Out with the Old, Accepting the New

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:



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

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

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?"

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

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.