Cave Story

Cave Story
Overall:3.4
Narrative: 3.0
Platforming: 3.8
Characters: 2.8
Weapons: 3.8          

            Aha! I bet you guys didn't think I'd get through Cave Story. Well if that was your suspicion, then you're completely right. Cave Story, while certainly not a horrible game, didn't really do it for me. And unlike some games, where I find myself so engrossed in the plot that I lose track of time, responsibilities and showering, Cave Story was never quite able to really captivate me. But I have reason! Sweet reason that explains  where Cave Story really shines and where it falls off. So let's go spelunking through Cave Story (see what I did there).
         
Narrative
        I often treat the title of a video game like the title of a poem, I consider it to be the door that I have to open to get inside the piece. And when I see something titled "Cave Story", I have pretty basic expectations. I expect there to be a cave and some semblance of a story that has to deal with said cave.  Luckily Cave Story delivers on both of these targets. There is indeed a Cave and the entire game takes place in it, playing out what seemed to me, an incredibly basic storyline.
        What disheartens me the most about Cave Story is how basic, yet confusing the storyline of Cave Story is. You never really understand why you're doing something. The beginning of the game has a lot of mystery, which I concede had me pretty curious, but when almost all of the mystery was lifted by the middle of the game, I just found myself confused and kind of disinterested with the entire premise. The basic plot is that there is an evil scientist, who wants to do something to a tribe of bunnies, but these two other bunnies, who apparently are from somewhere else, wants to stop him. Where I fit into this as a player I have no idea, but it seems everyone is incredibly trusting of me seeing that they send me on quests, which the entire future of their tribe hinges upon. I guess they didn't really have a choice. Also, there is definitely a scenario of imperfect information going on in the game. What I mean by this is that everyone in the game knows I'm someone from the surface and that I'm a soldier. I was also called a robot at one point. Since I have no idea what this means in this universe I don't really know what to make of the significance. There's also some random hooded dude, who seems content with just chilling and being incredibly wise. Perhaps he's just the bard figure being intermittent in the game.
      All this imperfect information eventually leads me to the one glaring issue with the game, my character is completely devoid of any personality or purpose. I don't know who my character is, how he's supposed to act or if he represents me or a unique character. This makes it hard for me to become immersed in the game because I'm consistently reminded that I'm just playing for playing's sake. And there's nothing wrong with that, but when one is on a busy schedule a game needs to bring something to the table to compete for my attention. The game didn't even need to develop the character. In fact having this everyman transverse the story would have been fine if I at least had the basic tenets of a purpose. One might argue that the arbitrary tasks assigned to the character would be the purpose or that I should as a person inherently feel compassion and want to help the cause of the bunnies, but I really don't buy into this. Mostly because aside from a few baddies (who I made quick work off), I don't ever see a real present threat. I hate overusing this example, but Chrono Trigger is the perfect example of motivating a character (and by extension a player) to want to complete a game. The beginning of the game is simple, rescue Marle. Then that switches to a visual depiction of the Earth being destroyed that you must prevent. All I ever see from Cave Story is a bunch of secret experiments, which people tell me are pretty bad, but I have no reason to believe that's the case. They're eggs, why didn't they just have one of the eggs crack open, letting out a monster that completely destroyed me, thus setting up motivation for me to want to destroy the monster in another encounter and adding validity to the claims of awfulness that the bunnies have been harping on about.

Gameplay
        The gameplay to Cave Story is platformer meets scroll shooter and it's fun. I mean there's just something cathartic about gathering weapons, leveling them up and using them to more efficiently defeat monsters you were initially having trouble with. There are a variety of guns, which are distinct in the way you have to use them in the game. This is a refreshing change from what most shooters do (i.e. increase the damage on the next gun). The platforming itself is actually pretty flat in my opinion. I've never been a huge platform game lover, but I know the difference between intuitive level design and tedious challenges. Mario bros had intuitive level design that allows players to explore new facets of the stages with multiple play throughs. Cave Story is about execution of incredibly tedious jumps and timing mechanisms. This can at times leave me stuck in an area for 20 minutes at a time, attempting the same jump about 20 times. And since I'm not really captivated by the story, I find myself inclined on quitting rather than continuing with this pointless display in tedious timing. If someone enjoys this facet of platforming, then perhaps you should pick up Cave Story, but I'll pass on that funny business.

Cave Story isn't a bad game. It's a game that is paying homage to the old super nintendo games and shows that you can still make a compelling gaming experience without amazing graphics and other perceived triple A necessities. But still, just like many triple A games, Cave story simply doesn't deliver on narrative and with what truly something that has been done so many times gameplay wise, there's really no reason to go out rushing to download this game. 

What do you look for when you play a game?

                      When we play games, we often do so passively. What I mean by this is that we don't go into games expecting to take a particular thing out of it. Our requirements are pretty low: entertain us. This is very akin to the process some people take into reading books or watching movies. Not everyone goes into a book and movie expecting a search for meaning. And that's fine. I think the world has enough snobs like me, putting down movies because they aren't narratively up to snuff. Still, the flip side to this are the movies and books that captivate you over and over again. These pieces make it so that eventually you look for more than what you initially bargained for and as a result, enjoy the movie far more than you did before.
                      But sometimes we just don't know what we're supposed to be looking for. When it comes to books and movies, there are entire departments in universities, that devote themselves to answering the title of this post (except for their respective mediums instead). Video games, while appreciated by some places, don't really have a literature that sets up formal theory or explanation on what components of a game people should pay attention to. So we rely on critics and websites that are often ran by complete idiots. These people are in the business of selling games, making the integrity of their critique dubious (There are definitely some video game critics that I respect, but I think most of them are huge sellouts or sheep or both). So I've frequently needed to ask myself what should I be looking for when playing a game. This usually leads to more questions such as, should be I be looking for the same core things in a game? Does this mean that all video games have the same core components? If these components exist, then what are they and why are they so important to the video game process? The logical query goes on and on, but when I play games, none of these questions cross my head. Perhaps it's because my training as an English major kicks in. As an English major I find myself often dealing with text in a baptism by fire fashion. The best way to know what to look for is by jumping into the brisk waters of the uncharted and begin looking. If what you're supposed to find is somewhere in there, then if you look at every single detail you should hopefully find it. The life of an English major ( and basically anyone who does some sort of analysis) is the gathering of tiny strands of strings that may lead to a trap door or a dead end.
                     That was the short answer of what I look for when I play a game. I'm sure I have a less pretentious answer somewhere in me that would come shining through if you would ask me in person. But when thinking about it alone, I realize that often my answers to people in person are spurred by my insatiable desire to talk about video games with people. When I have to talk about this alone, I simply can't.
                     Games are rich pieces that can continually be analyzed. There is no right thing to look for and even if you're judging a game based on a small feature or simply on how awesome its soundtrack is, there is some validity to your opinion (if you can show evidence from the game that supports your claim about it). It'd do you an injustice for me to tell you what you should you look for.
                           I guess this begs the question of what the hell was the purpose of this post? It's to encourage all of you out there, who's willing to take the dive into playing games actively that they are not wasting their time. It makes me happy to take games apart and derive more meaning from them. Games can make me cry. They can make me laugh. They can make me shout out in anger and disgust. And I want to know why, just like how I want to know why I am so moved by the death of Dido or the triumph of McMurphy. So for all of you gamers out there that look for more, know you aren't alone. 

What happened to Terranigma?

           For those of you who might be avid readers of my blog (basically 4 people according to my view reader), you may have noticed that I never finished the classic action RPG Terranigma. This may have caused some of you to assume that it shares the same fate of Final Fantasy and Secret of Mana, both games that I stopped playing due to intense boredom. Well no, Terranigma did not share their fate. The abrupt abandonment of Terranigma is just a product of bad timing. I was finished through I'd like to say 40% of the game and then RA training and school came around, essentially derailing me from the game. The question of why I haven't picked it back up is easy to answer. I've forgotten the gameplay system and so it would be an annoying learning curve to go back into playing the game, especially on my laptop. So I've just accepted that it's a game I'll try to do another time. 

            What I do remember about Terranigma is that it was shaping up to be an incredibly powerful game. The tone of the game was for the most part incredibly serious, lending to it an ominous feel. The game relied on one's natural inclination to bring balance to the world, since the world you're saving isn't a foreign land, but the actual decimated planet Earth. The game is very mindful on how it uses and portrays nature and it's heavily polluted Earth feels quite real to a 21st century gamer. I remember that some character plots were quite exciting and developed cultures for each type of organism. The love interest in the game was also very interesting and how she was going to connect later on is something I was curious to find out. 

         I can't give something my stamp of approval till I've legitimately finished it (on the contrary, I can give my stamp of disapproval to anything that displeases me in the first 20 minutes), but I can encourage you guys to try the game for yourself. It was a tad difficult at parts, but the game seems fairly paced and very fun to play through. Tell me how it turns out for you and if the reception is great enough (i.e. greater than 1 comment), then I will definitely revisit it. 

A blog gone astray

         I realized that yet again I've managed to turn this blog into what it's not. This blog's primary purpose was to review old games, thus the name "Retrospect". The idea was by reviewing these games with a modern take, unsung classics ( and some well known classics) would be revisited and cherished for the masterpieces they are. Well I'm glad to announce that I'm going to refocus the blog this coming year. The next few games I'm going to be reviewing are going to be indie games akin to the 8-bit era that I've been so endearing too. Then I'm going to go back to the Super Nintendo and search for more classics to enjoy.
        The purpose of reviewing old games is not only to get people to look back, but to also remind people the power of video games without the flashy graphics and complicated plots. I want to bring people back to a time where tools were limited and so developers did more with less. I believe if current game designers aren't playing these games, then they are truly missing out and doing an injustice to the games they are currently working on. Just like how a poet who hasn't read Shakespeare is completely blind to a world of possibility, a RPG game designer who hasn't played earthbound is completely blind to how amazing the normalcy of the world can be. I hope bringing this blog back into focus will make my devotion to it stronger and will help spur more conversation on the site (since it currently has none). 

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.