God of War, I Don't Know

Well it's happened: The trailer of the new God of War game has dared to show it's face. It indicates a) an aged Kratos and b) a trek into Norse mythology.

I once remember reading that David Jaffe had plans for God of War as series in that Kratos, with each new game, would travel the world, storm his way into another mythology and slaughter all the deities within it. Now, it would seem that that plan is going ahead.

But a new iteration to the God of War series does nothing to sell the IP as a series to me. I enjoyed the first game but with each new game it is becoming difficult to connect with Kratos. Sure it may be some entertainment value to see him slaughter through anything dumb enough to stand in his way but that can only last for so long.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: My main problem with Kratos is that, as a character, there's not a lot you can do with him. As a result, with each God of War game that has followed the first one, Kratos' reasons for his rampaging has becoming increasingly flimsy and often makes him out to be a spoiled brat who would rather blame other people for his failings. Yes in the first game Kratos had the motivation for revenge but since then he's taken up slaying deities because Kratos was being jerk.
But now, the series is in a rather uncomfortable position of stagnation: the people who play the God of War series have become so accustomed to see Kratos make a bloody rampage that it's now expected. Anything less simply won't do at all.

I still stand by my declaration that Kratos needs a mirror character (hell, I've come up with even better ideas for future God of War games). Because, if anything, it's the only way I see that a God of War sequel has a hope in hell of succeeding.
So let's expand on this mirror character idea: Some nameless, faceless woman is cut down by Kratos as she was in his way. But the woman has a husband who swears vengeance. And seeing as Kratos has ascended to godhood (well he did at the end of the first game), this widower travels across Greece to try and obtain the means to slay a god. It may be a repeat of Krato's original journey but it provides a mirror - and makes the final confrontation with Kratos all the more engaging.
And better still, it provides an interesting angle on internet debates on whether Kratos can defeat anyone he is confronted with.

But sadly such idea may never be released: Why give depth to Kratos as a character when we can just have him punch out Thor and Odin?

Your God Not Mine

Some weeks ago, a new God of War was announced. Well I suppose a new God of War game is, by now, inevitable as the tide, regardless of actual quality.

Honestly, I think the God of War games have the same problem the Tomb Raider games one faced: The trap of formula. Both franchises had a big hit with the first game but everything that's followed in it's wake is the same formula - hindered by a Player character who has plenty of brand recognition but is handled by writers who don't seem to have a clue what to do with the them.

Really, what can you do with Kratos? It's fair to say that the God of War games that aren't no.1 have wrecked what made Kratos initially interesting: Now he's just being angry for the sake of it. Kratos is a parody of himself and he's stuck there. Now, he's been angry for so long that it's now expected of him: if he isn't tearing shit up, his fans will call foul - and if he were to have a moment of introspection and/or actual character depth, he'll be called a pussy.

Personally, I can see some potential in the idea of Kratos being confronted with the constant carnage he's caused. What if he was cast into a desert where he has no one to fight? There, in amongst the silence, he is confronted with his actions and the countless people he has killed. Only problem there is a) the afore-mentioned danger of making Kratos a pussy and b) that doesn't sound like much of a game.

Another idea, which continues the wavelength from the previous idea is having someone else as the Player Character. They saw their wife being cut down by Kratos so the player character takes it upon himself to take out Kratos himself. True Yahtzee suggested this before but it would make an interesting iteration on the themes established in the first game. Only problem there is that game franchises without their established lead tend not to do well (Metal Gear Solid 2 anyone?).

Still Tomb Raider managed to do something new with it's latest iteration, so there may be some hope for the God of War games - but I sincerely doubt it.

Dead Heart

Recently I sat down and watched a compilation of the cutscenes to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swam. Yes I know it’s not sitting down and actually playing the game but I’m a busy man and I’ve things to do. Besides previously I wrote about being unimpressed with the plot to StarCraft so what do I think of this new iteration?

Let me start off by telling you all some thoughts I have about Game of Thrones. Like every man and his dog, I’ve seen the TV series and I’ve been hooked. I have not read the books but, much like the actors in the TV show, I’m not about to start due out of fear as to what is going to happen to certain characters (although a lot of character death would be a likely outcome).  However, as it pays to keep an ear to the ground, I am aware that many people are unhappy with the more recent books, Feast of Crows and Dance of Dragons, only citing little to no plot developments and the flow slowing down to glacial pace. It is as of George RR Martin has written himself in a corner with no clear direction of where he’s going with the text.  True he managed to top the  beheading of Eddard Stark  with the now notorious Red Wedding but what can George RR Martin do now?

The reason I am bringing this up is that I kind of feel the same about StarCraft: The first game may have inspired a lot of rage in me but it was an emotional reaction – and certainly not the kind that will deter me from playing StarCraft in future. This in turn raises a question: What is there left to do in the StarCraft universe?

Let’s remind ourselves of the ending of StarCraft Brood War: Through Kerrigan’s machinations, the Zerg have triumphed over all their adversaries. The Protoss civilization is on it’s knees, Arcturus’ empire is similarly ruined and the UED is obliterated. In addition, Kerrigan’s actions indicated that she made an irreversible decision to discard her humanity completely. And it is well and truly clear that she was doing what she did for…well…… the pure pleasure of it.

I’ve never understood why people rally around Kerrigan with such passion: She is a sadist, a narcissist, a cold-blooded murderess and beyond any sort of redemption. Therefore, to try and provoke any sympathy for a genocidal monster is indeed strange and baffling.  And to go back to the Game of Thrones analogy, Joffrey is widely despised and has absolutely no moments of sympathy – which in turn makes it much easier to hate the little prick.

Therefore, coming into Heart of the Swarm, I can’t escape the thought that Blizzard have this character but no idea what to do with her.

I’m not sure if Kerrigan has a purpose in Heart of the Swarm beyond ‘Hey it’s me! Kerrigan! Yeah you know me, the psychotic bitch from the first game…’. Yes having her kick arse may please her fans but at the same time, she’s is presented in a sympathetic manner. Which comes across as undoing the ruthlessness that made her character so unforgettable in the previous game. Indeed it is strange to see Kerrigan, the self-proclaimed Queen Bitch of the Universe, worry for Raynor and lay all the blame for the atrocities she committed on Arcturus. This is the same character right?
Whilst the idea of revenge against Arcturus is an understandable motivation, Kerrigan however adapts a tunnel-vision approach to it. She’s so determined, I found myself questioning the sincerity of such an undertaking. This is, after all, the same character who, in Brood War, did what she did out of her own choice – I think we’re well past the point where justification for Kerrigan’s actions is no longer required.
It is also puzzling for Kerrigan to be placed in a underdog position when, again at the end of Brood War, she was lording over a massive army of Zerg. Thus Kerrigan being worried of Arcturus’ forces is baffling and absurd – she shouldn’t be afraid of what Arcturus can muster. And she pretty much proved it by destroying his forces completely.
If anything, Kerrigan’s mission seems awfully one-sided and thus difficult, for me at least, to invest any connection. But the one-sided nature is bizarre seeing as the original StarCraft presented a conflict from the perspective of all sides involved. Thus to go against the grain like this seems a regressive step for Blizzard. What, were they worried that making Arcturus anything but deplorable may lose player investment? Funny, I recall Arcturus being both charismatic and slimy, not being an evil sod just for the sake of ‘hey we need a villain here’. 

Honestly, did everyone in the Blizzard writing staff forget everything established in Brood War?

Now I can imagine Brood War Kerrigan killing Arcturus for the lols but I don’t get that impression with Heart of the Swarm Kerrigan. In fact, I really wanted either Raynor or Arcturus to call Kerrigan out on her revenge quest by asking what she would do after she succeeds but alas that never came about.

A missed opportunity if ever there was one.

In fact I think I’m seeing parallels to Kerrigan with Kratos from God of War. In the first game, Kratos had the motivation of revenge over something that was entirely his fault. Since then however he’s discarded whatever depth he had for killing anything that moves. And no one is really questioning this. Why? Well as long he keeps tearing shit up no one will complain. HOWEVER! When one has defeated anyone and everyone who opposes you, there isn’t much else left to do.

Which is exactly what the ending of Brood War proved.

From the looks of it, the storyline insofar of Starcraft 2 seems to solely be about Raynor and Kerrigan. Right off the bat this is a bad decision as the original StarCraft had many characters who each went through a character arc. So where is everyone else? The Protoss don’t seem to have done a lot during Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm and it will be their time in the spotlight in the upcoming third game.  And where the hell is Duran?
So does this fill me with hope for the third installment of StarCraft 2? No. If anything, I can imagine the plot of the third game will be resolve everything established thus far in a manner akin to a sprint to the finish line.

And chances are, that’s most likely what will happen.

Two's Company and Three's a Crowd

An age-old debate: 2d platformers or 3d platformers?

Honestly this question isn’t something I really need to think about: 2d all the way. I grew up with eight bit and 16 bit games and, as far as I’m concerned, they did the job nicely and still do today.

My experience with 3d platformers has been varied: I recall the first time I played Super Mario 64 on the N64 and, having enjoyed both Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros 3, experiencing some kind of culture shock: I had no idea what I was supposed to do with Mario or where I was supposed to go. Consequently much of my time in Super Mario 64 was spent running around like a headless chook. Latter still I found many 3d platformers seemed unclear as to not only where to go but how to get there: At times my experience with 3d platformers was awash with difficulty in distinguishing what was a ledge and what was scenery – And anyone who tells me they haven’t slipped up a complicated jumping onto  something they thought they could hang onto is a liar.
I also didn’t appreciate the fact that much the graphics looked really ugly – a fact not helped years later as many fifth generation games have not aged well in the graphics department.  And matters were not helped by a wonky camera that seemed to refuse to go where the player wanted it to.

And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards 3d platformers: Unclear paths, hideous graphics and a resentful camera. Major problems that, to me, was more than enough as a deal-breaker. And having come from the 16-bit era, these flaws came across as being a major regressive step – why try and ruin that which was working so well already? Indeed, these problems were, and still remain, the reasons why I loved 3d platforms: The screen moved with the PC, they looked nice (some even hold up really well today) and it was always clear where the player was meant to go (not to mention the thrill of finding new paths to get to the exit). That and they were tremendous fun to play.

Now that’s not to say that I’ve found 3d platformers that I’ve enjoyed – Prince of Persia Sands of Time comes to mind – but that had a great narrative and a fun time-rewind mechanic to back it up. In fact I’ve found that when a 3d platformer is offering something else, I will latch onto the ‘something else’ and lo and behold, I find I can really enjoy the game itself (ie Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, NiGHTS and God of War).

As for the 2d platformers, I love them and I still do. And I suspect I’ll still be enjoying them ten years from now. I still finding some being made today (Eversion anyone?) and they are still as compelling as ever. I think that is how I feel about the conflict between 2d and 3d – I’ve become so accustomed on 2d so for 3d to grab my attention it had better offer something else on top.

Your move 3d platformers

Beyond the Stars

Well a new game in the Starcraft 2 trilogy is upon us in the form of Heart of the Swarm. And the question I want to ask is....

...what will Blizzard have Kerrigan do this time around?

I've already spoken on how I felt cheated out of victory at the end of Starcraft 1 but I have to give Blizzard credit: With Kerrigan, they created a character that made such an impression. As a result she is written about by academics, makes popular character lists and she inspires defenders who will stand by the Queen of Blades as a knight would the Holy Grail. It's such a response that most writers can only dream of but it does place the Blizzard writing staff in a rather awkward position:

What is there left for Kerrigan to do?

She destroys Arcturus' empire, brings the Protoss empire to it's knees, obliterates the UED, cons help out of the the other characters only to betray them and consolidates her position as unchallenged ruler of the Zerg. That's quite a lot but what is there to do? After declaring herself 'Queen Bitch of the Universe' it's near impossible to imagine Kerrigan doing something decent and to keep on acting as a destroyer can only last for so long - like until the destroyer runs out of things to destroy.

Personally, I see Kerrigan being in the same boats as Kratos and Lara Croft in that they are characters whom are being handled by writers who have no idea what to do with them (though to be fair the new Tomb Raider game shows some degree of writers having a clear goal in mind). If anything, I believe all three characters could benefit with a mirror character.  You know, someone who does the same things the protagonist does to ultimately confront said protagonist with their actions. How would Lara react if someone else was hoarding artifacts to prevent an apocalyptic catastrophe? How would Kratos react if some sod challenged him over the murder of the sod's wife simply because she was in Kratos' way? And how would Kerrigan react if some other force was razing empires as well as making and breaking alliances on a whim?
In addition I still think my idea of the restored Sarah Kerrigan going out of her way to revert back to her infested state still has weight. After all, how awesome would it be that Sarah resents her previous/human state so much that she would rather stamp it out of existence completely? It would go a long way because a lot of time is spent having Infested Kerriagn acting in a ruthless/smug fashion that seeing her get angry or insulted would make for a worthwhile change of pace.

But alas I don't work for Blizzard so whatever ideas I have aren't worth jack.
Oh well....

PS2 Hearts Beat as One

The big news of recent weeks is Sony ceasing production of the PlayStation 2. Yep after twelve years, the PS2 has been retired leaving behind a library of highly-regarded games and the status of the great selling console ever. Admittedly, it is a disappointment that the PS2 few short (of two years) of claiming the title of longest lasting console from the Atari 2600 but ya can’t have everything.

I purchased my PlayStation 2 in early 2006. I still remember the moment quite accurately: Going into Target and handing over so much money for a silver streamlined PS2 console and three games (Final Fantasy X, Gran Turismo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 3). In the time since, my PS2 was a loyal companion – it inspired many nights of late gaming (due to day spent with my University studies at the time).
It showed me many a game, many of which I was unaware existed.
It woke my interest in gaming up from a coma.
It inspired me to seek out games on the PS1 that I’d longed to play but was unable to at the time.
It introduced me to friends such as Ico, Kratos, Amaterasu, Solid Snake and Zidane.
It went with me to LANs and was the basis of many a Soul Caliber 3 bash.
It even followed me to Melbourne.
It was used extensively by both myself and Kathleen in our apartment.
It even got use when faced by stiff competition in the form of a Wii and an Xbox 360.
It came to represent the sixth generation for me – which has since proven to be a tough act to follow

Although my PS2 has been rather dormant in recent months, I can safely say there is still life in the old dog yet: It still works fine, I still have some games to complete and the occasional use of the Sonic collection is always fun.
Still even if the PS2 has been discontinued, the damn thing has done much to contribute to my interest in gaming and a permanent place in my gaming history is assured. It’s time may have ended but it’s existence will forever be appreciated.

R.I.P. Sony PlayStation 2

Touched by the hand of God

You know what I'm sick of? Villains that aspire to godhood. I've seen plenty of them in JRPGs - the Final Fantasy series being a frequent offender - but the same could be said for movies, TV, and books. It's something that I've heard so many times that now it comes across as being run into the ground. Granted in gaming terms it does raise the stakes quite considerably with the villain seeking the infinite, universe-shaping, powers of a divine entity but the 'villain-seeking-godhood' has been so many times it seems more like an endorsement for secularism. Or worse, a lazy writer doing a half-arsed job.

But despite my grumbling, I still think there is an idea there. As stated above, it does raise the stakes for the player for a mortal man to defeat an immortal is certainly an incredible achievement (just ask Kratos). However, if that is the case then balance must be determined - in the form of the villain's task to achieve godhood being a grueling undertaking in itself. You never see a villain do such a thing don't you? You never see the lengths the villain goes to in their quest and with such a goal one can assume said quest will never be easy. Okay so maybe Kratos could be an exception but it should be noted he wasn't actively seeking godhood - he just happened to replace the guy he bumped off.
How come you never see the lengths the villain goes to secure his goal of godhood? Previous experience shows such villains are either dismissed as just being bonkers or seeing divine ascension as a way to a) exorcise some childhood resent and/or b) get revenge one some prick. However, with the right thought behind it, the 'villain-seeking-godhood' trope could be made to work. It is, after all, the story of a person of a humble background doing something that ultimately changes the world around them in a major way. And those stories will never get old - because if it's not Jesus Christ then it's Luke Skywalker. Or G'Kar. Or Harry Potter. Or Twilight Sparkle.

That being said if I were to write a villain based on the 'villain-seeking-godhood' trope what would I do? Well, I would do an extensive exploration of his motivation. Not the tried and tested motives explained above - no my 'villain-seeking-godhood' would be someone who would use it to justify their existence. He/She would be leading an empty life and, upon seeing the adulation lauded on the heroes figures around them, concludes that such adulation would suit them very well - and give their life meaning. So believing that divine ascension is goal worth fighting for, they set out to get it. 

That's what I'd do and that's what I believe the 'villain-seeking-godhood' trope needs to get some life back into it - and hey, the further the villain movies away from the Chaotic Evil alignment the better.
But I still think people won't buy it - at least in a gaming sense. After all, why would anyone play a game where they have to fight a villain who is doing what they do in an attempt to find meaning in an empty life?

The Other Two

Last week I made a post pointing out how Darksiders doesn’t really represent the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse and how they favor War and Death but pass over Famine and Pestilence (seriously Fury and Strife? Are Vigil games even trying?)
Yet bitching is one thing but doing something about it is another. So if Famine and Pestilence may not make for interesting game characters then there’s no reason to at least make an attempt. So I will do that: I will try and write up both Famine and Pestilence as game characters. If Vigil games did indeed balk out then that seems more a challenge to me. If War and Death can work in a God-of-war-esque scenario can Famine and Pestilence? Let’s find out…

Famine
I can imagine Famine taking the form of a heavy – much like his brother horseman War. But if War takes the form of a muscle-bound, bloodthirsty warrior wholly dedicated to laying waste to anything in his path then Famine takes a different approach taking a defensive stance. I can imagine Famine taking the form of a bloated sack of crap – a huge humanoid form that take multiple blows and still emerge unscathed.
Because of being of tremendous defensive capabilities, Famine’s fighting skills would be reduced. But he has numerous powers that make up for it. As Famine represents…well famine, it makes sense that his powers should focus on making him stronger whilst making those around him weaker. I can imagine Famine being capable of :
-    The sprouting of grapevines (a crop destroying plant) for a multiple enemy attack
-    Drain the life of an enemy at the touch (enemy freeze doubling as a healing spell)
-    (close range attack)
-    Summoning a plague of locusts at the wave of his hand (long range attack)

Pestilence
If War and Famine both take the forms of heavies than it makes sense for Pestilence to join his brother Death in being a thin type capable of doing fast, acrobatic movements. But as befitting his name, Pestilence should take the form of a deformed freak, with warped features, green/unhealthy-looking skin and take the appearance of something rotting and decaying.
Largely due to being a fast guy, Pestilence should be the weakest fighter of the Four Horsemen but he should also have the largest number of special abilities – most of which should be akin to a mad scientist looking for something to conduct experiments most foul upon:
-    Slime attacks capable of slowing an enemy in their tracks
-    An attack that rips out organs and other body parts
-    Going with the scientist motif, attacks based upon throwing a beaker of liquid or pulling out a bag with something in it.
-    Casting out a pox to attack multiple enemies at once.
-    Making the enemies around him rot away
-    Using the power of plagues to regenerate hits
-    Alternatively, Pestilence could do an attack based upon infecting a foe and striking their name from a list.

Having written this, it has become clear to me that this is but a mere starting point. And Vigil games most likely would’ve written up far more information-heavy documents in designing War and Death. Maybe that’s why Famine and Pestilence got passed over for Strife and Fury – the latter two offered a lot more ideas.  Still, there’s no excuse to not try.
Mind you, in doing research for this post, I found out something interesting: The Four Horsemen of Apocalypse originated from the Bible where the first Horsemen was not Pestilence but Conquest. The change only came about through mistranslations. In gaming terms Conquest may sound appealing as a character but next to War he sounds kinda redundant. Oh well….

Come to the Darkside

So Darksiders got a sequel? I didn't realise it was such a big deal.
Okay, okay. I never played Darksiders but the impression I got from it, based upon what I saw, was it was a God of War clone with the player character being one of the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse.

Whilst the God of War-esque nature of Darksiders doesn't interest me, the notion of controlling one of the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, to me, has some potential. But therein lies a problem: For you can divide the Four Horsemen into two groups where one is made up of the Horsemen which are considered interesting (War and Death) whilst the other is made up of those no one seems to give a toss about (Famine and Pestilence).
I do like the idea of building up a series of games where each game has you control a different Horsemen but in doing so, you'll eventually get to the Horsemen no one wants to play as - and it would seem that the makers of Darksiders, Vigil Games, will agree as they've gone straight to Death for the second game. Talk about about shooting your big guns off first.

What, is playing as Pestilence and/or Famine a dumb idea? Can't Vigil Games think up anything interesting to do with them? Aren't they even trying - I mean they certainly lavish a lot of attention to the design of War and Death so it can't be that hard....

Oh wait - in this game's universe the Four Horsemen are War, Death, Strife and Fury.
So they're not really the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse.
I guess Vigil games really weren't trying then.

Prince Megahit

I was expecting that last post to inspire a tsunami of disgust and contempt - but none such came. Somehow, it seems strangely disappointing.

Anyway, here's something I came across recently: Footage of the Commodore 64 version of the original Prince of Persia:



I heard about a C64 conversion of Prince of Persia about twenty years ago: back then the C64 was slowly on the way out but I knew of Prince of Persia and was kinda excited about it. Of course, the conversion was started but never showed up - and it is only now, as in the past twelve months, that the someone has finally completed the game and unleashed on an unsuspecting world.

Looking at the video itself - I'm....astonished. I was a loyal C64 user for many years but seeing this I never knew the C64 could produce something like this. Sure there were some great games on the C64 that involved the system being pushed to the limit (the Last Ninja series comes to mind) but this is staggering. I said last week in my assessment of Double Dragon that the C64 was capable of so much better and here is all the proof I'll ever need.
It goes to show that sometimes great games can come out of an then aging system being squeezed for every last ounce of oomph (see: God of War and Chrono Trigger for other examples)

Aging Disgracefully

Here's something I never noticed before: The combatants in Virtua Fighter 4 all have birth-dates! So taking that into consideration, in the year 2012, Akira is 44, Pai is 37, Lau is 72, Wolf is 46, Jeffry is 55, Kage is 42, Sarah is 39, Jackie is 42, Shun is 100(!!), Lion is 33, Aoi is 33, Le-Fei is 37, Vanessa is 43, Brad is 40 and Goh is 34.
It's funny thing about adding a birth-date to a video game character. It gives them a sense of history, more so with each iteration of the Virtua Fighter series, and it suggests that these characters have been around a long time, and are still able to get back up on their feet after being knocked around numerous times - which, coming from a fighting game series, is hardly surprising.
But at the same time, it does suggest that these characters are aging - and as this is a fighting series we're talking about, it won't be long before the blows render them unable to get back up again.

To be honest I've never been a fan of 'floating timelines'. I personally like to see characters age and grow wiser with experience. Therefore I find it kinda silly that Bart Simpson is forever a ten year old even when his birth-date was established as April 1st 1980 (which would make him in early thirties by now). That being said, one would think a hero who ages would be an interesting concept for a game hero.
Think about it! Each game hero goes on a journey and by the end of it, they come out the other side wiser and/or have killed lots of dudes. Thus it would make an interesting series concept to have a hero who goes on multiple journeys - and as he does so, his appearance changes, injuries and scars he suffers are there for good and the experiences he gains are there with him for ever after. And after all, what is a video game character when they're without dudes to slay eh?
I mean similar things have been done before with game characters aging: Red Dead Redemption featured a player character who is a grizzled, scarred veteran, Donkey Kong Country presented the character of Cranky Kong and even Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess had a little meta joke through Princess Zelda being of twenty years of age.

But alas, I doubt it would take off: As is often the case, a game without a young vital, pretty face will never sell as it's the youth portion of the market will balk out at playing an aging hero. I mean can anyone imagine a wrinkly, decrepit, Kratos still marching to battle insisting on having his vengeance?


Didn't think so.

You. Me. Outside. Now

Some gaming deathmatches I would like to see:

Kratos (God of War) vs Amaterasui (Okami)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy 7) vs Kefka (Final Fantasy 6)

Samus Aran (Metroid) vs Femshep (Mass Effect)

Lara Croft (Tomb Raider) vs Nathan Drake (Uncharted)

Kratos (God of War) vs The Master (Actraiser)

Morrigan (Dragon Age Origins) vs Morrigan Aensland (Darkstalkers)

Shodan (System Shock 2) vs GlaDOS (Portal)

Wander (Shadow of the Colossus) vs. James Sutherland (Silent Hill 2)

Vaan (Final Fantasy XII) vs. Vyse (Skies of Arcadia)

Aerith (Final Fantasy 7) vs. Nei (Phantasy Star 2)

Tifa Lockhart (Final Fantasy 7) vs. Taki (Soul Calibur 3)

Duke Nukem vs. Sonic the Hedgehog

All For What?

I heard through the grapevine (and I'm just about to lose my mind) that a new God of War game is in development:



I've already made clear my exasperation of how Kratos has been handled in every game that's followed the original God of War - but to see him in yet another game strikes me that, again, Kratos is being handled by people who aren't sure what to do with him. Yes they got off to a great start with the big brute having being tricked into murdering his family and going to extraordinary lengths to undo it all but the end of the game (Kratos defeating Ares and taking his place) concludes a self contained story and seems unlikely to get a sequel out of it - thus the concluding line 'Kratos will Return' seems awfully presumptuous.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Kratos had a decent enough motivation in the first game in achieving redemption so to have him commit so many atrocities in the subsequent games comes across as more puzzling. Kratos now is just violent for the sake of it, he's motivation now becomes and excuse and his whole insistence on some revenge now suggests he can't function properly as a human being. More importantly, the Kratos of GoW2+3 seems determined as possible to move away from whatever made him compelling in GoW1 - and this is a character who was first introduced to us by committing suicide. Some may try to defend the Kratos from GoW2+3 by a) saying the Greek gods were being jerks b) the plot is trying to replicate the plays from Ancient Greece and c) once a character scores revenge they have no further right to exist - but I don't buy that primarily because I choose not to turn my bullshit detector off.

I can't stress this enough: Kratos in every that game that isn't GoW1 strikes me as being handled by people who can't grasp what made him the work the first time. There was a tragic element in GoW1 that was interesting but someone must've thought it made him a pussy because since then he's degenerated into a killing machine. Thus, maybe it is fitting that the new GoW game be a prequel (as the video above suggests) because the psychotic Kratos would make more sense.

So do I think can do better? Of course. If I was given the opportunity to do something with Kratos I would continue the themes of remorse and redemption commenced in the first game. I would place Kratos in positions where his murderous/psychotic instincts are challenged. Say.....
 - He gets banished by Zeus to a desert with him being the sole inhabitant. It would be fun to see how long Kratos lasts with no one to kill.
 - Considering how much GoW3 seems to about Kratos destroying the world, wouldn't it be fun if he, in a brief moment of respite from the combat, suddenly forgot what he was fighting for?
 - Or better yet, have him challenged by someone whose wife was cut down by Kratos?
 - One of the ideas from GoW2 was him being met by heroic figures from Greek Mythology - so to me it was something of a wasted opportunity that he didn't meet Orpheus. After all, Orpheus went down to Hades to retrieve his wife Eurydice but failed. So it might be interesting to Kratos to find something of a kindred spirit - at least before he shoves Orpheus' lyre up his orifice (Oh Mamma!)

Favourite Gaming Heroes

Well who would've thunk it? I've hit two hundred posts in this blog! Yay me! Well any feat is as good as any so to acknowledge this milestone, something special.
Last year I posted a length post about my favourite gaming heroines. Since then it’s become my most popular post on this blog. So what the hell – I may as well do a long post about the other side of the coin: My Favourite Gaming Heroes!
Admittedly, taking up this task is a lot harder than coming up with a list of favourite heroines – purely because there are a lot more candidates. Nevertheless, I eventually settled on heroes that I liked, were unique in their own way or established some sort of connection with. That being said, there may be some glaring exclusions (well at least in someone else's eyes) but in that case either a) the missing hero didn't make that much of an impression or b) I haven't played (or have yet to play) the game in question.

So here we go: My favourite gaming heroes. If I ever needed to get some people together to form a posse, these are the dudes I’ll call:

11 – Kratos (God of War)
I love this guy. At a time when Playstation games were defined by pretty-boy types (ie Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts) along comes a protagonist who’s completely different: Ugly, muscular and violent in a brutal unflinching method. Of course, such qualities would make anyone a detestable character but here it works: I don’t know why though - maybe it’s the fear that arguing with Kratos would probably result in one getting their head caved in.
Of course, part of the appeal is that the original God of War game benefited from great writing. Seeing the lead character commit suicide at the very beginning is a strong opening move and commands attention. And as the story progressed, decent motivation was supplied in the form of revenge. In addition, the fact that it was pretty much all Kratos’ stupid fault and the extraordinary lengths he had to go to undo it all made the narrative ever the more epic and compelling.
Sadly, in the subsequent sequels, Kratos has become less interesting. Without a decent motivation, Kratos now comes across as being a violent jerk just for the sake of it. Suddenly the striking first image we see of him (plummeting to his death) is forgotten and Kratos comes across as being a parody of himself: Being a kill-crazy, revenge-obsessed psychotic because that’s pretty much all he’s good at. But that isn’t true and, as a result, Kratos claims the lowly position on this list.
Still, if you need something big and ugly dead, this is the man to call.


10 - Auron (Final Fantasy X)
The Final Fantasy games have no shortage of heroes so choosing from them is a daunting task. So after much consideration, I eventually decided to go with Auron – I mean I could’ve gone with Cloud but that seemed too obvious.
Final Fantasy X may have Tidus as the main character and Yuna’s quest as the focal point, but it is still Auron who steals the show. And who can blame him? A hard-bitten veteran warrior carrying a blade as big as himself, a man of mystery and wisdom about the alien world that is Spira, a modern-day samurai who carries with him a huge bottle of grog and perhaps the only sane one in the entire party. What’s not to like?
Whilst there have been warriors of the noble/tragic vein in previous Final Fantasy games (Freya Crescent being one such example), Auron is perhaps the accumulation of them all – He is the sole survivor of Lord Braska’s party and taking the uncompleted mission onto the next generation through a promise made to both Braska and Jecht. He bares the burden of being a man out of time and one who won’t go until his uncompleted task is finally done. But with the task left undone, Auron has left a terrible trail in his wake: He openly defied a system and ended up being cursed and restless for his trouble. Whilst this is familiar fare for the ‘veteran warrior’ archetype, Auron pulls it off in away that is all his own. Not sure how he does it though: Is it his cool head in times of crisis? Is it his connection with Tidus that makes him the likely target to find what the hell’s going on? Is because his VA actually did a good job?!
Or maybe it’s because he can cleave through the monsters like a hot knife through butter.


9 - Leon Kennedy (Resident Evil 4)
I came into the Resident Evil games rather late: Although I knew of them, I never actually played them (although, admittedly, it wasn’t hard to identify Jill Valentine in her RE3 incarnation). Therefore, like a whole lot of other people, I only got interested in the Resident Evil series through RE4. So whilst Leon may have appeared in RE2 I honestly don’t care: No.4 is where he made an impression on me and that’s where he comes in with this list.
One of the golden rules for writing a story is never make things easy for one’s protagonist. And boy does Leon go through a whole lot of hell: Sure he starts off having to rescue the president’s kidnapped daughter but what he ends up doing is dealing with psychotic villagers, dealing with psychotic monks and then psychotic pirates. He has to contend with a potential love interest who knows more then she’s letting on, grotesque monsters that just won’t lay down and die, so many people who want to see him dead and, worst of all, a shrill little bitch who can’t do jack except whining and getting kidnapped. It’s a succession of increasing disaster that would break a lesser man but not Leon.
Thus I give credit to Leon: He’s a cop turned government agent. He carries around a case of guns and ammo that miraculously halt everything when he needs to change weapons. And he still goes through hell only to come out the other side still standing. Leon’s a hero worth cheering for every step of the way and definitely someone you’d want watching your back.


8 - The Prince (Prince of Persia Sands of Time)
As an aspiring writer, I can tell you one of the rules of writing a compelling character is something called a ‘resurrection’. The story begins with a character being presented but as the story progresses they go through various trials and tribulations – thus by the end they came out the other end as someone completely different and unable to return to the person they once were. Whilst there have been several gaming characters to undergo this process, the one I feel works best is the Prince from the Sands of Time.
At the beginning, I didn’t like the Prince at all. But as the game progressed, I found him growing on me. Through the progress of the game, it’s interesting to see how the Prince hardens through the various obstacles that come his way and how, as character, he evolves from a snobby prick. He is a capable fighter, an excellent story teller and, by the end, the journey really feels worth it. I particularly like the ending, how he is pretty much the only left who knew exactly what happened and he leaves Farah in a state of bewilderment.
Ultimately, I hold the Prince as a fine example of character development done right and perhaps the best example of the resurrection theory. Now if only other game developers will catch on….


7 - Armakuni (Last Ninja series)
I can imagine some of you young pups might be saying “Who?” at this point so allow me to explain: My gaming days began when I was a kid on the eighties with the Commodore 64 – and if you had a Commodore 64 you had the Last Ninja games. It was that essential game one needed (the Halo of it's day if you will) and for good reason. At the time (late eighties), it provided a then innovative mixture of action and adventure where a ninja traversed through a 3d isometric environment collecting items and weapons, fighting bad guys, solving problems and going through fiendishly difficult jumping sections all accompanied by a rockin’ soundtrack involving a C64 SID chip being pushed to the limit. Although mostly forgotten now, it’s hard to imagine many games existing without it (Tomb Raider comes to mind).
Which brings me to Armakuni, the titular character. The game manual revealed quite a lot about his motivations: His ninja clan defied the tyrannical shogun Kunitoki who responded by having then all killed in massacre at a sacred temple. Armakuni was the survivor (through not being at the temple for some reason) and he takes it upon himself to go out for revenge. And Armakuni must be extremely pissed off to do so. Why? His vengeance-filled eyes became the box art (see above), informing that this is a ninja who isn’t fucking around - and subsequently providing one of the most unforgettable images in gaming history.
And in the sequel things started getting weird with Armakuni and Kunitoki somehow being transported through time to modern day New York (?!?) where the ninja finds himself running the gauntlet with psychotic cops, homicidal motorcyclists and the dangers of the modern world.
Growing up with the Commodore 64, Armakuni was one of my heroes – he was smart, a capable fighter and his quest for vengeance was one worth following through with. The time-travel plot was odd to say the least but it was indeed compelling to see a warrior from the feudal era adapt to a completely alien environment. And hey, anyone who can make nunchucks out of the flusher chains found in women’s toilets (yes you read that right) deserves some credit.


6 - Zidane Tribal (Final Fantasy 9)
Well there’s always room for another Final Fantasy character.
Selecting Zidane for this list is more drawn from my own experience: of all the Final Fantasy games I’ve played, Zidane was the one who I had the greatest connection with. But I’m still not sure why this is so: Was he a character who’s actually likable? Did he win me over with his womanising and his humour? Was his romance with Garnet one of those rare gaming romances that’s actually compelling? Or was he a welcome change of pace following after the cheerlessness of Cloud and Squall?
No matter: I liked Zidane a lot and I found his adventures across Final Fantasy IX compelling enough to follow all the way to the end. Even for an old, grumpy gamer like myself I couldn’t help but like the thief and his chipper/plucky/never-say-die outlook on life. In the game itself, Zidane is the representation of Virtue. And whilst virtue is usually a formula for a wimpy, so-good-it’s-sickening type character, Zidane pulls it off so well you can’t help but cheer him on. It also helps that Zidane’s cheerfulness is balanced out with him bearing the burden of loneliness and the knowledge of what his purpose is. All of this makes for a fascinating character.
I think his character description in the game manual said it all: “You don’t need a reason to help people.” It’s a philosophy that many a game character may have followed but, IMHO, Zidane is the one who embodies it fully. Go the monkey boy!


5 - James Raynor (Starcraft)
As much as I resent the narrative of Starcraft I have must give at least some credit to the writers at Blizzard: They managed to create a universe and populate it with three very different races. Each one with their own personality, motivations and colourful characters who each have their own unique voice in the game.
That being said, out of the characters in the game, James Raynor has to be the most human - an obvious statement true but still an impressive feat in a game populated by hostile aliens. He is the guy who's giving it his all but all he does is come out the other side empty-handed. And that’s what makes him so fascinating. He tries to do the best for the human colonies but he’s persecuted for doing so. He sides with an idealistic revolutionary (Arcturus) who ultimately turns out to be a power-hungry prick no better than those in the Confederacy. He has an attraction towards Kerrigan who in turn gets corrupted by the Zerg and stabs Raynor in the back (multiple times). Raynor then sides with the Protoss only to get caught up in a civil war. He then joins the fight back against the Zerg and the UED only to have those he called friends and allies dropping like flies. And because of his past failures, he ends up hitting the bottle and being surrounded by various people who try to influence his line of thinking.
Yet in the end, it’s an impressive feat that Raynor manages to stay standing. Whereas any lesser man would’ve buckled and gone nuts, Jimmy Raynor somehow staggers onward. And give him credit: When the rest of the universe goes insane and everyone’s out for themselves, at least there’s someone putting himself on the line for so many others – more so when it yields little in return.
So yes Raynor works for me as a classic example of the thankless hero – and hey, if I saw him in a bar I’d buy him a beer ;)


4 - Vyse (Skies of Arcadia)
Back in 2000, when everyone was intent on arguing on whether or not Cloud could out-emo Squall, along came a breath of fresh air: Vyse, the star of the ace RPG Skies of Arcadia. Now I will admit that I have a soft spot for this guy. And how could I not? He certainly has a lot going for him: He’s courageous, witty and certainly able to keep a cool head in any crisis situation. He is hardly one to back down from a challenge – when faced with the impossible Vyse wouldn’t run – in fact seeing it as impossible would be more than enough reason to try it himself. In addition, Vyse has an adventurous spirit, and is an able commander of his own ship who isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty and lead from the front.
But what I get the most out of Vyse is indicated by the opening sentence to that last paragraph: It seems he was made out to be an open defiance to the moody anti-heroes popularised by SquareEnix. When trouble arose, Vyse wasn’t the type to sit around moaning or grumbling – no way, he was too busy taking a stand and finding his own path. When placed in a group of companions, Vyse didn’t act resentful or anything – no he made every effort to inspire his crewmates. And when he was deemed a criminal by the opposing tyrannical empire, Vyse was laughing every step of the way.
In short, whilst Vyse may not be as well-known as other JRPGs leads but there certainly is a lot to like about him. So much so, it made his journey through Skies of Arcadia one worth taking. And for me, Vyse is a strong enough lead to make good reason to hang onto my Dreamcast and Skies of Arcadia - I'm not one to replay JRPG's but Skies of Arcadia is a rare exception.
So yeah, Vyse certainly a captain I would follow – and anyone who can fight with a blade in each hand is a winner in my book.


3. Link (Legend of Zelda series)
Link! He come to town! Come to SAVE! The Princess Zel-Dah! Ganon took her away, now the children don’t play, but they will when Link saves the day – HALLUJEAH!!!!
*ahem* Well what can I say about Link that hasn’t been said before?
Well for one thing, Nintendo seem to be very good at building an everyman figure: The hero whom the player can latch onto and serve as their avatar in a world that’s waiting to be explored. Like stable-mate Mario, Link is an ordinary Joe who gets thrust into some world-spanning adventures and ultimately ends up saving the day. And it is indeed important to build such a connection between player and character - something a lot of game designers these days seem to forget.
Also kind of cool is that Link is something of pioneer: the child/youthful character who goes on an epic quest to save the world (or something). Along the way, he goes through various trials and tribulations but he doesn’t seem at all bothered at all – all he knows is that his quest is a noble one and worth seeing all the way to the end. Such a metaphor is taken to a literal sense in Ocarina of Time as Link starts as a child but ends as a young adult. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the likes of Sora (Kingdom Hearts), Ico, that kid from Limbo, or even both the afore-mentioned Zidane and Vyse without Link.
Granted it’s a bit annoying that Link is a silent character – He has a face and a name so from the perspective of being a player avatar, as opposed to a character, it is kind of off-putting. As such I’ve often wondered what Link really felt being hailed as the Hero of Time and constantly being roped into doing various small tasks from one end of Hyrule to the other. He’s described as being humble in this adulation but to me he strikes me as being caught up in something whether he likes it or not. One has to wonder if Link ever stops and wonders ‘Do I have to do EVERYTHING?!?!?!?’ (or is it my job as the player to do so?).
But from a personal level, Link is my bridge to the world that is Hyrule: Through countless hours of exploring and adventuring, I actually felt a connection to the character like no other. I went with him on an adventure and I felt every blow, the delight of finding something new and the relief of solving a baffling problem. For a silent character he certainly has loads of personality than his more talkative brethren. In a way, Link is my buddy and a guy worth traveling with.
That being said, I like Link a lot and he still claims the number three position on this list. The fact that I’m willing to cosplay as this guy does indeed say a lot (pun not intended).


2. Solid Snake (Metal Gear Solid)
Snaaaaake! Snaaake! Oooooh it’s a snnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!!!! (okay I’ll stop that now)
Those who’ve been following this blog will know that I’ve talked about Metal Gear Solid, Solid Snake and the emotional impact the game had on me so what more can I add? Well Snake is a capable fighter, intelligent and the best in the infiltration/sneaking business. He is the reluctant hero – one who knows all about doing right but being far from willing to actually do it. He may save the day true but mostly because he’s got nothing better to do.
But most importantly of all, much like the Prince, the Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid 1 is another fine example of the character resurrection. He starts out without direction and in a state of resignation but by the end he comes out a completely different person determined to make his limited time on earth count – but whilst it may sound cheesy in text, in the game itself it’s pulled off in a manner that seems genuine, believable and not in any way that could considered false.
Really, the mark of a great character is when they leave an emotional resonance on you, the audience, or this case the participant. The only difference is whereas in a book or a movie the audience are watching a group of characters run through a course of pre-determined actions and events, a game presents a situation where the audience becomes an active participant and has a say in the way things proceed. Therefore, the participant can become more of an accomplice to the character, the journey they take and the actions they do. Whilst I may have built up such a connection with Link on several occasions, Solid Snake however is in a class of his own. His journey is much less saving the world than it is saving himself – and we went along with the whole odyssey to a point where it rubbed off on myself, the player.
So much so that in the days since whenever I’ve faced a problem or difficult decision there have been times when I’ve caught myself wondering: What Would Snake do? It may sound daft in theory but really if a character has made such an impression then you know you’ve done something right.


And my number one favourite gaming hero is….

1. John Marston (Red Dead Redemption)

Why? Because he’s John fucking Marston. That’s why.
Okay now let’s get serious: A relative newcomer to this list, John Marston still charges through to the top. So what makes him so special? Oh where do I begin? John Marston has to rank as one of the most compelling and well-realised characters ever in the history of gaming –a tough call considering his game was only released last year but damn, I have never seen a character make such an impression on me – and I doubt that I ever will.
Firstly, when gaming these days seemed confined to a rigid good/bad, black/white system, John Marston is a true grey: In his hands is a much wider and diverse morality system and enables to do has many goods things as bad things. Such a wide offer of options shapes his character and forms him into a compelling character. He may have moments where he’s a ruthless killer but other times he’s trying to do some good after so much time spent doing wrong – it’s that clash of personality that makes for a fascinating character.
Secondly, John has a substantial motivation: He’s trying to put his violent past behind him and try to be a decent father to his son Jack in raising him in a better world than John knew. But no matter how hard he tries, John can’t really bury the secrets of his past, no matter his assertions that anyone can change.
Thirdly, John is man out of time: His era of the Wild West is coming to an end and far too often is he comes across as an anachronism. Through the game, we see the world through John’s eyes and there is a whole lotta bad people and bizarre shit going on – thus challenging the idea whether or not the world is worth living in and whether John truly has a place in it.
Fourthly, this is a genuine adult character. Yes this is a father who’s trying to do the right thing by his son and wife but this is game that will be played by adults. And for the designers to realise that and take it seriously is a credit to them. I feel like I’m being taken seriously and the developers are using this canvas to say what they want. I mean, if I were to do type this out ten/eleven years ago, when I was in my late teens, the youthful characters, Link, Zidane and Vyse would’ve ranked higher. Instead they lose out to Mr. Marston.
And finally, John Marston strikes me as the type who doesn’t take shit from anyone. And I like that.
So hats off to John Marston. He may have only had one shot at making an impression but what an impression it was.

And that's my list of eleven best gaming heroes - the one's who've made their mark on me and for good reason. Hope you've enjoyed reading this list and a big thank you to everyone who has ever visited this blog over it's lifespan so far.
So here's 200 posts in this worthless corner of cyberspace!!!

Degeneration (no.6)

And this serial continues.
As stated at the end of the previous installment, my interest in video gaming was waning – but it was not out of spite or anything. No: It was a natural progression of life. Other things were demanding attention, not least of which the real world, and I wasn’t in a position to ignore any of them.
But that’s not to say that I was completely ignorant of developments in the gaming world. I knew about the Dreamcast being the last hurrah for Sega. I knew the PS2 got off to a rocky start and I knew about Microsoft bringing a console of their own, the Xbox, to the table. I even had an Atari Lynx during this stage: Hey, it was cheap and, as befit this blog, I wanted to see if the grass was indeed greener on the other side.
But ultimately, the period of 2000-2005 was one where I parted ways with gaming. But little did I know that gaming wasn’t prepared to let me go. The connection was there and there was some potential for us to continue. All it needed was a catalyst.

And one such came: In late 2005, I stumbled across a list made by IGN on the Best 100 Games Ever Made. Through reading it, I saw a mixture of the recognised and the unfamiliar. I saw some titles I played and some that escaped my notice previously. And most of all, I was impressed that someone had sat down and fashioned such an official-looking list, providing substantial reasoning of each games’ selection and saluting the efforts of various pioneers.

Needless to say I was blown away – so much so, I actually made it my goal to track down every last one of them and play them. And thus, dreams were dusted off and raised from their slumber, opportunities that had passed me by the first time were now possible, and a world of brand new discoveries waiting to be found beckoned. A trigger had been set off and I plunged headlong into the sixth generation.
True it may have been at the tail end, when the seventh generation dawned but who the hell cares? I had returned to gaming and was prepared to savor every last moment. And what better why to kick it off was to return my gaze to a voice that called once before….

Playstation 2
As mentioned before, I knew the PS2 got off to a rocky start and wasn’t really that big of a hit. Funny how this baby is now recognised as the highest selling console ever.
As mentioned above, I finally made a goal in mind. This now presented the new problem of deciding which console, out of Playstation, Xbox and Gamecube, to get. With it’s extensive library, certain exclusives and it’s access to the PS1 catalogue, the winner was the PS2.
I recall the first game I placed into the system: Final Fantasy X. This was pretty much a return to console gaming after nearly a decade of absence. To be honest I had been away for so long I really had no idea what to expect – I had no idea what the graphics would be like (seriously!) or what advances had been made since the days of the fifth generation. Needless to say, what I saw was more akin to waking up from a coma. I was astonished that graphics had grown so spectacular. I was surprised that 3D gaming was actually playable and fun. Okay so maybe Final Fantasy X isn’t quite the best in the series but in any case, it was what got me back to gaming and, eventually encouraged me to seek out other entrants in the series (one has to start somewhere I guess).



I may have been a latecomer to the Playstation but I have many fond memories of playing my PS2: Appreciating the creativity that went into Resident Evil 4, being impressed with the inventiveness and brutality that went into God of War, the satisfaction of coming back to a boss in Final Fantasy X having levelled up extensively and knocking him flat, and, of course, completing Ico for the first time and, much to my surprise, having an emotional response.
I even hunted down some old PS1 games, granting me the chance to dust off some old favourites (Loaded, Darkstalkers, Raiden Project, Return Fire) and the opportunity to hunt some games that escaped me the first time around (Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy 7).
Interestingly enough, I also discovered how the PS2 could work as a social device. True going round to a friends place to play games is nothing new but when you’re the one who owns the console, you really see how it the social aspect works. Indeed, I remember when I went to a small LAN with my PS2: It was with a small group of people who had far better computers than my POS computer so I brought along the PS2 so I could be part of the fun. And indeed it worked a treat to have the other people queue up to fight each other on Soul Calibur 3. And was indeed gratifying to hear someone else see my playing through the inverted library in Castlevania Symphony of the Night and thinking the music was pretty cool. And finally, there has indeed great fun to have a bunch of friends around for an evening to have a bash at Singstar.

In a way, PS2 represented the destination of a journey: After leeching off other people, I finally had a console to call my own. I had discovered new wonders in a field I’d been away from for so long. And I discovered the power of the social element that can lie with owning a console. After years of having an interest in video gaming, a breakthrough had come like no other. Perhaps it was fitting that I should get my first console when I was well and truly into my adult years – and that console should be a Playstation.
So yes, the sixth generation was more or less the second coming with my gaming career. And as one journey ended another began….

Dreamcast
Remember in the introduction how I made mention of having an Atari Lynx? Maybe it’s the Australian in me, but I’ve always had a fascination for the underdog. You know, the guy who has a go. That, coupled with my previously-established love for Sega, may have counted for me owning a Sega Dreamcast.



I’m still not entirely sure why I got a Dreamcast. Maybe it was indeed favouring the underdog. Or maybe it was a last gesture for years of loyalty to Sega. Maybe it was case of going out and exploring in the hope of finding some hidden treasure. Or maybe it was, at that point in time, case of having far too much money and not enough common sense.

Say what you like about the Sega Dreamcast but there’s no denying that there was a time when Soul Calibur looked mind-blowing (even now) and Sega looked likely to recover from the disasters from the past. But, as we all know, it was not to be and Sega’s reign as a console developer had come to an end.

In retrospect, we can all whinge about the faults of the system (no third party games, too many arcade conversions, no DVD capabilities, online features being overlooked, poor marketing and the impending arrival of PS2) but in the end, there was no denying the Dreamcast was a potent game machine and the potential to be great. Sure that potential wasn't truly realised but at least Sega were trying new things. Sure there was no third party support but at least Sega were trying to build up new IP and doing things that messed with the formula. Sure the Dreamcast wasn’t the hit it should’ve been but nowadays people treat it a reverence not seen for other failed consoles (maybe having no one to blame for the console’s shortcomings helps considerably). True the Dreamcast may have been the death-knell for the once glorious console giant but I still have mine and it still gets used.

But let’s drop the pretences: At the end of the day was buying a Dreamcast worth it just to play Skies of Arcadia?
Damn right it was.

Xbox
As with the other entrants in the sixth generation, I came to the Xbox at a rather late point in the console’s life. For a long time I got a lot of mileage out of my PS2 (and Dreamcast) but I didn’t care much for the seventh generation as it happened around me.
Then, in 2009 I moved into a flat with my girlfriend, Kathleen, and she brought along her Xbox. Curious, I decided to buy some games to use on it.



Of course at the time, I was still giving my PS2 a lot of attention so time on the Xbox was limited. But that’s not to say it was enjoyable: I have many fond memories playing Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and Sid Meier’s Pirates. It was also fun to have someone watch me play my games – sure gaming has long been a solitary experience so to have a second person paying undivided attention to my progression through a game is indeed a welcome change (of course I had no idea how Kathleen really felt about my constant swearing through Burnout 3 but still….)

And I think that what I got the most out of the Xbox: After years of playing games in my room by myself, I finally felt that gaming had finally become a social event. Previously, I’d played games against other people on consoles but the game, so to speak, had now changed. The PS2 may have made me aware of the fun involved with playing games in the presence of other people but the Xbox expanded upon it. Indeed, it is fun to see someone else show an interest in the game you're playing and suddenly you don't feel like you're the only person in the universe who's enjoying it.

When I jumped on the PS2 bandwagon, it was after years of absence – and coming back from that time away I’d grown astonished by what games were accomplishing from the days of the 2nd and 3rd Generations. Games were now being marketed as experiences, offering social commentary, challenges of the relationship between the game & the gamer and triggering emotional effects one never would’ve thought possible.
And I got all that and surprised that gaming could do that. But that was all by my own in my bedroom – so to have someone else along for the ride playing just as much attention as you (the gamer) is particularly sweet.
And to have gaming be a contributing factor to a romance is also kinda cool too.

So that’s my thoughts on the sixth generation. In the terms of my gaming career it was more or less a Second Coming – the return after years of wandering in the desert. And when I came back, I’d seen how gaming had evolved beyond entertainment value. I had seen how gaming had now grown as a social event and more importantly, I see gaming from the perspective of an adult: Indeed, it’s great spending your own money on consoles and games without having to badger/explain to one’s parents. It is fascinating how something you liked as a kid can evolve to a point where you can enjoy it as an adult and not look silly (and having a partner who thinks the same is also pretty cool too). And I’m always amazed just how many people have played the same games I have – even when I thought I was the only on Earth who’d heard of the game in question. I even loved striking up conversations over games and sharing both opinions and solutions.

If anything, sixth generation got me wrapped up in the gaming culture like never before. Gaming had finally become the norm and was now taken seriously.
So where do we go from here?
Towards the next generation one would think….

Ico Sucks!

Once upon a time, I posted the following on an Ico page on Facebook (of course said page has now disappeared so I may as well give this rant a home here):

You know what I’m so sick and tired of? People shouting praises to the game ICO. I have heard time and again how “it’s the greatest game ever!” and “it’s criminally under-rated!”
Well I’m here to tell you all something: It sucks. It is under-rated but for a very good reason. It has some glaring obvious flaws, it is undeserving of all the praise it got and it deserved to be a poor seller, forever condemned to obscurity which is where it belonged.
That being said I have taken the various arguments made for ICO and prepared a series of retorts that will show up ICO for the tripe that it is.

It was made on the motivation of being something that had never been seen before
Are you joking? This is the gaming industry we’re talking about here! The age of ideas is long gone and now we’re all thriving on recycled ideas! If you’re going to bring in something completely new in this age of five second attention spans then of course you’re going to fail.

It shows what can happen when you experiment with the hardware you’re utilising
Come again? When was the age of experimentation? In the eighties when people were making games? I appreciate they’re pioneering spirit but please: They’re old so sod off. Currently, we have lot’s of ideas floating around so why make up new ones when the old ideas are working just fine as they are?
Furthermore, you call a white-washed graphical look experimentation? Hate to break this to you but a limited colour palette does not make for a great game! No, give me the spectacle over substance any day.



There is no story: All of it is left to our imagination
Tell me one thing: Who the hell plays games in this day and age when there is no story? I’ve been told that people that people play games that are actual games as opposed to interactive storybooks but I digress. I like to know where I’m going and I’ll gladly follow a strictly rigid path to get there.
As for imagination, who on God’s green Earth uses their imagination these days? I prefer to let someone else do my thinking for me and to have everything spelled out for me in large letters. I’ve been told that I should relate to Ico and feel confused as he is. And to that end I will admit I did feel confused: as to why anyone would fall head over heels in love for this nonsense.

It succeeds in having puzzles over conflict
Well dur! If you don’t have violence and blood in games today of course you’re going to fail! Instead, blood and gore is such a mainstay in gaming today that any game being slapped with G logo is a death warrant. G games are strictly for kids! Anyone knows that without needing to pick up a controller! But seriously no one thinks things through anymore. Any game in this day and age can’t succeed without violence and gore. That’s like saying people play God of War for the gameplay.

Yorda
The object of the game is for ICO to guide Yorda through many of the puzzles and obstacles that litter the castle. And no wonder she needs rescuing: She is hopeless! She can’t jump very well, she can’t defend herself and she is continually relying in on Ico for help. If Lara Croft has taught us anything, its women characters are useless if they don’t have a rack big enough to land stealth bombers on.
Also, why is Ico helping her? What the hell are we meant to feel without any dialogue or narrative? How are we meant to feel for his (and her) predicament? Correct me if I’m wrong but in this era of modern gaming, subtlety only works when it’s applied with a sledgehammer.



Emotional Weight
Hahahaha – you’re kidding right? What place does emotion have in gaming today? None whatsoever if the death of Aerith Gainsborough in Final Fantasy VII is anything to go by.

So much attention has been paid to the castle design: It is detailed, very realistic looking, atmospheric, an architectural marvel and demands interaction. The castle is even a character in itself.
You can’t expect me to pay attention to a character if it doesn’t talk. End of story

It succeeds on an ambient level.
Hate to break this to you but I expect my games to loud bombastic and wrapped in a big package of WOW to be of any use to me. Minimalism? Which requires a need to pay full attention? Give me a break.
And on that note, where the hell is the music in this game? Some crummy sounds used in sparing moments? What is this, a crappy game from the 8-bit era? Where are the loud rock/metal guitars that proliferate games these days? It’s not as if any game can succeed without them – After all, look at Guitar Hero!



It succeeds on so many levels that it’s a single entity rather than a bundle of features.
Sorry but I thought that you can succeed with crummy gameplay once you have awesome graphics and music! What type of douche puts so much thought into each and every levels of a game?! ICO is an entity? Pull the other one

It is short but had it gone on any longer, the maker’s intention would have been lost
What? The intention to bore me senseless with even more ‘subtly’? Isn’t bad enough that I’ll never be able to get those five hours of my life back?!

It have provided a subtle influence to other games namely, Legend of Zelda; Twilight Princess, Metal gear Solid 3 and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
All of which were infinitely better games and based on established franchises. Good day!

And there you have it: A complete dissection of Ico and why it’s not as great as everyone believes. Why people still think it’s a marvel despite age and lack of sales is beyond me.

This was then followed immediately by the following:

No doubt you’re all clenching your fist with rage having read that opening post but before you all start sending me death threats, I’ll let you in on a secret:

This is a JOKE

That’s right, that essay was written purely for satirical purposes.
I myself love ICO, I think it’s one of the greatest game ever made and I’m mystified as to why it was never a big hit.



So with no reasoning behind ICO’s obscurity, I decided to come up with some.

Thus, you can all breathe a sigh of relief. But still even if the above essay as written as a joke, there is always the sad thought that people like the one I’ve described above quite possibly exist in the world…

The God of War Delusion

My distrust for the God of War sequels have been incensed thanks to Wikipedia:

In 2007, God of War director David Jaffe stated that it would be "hell on earth" as the gods and the titans battle each other for domination and that "God of War explains, or ultimately will explain, why there are no more Greek myths". Jaffe also envisaged a very different end for the series, with other mythological pantheons becoming involved once Kratos killed Zeus and the other Greek gods. The end result would have apparently been mankind no longer believing in the gods, which according to Jaffe is the only true way a deity can die

Oh this is just sad: Kratos does some extraordinary, in defeating a god, in the first game so now he has to keep on doing it? Are you serious? What is this trying to prove? Militant atheism?!?!?

Apocalypse Now!

I've always had an interest in post-apocalypse scenarios. You know, the kind popularized by the Mad Max movies: Civilization has been irrevocably ruined, resources are now few in number, Technological advancements have lost all sense of meaning and the sense that one is left all on their own. I like seeing how the people within these scenarios need to improvise in order to continue surviving using scraps of technology. I like seeing the planet wasted into a desert environment. I like seeing how people try to salvage scraps of pre-apocalypse civilization in order to make soemthing of it. I like the idea of being the only humans for miles, allies are few in number and the baddies are legion. Most importantly, I like the idea that humans are all alone on a seemingly empty world.

Now this post is not to decree my fear and disgust of other human beings - far from it. The post-apocalypse scenario works for me is the idea that identity has collapsed and a new one needs to sought after. Also, it is a challenge to the writer to come up with something using the limits that the scenario demands.

Surely this scenario can provide a challenge for game developers?

Seriously, I enjoy games where the player is placed in a position of isolation. I've found that such an environment can establish an emotional resonance with the player and can create a genuine element of surprise/fear when something unexpected happens. For a game to pull that off is a feat indeed.
I recall particular moments in Mass Effect when you go down to a planet, you find an abandoned encampment (or something) and no sign of any other kind of life for miles. And all you hear in the background is the wind blowing. It's moments like these that create a well-executed sense of unease.
It makes you wonder why someone takes the sense of unease and take it to greater heights

I remember in 2009, seeing the trailer for the as yet unreleased game Edges of Twilight. In the terms of establishing a post-apocalypse scenario, this in my mind seems to push the right buttons:



Sadly, footage of the game itself points to yet another action game in the God of War vein.
Which, to me, represents a lost opportunity.
Personally, I've always felt the post-apocalypse scenario could make for an interesting spin on RTS games. Think about it! You're fighting for continued survival (or delaying death if you prefer), you are out seeking resources on a planet where few may be left, you're constructing buildings and armaments using scraps of materials and, with the sense of isolation, the sense of alarm from being unexpectedly attacked can be pushed to the extreme.

Sadly a risk is still a risk - and few are taken in a money driven industry.

We R Australian

Big news down here in Australia with government support now behind the lifting of the R18+ ban. This has been a big thing down here as we are the only country who doesn't have an R18+ classification and as a result many games are either being unreleased or being heavily censored. So, with a shot in the arm to the ban being lifted, I thought I might share my thoughts on the idea of questionable content in games:

My main concern with R18+ games is that they contains buckets of blood and the type of sexual nature that would only appeal to gamers who can’t get it own and probably never will. No, I’m not some twerp who condemns the usage of gore on the screen. I’m actually someone who remembers what triggered this whole, long-lasting debate on violence in video games: It was in game called Mortal Kombat (anyone remember that?).

The thing with Mortal Kombat was that it came at a time when everyone was trying to capitalise on the one on one fighting formula that made Streetfighter 2 a big hit. I understand the notion that incorporating blood and gore was it’s method of standing out from the pack but looking back at the game now, it just seems tame: It hasn’t aged well, like other games from the era, and it’s flaws now seem glaringly obvious now the sensation of tearing people apart has since settled. Thankfully, the sequel, MK2 was an improvement on many levels – and it was indeed satisfying to hear, at the time, people talking abut MK2 as a great game, not just some gore-fest.



Looking at Mortal Kombat now it seems hard to believe that it started this ongoing debate about violence in videogames. Of course, since then games have incorporated violence and blood and have continually pushed the envelope on what players can do to their on-screen opponents.
And this is what I feel is the biggest problem with the violence in videogames debate: Violence has become too commonplace. Ten/Fifteen years ago, seeing a game bearing the M15+ label would’ve been an endorsement: This was a bad/naughty game that would make gamers buy it purely for the element of danger that continually drives thrillseekers onward. Nowadays, you see so many games bearing the M15+ and the MA15+ games that gamers just seem unfazed – even to the point where the games rated G and PG are laughed out of the room.

My point? Violence in videogames has evolved to a point where it’s no longer a constant: It’s now a dependant. Such is the gamer today that if a game doesn’t have lot’s guns and plenty of bad guys to mow down, then it has no hope of getting anywhere. Who cares about new ideas or getting a point across? All one needs to do is provide enough arms and ammunition for several Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and the player won’t think about anything else.

As stated above, I have a knowledge of what makes a good game, forged from many years playing them. I like games that present a degree of immersion, shows signs of intelligence, present a challenge and really establish a connection with the player. So in order to dispel some notion that I some lily-livered panzie who faints at the sight of blood, I do enjoy the game God of War. Sure it is a ridiculously violent game but it is a good way of reliving stress. More importantly however, it has some interesting tricks woven into the gameplay that give it long-lasting appeal and a compelling plot that adds depth to the protagonist Kratos that make him more than just some mindless mass-murderer. But what I find particularly interesting about God of War is that it reinvents Ancient Greek mythology by presenting a degree of brutality never seen before. All the legendary monsters, like the Minotaur, the centaur and the hydra, are in there but they look hideous and capable of breaking a neck like a twig.



Some may argue that violent games are a great way to relive stress. I can agree with that. Some also argue that violent games in no way provide a corrupt influence to socially-maladjusted teenagers and such a belief is ill-informed propaganda. That too has weight. But when it comes to the amount of violence in R18+ games, it is those gamers who are under 18 who will get the most out of it. Sure boasting about blowing foes away in a video game may be fun in High School but doing the same thing when you’re an adult just encourages everyone to keep their distance. That being said, it is strange to allow games bearing a R18+ when the type of things that gets done by its target audience isn’t anything worth bragging about.

Consider the game Grand Theft Auto 3. One of the most controversial games of all time it does succeed however by allowing the player to do whatever they want. It presents scenarios found in action movies, such as high speed car chases, punching people out and blowing things up with a variety of weapons.
There is no denying that escapism walks hand in hand with videogame. And therein lies the strength of GTA3: it allows players to do things that they will never do in real life. And that’s exactly why we play games. We want to escape the troubles of our own life and we want to do something that our mundane lives can’t provide. For this reason alone, the concept behind GTA3 has inspired other games.
But it strikes me that those trying to replicate the ‘do whatever you want’ concept of GTA3 missed the point completely: These clones seem more about blowing things up and creating a ruckus. This strikes me as an indication that game developers are getting lazy. I’m not denying that violence sells but if all there is to it then what are you doing? One of my favourite movies is the Wild Bunch. It is a violent film yes and focuses on violent men as it’s protagonists. But there is reasoning behind it and achieves the somewhat difficult task of introducing a lot of humanity to the murderous protagonists.

It strikes me that this continued presence of violence is really hurting the games industry in general. Consider Jack Thompson: Yes we all hate him and his arguments come across as ill-informed scare-mongering, but he’ll never stop. And even if he does shuffle off, some other nob will come and takes his place. In the case of Manhunt, it’s quite clear that it was intended as a huge smirking, kick in the balls to those who condemn videogames as too violent. It may work in theory but it seems to have backfired tremendously: It has instead given Jack Thompson and his ilk more ammunition. Nowadays gamers encompass people of all types and the idea of a socially inept with contempt for society is more inclined towards a cliché. However, clichés are harmful things and they can be easily utilised by the wrong people.



In the case of the hotly debated Left 4 Dead 2, I find interesting that there is a massive push to get in here uncensored that no one has bothered as to whether or not the game is actually any good. Indeed it is interesting to note that the censored L4D2 released here in Australia
People say that a large number of gamers are all adults when compared to the Golden Age of Gaming (the 16-bit era) but I don't buy that. I mean, if gaming has 'grown-up' as many claim then why is violence still the most powerful driving force? Anyone can make a game which can be addictive and fun without any violence – you only need to look at Tetris. And, in the case of Ico, concepts such as subtly and experimentation, end up being treated with confusion, being overlooked and ultimately disdain.
All of which is hindering gaming evolution.

So what would I like? Well, as mentioned above, violence is predominant in gaming that all designers are getting lazy and new ideas are being sneered upon. That being said, I would like to see game developers think beyond buckets of blood: It will prompt them to be adventurous, experimental and to try new things. It will encourage them to mess with established formulas and do something new with them and save them from being reduced to merely ripping off something else.
It will also force gamers to change their perception of games and look beyond the, somewhat juvenile, perception of buckets of blood. It will encourage thinking, emotion and imagination, elements that can have a place in gaming but are largely confined behind razor wire fencing.
Additionally, it will create a positive image of gamers. Yes we may have halted the cliché of being social freaks but that isn’t enough: The cliché is indeed a cliché and should be stamped out of existence. I would like to hear about gamers who are normal people who balance gaming with decent jobs and an active social life - Lord only knows why Pure Pwnage needs to exist.

In conclusion, I do indeed see the value of having an adult classification so people don't end up making the wrong choice. However, as a gamer, I would like to suggest the following:
We as gamers need to think beyond violence. We need to look to games that can be successful and fun without buckets of blood. We need to embrace any games that do things differently just for having the balls to do so. We need to understand subtly as not an alien concept. We need to take such steps to ensure gaming evolution and continued survival.
And while we're at it, I would also like a Ferrari.