The Resounding Impact of The Last of Us, and Why It Scares Me

Naughty Dog's The Last of Us

I have said in the past, 2013's The Last of Us is one of my favorite video games of all time. The story, characters, gameplay, aesthetics, and essentially everything else-- it's simply wonderful. I was thrilled for what this wonderful game could do for the industry as a whole. Developers could learn from Naughty Dog's near-perfectly received game, refine future outings in a number of ways. I didn't even consider any potential negative. Now, 3 years on, I am personally feeling a sense of dread for the generation that we are in and what could possibly happen to franchises we all love. 

Uncharted 4 released only a couple of months ago, and the game was a thrill. The entire thing was a polished, visual marvel. The story and characters were at their series pinnacle. The visuals were at times photo-realistic. And the gameplay... it wasn't inherently Uncharted. Something felt off, not in a bad way necessarily, it was just not the same as the previous generation's trilogy. I have played through every Uncharted game and The Last of Us multiple times, so it didn't take long for me to recognize the changes and draw the parallels.

Uncharted 4 had a far more deliberate stealth system. Sneaking made your character feel heavy, every step was an individual movement and felt like a precise action. It doesn't feel as though you could just go crazy and try to stealth takedown every enemy in sight as quickly as in the past, and enemies (while still noticeably oblivious, as they have to be for things to remain fun) seem more aware than in the past. To make this long-winded explanation short, it felt like The Last of Us.

Aesthetically, inspirations from TLoU were inevitable, Naughty Dog is at the forefront of photo-realistic console gaming, so its only natural that their games share some visual aspects. Uncharted's writing had better take inspiration, The Last of Us was arguably the pinnacle of writing in video games for last generation, and as long as their is no copying going on, taking cues from it is a great step. But with the gameplay, that is where my concern arose. These two games felt hugely distinct, one allows you to make absurd jumps and shoot madly without a second thought, and the other has no real jumping function and the gunplay is a conservative face off between you and enemies on the same level as you. Uncharted 4 still has a lot of its classic aspects, the jumps you make are far from reasonable, and its still possible to go absolutely nuts with hip-fire and throw all caution to the wind in gun fights, but select sequences absolutely feel built for stealth and low-speed.

I don't think that Uncharted was spoiled by some of these changes, I think it made the experience feel a bit more fresh actually. It wasn't until E3 2016 that the resounding impact of The Last of Us began to scare me. I love the current state of our industry, games are rarely just gray and brown first person shooters that feel the same as all the rest, there are colorful games, there are games that try to break convention, there are weird games that people are really paying attention to. There is also God of War.

The recently announced PS4 revival, God of War

God of War has been a PlayStation staple since its 2005 debut. It was a high speed, blood stained action game. The series cemented itself as a completely unrealistic romp, killing gods from Greek Mythology without a second thought. The game was, as previously mentioned, not realistic. The way Kratos moved, the flow of the actions, it wasn't grounded in any sort of reality, but it was satisfying and fun. The high up camera makes your quick maneuvers through large environments and around huge enemies feel controlled and keeps you aware. That was the case for all of the past entries.

The God of War revealed at this recent E3 was not that, the camera was moved to behind Kratos, and he moved much slower, with a much more realistic walking/running speed. Attacks appear to be aimed, slow, and limited. No longer can you just aim Kratos in an enemy's general direction and go nuts with a barrage of attacks. There is even a slow aiming segment in the gameplay reveal, something that feels far from at home when directly compared to the predecessors.

Visually speaking, the game is approaching photo-realism, with a few absurd monsters spread throughout to keep things true to the series' roots. The general aesthetic, the snowy environment, and the aiming of a bow at a deer-- I find it impossible to miss the strong ties to The Last of Us. I don't think that this new God of War looks bad, I just do not think it looks anything like a typical God of War game does, and in my opinion, it should look like the classic game.

This issue, if it even is one, is not particularly pressing. I don't think that one game feeling unfittingly similar to The Last of Us is a great threat to the industry. If it continues though--if another established series has the same thing happen to it--that is when I think concern is essential. The Last of Us is a major pillar for video game storytelling, it sold amazingly well for a new IP, and very few games should feel like it. Some of its aesthetics will inevitably become commonplace, its simply the consequence of photo-realistic gaming, but a series that was nothing like it in the past should never bend to become like the smash hit.

What are your thoughts on this? I am aware that this is not currently a visible threat to gaming, this is more of a cautionary thought regarding what could happen to game series that aren't The Last of Us that we love. Leave your thoughts in the comment section or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The Place of Video Game Remakes: In Our Hearts, and in the Market

Insomniac's Recent Remake, Ratchet & Clank

This past Tuesday, Insomniac Games released Ratchet & Clank for the PlayStation 4. Ratchet & Clank is a well established franchise that made its premiere on PlayStation 2 fourteen years ago, since then, the series has appeared on the PSP, PS3, PS Vita, and now, PS4. This most recent game is actually a remake, or as some Sony representatives called it, a reimagining, of the original outing of the same title featuring the cartoony duo. This is not the first remake I have played in my life, but it is the first I have played of a series that I am familiar with. I have stated in the past, Ratchet & Clank is one of my favorite series of all time, having played it throughout my childhood and continued to follow it loyally until now, and inevitably in the future. I love what I have experienced of the remake so far, and I see it as very deserving of this treatment.

Ratchet has really gotten me thinking about the place for remakes. Video games, like most other popular entertainment industries right now, are suffering in the originality department, with too many games being sequels, parts of annualized franchises, or the currently mega-popular reboot. We are in a weird place right now where remakes of older games are more justified than ever. Games reached a major milestone during the lifespan of the PlayStation 2, where controls became dual control stick central and timeless because of that mechanic's relevance still today. Our memories, games' stories, and in some cases, their graphics, these things make certain games timeless, but gameplay is one of the biggest challenges that pre-dual-stick games face in whether or not they stay timeless. Certain games, say, Super Mario Bros. or even Crash Bandicoot, will stay timeless forever. The thing that they have in common that makes them timeless, simplicity: Few buttons, easy to grasp mechanics, and no camera controls.

Most modern games take advantage of the ability of the player to easily control the camera, the right control stick is an invaluable resource for game developers, and it makes the players experience far more immersive. The majority of games today, excluding side-scrollers and games like that, give the player full control over the camera positioned in the first person perspective or behind the shoulder of their character. This is such a common game mechanic, that its exclusion from a game causes confusion that, in many cases, ceases to subside even after much gameplay. Looking at games like Metal Gear Solid or others with intricate controls, this lack of a now universal mechanic with the camera control creates a rift between the games' brilliance and player accessibility. I have tried multiple times to play the original MGS for the PlayStation, but, as hard as I try, I fail every time. I have a great deal of interest, the story and characters and future entries fascinate me, but even with a passion for older games, I cannot get into this modern-style game that lacks the modern polishes that the PS2 brought us.

Games like MGS deserve a remake. (Yes, MGS was remade on Gamecube with Twin Snakes, but I am talking a remake with these mentioned modern polishes, and Twin Snakes did not achieve that.) Games that are a part of an established franchise that is still relevant, ones that have a brilliant story and characters, but graphics and gameplay that have fallen to a point that's difficult for modern players to appreciate or approach, those are the ones I am suggesting. This argument largely applies to a frequent subject of mine, Final Fantasy VII Remake. This game has one of the best original stories of the past 20 years, and characters that compete with classics in any medium. I love this game to death, but the only reason I can play the original today is because of a powerful nostalgia. The original PlayStation game, while it may be a turn-based RPG, still has gameplay that shows its age and has a multitude of confusing and wonky mechanics, and the visuals, sad as it may be, really are now terrible. The argument of something being good for its time does not matter, we aren't in that time, so we have to cater to the modern consumer. I believe that remaking games like these; games that have aged in almost all places besides their writing; games whose fanbases still care immensely; games who deserve to be exposed to a larger and broader market; these are the remakes that should have a place on the game store shelves.

PlayStation and Naughty Dog's Classic, But Currently Dormant, Crash Bandicoot

So, as the title implies, I believe that there are two different motives for remaking a game. One, which I just explained, is updating games that have aged too much to be accessible to most of the modern market. The other, one that is hard to recognize as unnecessary, is their role in filling gaps where classics used to be in our hearts. I played a great deal of the original Crash Bandicoot trilogy on PS1, and I enjoyed every minute of it, and continue to when I return to it even now. The series has a special place in my and many others' hearts. The original does not need remade or rebooted. The biggest reason to remake a game is if it is no longer accessible to the modern market, Crash is not inaccessible at all. The game was very simple, and the gameplay makes it very easy to pick up still today. Graphically, this game went for the cartoony approach, so even if the polygon count isn't tremendous, the characters and environments are still a joy to look at, and really can stand the test of time. It's not fun to hear from anyone that a favorite series of theirs does not need to continue, I know, I also wish I could stand to defend a remake of the game. Crash Bandicoot is essentially dead right now, the franchise hasn't seen anything even close to its former glory since its last PlayStation main series game, being the third in a trilogy. The first three games are truly timeless, a remake is not the best way to use developers' resources, there are plenty of new games that are more deserving of those. Now, this is not to say anything negative of the original trilogy whatsoever, it is tremendous, it is important to PlayStation's early history, and it will stay important to gaming forever. I also would still buy a remake or reboot if it was released, which Sony seems to have hinted at in the not too distant past. I am simply proposing that it might be a non-essential effort.

Now, how can I sit here and say this when I am a supporter of the very recent Ratchet & Clank remake? Well, the circumstances differ a bit. Ratchet & Clank has had a far more active, more consistently high-quality franchise than Crash. The series has rarely dipped in quality over its multi-console lifespan. I personally would like to see Ratchet sit on the sidelines for a few years to allow Insomniac to try something new, but considering this series is by far the biggest presence of the mascot platformer in the market (when not looking at Nintendo), its presence is sure not to shrink anytime soon. 

Why a remake instead of a sequel then? For those who haven't played the original Ratchet & Clank and/or the later entries of the series, the first game had a very different feel than every other game. The main character, Ratchet, was a far less likable and friendly presence, and it was also the only time that he wasn't voiced by his current voice actor, James Arnold Taylor. The gameplay saw a huge jump with the second entry in the series as well, introducing a number of mechanics that the original lacked, all of which are now series staples, including challenge stadiums, a dynamic health bar, strafing, and biggest of all, weapon leveling. Considering that the Ratchet & Clank series will definitely not be going away anytime soon, a remake of the first game seems to be the best step to have taken. 

This game can bring the origin story of the characters Ratchet and Clank into the gameplay standard that began in the second game, a nice service to long time fans who want to experience the original story in a more modern gameplay setting. It also is a good way to introduce gamers that are new to PlayStation with this generation to the series and mascots. The biggest selling point for me is the introduction of this series to a brand new generation of gamers; there are many kids who are getting PS4s as their first console, and being able to introduce them to this fantastic and family-friendly franchise, as well as getting them intrigued in the mascot based platformer-- its simply wonderful. Keeping this sometimes seemingly childish genre alive has been proving a challenge as developers aim their focus at the aging players. This remake has a great deal of potential to keep the mascot platformer, and potentially just family-friendly games in general, alive and well outside of Nintendo platforms.

Remakes are a touchy subject for many, and it would take a great deal of time and effort to figure out what all older games deserve to be remade, but hopefully, with a sort of criteria for what we should and should not ask developers to remake, it will become clearer to us what beloved childhood franchises we want remade.

What series do you think deserves to be remade? Do you think remakes deserve a strong presence in the current market? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Final Fantasy XV Uncovered, and the Potential of Similar Events

Square Enix's Upcoming Final Fantasy XV

Last week, Square Enix had a special event for its highly anitcipated Final Fantasy XV.  The event, accordingly titled Final Fantasy XV Uncovered, contained a massive amount of information about the newest entry in this fan favorite series. This event, as a fan, was an absolute blast. Being a huge Nintendo fan, soit wasn't completely profound for me to experience a big game news drop outside the typical E3 conferences, but there was something special about this.

Nintendo Directs are typically very versatile events (excluding the game specific ones), full of small bursts of information for a variety of games, similar to the E3 press conferences that happen every summer. This is a grand time for fans of the entire company and most of its IPs, but it isn't the only way that these info drops have to go, or necessarily should go.

Now, let it be made clear, I absolutely am not recommending we get rid of or even change these multi-game news events. So long as publishers aren't just blowing hot air as they sometimes do, the place for these events is still very important. I am simply here to discuss the possibility of introducing a new kind of event into the mix of the usual. I personally believe that it would be smart for Square Enix Japan to go ahead and establish "Uncovered" as a brand. This style of event could certainly apply to their other major upcoming titles, such as Kingdom Hearts III and Final Fantasy VII Remake.  But while Square Enix may own the literal "Uncovered" brand, the idea of an event exclusive to one game could apply to most any major game release.

The idea of events ultimately aimed at fans is brilliant. The event will definitely be viewed by loyal fans, and the developer can show them both what they have to look forward to in the actual game, as well as some additional things that they can be excited about, such as a release date, or, as was the case with Final Fantasy XV, something like an anime or a demo of the game. The event can also be viewed by prospective buyers, people who think it might interest them but aren't sure, with the information being released acting as a way of gauging their own interest in the game. And the advantage for gamers outside this fandom is that they can simply ignore that it exists, whereas during a major conference, you feel somewhat obligated to pay attention to a couple minutes about a game you don't care for in case something that excites you would come right after.

Publishers have the tools directly in front of them to excite fans and increase their own sales in a respectable manner at the same time. This tactic of giving loads of information to fans to earn a guaranteed sale is a practice that I am surprisingly happy with. The biggest plus here is that with events like this, there is enough shown off that one can actually develop an accurate confidence in the quality of the game before release, as it would be very challenging to hide if a game is bad when you are showing it off for over an hour. I am not a fan of using hype to sell a game in many cases, because it is just far too common for publishers to show off just what they need to to build hype while avoiding the display of the games problems. The possibilities for events like "Uncovered" that has been made clear to me is exciting, and I can only hope it is used well and commendably by developers and publishers in the near future.

What are your thoughts on having events dedicated to only one game? What upcoming games do you think deserve this treatment? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The Potential Future of AAA Episodic Games

Square Enix's upcoming remake of the PlayStation classic Final Fantasy VII

Final Fantasy VII was one of my favorite games as a child, and remains as such to this day, just as it does for a great deal of other gamers who played it from the day it came out until now (I personally was 10 years late, but enjoyed it no less because of that). The game is, and forever will be, revered as a huge lunge forward not just for the Final Fantasy franchise, but for the video game industry as a whole. A huge, engaging world and a revamp to some familiar RPG mechanics gave this 1997 PlayStation game the equipment it needed to become an instant classic to most everyone who played it, and it succeeded. 

Last year, during Sony's annual E3 press conference, something was announced that fans have been clamoring for since about 2005, a full Remake of Final Fantasy VII. The response was remarkable; nearly universal hype. The original reveal trailer was merely a cinematic, but that didn't slow things at all. People discussed the possibilities madly, as small bits of news came around and new questions arose. It was in December of the same year as the announcement that the first bit of gameplay was shown off at Sony's other annual event, PlayStation Experience. The response was more mixed than that of the initial announcement, but there was still positivity all around. 

Shortly after this trailer, but not during the event, it was announced that Remake would, in fact, be a staggered multi-part release. The fan backlash was immense. Almost all of the positivity brought up by the new trailer was destroyed, fans were horribly unhappy with this decision. I was among these people. I tried desperately to look for positives, but all that I could feel was dread regarding how this would ruin one of my favorite games of all time.

The flashy new combat system in Remake

While I can't deny that I hated the idea of an episodic approach to the remake of Final Fantasy VII for a couple months after its announcement, I'd like to believe that I am now at a point where I can see it as it is and develop hopes for the potential positives of it. I believe that these hopes for the development of an endeared IP apply not only to Remake, but also to other future AAA episodic games.

"Episodic game" is now a phrase that has a strong stigma that it's carrying, due largely to Square Enix alone, giving two of its most established franchises this treatment, being Final Fantasy VII and Hitman. It doesn't have to be this way. While I would definitely say that the stigma is deserved in the current state, I think that we are also close to a point where it can be changed. Most games that were made for episodic thus far have not been quite to the mainstream standard that Final Fantasy VII is, but considering that more AAA games and IP's may take the approach in the future, its important to see what can make these series' great in this form of development. For the sake of relevance, I will be using Remake as the main example for what can be done, but all of what is being said can and should be applied to any retail game being released in an episodic format. 

To start, the most important thing for developers to do is to ensure economic integrity. These AAA games that are being made in episodic format are almost certainly going to carry the typical retail price tags, meaning the discounted $20-30 prices of many multi-part games of today is not applying to them. That is okay, as long as they are supplying no less content than they would in a single package. As for each individual part, they need to cater to the fact that people want these parts to last a long time. I understand that the amount of original content that they can create per part is more limited than a full release, so it is the developer's duty to assure that the replayability is great. Some focus needs to be placed on making a sizable world that the players are eager to explore, full of fun side quests and challenges.

The greatest thing that the developer and publisher are responsible for is proper advertisement of the way the game is being sold. Like I discussed last week, not making the cheapest option to get the whole package clear to the consumer is an unethical practice. Publishers can have the split up approach available, that way certain customers can purchase parts as a way to test out a fair amount of the game before dropping money for the full game, but for other consumers, the multi-part approach needs to be clearly laid out. Consider the casual gamers who don't keep up on news of the industry, just playing and buying things as they release, or the parents who are generous enough to purchase for their children, this base of buyers needs to know what they are getting into with their initial purchase of Final Fantasy VII Remake or whatever other major games may release in episodic format.

Final Fantasy VII Remake being episodic is not an inherently bad thing, in my opinion, it could actually be a good thing. This approach could very well create a game more faithful to the fun value and scope of the original (integrity to a large size in a game is one of the few legitimate reasonings for making a game episodic that I accept), and future episodic games could benefit in development from this staggered release as well. The pool that is 'Episodic' is full of opportunity to improve a number of games and create a new approach to developing great and huge games. We as consumers must put our money behind the games that do things well, it wouldn't take much for greedy publishers to fill this metaphorical pool with toxic sludge and ruin it for a long time for everyone. We have the power to prevent this, so long as we let the publishers and developers know what we want.

What are your thoughts on Final Fantasy VII and its upcoming remake? How do you feel about the rise of the episodic approach in gaming? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The State of Episodic Games

IO Interactive and Square Enix's Hitman

I was considering purchasing Hitman, which released on March 11th, just one week ago. I was considering it at two separate times in two very different ways. The first time I considered purchasing developer IO Interactive's newest entry in the Hitman franchise was during this previous E3. Throughout the gaming festivities, my eyes were drawn to Hitman a few times. Being a series I had no experience with, I figured that this reboot of sorts was a great place for me to begin, with the trailers having me intrigued by the core gameplay concepts. Hitman lies in a different place now than it did then though. It has joined the number of games getting in on a new trend in publishing; an episodic release. 

I actually do not have a problem with episodic gaming, I think that it has its benefits; providing smaller experiences with a greater sense of longevity and increasing public interest in a potentially otherwise unseen game due to its smaller price tag and time commitment. While I personally would prefer to wait until all episodes of a game are released to experience it, I don't see much harm in games being built from the ground up with an episodic structure in mind, with successes like Telltale's projects and Life is Strange (interestingly also a Square Enix published game) quite demonstrative of the potential. Not all games are built for episodic though, and not all games should be released in the format even if they are built in similar fashion to them.

Hitman was always planned for some form of staggered release, but not originally as a 7-episode split (at least it was not advertised as such). A game being released in 2 parts at different times is hard to call episodic, and a game which is purchased that later adds free content absolutely should not be. Hitman was certainly split up for an economic gain, and I know because of the second time I considered purchasing the game. 

When the 7-episode format was announced in January, my initial interest completely faded, I leaned more towards the idea of waiting until all parts were released in a singular package later this same year. The date of release for the first episode approached, and my mind began to change, largely due to the full package release being delayed into early 2017. Whether this delay was an intentional move on Square Enix's part is impossible to say, but I would not be shocked considering how it effected me and likely others of the same mindset. I strongly considered downloading the first episode to the game, with my biggest impulse being driven by the seemingly tiny $15 price tag. It seemed completely reasonable, but upon some objective thinking, I realized what I'd truly be doing. When the full package releases in 2017, it will cost the average retail price of most other AAA games; $60. If I purchased episode 1, and then decided that I had interest in the entire series of episodes, I would pay a bare minimum of $65. This may seem like a small increase, but there are other factors to consider; that is simply the minimum. I could (as some less aware consumers very well may do) purchase each episode as it releases, and be paying a significant amount greater than $60. 

The approach of splitting a larger cost into a number of smaller payments to increase the appeal to the average consumer is not new in the world of business and sales, but when it is done in a quiet and shady manner like I believe Square Enix did, I dislike it greatly, I don't see it as having any place in the video game industry. The games industry currently has enough economically corrupt tactics -- I'm looking at you, microtransactions -- and so long as other things continue to be rampant, we shouldn't have to worry, as consumers or gamers, about the list getting longer.

Square Enix's upcoming episodic remake of the PlayStation classic, Final Fantasy VII

I believe episodic could have a place in the future of gaming, not only as something bearable, but as something great. There is simply too much for me to say regarding my thoughts and hopes for the future to fit into this editorial about its current state. I hope that you may give me your time again for my next editorial where I will look into this prospect, spring-boarding off the discussion hub that is Final Fantasy VII Remake.

What are your thoughts regarding episodic gaming right now? Do you enjoy this format of gaming? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Same-Sex Marriage in Fire Emblem Fates

Nintendo's recently released Fire Emblem Fates

Fire Emblem Fates released its two retail versions, Birthright and Conquest, 3 weeks ago on February 19th. I have been playing Birthright quite actively, and am planning to move on to Conquest shortly, after I finish my current play through. There is also a third download exclusive version that released just yesterday, Revelation. I am in love with the game. Mechanically speaking, the gameplay is hugely polished and improves the turn based style that the series is known for through a number of improvements to the formula. The maps are as unique as ever and add a great amount of depth to each chapter. The story is engrossing and powerful and each of the 3 versions introduces different twists and characters.

Another thing that I can't help but appreciate is the relationship system and the inclusion of same-sex marriage. During battles, having units paired up and working together builds bonds via a support system, these bonds increase the rating of their relationship (represented with C, B, A, and S/A+). When two characters reach S ranking, they can be married. In the series' past, only characters of the opposite sex could be married. Now, in Fates, while it is somewhat limited, marriage is allowed between two characters of the same sex.

Your avatar character, who we'll call Corrin for the sake of clarity, is not your typical avatar character. You can pick their gender, their design, and their name, but the character is still developed beyond player control, having a similar amount of dialogue to most of the main characters. Sexual orientation is something that is not pointed out at all in the plot of the game (neither for Corrin nor any other character), so it makes sense that that is among the things that the player has a choice in. 

You aren't manipulating certain characters to be homosexual, characters that are straight are straight, nothing can be done about that, and that is fine. I discussed in the past that representation of alternate sexualities should be proportionally accurate to that of the real world, so it matches the truth of life that not everybody the player wants to be gay, for the option of marriage or otherwise, will be.

There are two characters in Fire Emblem Fates that are bisexual, and thus available for marriage to either gender. There is one male in Conquest and one female in Birthright. While this is a rather small representation, and I still would like to have seen an exclusively gay character or two, it is where this representation is happening that makes me hopeful. There are many games that have at least a partial purpose of being progressive and giving alternative groups representation that they can appreciate. Nintendo is not generally known to do this, and neither is Fire Emblem. 

While this specific franchise does not have the strongest aim at children like some of Nintendo's other franchises do, the audience still exists without a doubt, evidenced by the new difficulty modes aimed at those who aren't capable of fully comprehending the strategy gameplay. Children are one of the best audiences to portray gay marriage to, especially in the way that Fates does it. Sexuality is never discussed, the support system simply is a place where the bond characters have built is displayed through endearing conversations. If you were to marry someone of the same sex to Corrin, it is treated no different than any other marriage. Most importantly, the marriages in the game are not sexual, they are simply a sharing of love. To show same-sex marriage as a bond that is created through love is tremendous, it shows normalcy in these relationships instead of trying to show it as some sexual deviation.

Fire Emblem Fates' contribution to the non-straight community's representation in gaming is small, but it's the fact that it wasn't trying that makes it great. Fates is just another game release, so the fact that it integrates homosexuality so well without it having been a major goal of the developers is what makes this occurrence stand out to me. I just hope more games come out in the future that follow in these footsteps.

Have you been enjoying Fates for the past couple of weeks? Are you happy with the inclusion of gay marriage and how it was handled? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Why I Want So Many Female Game Characters

Characters Bayonetta and Jeanne as they appear in Platinum's Bayonetta 2.

I clearly love Bayonetta as a character.  I have spoken about her a few times on this blog regarding a number of subjects. I find her to be a wonderful representation of progression in the Video Game industry, being a powerful and developed female character in a market that mostly lacks anything of the sort. Surely, her place is up for debate, but the place for female characters in general is not. There are simply not enough. Games are a fantasy in more ways than one, but one thing that is not in need of such a treatment is proper representation of people. Society is made up of far more types of people than white, straight, buff men, and video games should show this.

As I said, pegging video games as a fantasy does not justify rash under-representation of different sorts of people. It should be a fantasy world where you take a believable character and put them in a situation different from our own reality (in most cases) and experience everything with them. Not everyone in the world and not everyone playing is a white straight male, so why is there a significant leaning towards this group in most games today?

Asian, Female character Faith as she appears in the upcoming entry in DICE's Mirror's Edge series.

I am frequently one to clamor on that we need more female characters and female leads in big games, and to many, it is seen as me wanting the balance to tilt in women's favor. I understand where this can come from, as I spend huge amounts of time discussing female characters and what can make them great, and never really discuss how we can improve the male characters. This is simply because proportionally speaking, there are far more well-developed male characters than female. 

And gender is far from the only poorly represented group, different races and sexuality are  highly under-represented as well. The character above, Faith from Mirror's Edge and its upcoming successor Catalyst, is a strong female and Asian character with a fair amount of development. Neither her being Asian nor her being female are defining characteristics, just what they should be; factors beyond our control that shouldn't have to define us. In some cases, a characters traits that are beyond their control can define them and they excel because of it. Kanji Tatsumi from Persona 4 is quite a strong example of this. A great amount of his character development arc is spent focusing on his sexuality and his feeling of a need to fit into a typical gender role that society has set out for him. As someone who struggled myself with coming to accept my bisexuality, I can say that they did a brilliant job representing the mental struggle. 

Tremendous Character Ellie as she appears in Naughty Dog's The Last of Us.

The Last of Us was one of the finest games of last generation (and this generation as well thanks to remasters). The writing was brilliant to a degree that was literally hard to believe for a video game. The characters' developments and the interactions between each other were amazing and some scenes were among the finest in all of entertainment, beyond even just games. Ellie, in my and many other people's opinions, is the finest character in the game. Light Spoilers for The Last of Us: Left Behind follow.

Ellie is a 15-year-old young woman. She has a number of hyper realistic character traits that make her fascinating to spend your time with. She is also not straight. Neither of these things are defining factors in her life or for her character. There is one scene in Left Behind that reveals her sexuality, and her gender is never pointed out with the intent of character definition. She is a great character, and that's really the only necessary detail you need as far as those factors beyond her control.

When you take a character that is of an "alternative" group of people and present them in a completely normal manner, not making the factors that make them part of these groups their defining traits, you can make a character with tremendous ease to relate to. These characters are easily liked and enjoyed by people both in and not in "alternative" groups. No one really argues the place of these developed characters when they appear, yet their appearances seem so few and far between. Its really not much more difficult to write a good character of these groups than it is to write one who is a white male. This method is the best and simplest way to begin introducing different types of people through video games to mass audiences. If we spend a couple of years introducing this, we will get to a point where many different groups are represented, and in the industry as a whole, their representation will be proportionally accurate. So, no, I do not want more female characters than males, I just see that we need more good female characters than what we have right now; female characters, non-straight characters, non-white characters, and surely others not mentioned; all these groups should be represented, come together until we reach a point where the people in our games accurately represent the diversity of the people of the world where our games are played.

What sort of diversity do you want to see represented in video games? Do you think this is something we can get done quickly? Let me know in the comment section or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Community and Video Games

The Annual Music and Gaming Festival

This prior weekend, I attended MAGFest, the Music and Gaming Festival. This is the second MAGFest I have attended, and I have also attended a couple other gaming conventions and pop culture conventions. Game conventions truly show something magical that very few other things can, that being the sense of community that can be created through gaming. 

People who are truly passionate about games are, in many cases, looked down upon by people who don't play games or who can't understand the passion. That is far from warranted, but that is a discussion for another day. When you are at these conventions, you feel opened up, you aren't afraid to strike up a conversation with a stranger because you know that the people you're with have the same hobby. Everyone there is a nerd for something, even if it isn't games, as it serves as a hub for other pop culture staples as well, such as anime, movies or other things of the sort. There is a mutual respect that everyone has for others, and no matter what you love, you will not be judged for it, and there is almost certainly someone else there who shares that love.

Now, regarding my personal experience, I can say with confidence, this year was truly enriching and fun. The previous time I went was excellent, but I decided to spend the majority of my time playing games in the arcade and console lounge and I only attended 2 official events. This year, I attended a number of concerts as well as what are known as "MAGES Panels."  These are each 1 hour gatherings with a host or group of hosts that lead a discussion regarding a topic, ranging from Therapeutic uses of Games to the place of LGBT subjects in games. The hosts begin the conversation, but it is largely open to the crowd to discuss things.  I attended 6 of these and I would consider most of them greatly beneficial, and they all opened my mind to new perspectives and made me begin to think about new things in the industry that I really hadn't until that point, and some of their subjects will definitely make an appearance on this site as I share my thoughts on them.

It was fascinating, as a number of people shared their personal experiences, and in some ways, they would likely be ridiculed by many from the general masses, but in these rooms, not only did people just accept them, but in many cases, people there shared their experiences. Many people felt great comfort in knowing that people had similar pasts to them and that they could help them with any troubles they may have had.

Popular Comedy Rock Band, Ninja Sex Party

Ninja Sex Party is a Comedy Rock Band that has found a good amount of success on the internet, with the lead singer being Danny "Sexbang" who is one of the two lead members of another internet sensation; Game Grumps. Because of their great popularity with the video game community thanks to Game Grumps, they played at MAGFest this year. I had the great fortune of attending their joint performance with Tupperware Remix Party, another band of internet fame, and being only 5 rows away from the stage. I have attended a couple of stadium concerts before, and they did not reach the amount of energy (and volume) that this crowd of 4500 did at the NSP show. Everybody in the entire room was getting each other excited for the hour leading up to show. During the show, I would easily believe that literally every single person in the room was screaming after each song, the volume was truly crazy. After the show, it appeared that everybody was smiling and laughing with all the people that they hadn't known just 2 hours ago. Everybody shared a mutual respect as they had enjoyed this great show together.

Speaking of mutual respect and understanding, another concert I attended was the Journey Live show by the original composer, Austin Wintory. Everybody in the room, which was a couple thousand people, were completely silent during the show.  The show itself was the premiere of the nationwide tour, and it was brilliant, if you have the opportunity to see it at any point, I can't recommend it enough. With both of these shows, I experienced very different crowds, yet very similar crowds. One was far louder than the other, but the mutual feelings in both crowds were very similar, both there to see something they love and showing their love for it in different ways, one being extremely loud and the other being silent. I have never been in a place where such a large number of people shared passion for one common thing, and it was truly wonderful.

Not much more can be said regarding the impact of the sense of community on any individual other than myself, as I don't have any knowledge of the psychological effects of a sense of community, all I can really say is that it is wonderful and the presence of it within gaming is enormous and stronger than I have seen in most other fandoms.

How do you feel about gaming's ability to provide a sense of community? What is your best experience with this community? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The Power of Nostalgia

Square Enix's Kingdom Hearts

There are three series from my childhood that I still an active fan of: Ratchet & Clank, Pokemon, and Kingdom Hearts. These are not the only series I played as a kid and continue to play now, just the three the I most actively kept up on since first playing them many years ago. I have more than a little nostalgia for the games that got me started on the mentioned series', but none stand out quite as much as Kingdom Hearts. I have an emotional attachment to that series, it's one of the strongest I can recall from my childhood, not just from video games. It's quite easy to see why; I never stopped loving it. I can go back and play the earliest entries and feel the nostalgia, but I also get a rush of it if I play new entries in the series that I have no experience with. I think that appealing to nostalgia is less about serving up the same exact thing over and over, and more so about appealing to the emotions that one had when they first played the game. Nostalgia is an appeal to one's association with a past memory.

I'm not really here to discuss the impact of nostalgia on game publishers and how they sell games, as I feel my piece on hype in the industry sufficiently covered that. Today is more about nostalgia in my own life and how it changes my perspective on games, as well as the challenge of bringing myself to move past it in some places.

Insomniac Games' Ratchet & Clank for the PS2

Nostalgia is truly fun. It is a calling back to a good time, a call back to the games that were my favorite activity as a reserved child. Replaying a great moment in those games now fills me with that amazing feeling that I can't explain, but that you almost certainly have experienced at one point or another yourself. There's also the alternative nostalgia where it is a whole new experience, being a game in a series you have a connection to or something of the sort, yet it calls back to your past, and the mix of old and new is something simply wonderful.

With the case of Ratchet & Clank and Kingdom Hearts, anytime I return to the originals (especially the same games with upgraded HD Visuals) or play any entry in the franchise that is new to me, I get this sense of excitement, one like when I was a child, and it feels simply wonderful. Its near impossible to capture this sensation any other way for me. Gaming is the greatest medium for carrying my past with me today. I still remain in an objective position though; when new games in the series or of a similar genre release, I still make sure to hold it to the highest of standards and expect progression instead of just a recycling of the same sort of content. 

Sega's Massively Loved Sonic Adventure

Nostalgia is something that many claim is a blinding force, but it does not have to be that way. If you genuinely enjoy anything, that is what truly matters. The key is that you enjoy objectively. When discussing things, you need to make sure you are not speaking solely on the behalf of your nostalgic feelings. And, as sad as it may be, there are times where it is important to judge a game critically if it truly does deserve it.

I played Sonic Adventure DX on the Gamecube when I was younger, and I adored that game. Recently, upon spotting the game at a convention, I decided it was a good time to go back and experience some good nostalgia. I was let down quickly. The game was not the great time I remembered so fondly from my childhood. The game is a technical mess in a great number of places, and some of the mechanical and game design choices were confusing and, objectively, bad. I was sad to see it, but I went in looking at the game only half through nostalgia goggles and the result was truly disappointing. I didn't want to dislike the game, but I couldn't lie to myself. The game didn't just have a couple flaws (all older games do, including the others mentioned above), it had more negative qualities than redeeming ones. It is (in my opinion, as well as through some objective viewpoints) bad.

I'm sure that there are other games from my childhood that would suffer the same, and I do feel bad trashing on a game so many people hold close to their hearts with fond remembrance, but I still do insist upon viewing games objectively, regardless of the association you have of them. I don't say this in order to reduce the amount of fun you have with a game, I say so in hopes that you can look into the future without expecting developers to fill that nostalgia hole. If you ask for a new game to fill the nostalgia you have for an older, objectively-flawed game, developers can't do much: They'll either produce another flawed game that is clearly not enjoyable, or they'll try something new and fail to fill the expectation. Burdening them with this expectation can completely hinder all games in that series or genre, and none of us should want to impose any sort of stagnation in the progression of games.

Atlus' Persona 4

Now that I shared my thoughts on nostalgia for the games of our past, I would like to share with you a phenomenon I have experienced more as of late. Typically, when people think of nostalgia, they think of it as an association from a long while ago, usually your childhood or your younger years. However, in a few cases, I have experienced a step out of that rhythm. I begin to experience that nostalgia almost as an immediate turn-around after finishing a game. One recent example for me is Atlus' Persona 4, which I played on the PS Vita. I played it about a year ago, and I began feeling nostalgia for it only one month after completing it, and the feeling has not wavered in the slightest over the course of a year.

This is something that is not that uncommon for me, having felt it for other games I've played recently such as Bayonetta 2, Xenoblade Chronicles, and most recently, Metal Gear Solid V. I believe that my form of nostalgia, and perhaps yours as well, is not related to when I played a game, but rather what else was happening in my life at the time: What I am looking for a sense of escape from. Games that give me an especially great sense of comfort are ultra effective in making me feel instant nostalgia. When I played Bayonetta 2, Xenoblade Chronicles, and Persona 4, I was in a place where I was trying to decide where I was going to take my life, a particularly daunting and stressful undertaking, one I was definitely looking to escape the thought of here and there, and all these games did a far finer job than whatever games they were competing with at making me feel better about everything. Metal Gear Solid V was the game I was playing during the transition into the new part of my life I mentioned above, and while everything was going smoothly, it was still a great amount to take in all at once, and it was a relief to be able to escape into another world when I felt the need.

This is week two of going into more personal accounts in order to accurately share my opinion on a matter, and I find that it has been greatly successful. What games do you have the most nostalgia for? Are there any games you like where nostalgia gets the better of you and your opinion? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

As a reminder, I will be attending MAGfest (Music and Gaming Festival) in Marylnad this coming weekend (February 18th-21st) and writing a follow up piece about gaming and community. I hope you get a chance to read it.

Have a tremendous day.

Gaming as a Hobby vs Gaming as a Lifestyle

Bayonetta's Introduction into Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS

Bayonetta was announced to be added as a downloadable character in Super Smash Bros. in a special event in December. She was just released this past Wednesday, February the 3rd. When she was announced, I was in a room full of friends, all Nintendo fans like myself. I got a little bit excited... Okay, I was far more than a little excited when she was shown. I had been harping on that Bayonetta should join the cast of Smash both before the game was released in 2014, as well as the instant that they announced that they would include a character voted on by fans through the "Fighter Ballot" last April. There are more than a few casual Smash fans that did not really react much to the introduction and inclusion of Bayonetta, meanwhile, I couldn't contain my excitement.

The terms "Casual Gamer" and "Hardcore Gamer" are used pretty often, however, I am not really a fan of those terms. I am more comfortable looking at the differences between those who play game as a hobby and those for who gaming is a part of their lifestyle. Obviously I am of the latter, and I am never one to look down on those who only play games just as a hobby (as many "hardcore" gamers like to look down at "casuals" as somehow inferior).

I think that their are potentially less differences between the two groups I'm discussing than many people may believe. Some may say that those who play as just a hobby don't play much, but I don't believe that to be true. They very well may play many hours, and they may even have a large number of games to play.

Square Enix's Kingdom Hearts III, which I have been keeping up with as closely as possible since its announcement in 2013, as discussed below, literally for years.

So when I make that statement, there arises the question of where the distinction between hobby and lifestyle comes from. Well, being as gaming is a lifestyle for me, I will simply list a number of things that make it such: When you don't just buy the newest game, but you keep up on it for weeks or months, or even years in some cases, before its release. When you watch every major publisher event, beyond just E3, and even with E3, you keep up on every thing that is announced even outside the couple hours of conferences. When you collect and keep every game and piece of memorabilia you can afford and know you'll love because its a part of the game[s] and series that you love. When an announcement about a game you love can cause you to feel ecstatic for hours or days. When you talk (or write, like with this) about video games with everyone you can at every opportunity, because its what you love. And that right there is the key word, you really love games, you feel real passion for games and your fellow gamers, you are part of a community, all of the many great things about games keep you running when other things in life may slow you down a bit. They aren't just a fun pass-time, they are one of your favorite ways to spend your precious time.

I apologize for the brevity this week, there is not much I had to say on the subject, but I still felt that what I had to say was very personal and people who feel the same way will feel a connection to the subject. If you would like to hear more about Community in gaming like I mentioned above, come back in two weeks; I will be attending MAGFest (The Music and Gaming Festival) in Maryland for an entire weekend (February 18-21) and writing about the power of Gaming as a community.

Do you think that gaming is a lifestyle for you more than a hobby? How do you feel about everything I discussed above? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Is Hype Always a Bad Thing for the Games Industry?

Bethesda's 2015 Release, Fallout 4

I would define "Hype" as a sense of excitement for something that is near impossible to diminish with most details. Hype is typically a blind feeling that you feel regardless of what you should logically be seeing. I am very experienced in being "hyped." Fallout 4 released very recently, November of last year. To say that I was excited is an understatement. I was truly hyped for Fallout 4. I should have seen what was clearly there, a game with a sub-par dialogue choice system, jerky gunplay, and honestly, ugly graphics. But I didn't, all I saw was a a sequel to one of my favorite games of last generation, and it wasn't even crossing my mind that it could be anything less than spectacular. I played through it feverishly upon its release, and for the time that the hype still lasted, I didn't see any problems. After a couple weeks with it though, and after I had begun to see less than I hoped for, I noticed that there was a list of problems that, quite frankly, are unacceptable in a 2015 AAA release.

Hype can easily be used by game publishers to sell copies. This is not all bad, there have been a couple of cases that I have experienced where this could actually be seen as a good thing, but the bad is very bad, and can be just as deceitful as directly lying about the game.

Nintendo's Latest entry in the Super Smash Bros. series, released in 2014 for both the Wii U and 3DS

Another game I am guilty of being blindly hyped for was the two latest games in the Super Smash Bros. series. This was a series that I have had a long history with. I had played every entry before it and loved every minute (at the time of its relevance) and it was always the game of choice when my friends and I would have any sort of gathering. There was rarely anything less than a great time had. The hype for this game likely sold just as many copies as those who were influenced by marketing. Fans of the past entries were going to buy this game when it released. It was guaranteed. I'd like to say this is a bad thing, but I was one of the many people that would go to buy both versions on release date without a second thought.

This could be a bad thing, however, Nintendo did the most respectable thing they could. The game had a very long development cycle, and they made sure that the game they released was of the highest quality and with the most fun value that they could. They supplied post-launch DLC (and true post-launch DLC, not on-disc content locked behind a pay wall) to satisfy the truly dedicated fans. The game was arguably the best that they could possibly make. They just as easily could have just made a rushed sequel with little on the front of new content and just ride on the definite sales that the series' past would bring it, but they didn't, they made an excellent game to satisfy those that were a part of the games powerful hype.

EA's Star Wars Battlefront

As is with any game-selling practice, not all publishers are going to use hype in a respectable manner. One recent example was the release of Star Wars Battlefront, a reboot of the Battlefront series that was popular 2 console generations ago. The series has always been somewhat heavy on the multiplayer aspect of the game more so than any other part, but the latest entry has decided to completely eliminate any sort of Single-Player campaign. Not only that, but many people who purchased the game complained that the game lacked a proper amount of content upon release. In the case of certain games, such as Nintendo's Splatoon, this wouldn't be a problem, as it is easily solved by free DLC. Battlefront did not take that route though, they instead chose to release a season pass, one with an unheard of until this point price tag of $50. Many argue that to truly get the entire game and to be a part of the excitement of the game upon its initial release date, you would have to shell out a total of $110.

Even with all of that content you have after spending over 100 dollars, many people still complain that the game feels rather bare. A graphically gorgeous game with the Star Wars name does not automatically mean a great game. Yet, this game sold over 12 million units so far. That number, no matter how you look at it, is staggering. That is an insane amount of money, especially considering all the seemingly apparent flaws that were discussed above. In case what I have hinted at throughout has not already led you to a conclusion, it is somewhat obvious where the sales are coming from. EA constantly appealed to people's inflated hype and nostalgia for the entire Star Wars brand (Nostalgia is an entire other topic for another day though). People loved the previous Battlefront games, and they became hugely excited by the announcement of a sequel/reboot in 2013. For a long time, all that fans had to go off of was a cinematic teaser, yet so many people would defend the game before they had even seen it. These people were far from scarce, there was a huge number of them, enough to sell 12 million units regardless of the mixed reception. EA knew that they had a less than great game, so instead of stopping and trying to build it into a truly great product, they released their arguably unfinished game, knowing that hyped consumers would blindly purchase it. This is a very shady practice, one that many publishers have used in the past, and one that they will continue to be used in the future if consumers don't learn from the mistakes of their past.

Naughty Dog's Upcoming Uncharted 4: A Thief's End

So, do I recommend that we eliminate our hype as a whole? Absolutely not. I am a gamer first before I am a writer, so I take part in hype as much as a lot of consumers. I love the feeling of being hyped for an upcoming game, and it makes the wait for new games far more exciting. It also makes the enjoyment of a new game even more enjoyable if it lives up to or surpasses your hopes. I am looking forward to a number of games in the coming months such as Fire Emblem Fates and Uncharted 4. The key is not to stop being hyped, but to allow yourself to be logical at the same time. I am hyped for both of the games I listed above because their developers, Intelligent Systems and Naughty Dog respectively, both have a tremendous track record of top-quality games, and both are entries in series' with strong pasts that are nearly impossible to do wrong with their level of establishment. I still make sure that I don't allow myself to get hyped for games I don't have this level of certainty about.

There are a couple actions that you can quite easily take to avoid dangerous blind hype. For one, do not preorder games. Publishers' use of the preorder has become quite sketchy lately. They encourage customers to give them money in advanced and promise to buy the game before they can be sure of its quality, with the only thing they are really offering being a small piece of downloadable content with no tangible monetary value. Waiting until the actual day of release to go out and purchase the game gives you time to look at the reception and decide if the game is worth your money, and if enough people took this action, it would deter publishers from continuing in their shady business practices. 

So I encourage you to continue being hyped for the latest entries in your favorite series' or the newest IP from your favorite developer, just do so with an ounce of objectivity, see through publishers' reliance on hype for sales and decide if you buy a game based on whether you think you will enjoy it first and foremost.

What games are you hyped for in 2016? Are you guilty of sometimes being blinded by your hype for a game? Let me know in the comments or however you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

What Makes Undertale One of the Finest Examples of Progressive Gaming

Toby Fox's Undertale

Undertale is one of the finest games to release in 2015. Produced by independent developer Toby Fox after a successful Kickstarter campaign, Undertale subverts expectations by turning a number of traditional game mechanics on their heads. I spoke a bit about one of the many great aspects, the music, in a past article. But today, I'm not here to talk about the game design, I'm here to discuss how Undertale shows its talent in the art of subtlety by presenting the audience with "alternative" groups of people with a strong sense of normalcy. I will not be spoiling any plot details of the game, only discussing a couple of characters.

To start, the protagonist, as seen on the left above, is a genderless character. There is no default name, and the character, in their pixelated form as well as in the official art, lacks any features that distinguish them as either male or female, only as a child. The character is a blank slate for the player to take control of, and the player is free to characterize the character in whatever way they please. Whether they'd like to make gender a part of that is up to them. This is an intelligent way to present a silent protagonist. 

Female Character, Undyne

Another character that avoids typical gender roles is the female knight, Undyne. She is certainly one of the strongest characters in Undertale, as well as one of the most positively thinking. There are a long list of characters in the game that express adoration or great respect for Undyne and her strengths. She is far from so many games representations of women as inferior or as objects. Of course, all main characters in the game, regardless of their gender, and including Undyne, are well developed to make them likable and real. 

Royal Guards as they appear in battle

The two Royal Guards shown above are not very developed characters, with only two potential appearances total. These characters are both male, and they are said to be in love. They are shown to be very strong companions, and in battle, they confess their love for each other. They are homosexual, but it is never directly stated to be so, they are just presented to be in love, and the fact that they are both men really is not an essential detail. There is another same-sex couple later in the game that follows the same idea; two women that are in love, but the fact that they are both women does not define the relationship and does not need to be directly pointed out. Both of these instances take something that some people like to say is an "alternative" way of being, and present as it truly is; normal, presented no differently than if it were a couple with two people of the opposite gender.

Undertale is one of the most human games in recent history, even if there is only one human to be seen. By this, I mean that the things that are presented are very personal for those who are a part of those "alternative" groups, and their presented in the best way possible. It is also capable of evoking understanding in people who are not a part of these groups and perhaps lacked acceptance of them before. I commend Toby Fox not just for the excellent game design in Undertale, but also for the work he did in the writing, presenting things in such a normal fashion, even if some people would typically not think of them as such. It's a courageous thing to do, and I hope the influence it has can continue to be felt as the game industry keeps pushing forward.

What are your thoughts on Undertale and the topics discussed above? What games do you think are best at using subtlety to be progressive? Please let me know in the comments or however you wish to.

Special thanks to Lonche Thrash for keeping me on track while writing with his immense knowledge of Undertale.

Have a tremendous day.