there was always a crucial decision to be made, engage or not engage. This same conflict and decision can be made several times in the matter of a few seconds within the game, creating a fast paced thrill of making decisions given the weapons you have, the weapons near you, and the strategic position of you and your enemies. Compare this to MW, where players either wait to catch the enemy or are caught by the enemy, usually ending with the imminent death of whoever is at the receiving end. MW is a game that is more preoccupied with technical skill, while Halo is a combination of technical skill and overall intuition.
       Now I can already here the cries of refutation. One might argue that the sniper in Halo serves a purely technical role. This is partially true, but since players can't choose to be a sniper (in the old Halo), then it was up to the player to decide how much technical skill they wanted to use when donning the sniper. Another argument is Modern Warfare requires a lot of intuition as well. This is false. Often Modern Warfare is a game determined by skill and luck. Sure there are plenty of dumb things you can do in a MW match, but if both teams have reasonably intelligent players, then the game usually devolves to who has the quickest and most accurate shot. Compare this to Halo, where team coordination and gun combinations can cause a myriad of scenarios that require players to constantly rely on intuition to make decisions. Now I don't want to get into nuts and bolts, but simply put there are far too many intangibles that go into play for a Halo shootout, compared to MW. What I mean by this is that the function of several different guns in halos, usually create particular advantages that can prove to be more useful depending on the situation. In Modern warfare it just seems like the guns are on  3 axis plane of reload time, accuracy and power. Also, let's take into consideration the introduction of shields versus no shields, which makes certain gun cycles much more useful than others.
     It all boils down to various cycling dichotomies: situational vs tactical, skill vs intuition, gun specs vs gun choice, etc. Now the question of which one is better is completely based on preference. Some people enjoy the test of skill and the element of luck that is involved in MW, while others enjoy the conflict negotiation that comes with Halo. Regardless of what camp you are in, it should be agreed upon that each game is contributing a unique experience to the genre. In this context, the push to become more like MW by Halo is an unwise one. Not only is Halo not a better MW than MW, it simply wasn't built to be like MW. So no, I don't like the new Halo because it destroys what players love about Halo and replaces it with this uninspired trend of copying the top selling game in the industry instead of creating actual new content.
           

Point of View in video games: An English major's interpretation of the function of voice in a game

      I touched upon this topic in an old post concerning the breaking of the fourth wall in the game Earthbound, but I thought it would be helpful to put my thoughts on how one should approach point of view and how it functions within a game. The purpose of this post is not to purport any authority over the subject matter. Instead I hope to create a theory base that can either be challenged or worked from. I encourage anyone reading this to chime in with your own "2 cents" about where my theory goes awry and where it really sheds some light on the function of point of view in video games. I am writing this to spark a conversation that needs to be had before we can critically look at how a narrative is being told through a story.
    First, let me begin with some background knowledge as to what "point of view" actually is. The point of view in a text is basically the vantage point from which the narrative is being told. This vantage point doesn't need to be static (for example, there are plenty of novels that switch between 1st and 3rd person), but many of our favorite stories have been told through one point of view. When classifying point of view English uses four categories to organize most tests. These four categories are first person, second person, third person limited, and third person omniscient. First person is when the narrative is told by a character within the story (i.e. the chief in One flew over the Cuckoos nest). Second person is usually marked by the evocation of "you" and is frequently associated with breaking of the fourth wall. Third person limited is when there is a detached narrator, who seems to be telling the story through the eyes of a certain character or characters. Third omniscient is when there is a detached narrator who has full knowledge of the entire universe of the text. Often these point of views ( excluding second) can be mapped out on a spectrum from narrator-character differentiation. On such a spectrum one end would lie a true first person text, where there is no difference between character and narrator, and on the other end there would be a true third person omniscient.
    Now what does any of this have to do with video games? A lot really because video games don't utilize a literature based take of point of view. Instead it takes after film, adopting the camera angle as the point of view. While this does have an effect on how the game is perceived, using this mode of classification elicits a lot of false assumptions concerning the nature between the player and the narrative. For example, usually first person camera angles give the player (or viewer) a feeling as if they are the character in the screen. This effect is useful for horror movies and shooters, because it allow the player feel the dread and danger these genres tend to create. But what does it tell us about how the player views the character in the screen? Does the player actually believe the character is an extension of them or do they simply view them as a character they're inhabiting for the time being. A camera angle doesn't answer these questions. However, when using literature's classification system these questions are given some context to work from. In a text, the way a character acts is perceived incredibly different when written in different points of views. The same could be said for video games. The player's relationship with the in game character or proxy is important because then the actions done in the game will be perceived differently according to that relationship.
    I'm not advocating for an adoption of the literary take on point of view nor am I asking for the complete abandonment of the camera angle classification system. Instead I want to take a critical look on how point of view functions in games, with some of the intuition from the literary system being kept in mind. Just as the point of views in Literature can be mapped on a spectrum of differentiation, a similar spectrum can be made for video games. However, this spectrum will focus on differentiation between the player and the in-game proxy as opposed to character and narrator. That's because the player in a way is the ultimate narrator of a game. Sure the developer decides a lot of the executive decisions, but the player is the entity that literally drives the plot of the game. It's important to know whether the player considers themselves the a puppet master or a marionette. An easy way to encompass this differentiation is by thinking of in game characters as either templates or developed characters. Templates are easily inhabited by the player, making differentiation very low, while developed characters tend to be much hard to inhabit.

    Template<------------------------------------------------------------------> Developed Character
    Wii Sports     Fable    Chrono Trigger    EB                 Master Chief     Solid Snake
                                                   L of Z

     Character<-----------------------------------------------------------------> Narrator
           1st person                                         3rd person- lim                              3rd person omniscient

     Why is this essential knowledge? Well it's because the developer needs to keep this perspective in mind when deciding how characters function and act within  the game. Fable is a game that's very close to being a blank template, so if the game forced you to act in a certain way, the player is more likely to get annoyed because the player feels like those actions are attributed to themselves. Compare this with the actions of Solid Snake, who is inconsiderate, smokes and a bit of a pervert, yet gets the moral dilemma pass, because you don't view him as an extension of you, but simply a character whose story you're experiencing. This perspective also works with archetypes and how archetypal characters can be filled with depth or left blank. Link is the archetypal hero, but we all imagine a certain personality for him. Some moments may have clued you in, but other for his heroic stature, little is actually known concerning who Link is and what his personality might be like. The game assumes you'll fill that part in.
           I really hope this starts new conversation concerning how people look at games. Ask yourself what is the developer allowing me to do with my in game proxy and what does it say about me. What does it say about the character? You'll find those questions are ones you've been answering all along inside you're head while playing.

Game over matter: what's plaguing our current competitive gaming culture

             I was in a game of League of Legends, where I found myself dealing with the normal slew of complete jerks. My teammates decided they both wanted to go mid, but instead of explaining this move to us they decided to just both call mid last minute and leave it at that. When the neglected lane started to be pushed, they began the normal barrage of harassment, making sure that everyone else but them in the game knew how much of noobs we were. Eventually I got tired of it and told them to shut up and suggested that we switch to a more conventional meta. But they insisted that we were "noobs" and continued to be complete assholes the entire game. When it became clear these guys were refusing to play the game in a way we could win, I started to feed in retaliation.
           To this reaction one of the players stated this, " I can forgive anything you say to me, but I can't forgive feeding, that's a no in the game." This is wrong. This is a clear example of how the culture of competitive gaming has its priorities mixed up. It doesn't matter what in game transgressions one does, the act of attacking a player as a person should always be weighed as the most grave offense. Someone who "feeds" or goes "AFK" or anything that isn't directly targeted to hurt a particular player cannot be considered worse than someone who is devaluing another person. That's because the game is ultimately a fantasy. Sure, high stake tournament matches might be different, but for the bulk of LoL games, a single game is a short 1hr instance, where a bad player or bad player behavior can ruin your game, but not your night. Hurtful language and discriminatory slang can successfully do both.
         Intentional feeding and other similar behavior are very rare in  a game like LoL because the time commitment one has to undergo when joining a game deters people from trying to troll games. Trolling only works when it can be done efficiently. If I have a horrible team I can troll 4 different people every 20 minutes in LoL, in the most efficient scenario. Compare this scenario to online games like Halo where a new trolling experience can be accessed within minutes, with little to no penalties for dropping matches. LoL makes it so that those who want to intentionally feed, won't get very much satisfaction for doing so. Yet players still hold this near deification of the game meta, while ignoring how they hurt actual people.
         One might say that the same deter for trolling exists in negative language (basically people who want to go around being rude can do so at the same rate as those who want to around intentionally feeding). This is true, but ignores the fact that while using this hurtful language players can still derive the benefit from playing the game and winning the game at the same time. If one intentionally feeds, chances are high that their team is going to lose.
        This culture of "game over people" needs to stop. When I look through Tribunal cases and see people being punished for horrible play and/or intentional feeding, while those in their chat ridiculed them a and belittled them, I see a huge example of injustice. It's time the video game community looked itself in the mirror and top sugarcoating the message. People matter more than games. It's that simple.

Scott Pilgrim: The Video game metaphor

          The classic mode for video games was stage-> boss battle. It then became more complicated with  barriers such as stage-> mini-boss-> boss battle. Then from this mode video games exploded into a million different directions, with some focusing on stages and others focusing on boss battles and others going to new horizons. But no matter what, many of us hold dear the old method of fighting several bosses to get to the final resolution. This is what drives the plot of Scott Pilgrim. Each ex boyfriend was a boss and with the defeat of each one Scott got closer to the resolution. When watching this movie as a gamer, every single classic game experience you ever had is activated and suddenly the movie becomes the interactive space where you used to dwell as a kid. It's great for gamers and gaming culture to be used in this light. This kind of inter-textual conversation is exactly what video games need.
       Scott Pilgrim is the beginning of a rich conversation about what role video games play in our lives. Clearly, with the success of the movie, video games play a huge role in many people's lives. The boss battle paradigm was adopted as a key plot driving mechanism. The movie wasn't in the business of throwing around random video game references, but instead linking these references to how people feel about particular game mechanics. The coin mechanism which always let us know we were making progress. The lives mechanism, which at times could be unforgiving or a savior. And the continue screen that always begged the question of "what is to come next". These things don't just hold nostalgic value, but intrinsic value to us. This intrinsic value comes in the form of personal anecdotes and experiences about people's favorite classic game. Scott Pilgrim brought these stories back to life.
           Now, I know that one might read this and think I'm bias. Of course the video game blog and video game blogger is going to have a video game centered viewing of the movie. To this criticism I have no retort. This is one lens that is hardly ever used and it makes me happy that I have found a movie that allows me to use it. I hope more movies look to video games for context in the future.