Level 122

Out with the Old, Accepting the New

2009-03-16T20:23:00.002-05:00

Standards change as we grow. The older we become and the more experience we gain, things that once seemed great end up not really being something we want forever. As a kid, most of us were probably pretty happy with getting a hot dog and some chips for lunch. However now as adults (or at least most of us being in our teenage years), a hot dog and chips might not end up sounding like the best thing for lunch. We end up wanting something a bit more filling and a bit better quality, but it doesn't mean we'll never eat hot dogs and chips again or no longer like it. Gameplay is much the same way.

The fact of the matter is that with each new generation of gaming and each now "masterpiece", the gaming community's taste change. Each new groundbreaking game makes the community's standards either rise or change. Even if developers want to keep the gameplay and even if there are still fans that enjoy and prefer the older gameplay, they have to pick what's best for the series in order to make a profit. (They are a company after all.) If the community feels that things need to change, then they need to change in order for the game to compete against the other games and sell.

One of the things I've constantly seemed being brought up regarding Resident Evil 5 is the fact that it doesn't feel like "Resident Evil". Naturally when I hear this complaints, I can't help but want to say, "Well no shit..." since it was obvious that this was the new direction for the series when Resident Evil 4 came out. The game was popular...People loved it...Naturally Capcom is going to continue do something that people felt was done well, but not it seems like what was once good is now bad. Maybe I am just missing something but it's something I don't fully understand.

The thing is the survival part of survival horror isn't gone from the series; the presentation has just changed. If you look at the fan definition of survival horror, you'll see that to most people, all it is is the thought of trying to survival a threat. It never really specifies the atmosphere that it is suppose to be in though most people have grown to feeling it belongs with a certain feel. However, as a hardcore Resident Evil fan- and a fan of horror in general- I've come to realize that the idea of survival horror and Resident Evil being connected is really just associating two sub-genres of horror as one instead of separately.

Resident Evil wasn't the first horror game nor even the first "survival" horror game; the genre term was borrowed from the term "ambient survival horror" which spawned from Alone in the Dark that came out prior the Resident Evil series. When we look at the actual horror elements within the first Resident Evil games, we see that they fit within the sub-genre of "Western" or "American" horror. Anyone who's seen horror films by Japanese directors and then watched a horror film by an American director, you will see two completely different approaches to how they scare people.

American horror generally uses gore to make us sick to our stomach and make our skin crawl; it also uses a lot of cheap scares (aka things jumping out at you). Personally when I played the original games, I was never really afraid of the atmosphere or the environment but I was more or less startled by having something suddenly jump through a window in a hallway that had been quiet the past four times I went down it. These are elements that are seen more within the Resident Evil series but the community had seemed to associate survival horror with the "Resident Evil setting" since it made the term popular. However, even without the fixed camera angles, the zombies, the old control scheme, and the more tense atmosphere...Resident Evil is still about surviving.

Resident Evil 5 falls into a sub-genre that I've classified as the "Left4Dead horror" due to lack of a better term at the moment. Basically this horror is when your sense of fear comes from the fact that you're more worried about your team and the fact that you're surrounded; the fact that if you get slip up, you're screwed. The whole time I played Resident Evil 5, I played it with another person. Not once in the game did I get scared from something jumping out at me or from the atmosphere being tense, but it doesn't mean my heart started racing.

The thing that scared me the most in the game was whenever my partner got in trouble...Whenever the game flashed red telling me that my boyfriend was dying, he had no health, and I had no way to get over to him...Whenever we'd be split up and one of us would see a special enemy closing in on the other but not being able to do anything about it.

Yes, it is true that I did enjoy and did love what the series was. Yes, I am disappointed that Capcom couldn't figure out a way to make the game a bit more tense like it use to be but still have new gameplay, like what they were close to doing with Resident Evil 3.5. However, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy the game. I guess fans of the series are now going through the phrase that I went through when Resident Evil 4 came out. I guess the reason why the change in gameplay for the series doesn't bother me as much now as it is for some people is because I grew to accept this change five years ago. Whatever the case maybe, even with the new gameplay, it's obvious that Capcom did make Resident Evil 5 with the fans in mind:

Spoiler Alert

I finally got my Chris vs. Wesker fight that I've wanted since Code Veronica and it was beyond bad ass.

I finally got see Spencer and was happy to hear that the bastard was killed but I was disappointed that I wasn't the one who killed him.

I got closure on Jill and Barry.

I got to see what started the virus and got to see what made Wesker the way he was.

And the introduction for the Lickers was awesome. Any fan knew exactly what they were about to go up against the moment they saw the scratches on the wall and the blood dripping from the ceiling.

The thing is...It's ok to favor the old over the new. The Remake of the first game remains my favorite in the series, and probably always will be, but you just need to learn to accept change and be open to it. Even though Resident Evil 5 doesn't exactly feel like Resident Evil, it's still a good game.

The same goes for anything else that changes a little over time.

Progessive Gaming Doesn't Progress Gaming

2009-02-23T23:16:00.001-06:00

People play games for multiple reasons. Some see gaming as just a hobby to help pass a little free time while others see it was a more serious, competitive "sport". Some use it to relieve stress while others use it to escape a harsh reality. Some prefer easy, pick-up-and-play games while others prefer games with depth and complexity. Despite what one might play or might enjoy, one thing that many people might have in common is the fact that they honestly own more games than they've beaten.

This generation has offered plenty of great games with some amazing experiences. With better visuals and developers dipping deeper into wanting to continue creating memorable games, the question that floats around is "why?". Why is it becoming so difficult for gamers to actually finish their games?

An an article from January on 1up mentioned a couple common "excuses". For some people, things such as work, school, or family takes away from their time. This is both believable and understandable. After all, with the way things are now you have to work your fingers to the bone in order to just get by. For some people- such as the man in the article- games have become more like baseball cards; people buy them for the sake of showing them off and saying they own a certain hard-to-find title but leave it sitting on the shelf instead of enjoying it. Not only that, but most people say that the variety of side missions or side quests games might offer helps them lose track of what they were doing. Thus adding on to taking away the bit of time one might have to play.

However, one thing we cannot deny about this generation of gaming is the increasing amount of shorter games. Perhaps this is the developers' ways to helping busy gamers manage the bit of time they have, but needless to say, games honestly don't require much time to complete anymore. Sure, there are games that might have quite a bit of content to them but the average game nowadays can be completely within ten to twelve hours. Even with someone who has a busy life, if they played just an hour a day- or even every other day- they could finish a game within a month. So time honestly isn't as big of a factor as people make it out to be.

Some other excuses might include not being able to remember what you were doing when you turned the game off two months ago...But even this problem has a fairly easily solution. Most action games or shooters are fairly linear and straight forward. Most of these games offer markers on the maps or objective lists that help gamers keep track of where they might have left off. More games offer the ability to restart levels, in order to give people a chance to "replay" a certain part without having to restart the whole game if they truly cannot remember what they were doing.

So then why is is hard for gamers to finish a game? My theory is that it's the lack of satisfaction that is filled through online gaming. Does this mean that single player games are dull or boring? No, of course not but single player doesn't have something that multiplayer games do have- interaction and constant progression.

At times single player games might feel as if they go on for ages. Progression comes in the form of seeing the story unfold or seeing a "mission complete" screen. The frequency of obtaining Achievements or Trophies begins to die after a few hours into the game as they become harder to grasp. Multiplayer games, however, offer constant interaction with others.

This interaction brings a feeling of satisfaction as people comment on your progress. When you do good and people either send you messages or say to you that you're excelling at the game- maybe it be a round of Call of Duty, helping a party in WoW, or even just helping a friend through a co-op game - your self-esteem rises; you develop a feeling of pride and satisfaction that you do not always receive from a single player game since no one is there to pat you on the back.

You are able to show off your skills in online games by not only allowing people to see you in action, but also see your past accomplishments. More and more multiplayer modes in games are leaning towards having some sort of leveling system. These systems allow you to unlock better gear or weapons as well as give you a rank that always appears by your name. Being able to display your ranking and unlocked weapons only allows you gloat about being good enough to get them.

Perhaps this is why so many people are finding themselves letting their single player games sit around as they find themselves spending all their free time continuing to rank up points online. Maybe this is why some people say they can never since a simple eight hour game; but are able to reach high levels in MMOs and are able to dedicate enough time to them to receive hard to get items. In a way, you could almost say that for some people, the need to play online games becomes an addiction....Maybe because that little boost is what they feel they need in order to get through the day or a sucky life.

Now, naturally I am not claiming this as a fact; this is simply a food for thought based on some observations I've made not only of myself, but of people I know and reading things on forums and sites. I'd like to look into a bit farther which is why I wrote this. For those of you who claim that you hardly ever finish most of the games you buy, ask yourself this: Do you spend a lot of time playing multiple player modes or MMOs instead? And if you do, then why? I know that I tend to get a bit more entertainment from playing with others over playing alone because sometimes I get bored playing alone and other times I do enjoy hearing people say things about me doing well.

Anyway...Let's see what some thoughts are about this. Please share them.

Resident Evil 5 Impressions

2009-02-23T23:13:00.002-06:00

The Resident Evil 5 demo, which has hit 4 million download, offers two levels that can be played either by yourself with a friend.

The first level, Public Assembly, takes place at a small part of the village. (You know the trailer that features the guy giving a speech with a megaphone? Yeah, it takes place there.) Chris and Sheva barricade themselves in a small house as they try to pick off some of the mob, but of course, the barricade is eventually torn down. Soon they find themselves coming face to face with a giant, hooded man wielding a huge axe. It's a mini-boss fight that spreads out into the streets containing a few other buildings you can run into and climb the roofs of in order to put some space between you and the axeman. Explosive barrels are littered throughout the area, allowing you to lead him to them and shoot them off. The whole idea is to survive until reinforcements show up. (I don't believe there's a time limit; it just ends once you kill the axeman. At least, that is the impression I was given.)

The second level, something Town...Hell if I remember it's going on 6am...is the neighboring area. Here you can explore a bit as you meet a new enemy type: some flying bug thing. This is also were the co-op shines. When Sheva is tossed over the next building, it's up to Chris to help cover her with the sniper rifle from the other. Once the door on the other building has been opened, the two can proceed onward only to be confronted by another mini-boss, the chainsaw guy. Again, much like the first level, you're confined to a small area with explosive barrels. You can either use to clear out multiple weaker enemies at once or use to knock out some of the mini-boss' health and knock him down to allow you to get some good shots into him before he goes after you again.

The gameplay is good and solid. Besides following Resident Evil 4's over the shoulder camera, the game has also adapted Resident Evil 4's laser pointer, melee moves via button sequences, and inventory style. However, unlike the previous Resident Evil titles (besides Outbreak), the game does not pause itself when accessing the inventory screen. When you go to use a health item or change weapons, you become vulnerable since you are unable to move forcing you to rely on your partner.

Having co-op in a Resident Evil title might seem a bit unorthodox, even with a couple previous games having two characters together, but it actually was executed very well. There are a few parts where you do feel like you can carry your own weight but there's also a few parts where you are completely grateful to have someone by your side. When getting pinned by an enemy, the other player has an option to go and help you by knocking the enemy off of you. If you don't have a real-life friend helping you out, don't worry, you're not at a complete lose. The AI in Sheva (who will be a NPC if you don't have someone else to play her) is fairly smart. She'll gather ammo, give some if you need it, she'll heal you, and she can stand pretty well on her own. However, I do wish that there was some sort of "Give me" command similar to what was seen in Outbreak. I say this because at one point, I found myself mistakenly giving her all my handgun ammo and not having any way to get some of it back because she just wouldn't give it to me. (Greedy bitch...)

The difficult of the game also seems to change depending on if you are playing with someone or playing alone. When Amaterasu and I were playing together, there seemed to be a higher density of enemies, a little less ammo since we both were going through it pretty quickly, and the enemies just felt a bit more aggressive. Yet, when I was playing alone, there seemed to be fewer enemies that, while still aggressive, didn't overpower me like they did when playing with him. Then of course I could be greedy and horde all the ammo and health for myself if I wanted. (Naturally I didn't though because I needed Sheva's support and honestly, giving her some health items to hold isn't a bad idea since she is pretty good at healing you when your health gets low. It frees up some of your inventory space and gives you one less thing to think about.)

The game is naturally good looking but like so many other current games, the areas felt a tiny bit bland since tans and browns were the dominant colors. The environments were detailed though I didn't get a chance to see how the real time effects were since there wasn't much in the environments to see blowing in the wind. The character movements are superb though. The animations between switching weapons on the fly or doing some bad ass looking kick were smooth. There wasn't any choppiness between me changing from a shooting position to a kicking or punching position to knock some enemies away from my partner. The enemies movements were not jumpy either, though I will go to say that the blood and the decomposing effects look like bubbling jelly...

The controls were solid and easy to use once you get the hang of it. You might find yourself accidentally giving away an item when you meant to use it yourself or you might find yourself shooting when you meant to swing the knife or vise versa. But once you do get a hang of things and learn to balance out the items that you need and the items that your partner needs (unless you're playing with a person who I would hope tells you what they need and can think for themselves, if not, get a better friend), you'll do just fine. I personally felt that it was too easy but I'm hoping it is just because this is a demo probably taken from a very early part of the game. I'd like to think that the difficult will be a bit more tense in the final version or later parts of the game. It didn't necessarily take away the fun factor of the game, but when I saw just how easy it was to actually beat each level, I just felt a bit unsatisfied because I was expecting something a bit rougher.

Basically, if you've played any Resident Evil game before, even if it was just Resident Evil 4, you'll have no trouble jumping into this game. Once you get the co-op controls down, you'll do pretty well. Newcomers might have a bit of difficulty at figuring out how to conserve ammo or find alternative ways to dealing with the situations but the game shouldn't make you feel too overwhelmed.

I don't have doubts the final version of the game will be a good. I just hope there's some edgy parts in it when it's done.

Ubisoft: "Girls lead Wii sales!" Gamers: "Is that your excuse?"

2009-01-15T02:08:00.000-06:00

As much as we hate stereotypes and being labeled without given a chance to define ourselves, the world continues to just go with the flow. While I typically just roll my eyes at stories like this, this one caught my eyes since it brought up an interesting point. Well, should I say the people commenting on it brought up an interesting point, but first, the story:

It shouldn't be a surprise that there's an increasing amount of females getting interested in game. While sadly, they are more interested in typical "gamer girl" games, it is a fact that cannot be ignored. Ubisoft, the creator's of the Imagine and Ener-G series, has highly taken notice of this.

According to a survey conducted in 2007, 50% of Ubisoft game users were women which then jumped to 57% in 2008. The company also says that their forums of female games has doubled over the past few weeks. Ubisoft has now created a new studio, Tornado Studios, to create games dedicated and aimed directly at girls. They also believe that what is driving Wii sales it the amount of girls, women, and families interested in their games like the Imagine series that now has 16 crappy...I mean...stereotypical...games based on topics girls like such as fashion, interior design, and babysitting. With the Ener-G series having sports, like gymnastics and horse back riding, for girls looking for more sport orientated games.

Ann Hamilton, a senior brand manager with game publisher Ubisoft, states, "These interactive games are great for self-expression and creativity among girls." (If that's so, then where's my Imagine: Game Designer game where I can be creative and make non-****** games and express my disliking for this?) With the article concluding that they are doing best to appeal to the growing female market. (If so, then where's my Assassin's Creed 2?!)

Source: Joystiq

Anyway, the reason why I wanted to bring this up is because Joystiq stated something that got me thinking...They said, "Even so, while we applaud efforts to put controllers -- any controllers -- in the hands of the women, we just wish the industry wouldn't continue to vomit shovelware into the market under the guise of good intentions."

Perhaps they're right. Prince of Persia and Far Cry 2 were the last big-named, "non-girly" game released and that was a few months ago. However, it seems like every time I go into work, there's a new Imagine or Ener-G game for me to put out. Looking at Ubisoft's "Coming Soon" list, I see two fashion-based games and a game based on a TV show...Nothing that sounds remotely interesting to anyone with decent taste in gaming.

Could these companies (there are others focusing on games dedicated to girls or "casual" audiences) be using that statistics as an excuse to half-ass projects and cut costs since these two audiences don't really know what "quality" is? I'm sure they gain enough of a profit from these audiences since, whether you agree with them or not, they do spend a lot of money on them to keep the company going, especially if the company isn't required to pay for a large team to produce crap?

Your thoughts, please. I personally say yes. Those dirty, marking bastards are geniuses!

The Economy Sucks- But Games are Amazing

2009-01-15T01:30:00.002-06:00

At the risk of sounding like I'm ripping off Sessler's Soapbox, I decided to post this anyway. It's a topic that I had been thinking about myself recently and after watching his soapbox, I was inspired a bit. (Plus I feel he left some good tips out.) Anyway...It shouldn't be a shocker to anyone that the economy is crappy right now. Company after company is talking about lay offs or closing down. The price of everyday products seems to keep rising and the dollar still isn't getting us much. So here's a couple tips that I think will help gamers out during a time in their lives where maybe there's other more important things to put money towards other than games.

Be Picky

There's plenty of games to look forward to this year. (Killzone 2, Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 5, No More Heroes 2, Mad World, Halo Wars, F.E.A.R 2, Guitar Hero: Metallica, the possibility of Heavy Rain, etc...) Some of these games do come out fairly close together, possibly without a pay check between them. As badly as you might want them all, if you cannot afford them, don't get them! Instead, be picky about your choices.

Begin with making a list of all the games you want this year and their estimated times for release. Then, take sometime to think about how many games you can afford during a certain amount of time. (Maybe one a week? Two weeks? A month? Two months? Whatever.) Once you know what your limit is, decide what games from the list you absolutely must have. If you're having trouble deciding, answer the following questions to help you make your decision:

* How much will I be playing this game?
* What about it, other than what it is, makes me feel the need to have it?
* What's its replay value like?
* If it has online multiplayer, how much will I use it? Will friends have this game?

Eventually you should be able to narrow down your choices so you end up spending money on the games you need to have compared to spending money on a mixture of need to have and "just wanted" games. If you have two or more need to have games coming out close together, think about whether you can afford to get them both without setting you back on money for something you truly need to have. (For example, if you have two games you really want coming out in a span of two weeks but have no games coming out for months after that, you'll probably be ok buying both.)

For the games you'd just like to have, either rent them to satisfy yourself, wait until you can afford them, or just wait for the price to drop. After all, if you wanted this long for it to come out, surely you can wait another month or two to keep a few extra bucks in your wallet.

Collector's Editions...Really?

For some of us, we're fascinated by bonus things. May it be a special DVD with "behind the scenes" footage, an art book, maybe a figure, or who knows what else...But we always manage to drop another $10, $20, and sometimes even $30 more to have the "Collector's Edition" just for the goodies or for the sake of saying, "Yeah, look at what I have and you don't." But maybe not it isn't the wisest choice to spend the extra money on every Collector's Edition for every game we buy.

If a Collector's edition is offered, take a serious look at its price and what extra bonuses it has to offer. Chances are you're probably going to want to pass on a Collector's Edition if its $20 more but only offers one thing (like part of the soundtrack or a DVD) compared to one that might offer a few things or one really cool thing (like an art book or nice figure). If the edition doesn't really offer anything spectacular, then you might want to pass it all together.

Investments

If you haven't already, now might be a good time to look into a rental service such as GameFly or maybe something a bit local. You might need to pay a month fee but the fees are low compared to the price of games these days. (A $10 or $15 fee to rent however many games you want in a month is a much better deal than spending $60 on one game a month, especially if you might not even like the game.) Also, some of these services do tend to let you buy games from them at lower prices than a new game costs.

Something like GameTap or Steam might be another thing to look into if you have a fairly good computer. While they might not always have the most recent released games, but they might help to keep your gaming needs satisfied at reasonable costs.

Another option would be to look into a MMO to help eat up sometime. You don't necessarily need to play WoW but looking into an already existing, possibly free MMO, might not be a very bad idea. Some free MMOs do offer premium packages for subscribers which allow more options, items, or areas to people willing to pay a couple bucks. While others have special armor, weapons, or other in-game items via small microtransactions to help spice up the game after awhile.

Then, of course, pick games that you'll know you'll get plenty of game time from. Perhaps it comes in the form of solid multiplayer or a nice, long single player.

Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's?

2008-12-09T15:49:00.000-06:00

When it comes to video game controversy, we typically hear about how Little Jimmy shot someone by acting out a scene he saw in a game. Though once in awhile something comes up that really makes you scratch your head because you're not sure if the person's arguement is legitimate or if they're just closed minded.

Today I stumbled upon an article where MUD creator, Richard Bartle, had shown his disliking for a quest (The Art of Persuasion) in Wrath of the Lich King. I did a bit of research on the quest since I'm too low of a level to do it myself, but apparently the quest is a level 71 chain quest that basically has you abducting someone, holding them prisoner, and then torturing them to gain information.

Bartle states that his issue with the quest is the fact that you have to torture the prisoner. If you want to progress through the chain, you have to do this quest and there were no alternatives to gain information; there wasn't a way to compromise with the prisoner or reach an agreement.

"I'm not at all happy with this," he had stated in his blog. "I thought that surely the quest-giver would step in and stop it at some point? It didn't happen, though. Unless there's some kind of awful consequence further down the line, it would seem that Blizzard's designers are OK with breaking the Geneva convention."

He goes on to explain that he doesn't necessarily mind that a torture quest is in the game, but it is the fact that the designer did not give the player the option to choose between 'good' or 'evil'. He feels that if the designer has pressured a belief on him- that the designer has no problem with torture.

Knowing that this is WoW, I'm assuming that the quest isn't very graphic. Bartle does explain that you're given a 'cow poke-like' item and use it to zap the prisoner until he speaks. While being poked, he might say things like, "Aahhhh! Release me! I am of no use to you. I swear it!", "Stop! I beg you, please stop. Please...", and "Enough! I've told you all that I know. Your continued abuse is senseless". He continues to say that he knows that it is just a game and that you're not really hurting anyone, but it still strikes a nerve. (Which makes me wonder what his views are about the Death Knights since the first hour of gameplay is basically slaughtering a whole village with people running around screaming and begging for mercy.)

But this brings me to the purpose of my post: Where is the line drawn between what might be a logical arguement and what is thinking too deeply into a situation regarding a game?

The concept of being given a choose in a game- especially one where you are the main character - sounds like a relevant arguement. If you do not wish to be so hostile, then shouldn't you be allowed to pick a less aggressive option? Yet, it is just a game. You are truly not harming anything and if you already feel like torture is wrong,chances are you aren't going to do it in real life which makes you question why hitting a button in a game can be seen as being so cruel.

Many games, especially these days, are full of senseless killing yet we're not all cold, blood-thirsty murders from playing them. Games before have also featured torture scenes- like The Darkness where Jackie is tied to a chair and then has a drilled used on him or the Metal Gear Solid series which features multiple torture scenes throughout its life or recently the opening to World at War or the Locus camps in Gears of War 2. Perhaps these scenes aren't seen as being quite as horrible since you're often portrayed as the victim whether than the master mind.

Which brings us back to the idea of what is the developer's right when it comes to creativity with their work and what is crossing a moral line. Many novels and films have featured tortured scenes that were put there by their creator. Regardless if the novel or story is based on a true story or is just the creator trying to express brutality, torture is still a disturbing thing either way. While people might complain about how graphic the scenes might be in a book or in a movie, they typically let them slide; maybe because you are passive during the event by just reading or watching it. Yet with games, you are the one performing the act, which is what the arguement is currently about.

So let me ask you: Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's? What does the developer- or writer - have the right to do since the game is basically their creation? And what right does the player feels he/she should be given if the developer is telling them to portray themselves within the game?

Emotional Environments

2008-11-24T02:09:00.000-06:00

(Sorry about the photo quality. I don't have the PC version and I wanted to catch the perfect screenshot to go with my article. So I took a picture of my TV screen. Bear with me.)

Regardless if we like it or not, everything affects one way or another. We see an add for a delicious new burger on TV and all of the sudden we feel hungry. We hear rumors that lice has been spread around school and all of the sudden our heads itch.

Like film writers, authors, and song writers, developers try to find ways to affect our emotions and train of thought with their games. We are beginning to see an increase in 'story driven' games where character development goes beyond just giving a summary on a character's backstory. Developers are starting to explore the concept of making us relate to game character just as people have related to characters in novels or films for years. They try to make use care for the characters and feel what they feel, but our emotions can be messed with without a character even being present.

The environments we are in can have just as strong emotional impacts on us as a well spoken speech or a tear-jerker song. Just how many times do we wake up on cold, rainy days feeling groggy and unwilling to get out of bed? How many times have we felt strange bursts of happiness or excitement on the first warm, sunny day after a long winter? How many times have we felt scared or uneasy when walking through a graveyard? While we can't feel the warmth of the sun on our skins when the sun is shining nor can we have that full unearthy experience when running through a demon-filled graveyard in a game, environments can still have an impact.

Sometime ago I talked about how I felt peaceful when playing Oblivion. The music was calming and soothing and then was amplified with the natural sounds of crickets, the wind blowing, and water splashing up on the shore as I stood beside the bay. The game was simply beautiful, too, creating a magical feeling as if you were in a wonderland were stress and fear did not exist. I often found myself taking sometime to just ride my horse through the forest after a hard day just to settle myself down.

Recently, I've been playing Bethesda's newest game, Fallout 3. Without looking at my screen, I could feel the same feeling. After all much like Oblivion, Fallout 3 does have a nice soundtrack and wind sound effects, but then I begin to play and mood shifts...I look around and all I see is a barren wasteland filled with shattered homes, broken hopes, and lost souls. I begin to feel very strange, almost as if a sense of depression washes over me.

The idea of a once lush land and thriving civilizations being destroyed and then seeing the aftermath is disturbing to an extent. You have to look at it from a different point of view though; I suppose to feel this way, you need to look at each building as more than just a location to explore. You need to look at it in the sense that it once was a house that held a family that was just like us. (What if it were your home? What would you do if the world you knew vanished before you, leaving you with nothing but dirt and sand?) Then the addition of ghouls adds on to the concept a bit more; hearing about how they were normal people who now suffer because of what has been done. I'll run into travelers or people wearing clothing and using weaponry from scraps they manage to gather. Or I'll meet people who long not for fancy jewels or money, but instead, want basic necessities like clean water and food. It's very surreal and immersive.

I believe that the atmospheres and environments are being overlooked by developers. They tend to see level design as just what fills in the middle part between Spot A and Spot B. They focus on designing something that will keep the player's attention until the end and seem to worry more about how it looks whether than what it looks like.

Allow me to explain my statement: A game's graphics are fairly important. While it can be argued of just how important they are, you don't need to be a scientist to know that people want to play a game that looks good. They want details and effects; they will stop to see how it looks to determine if it is a good or not but they do not pay much attention to what it is. When it comes to trying to stir an emotion within the player, developers use their characters and stories, which is good and all- we need more of it - but I think there also needs to be a balance with the environment as well.

Take the first Gears of War for example. It was a beautiful game but I personally didn't feel Cliffy's full concept of 'beautify in destruction' with the whole city being demolished by the Locus. While the levels were nicely designed, never once did I really stop in the game and think, "My god...This use to be city...This use to be where people lived simply lives wand wanted peace but now look it..." I didn't necessarily get that feeling of departure from 'my post-war' life through Marcus to my 'in-war' life that I was playing as Marcus through.

Gears of War 2 did a slightly better job at by focusing on the idea of 'humanity's last stand' with Jacinto being the last safe haven for human life. This idea is explored a bit more with the character's commenting on their past lives or how the cities use to be before the Locus began destroying them. It was a nice little add on that helped to tie everything emotionally together. The more I played the game, the more I felt the need to protect Jacinto at all costs and the more dedicated I began to feel thus allowing me to somewhat get into the game more.

I'd like to see more developers doing this. I'd like to see them explore the idea of emotions not just coming from character reactions or from twists in the story. With gaming still growing and developers still exploring new approaches to tell their stories, I have no doubt that one day we will see more games with emotional environments.

Genderless Gaming

2008-11-17T22:55:00.000-06:00

It isn't new to say that gaming is generally a male dominated hobby and industry. It isn't new to say that more and more girls are becoming interested in gaming. It isn't new to say that some will gladly sit down and play a game of Gears of War 2 while others will poke at their dogs in Nintendogs. And it isn't new to say that some of us get stuck in the middle.

I've been a gamer ever since I was 2 1/2 years old. My parents owned a NES when I was born and one day after seeing someone play it, I tried out Super Mario Bros. With them seeing me enjoying it and with my uncle also being a gamer and living next door, they got me a Genesis and I use to spend my days playing Sonic. (I was pretty damn good for only being three.) As I got older, my gaming interest only grew.

I had a wide variety of handhelds and systems over my life time and can remember spending a few summers at my uncles house sitting at his computer and playing WarCraft II all day long. To me, being a gamer mean nothing. I liked games, my cousins liked games, and my uncles like games. It was just an enjoyable hobby until I started to mingle with a wider community. Then I began to find myself out of place.

Other girls looked at me like I had two heads and a tail because I would sit down with a GameBoy Color over a Barbie doll. While they all became googly-eyed over some pretty boy singers that they'd never met and started whoring themselves out in the 5th grade, I had my GameCube and PS2. I was an "outcast" in their eyes because I wasn't a typical girl. Then most guys mocked me because I was a girl; after all, girls aren't gamers. That was of course until I kicked their asses in a few rounds of Soul Calibur II; then I gained their respect.

Then when I first started posting here, I was getting noticed just because I was girl; not because of the games I liked or the quality of my posts. It took me quite awhile to get people's minds to shift from, "Oh she's a chick! Hot damn!" to "Oh wow! That was an intelligent comment".

All of this brings me to how things are now: separating yourself by gender causes a huge mess. I won't lie, being a minority does suck. I deal with sexism in some form or way almost daily on XBox Live or even just walking about my local game stores. As you just read above, it's not easy to get your foot in the door and be taken seriously, but I always use to ask myself why until I discovered my answer: girl gamer communities.

I don't mind the idea of having communities for specific things; if you feel the need to have a support group, then by all means do it but after some experience with a few of these communities, I realized that they were harming the view of female gamers more than they were helping. Perhaps it is just me, but I don't think the best way to try to include yourself into a group is to separate yourself. If guys don't walk around saying, "Hey, I'm a guy gamer" then why do we need to say, "Hey, I'm a girl gamer"? Is it really necessary? I will admit that I will typically correct someone on the forums if I am called a guy (call it hypocritical if you wish) but the point I try to make when doing so isn't to separate myself; it's to just toss out the idea that regardless of gender, we can all be the same.

It always rubs me the wrong way to see threads asking if any girl (or heaven forbid, gurl gamers- learn to spell) gamers exist here. I never really understood why we would need to draw ourselves out. Just because my chest is natural and not made from Cheeto-generated fat doesn't make me better or worse. At our core, are we really different from our male counterparts? The answer should be no but unfortunately, I see a lot of women saying yes. I suppose it is seen as being a mile stone for the minority when someone like the Frag Dolls wins a tournament but I see it as a step back since the vibe I get from it is that the only purpose they wanted to win was to brag that chicks could do it; not because they liked the game which is what gaming should be about.

I see all these female-only gaming sites or clans; I've even been invited to join one or two. (Naturally I laughed my ass off.) They all want to be taken seriously but aren't because of what they are. In doing some research on a few of the sites, I recall reading one site telling their readers not to go to places like IGN or GameSpot for gaming news just because they weren't designed for girls. I remember reading that, having my mind explode, picking the pieces up, gluing my brain together, and then staring at my screen with a blank look. I suppose IGN's Babe Section turned them off from the site, but it's still a good hub of entertainment news. And I always thought the GameSpot's color scheme and layout was universal for any gender. How can you expect to be taken seriously if you're telling readers not to go to popular news sites just because it isn't designed specifically for females?

Which leads me onto my amazing fight with that one feminist gaming site. (I have long forgotten their name.) The issue that I had with the site and that the site had with me, was the fact that I "criticized" their lack of knowledge and suggested that they double check facts before publishing something on their site. They were doing a 'girl only' Game of the Year nomination in order to show that 'girls know games'. The thing was...In their Game of the Year nominations, they had mislabeled same games by genre as well as had games from a few years ago on the list. It was ridiculous and embarrassing which is why most girls aren't seen as actual gamers. I had commented on it and suggested that they fix the few errors in order to make themselves look better. Needless to say, after about two posts on their forums I was banned.

Why you ask? Not because I was violent in my original post. (You all know how I am with arguments. I use real reasoning.) The reason why I was banned seemed to be because I disagreed with the concept of 'girls are right because we're girls and we need to stick together to overcome boys!' That concept should have died back in Kindergarten...

This then brings me to marketing. As more and more girls start gaming, developers feel the need to market them. You'll see commercials on TV showing women playing sparkled covered DS or playing games with cute animals or pink princesses. Marketing wise, women are being singled out and they are trying to drag more in but in the wrong away, or at least that's how I see it. Remember how I started gaming? I just played Mario. How did some other girls who I know game and are like me start gaming? The same way I did. We didn't have pink, frilly games shoved down our throats instead, games caught our interest because of our taste. So maybe that's the way things should be marketed; look beyond the gender and market the taste.

It is true men and women typically (yes, I say typically because I'd take a gory horror film over some over the top romance any day) have different tastes. I believe some entertainment study said that women prefer films with romance and emotion so why not include that in commercials for games? Let's take a commercial for Gears of War 2 and have it focus on the idea of Dom being dedicate to finding his wife. While some feminists might throw a fit over the idea of a 'woman being weak', most women might be very moved by it, especially since they do tend to like committed relationships.

Though we are starting to see more and more universal gaming commercials that aren't really aimed at any particular gender. Take a look at the Mirror's Edge commercial, it focuses on showing the concept of the game's smooth looking movements and its style. Left 4 Dead focus on pulling in the good ol' zombie love. Perhaps I'll start to see more of what I want: people being interested in a game for what it really is over it being all girlyfied.

Needless to say, I do feel that part of the reason why it is difficult for females to be taken seriously isn't because of their skills with a game. (Sometimes I'm better than my guy friends, other times they are better than me.) I think that the main reason why we're giving such a hard time is because we make it hard. Sure, naturally guys will be attracted to a female gamer because she is engaging in a hobby he likes (but wouldn't anyone like anyone if they had a similar taste as you?). I feel that the best way to get included into the mix is to not separate oneself but, instead, to just prove that we're one in the same.

After all, I'd like to think that I've earned respect for what I've done and for what I've said; not because of my gender.

For Honor or Bragging Rights?

2008-11-17T03:40:00.000-06:00

Tonight myself, my boyfriend, and a couple friends all got together on Live to play Call of Duty: World at War. We were playing Team Deathmatch and needless to say, we weren't really playing seriously. Of course we were playing and trying but at the same time, we're cracking jokes and going on random stories; basically just having fun because so what if we win or lose, we still enjoyed the round. However, our fun was ruined by some cheap ass moves from the other team.

Constant camping, shooting rockets in close quarters, walking around with mounted torrents...All of these are, of course, in the game and strategies you can use, but they're pretty cheap. After being mowed down round after round, we became frustrated and pissed. Not because of losing, but because we could hardly even play without being killed within a few seconds of respawning.

None of this is new though to the world of multiplayer gaming. People always find ways to "cheat" by either finding ways to get out of maps or into hard to reach places where its almost impossible to shoot them. Or they use the same cheap fighting move over and over again in a row to win. Or they use the same cheap weapon every time they play. Or they drive around in a vehicle just running people over.

The question I am asking here with this is: Why? Why do people feel the need to be cheap in multiplayer games? Why do people feel the need to cheat? Why do people feel the need to always win and always be the one with the most kills in order to enjoy a game? Why do people become so dedicated to a game? I understand that winning is fun and that doing something first makes you feel special; it's always nice to get a pat on the back for doing something extraordinary or very well but no game should be worth sacrificing fun just so you can feel like a big dog of the pack.

Perhaps they find it to be fun but when in multiplayer you have to remember that everything isn't about you. I don't mean to sound like a sore loser or like I'm bitching that people are better than me because I truly am ok with getting my ass handed to me by someone who's actual good at the game; not someone who thinks they're hot **** for shooting two rockets down a hallway. Cheating and being cheap is, well, rude to others trying to play the game. No matter how many rounds you win, you're not going to get any award or money from it so why ruin other's experiences for your own gain?

When did competitive gaming go from being who is best to who can find the cheapest trick the fastest? This brings up the question as to where is the line drawn. Of course the developers put those weapons in the game and of course they designed those levels to allow for sniper camping. So naturally, we're allowed to use it and are encouraged to use. However, there seems to no longer be a universal understanding as to doing what in a game is considered 'wrong' and what is considered 'right'.

I can recall from my earlier online days where if people felt someone was being cheap, they'd call them out on it or ask them to take it easy, but that quickly went away as the community seemed more acceptant of cheapness. It seem everyone's minds shifted from "Oh, that's not cool" to "Well, everyone does it so I will too". I know that I stopped playing Halo 3 because of all the corners people would cut just to get kills. I got sick of all the rockets or people hiding in corners with the Gravity Hammer and then slamming anyone who walked by. I got sick of people not playing the game.

I know that there's no solution to this. No matter how many times or how many people shake their fingers and say, "You should be ashamed of yourself" isn't going to change anything since this generation has a 'well F you then' attitude. So I'm not asking people to stop, even though I would love to be able to play a round without cheapness, but what I really want you to do is answer my question: Why? Why do you do it? What do you gain from it?

Which brings me to another similar topic: being first.

Earlier tonight, before playing Call of Duty, when I was hoping back and forth between my Rogue and Death Knight, I saw that the Achievement thing popped up congratulating a player in hitting level 80- the game has been out since Thursday. I did /whos 80 to see the list of other level 80s and there turned out to be about ten of them with the first person hitting level 80 in less than 27 hours of Lich King's release. It takes enough experience to get from level 60 to 61 to make me roll my eyes and my level 70 guild members have been complaining about the experience needed to get past level 70. They've been playing pretty regularly and have only hit maybe level 72.

While the person hitting level 80 way before I ever do doesn't affect my game, I (and other people in my realm) couldn't help but have WTF looks on our faces. I really want to know...Was it worth it? I can only imagine how much time they had to spend at their PCs (and I'm sure that some bot might have been used too- again which brings me back to the topic of cheating the system) to hit the maximum level so quickly. But in a game that tries to encourage doing things as a group, was it really worth running out in from of the pack for? Was it worth giving up the sleep or possibly doing something with someone just so a little message saying you were the first whatever-race-class to hit Level 80? What do you gain from it?

But my thoughts don't end with WoW, what about other games? Just how many times to people rush through games quickly beat them within the first day or so that its released and then go onto forums or blogs or sites and spoil it. Is it worth hurrying through a game, possibly missing details or not getting full enjoyment out of it for yourself, just so you can brag that you beat it? And then possibly completely ruin it for someone else? What do you gain from it?

I'd like to think that no one's life is so pathetically depressing that they always need to be the top player or the first to complete something just to make themselves feel better. It wouldn't strike me odd if the first level 80 was reached within a week or two of regular playing. It wouldn't bother me if I was dying constantly because someone was really good at a game. But what do you gain from cheating or from ruining a game for someone else?

I'd really like to know.

Used Game Sales = Money Flies out Windows for the Developer?

2008-11-16T14:28:00.003-06:00

Yesterday I came across a fairly interesting thread asking: Do used games hurt developers? I wrote a nice, long answer in it but I figured I would share it with those who might not have seen it.

I feel that saying that developers are hurt by used games is like saying the agricultural market is being hurt by you growing your own tomatoes in your backyard.

Is it true that developer lose money if you buy a used game? Yes, they do lose a bit because instead of gaining a profit percentage from someone buying a new copy but yet they still gained money from the original copy bought.

Is it enough to harm them? No and here's why:

Used games only exist if people buy new copies. The developers gain money from those new copies and a vast majority of the time, the developer gains enough money from the first round of new copies to cover the costs of the game's development, printing, shipping, etc...and still walk away with enough of a profit to expand their company.

While it is true that some people do buy newly released games, from experience I've mainly see people buy used games that are older titles with a lot of them being games that are no longer in print new. You mean to tell me that a developer is going to constantly printing new copies of a five year old game so I can buy it new? The answer is simply no because the developer would lose more money from reprinting than they do from me buying their five year old game (which by that time is probably worth 75% less than when it was first released).

Occasionally they will release reprints of games via 'Greatest Hits' releases. While the value of the game has dropped, the developer still earns some money from these sales and in a way, we can interrupt 'Greatest Hits' titles as the developer saying, "Here's your last chance to buy it now, other wise we don't care." After all, by this time the developer has often moved onto other, larger projects that will probably bring in a bigger profit than their 'Greatest Hits' titles- even if consumers buy them all.

Used games have been around for over a decade and we have yet to see any company go bankrupt because of used game sales. So far, the main reason why we've seen a company fold was due to law suits, mergers, or their games just losing quality or not holding gamers' interests to even make them by them in the first place. (I miss you so much, Clover...)

Hell, used game sales can even help increase new sales for a developer. Say you buy a used copy of 'This Game'. You played it, loved it, and then shortly after beating it you found out that the developer is going to be releasing a sequel or a game with similar gameplay. Chances are your interest in the game is going to be so great that you're going to rush out and buy a new copy of the new game.

If you don't believe me, let me give you an example: The Grand Theft Auto games are a popular series for people to buy used, yet, the Grand Theft Auto IV walked away with selling 3.6 million copies on their first day gaining (roughly $216 million on its first day); they had sold 10 million copies a few months after the game's release. All those copies were new. Since then, people have bought used copies of Grand Theft Auto IV and will continue to buy them, yet there is no news anywhere about RockStar going bankrupt due to low game sales.

But of course sales don't end with used copies. There is no law preventing you from buying a thousand new games and then reselling them even though you never opened them. Just look at eBay auctions will people will sell 'brand new, in mint condition, never been played!' copies of rare games and makes more of a profit than the developer does from its sale since the consumer who is reselling it doesn't have to pay a development team or printing costs or even the shipping costs since they charge whatever they want for 'shipping and handling'. You mean to tell me that reselling new games is different than selling used games? The only difference is one copy is still in the original packaging while the other as been played. It's still the same thing: a game being sold by someone other than the developer who gains a profit from it while the developer doesn't.

The fact of the matter is: people will always buy new games. The desire to have a brand copy the day of its release is too great for most people to pass up. Why it isn't uncommon for people to just buy new copies over used copies because they feel that saving $5 isn't worth having a copy that might not have a manual with it. People will always buy used games because not everyone can afford a new game or because the game might not even exist in new copies. And people will always sell games they buy regardless if they played it or not just to earn a couple bucks.

Yet, developers will continue to make money and will be able to continue to support themselves. Especially with the growing market of microtransactions. So what if someone buys a used copy of Halo 3? Bungie still makes money off of the buyer buying the maps. And the income doesn't stop with game content. Every t-shirt, hat, wallet or item you buy that is tied to a game, the company still gets a small profit from it due to them owning the rights.

Cutting out the Middle Man: Nay or Yay?

2008-11-16T14:24:00.003-06:00

Digital distribution sounds great on paper. The idea of cutting out the middle man sound convenient.

There's a slight chance that games could be cheaper since developers wouldn't have to pay artists to design box out, then wouldn't have to pay to print it, then wouldn't have to pay for packaging, and wouldn't have to pay for shipping. (Though I'm sure games would still be charged at full price in order to cover "server and bandwidth costs".) It's also nice thinking that people wouldn't have so many games cluttering their houses. (I know that with me right now, you barely tap one of my shelves and games just fall all over the place.)

And, of course, this would be mean that games would always be available as long as the developer chooses to host it. (Like the XBox Originals on Live where you can now download some 'harder to find' XBox games or Steam or the Virtual Console or places like GameTap with games from years ago.)

Though there's a lot of issues that need to be worked out before we jump completely from discs to folders on our PCs.

The first big issue that needs to be settled is piracy. I read an extremely interesting article last night about how anti-piracy movements hurt games a bit more than piracy does itself; and while I do agree with what the author said in his article, I feel that developers aren't going to just say, "Oh ok. No problem." to it.

I suppose the main "fear" (if you even want to call it that) I have with digital distribution is how developers are going to handle the idea of all their games being available virtual. I will admit that I don't know exactly all the technical stuff about game codes but with PC games being pirated already from people hacking into developer data bases or getting the code from where...Just imagine the increase in that if every game was available from an online data base. I guess you could say that I feel that we'd see an increase in titles getting hit with DRM or other forms of anti-piracy or just developers being more strict than they are now.

Right now, piracy seems to be something that only PC developers are facing. (Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's ways to copy console games or be able to pirate those too; I just don't know how.) But that's not really the point I'm trying to make...My point is that as we stand with physical copies, piracy is something that we truly can just brush off our shoulders because most developers can sit comfortably knowing that their disc-copy games are pretty much guaranteed buys. (Does what I'm trying to say make sense?) Of course, this is just speculation and just me kind of guessing what might happen but with DRM already being a hot issues and with some developers already saying they aren't planning on making PC versions in fear of it being pirated, I don't think my guess is too far off from what could really happen.

If anti-piracy and restrictions do end up being worse than they are now, I foresee a lot of problems within the consumer base. Admit it, just how many of you are truly ok with the idea of DRM as it stands now? Would you still be ok with it if they became stricter? How many of you really like the idea of being restricted to only doing so much with a game you purchased? And how many of you can truly say that you'd still buy a game with strict DRM via digital distribution if pirates (the real people stealing it- not you since you actually bought the game) get free passes to do whatever they want with the game and that you wouldn't switch over to pirating it so you could too?

When you take away the item we hold, the real concept of ownership changes. If a developer is hosting the game and uses DRM and says, "You can install it onto three computers", then let me ask you this: who really owns it? Do you own it since you bought it or are you really just "renting" the game from them by downloading it? It's an already hot controversy that I could see only getting worse with digital distribution; I'm not saying that digital distribution is a bad thing, I'm just saying I really would want this issues to be resolved before the only way for me to buy a game is to download it directly from the developer.

Another issue that I think someone brought up is storage. Technically, that isn't a huge issue. With the way the Virtual Console and I believe the Live Arcade is, your games are tied into your account, not really your system. This means that once you buy a game, it shows up in your account as you purchasing it even if you delete it from your system. (The same goes for games on Steam. I either buy a copy in the store or I can download it from them and still uninstall it without worrying about having to rebuy it if I ever want it on my PC again.) At least that would work as long as developers don't throw in something like DRM where you can only redownload a game X amount of times before having to rebuy it...But anyway, this means that they would just need a storage system and that's another issues I see arising. Who's going to make it?

Right now you can download old XBox games on to the XBox360. Ok, that makes sense since it is Microsoft's systems. Right now you can download old PSOne games and PSP games on to your PS3 and PSP. Ok again, that makes sense since it's Sony's systems. Right now you can download variety of older Nintendo games and older games in general onto the Wii and again, it makes sense. But now let's pretend that a brand new game is going to be available via download only and it's being developed by a third-party developer who has no ties to any of the three. What are they going to do with their game?

Are we still going to have Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo making systems with certain specs and still compete with each other for rights as to who gets to let their buyers download a game? And if so...Then shouldn't we all just switch to gaming PCs since that's basically what consoles will become....? I suppose you could argue that consoles are already "gaming PCs that aren't PCs" so maybe it would be true that each company would release their own version of a system for people to download games onto but I would predict that exclusives wouldn't exist in digital distribution since, well, of piracy again. A developer might say, "This game will be available for the Sony Downloading Station only!" but who's to say that no one would steal the code and pirate it if they didn't have Sony's station?

This then brings up the question about retail. If we take away what stores sell, then what would they have to sell? I would imagine that retail chains wouldn't completely vanish; after all, people would need to buy hardware, accessories, and be able to replace parts for upkeep but I would imagine that major electronic retail chains would be the ones to take that over or game-related retail chains might close down a large amount of stores but keep a few open for such a reason.

One thing I don't think people see when they talk about digital distribution is that it also doesn't work economically. Imagine if all gaming retail stores (both local and worldwide) went out of business...That's a lot of people without jobs but it doesn't stop there. Printing companies might have huge lay offs because developers wouldn't need manuals or cover art. Shipping companies might have lay offs since they wouldn't have as many products to ship. (Sure there's always things to be shipped but imagine if you removed an entire market from existence. There would be some consequences.) Developers might have lay offs since they wouldn't need as many people to design cover art, packaging, and to run everything behind the scenes.

The bottom line is...Just because it sounds nice doesn't mean it really is. Could we eventually switch to digital distribution? Possibly. Would it be anytime soon? Probably not.

Gears 2 = GOTY? (Spoilers!)

2008-11-10T19:12:00.003-06:00

Last night at roughly 3am, my boyfriend and I finished Gears of War 2's co-op mode on Hardcore. I knew from the beginning that Gears 2 was going to be a solid, enjoyable title but needless to say, Epic blew my mind with a good portion of the game being completely unexpected.

Most of what made Gears 2 great was pretty obvious from the beginning. Epic pretty much fixed every gameplay complaint I had with the first game. The team A.I is definitely much better; they actually take cover, have better aim, and revive each other as well as you. The weapons both sound and feel much better to use- in particularly the Sniper rifle. But what made Gears of War 2 stand out was the level design.

I never expected to get eaten by a giant worm...Nor did I expect to be running through burning, collapsing buildings...Nor did I expect to ride Reavers or a Brumack. All these moments were intense and exciting, giving me a thrill that I haven't felt in a game in a long time.

Then the multiplayer is amazingly great; I've fallen in love with the Horde mode because there's nothing like a group of you trying to fend off wave after wave of Locust.

Needless to say, I was both pleased and surprised by Gears of War 2. With solid gameplay, great multiplayer, and just overall being a memorible experience, I have no doubt that Gears of War 2 will walk away with plenty of Game of the Year awards this year.

Receivingdistress signal: "Dead Space Review"

2008-10-31T22:19:00.000-05:00

Dead Space (XBox360)

Publishers: EA
Developers: EA Redwood Shores
Release Date: October 14, 2008
Other Platforms: PS3 and PC (coming soon)
ESRB: M
Third-Person Action/Survival Horror

"In space, no one can hear you scream..."

The phrase echos through your head as you slowly continue your search. This was suppose to be a routine mission. This was suppose to be a standard repair job. You were planning on going in to figure a few lose wires and then return home to enjoy the game with an ice cold beer, but the moment your eyes laid upon the shattered, ripped apart ship, dread overpowered you. You knew from the moment you set foot on the Ishimura that things were much worse than you could have even imagined.

The fresh, salty smell of blood and the sour scent of rotting flesh seeped through your helmet. You wince from the strong stench, trying as hard as you can to keep your stomach from turning. (Nothing makes a job worse than vomit in your helmet.) Carefully, you step over the corpses that litter the corridors. What the hell happened here? You question to yourself as the faint light from your flashlight cuts through the thick darkness that lays before you. It reveals unthinkable horrors that you have only seen in films or read and books: tangled bodies ripped to shreds, strange writings all over the floors and walls, pools of crimson, sticky blood dripping from the pipes above you.

Silence fills the air. There is no sign of life nor do you even hear the faint hum of generators roaring in the distance. You're only greeted with the heavy echos of your footsteps, your own raspy breathing, and your heart pounding away in your chest begging to escape this hell hole. Yet, you feel eyes settling on you. From almost nowhere, a loud crashing sound breaks through the silence. You turn to come face to face to nothing but darkness but you can barely make out a figure moving in the shadows just before you feel a sharp pain in your neck and feel warm blood trickle down your arm...

Dead Space is a futuristic, sci-fi horror game. In the distance future, humans used up all the resources on their home planet and have turned to cracking other planets for resources. Though they can crack more than they can handle. One of the largest ships, the Ishimura, runs into trouble after discovering a mysterious artifact during one of their diggings leaving them forced to send out a distress signal as all of the ship's systems fail.

Now enters the main character, Issac Clark, one of the engineers who's crew answers the Ishimura's signal and who's girlfriend happens to work on the ship. As the ship comes into view, it's apparent that there's more damage to it than Issac's crew was expecting. Landing on the Ishimura, they begin to investigate but soon discover that they've now got themselves mixed up in more than they might.

The ship's crew have been slaughtered, leaving the hollowed halls stained with blood. Unearthly sounds echo the hauls until horrid aliens known as the Necromorphs show their ugly faces to Issac and his crew. After the first attack, Issac is separated from his crew and his ship is destroyed, leaving him and the two other survivors stranded on the infected Ishimura. Their only hope of escaping is surviving long enough to scavenge a few parts of the ship in hopes of restoring an escape pod enough to make it out alive.

The dark, gritty look of the ship's rooms fit well with the story and help to create a distrubig atmosphere. The lighting effects are simply amazing. I liked how the flashlight's power was limited thus only allowing you to see so much whenever you entered solid, black rooms or hallways. Then, of course, the casting of shadows from both the flashlight and the lights themselves help to keep you on the edge as you might catch a glimpse of a disformed figure passing you by.

The animations of both the aliens and the characters are surprisingly good. I was impressed with how smoothly everything looked and flowed, even when completely surrounded with enemies. Not once did the game lag or feel choppy. I could easily change weapons on the fly or reload without it feeling like I needed to slow down the action in order to do so.

The ragdoll physics worked extremely well with this game, especially with the only way to kill the enemies being to dismantle them piece by piece. Seeing arms or legs fly off in different directions with the shots from your Plasma Cutter were awesome looking. Though I will say I did run into a few glitches. Once in a great while I would find dead bodies spazzing out or they would get stuck on me as I walked over them.

Smaller, finer details, such as hair movement, did not matter due to Issac wearing his suit throughout the whole game. The suit itself was stunning looking. You could almost see that it was made out of a heavy material and it moved with Issac's movements very well, making it one of the best looking outfits I've seen in a game so far.

However, there were some nit-picky details that I did notice such as there not being any effect from the streams of water dripping from the pipes or there being much interaction between the player and the objects in the game other than the enemies or running into things while in zero gravity. It's one of those things that you might only notice if you look for it; it's small enough to not ruin the experience but this far into the console generation, you can't help but wonder why developers haven't been able to pull this fully off yet.

Though none of these pull away from the game's look nor do they damage its style in anyway. I will say that I was highly impressed with the presentation of many of the action sequences throughout Dead Space, in particular the scenes where you're being dragged by a large tentacle through the ship and I will say that this game has had one of the most bad ass final boss fights that I've seen in a game in awhile. I won't ruin it by saying what it is- but those who have beaten it already might know what I'm talking about when I say there were a few times where I yelled, "Oh hell yeah!" during its fight. Thus helping the game make you forgive any small details that were forgotten in its development.

However, a good presentation cannot fully exist without solid audio to back it up. Luckily for Dead Space, its graphical department and audio department go hand-and-hand together. The voice acting is pretty decent. It's no the best out nor are there any big named voice actors but that's fine since the actor's already do a good job at their roles. Their voices aren't monotone and show expresses quite well. Even though Issac himself does not talk, his lack of a voice is made up with body language. Though there were a few times where I felt he and other characters needed to be more dramatic than they really were.

The sound effects a crisp and detailed; you can even hear Issac's heavy breathing echoing in his helmet as he runs. Everything in space sounds muffled and distance, creating a very unqiue feeling within the player since you can't really hear anything happening around you, including the unearthy cries of the enemies. The soundtrack fits the game's mood just as well as the effects. It's low and eerie when it needs to be but then fast and furious during the fight scenes. This helps to complete the package that engulfs you into the game.

The creepy audio mixes well with the gameplay in order to create an interesting approach to the horror genre. Unlike other horror games, Dead Space doesn't try to drive feat into your heart with a disturbing atmosphere or bonechilling soundtrack. Instead, it tries to build off the claustrophobia and the idea of being trapped by making you panic with being overran with enemies but having little ammo or health items. In other words, Dead Space does something that hasn't been seen in a survival game in awhile and that is to express the idea of actually needing to survive.

Controls:

A: Action
B: Cancel
X: Statsis
Y: Inventory
Left Analog Stick: Move
Right Analog Stick: Camera/Aim
Left Trigger: Aim
Left Bumper: Run
Left Toggle: Kinesis
Right Trigger: Melee Swing
Right Bumper: Melee Stomp
Right Toggle: Deck Nav
Start: Pause
Back: Map
D-Pad: Weapon selection

Enemies are quick and violent; they come in a variety of different types. Some are typical "claw at you" enemies while others may shoot things at your or might release smaller creatures when they are killed. The change in enemies throughout the game will keep you on your toes and you'll need to decide what weapons will work best for you since you can only carry four with you. Dead Space has a total of seven weapons that you can use. Each one has both a primary and secondary feature. Some of which need to be purchased from the store.

You start off with the Plasma Cutter which has a powerful long-range blast and can change its blade orientation by 90 degrees. The next weapon you can get is the Line Gun that shoots a more powerful long-range blade and can release a timed mine. The third weapon is the Pulse Rifle that is basically a submachine gun and can release a full 360 degree overhead sweep. The fourth is the Ripper which is a mid-range, remote-controlled chainsaw gun that can also shoot a single chainsaw blade.

The Contact Beam is the fifth weapon; it releases a single, powerful blast and can also shoot a 360 degree blast. The sixth weapon is the Force Gun which knocks enemies back with a blast and shoots grenades. The final weapon is the Flamethrower that shoots, you guessed it, fire! As well as a napalm projectile. However, the Flamethrower cannot be used in air vacuums since no oxygen is present. (I was surprised that they thought that deeply into the weaponry.)

Besides weaponry, you also have a few special abilities. Stasis is an ability that allows you to slow down time within a certain amount of space. This is helpful to slow down fast moving objects, such as doors or fan blades, that might stand in your way or slow down fast moving enemies to allow you to escape. You also have another ability known as Kinesis which allows you to move and pick up objects. You can also shoot objects at enemies with its use.

All the abilities, weaponry, and even your suit are all upgradeable. With the power of Nodes, you can upgrade all the weapons you own, your suit, or your abilities. You can increase the power, the range, the reload time, etc...of your weapons, increase the amount of damage your suit can take, increase the amount of air you can hold, and so on.

The gameplay occasionally takes a break from battles by having you do some zero gravity jumping, shooting some cannons, or having you solve a few puzzles. There were even some hidden mini games in the game such as the shooting gallery or Z-Ball. However, I felt that there should have been more of a balance between the action and down times. The later levels of the game were filled with constant battles that began to leave me feeling exhausted and frustrated, especially if I died a lot in one of these dragged out battles.

Maybe it's just me, but I felt that some of the longer fights were there simply for the fact of them adding some more game time to this fairly short game. I was able to complete all 12 Chapters it in about nine hours. Part of me wishes it lasted longer but at the same time, I think if it had any more in it, it would have felt dragged on and not as complete as it does now. Though there's plenty of reasons to replay the game. Besides the fact of it being fun, you unlock a couple of goodies at end that will make second play troughs feel easier or will be helpful if you plan on playing through it again on a harder difficulty.

All and all, Dead Space was a solid title that exceeded my expectations. There were some minor issues with it but many of them could be overlooked with the game's overall packaging. You can see where there's room for improvement, but you won't walk away from this game feeling disappointed with its moments that will leave you in awe. This is one to pick up if you're a horror fan or action fan alike since both genre lovers will find something to enjoy about it.

The only other problem I had with the game is that it wasn't quite the horror game I was expecting it to be. Maybe I just play too many, but there were only a few times where my heart really pounded. The rest of the time I wasn't surprised by the elements of horror they used (dead bodies not really being dead, lights going out, things moving in the distance...) Though I've heard other people who get scared fairly easily say they were scared the first time the 'quarantine' signal went off. So diehard horror fans, you'll still be satisfied and disturbed, but this game might not make you turn your system off in fear. Everyone else, you might want to keep a change of pants by you.

Pros:

Fun, solid title
Nice presentation
Good audio
Solid, enjoyable gameplay
A little something for everyone
Nice amount of replay value
Some bonuses

Cons:

A bit short
Frustrating at times
Minor issues
May feel straining

Fallout 3: Collector's Edition

2008-10-28T19:14:00.000-05:00

Check it out!

It call comes in this nice, lunch box:

Inside is the game, a bonus DVD, and an art book:

And most importantly...The Vault Boy bobblehead:

Then I bought the Collector's Edition of the guide book:

Which I compared to Oblivion's normal guide:

Wii Music Impressions

2008-10-27T18:00:00.001-05:00

Rather you play the air guitar, a real guitar, or Guitar Hero, almost everyone at some point in their lives wished to play an instrument. Maybe you wished to play something a bit more elegant like a cello or maybe you wanted to rock out with the drums or be the hit guitarist that every groupie wanted to sleep with. Needless to say, not all of us with the passion for music has the talent and we might turn to some musical games as a way to fill the empty void we have in our talentless hearts. It's such a shame the Wii Music doesn't really do that...It more or less only hints on what the game could have been.

Wii Music is an extremely simple game (if you even want to call it that) that anyone can pick up and swing their Wiimote around wildly to sound like some amazing conductor or musician. The whole game is played in a total of five different styles. The first style is the 'piano style' where you hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck out in front of you and move your hands up and down to represent the moment of your fingers hitting the keys. The second style is the 'guitar style' where you hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck like a guitar and swing the Wiimote in the motion of strumming the string.

The third style is the 'violin style' where, you guessed it, you hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck like a violin and move the Wiimote in the motion of a bow across the stings. The fourth style is the 'trumpet style' where you hold the remote out in front of your face and rotate between the '1' and '2' buttons to represent hitting the keys. Then the final style is the 'drum style' where you hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck in front of you and move them up and down like you're beating a drum.

The problem with this is that that's it. You would think that they would alter the styles a bit to fit the instrument a bit more such as requiring you to hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck in the 'V' shape like real drum sticks or have you move the Nunchuck up and down to represent moving your hand up and down the neck of the cello. However, you don't. Like I said a little awhile ago, the game is extremely simple. Honestly you don't even need to hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck in any special way to play it and most of the time, you can get away with just swinging the Wiimote.

There's a couple of different game modes, each one containing a sub-mode. The first mode- and probably the most played- is the Jam Mode. In here, you can do a couple of things like Instrument Improvements. Here, you select an instrument from a list which includes anything from the ukulele, a variety of drums, the guitar, the piano, and xylophone. Once your instrument has been chosen, you can "learn to play it" or you can practice with the virtual teacher Tute. But basically...You just move the Wiimote and play a unselected song.

Next, you can do a Jam Session where you and up to three other people can pick instruments, a song, and design a little stage to play on. Again, you basically just swing the controller around until the song finished. Once it is finished, you can choose to save a video of you playing and make a decorative cover for it. You can then rewatch your videos or send them to friends over WiFi. This is a kind of cool feature but it's nothing amazing.

The next mode you can play is called Lessons. Here, you can choose to go through a series of lessons for each instrument starting with the basics and moving on to slightly more advanced styles. This makes the Jam Mastery mode about the only mode where rhythm and timing actually matter...

The next mode is the Game mode which has a couple of different games you can play, but I'm not going to lie, many of them aren't really fun. The first game you can choose to play is the Maestro mode where you take the form of a conductor and conduct an orchestra. Here, you might want to try to keep up with the timing in order to execute the song, but I had a couple issues with it. The first being that the Wiimote wasn't sensitive enough to handle light taps. Like a real musician, you have to start slow so you begin by playing a lot of simple, easy songs like Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. This required easy movements with the Wiimote but the game would not read my movements unless I moved my arm in large arcs or moved it quickly. This resulted in the song being played too fast and even though it sounded like it was suppose to, my score suffered due to speed.

The other issue I had with it is that you don't feel like a conduct. All you do is move the Wiimote up and down...Even with more "complicated songs" (and I use that term very, very loosely with Wii Music) just make you increase the speed you swing the Wiimote.

Another game mode is the Handbell Harmony. In this game, you and up to three other people hold the Wiimote and Nunchuck up like giant bells. Each bell in your hand is a different color. Then on the screen there is a bar. Different colored bells then show up and move across the sceen, similar to Guitar Hero or Rock Band. The idea behind the game is that you hit your color of bells when it passes over the bar. (I could actually see this being fun for awhile with a group of people, but like most Wii games, the magic wears off fairly quickly.)

The final game is called Perfect Pitch. In this game, a tone is played and you need to match its pitch with one of the choices given to you. This is an ok game that gets old very fast...

Though Wii Music does have a final mode, but I was unable to play it. The final mode is the Drum Mode but it requires the Wii Fit Board which I do not own. Based on what I've seen...The Drum Mode actually looks fun and is what I was hoping the rest of the game would be like. A virtual drum set appears before you and you actually need to move your hands in order to select the drum you want to hit making you feel like you're actually playing a real set. This is something I feel the whole game should have been.

The bottom line is that Wii Music is definitely designed for people who want to pretend that they're actually playing something even though they aren't. The game doesn't really focus on rhythm or timing- only the Lesson Mode seems to really be effected by how you move the Wiimote. There's these little things in the bottom-right corner of the screen called be-bops that are suppose to help with rhythm and a metronome ticking comes from the Wiimote to help you keep rhythm but it doesn't matter because for most of the time, the song sounds the same regardless of when or how fast you move the remote. The same goes for timing. Hell, I got a 'good' on the first song when I was moving the Wiimote and Nunchuck as fast as I could.

This leaves Wii Music feeling like a broken game, if you even want to call it a game... It's a mixture of lazy development since Nintendo didn't go as into depth as they could have- and should have- with the instruments as well as their fear of losing their casual audience by making the game as simple as it possibly could. The amount of wasted potential makes me want to cry because Wii Music could have been a truly unique experience; there is so much that could have been done with the Wii's motion controls that Nintendo hardly even touched on with Wii Music.

So I guess that leaves me with playing my air cello until next year.

Change is Good

2008-10-27T15:58:00.001-05:00

So my video card came today...I spent $80 on it and for what? So I can play a MMO that I spend $15 on every month and buy more PC games.

I've been in a bit of a limbo state. I jump between fully loving gaming and fully disliking it.

I have probably thirty or so games that I own but maybe only played for about an hour or so. I think there's even some games I own that I haven't even touched since the day I bought them. I sit here and question why I bought them...Some of them are hard to find and I think that may have been what sparked my interest in buying them. I do consider myself a bit of a collector but I don't just buy games to say, "Hey! Look at what I have!" Like yesterday someone brought in some XBox games and in their trade-ins was a game that a friend of mine claims was destroyed and never reprinted. I thought about buying it from the guy just to say I owned it but I thought about it...I didn't have a XBox so I would never be able to play it so would it have been worth getting to just sit on my shelf? I figured it wouldn't be and let it go.

Even now I glance over at my games and think, "Why did I buy it...?" I look at my list of preorders and think, "Why am I buying these...?" Especially when I look at it from a financial point of view. I'm going to be dropping probably $60 every week for the next three weeks- Almost $100 in one day when Lich King and Mirror's Edge come out.

Lately, I just feel like it's a waste. All this money could go to something more: buying a car, saving up for an apartment, paying for college...Unlike some of my friends, I haven't rushed off to college and even after being promoted right after graduating high school and being told that I have a lot of potential at my job, I'm still told by "someone" (I won't say names) that I am wasting my life. It isn't that I don't want a better life, I just don't really know what to do with my life so I didn't want to go rushing off and spending thousands of dollars at a university without knowing what direction to go in. So I'm looking into community college here soon but that still doesn't seem to please "some people".

And then there's the emotional/mental part of it...I'm talentless. I can't sing, can't play an instrument, can't draw, can't dance, I'm not a model, can't play any sports, my writing isn't getting published...I'm just your average, everyday girl who wakes up, goes to work (at a GameStop mind you), and comes home to hit buttons. I'm not saying that my life is a complete waste; I have an amazing boyfriend whom I love dearly and have great friends, it's just that I don't feel as satisfied with beating games like I use to. I might spend a couple hundred hours with games but with nothing to show other than to say, "Hey I beat that!"

I still enjoy games...I still love playing them...I won't lie, I'm freaking out over my new video card and Fallout 3 coming out tonight but it's to the point where I want something more. So I think after Christmas, I'm going to follow me dream and buy a cello.

This is why I spend $15 a month...

2008-10-27T00:59:00.003-05:00

Some of you might recall this year's April Fool's prank by Blizzard talking about a special Bard class being introduced into Lich King. While it was obviously a joke, a part of it is making its way into the expansion.

A special weapon called the Arcanite Ripper is based off the the current ax, the Arcanite Reaper dropped in Kara, has been added to the game. The weapon, when activated, turn you into Bergrisst- the guitarist from Level 80 Elite Chief Tauren.

Tea Time: The Medium

2008-10-26T22:57:00.004-05:00

So I'm going to start a new segment that I'll do weekly called Tea Time. Basically, it's like Kotaku's 'Tell Us Damnit!' where they give a topic for everyone to talk about. However, mine is called 'Tea Time' and features the amazing picture of the old lady above!

This week's topic is: The Medium.

We're all heard the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual'. They're tossed around the gaming community like crazy and developers use them to categorize their audiences. But what I want to know is where is the line drawn? When is it decided as to what makes someone 'hardcore' and what makes someone 'casual'? But most importantly...Where's the medium?

It seems that the community has forgotten general gamers- people who have lives yet play games that aren't pick-up-and-play games. People like me who aren't "hardcore" in the sense of spending hours upon hours perfecting my skills at a game but who want something with a bit of substance.

So you tell me, where's the line? What is 'hardcore', 'casual', and 'average' to you? Or do you hate these terms?

Speak your mind! It's tea time!

Gears of War Figures

2008-10-26T01:03:00.002-05:00

Apparently my family was out somewhere when they came across a couple of the Gears of War figures and wanted to know if I wanted one. It was a bit of a decision to pick between Marcus and Dom (who's my favorite)- which is why I settled for Dom.

The figure is...Alright. It's not the best but it could be much worse. I think the blue is too bright on the armor and the head is a bit weird but hey, it could be worse. You can see a close up here. Though there is one thing I did notice about it:

Children under 3 can't play with it because they might choke on it even though they're not even suppose to have it in the first place!

Introduction

2008-10-25T23:24:00.003-05:00

Gutentag, alle!

Welcome to a look inside of my mind. Personally, I hate introducing myself since I never am sure of what to say about myself, but I guess as being the owner of this blog, I need to say something. My name is Stephanie- better known as Steph. I'm nineteen years old and have been a gamer, as well as a writer, my whole life. I started gaming when I randomly picked up a NES controller back when I was two and half; my love for telling stories started before I could even write. I use to draw pictures and verbally tell the story until I could learn who to make words. Since then, I've developed a deep passion for writing.

I consider myself a 'gamer' and play a variety of games though survival horror is my favorite genre. I don't consider myself a fanboy in anyway since I'm pretty neutral and feel that the console wars is a bunch of bullshit. I don't like limiting myself by "hating" another company or console nor do I like sugarcoating something stupid a company does just because I "love" them. I don't consider myself a 'girl' gamer either. My gender shouldn't matter; the only thing you should care about is the fact that I play and enjoy games, not that I'm a chick.

My work is also completely independent. I am not affiliated with any sites, companies, or anyone else. Everything I say on here is my own personal opinion and I'm not afraid to speak my mind. You'll also notice that I might now say much about the PS3 or newer games that come out. Again, it has nothing to do with disliking Sony; I just haven't been able to afford a PS3 yet just like how I can't buy every new game that comes out. (Again, I'm independent so the only money I get is the money I make from my job.)

Besides writing and gaming, I've also done a little bit of video editing. You can check out my fairly crappy YouTube channel here. I mainly do music videos (or "fanmade trailers") for games. I also have experience with web design. I took two years of lessons in school where I learned a mixture of basic and advanced HTML, Java, and Flash. I use to be a web master for a Resident Evil fan site known as Wandering Zombie but due to lack of time, I haven't been able to be dedicated to it and it sort of faded away a few months ago. I have tried to help get other gaming sites up and going but sadly, they all failed before ever going public. (I never get a break.) Though I have had a few of my reviews featured on Evil Unleashed.

I don't know what else to say about myself. Please feel free to ask any questions, I'll gladly answer.

Consoles I own:

Wii
XBox360
PS2
PSP
DS
PC

Experience:

17 years of gaming
5 years of independent reviewing
5 years of independent journalism
4 years of basic video editing
4 years of independent web design
16 years of writing
High school education
2 years of gaming retail