This seems to be a popular topic these days, so I thought I'd put in my two cents. Let me start bluntly. Sexism is rampant in the video game industry. Granted, it's not any less prevalent in other forms of media, but I'm focusing on video games.
There are plenty of forms of it in video games. Whether it be an overt sexualization of the character without offering much else for it, like in a lot of fighting games (see Ivy of the Soul Calibur series), or possibly the less overt refrigerating (referring to a female character that is generally killed off and her death is used as a revenge catalyst for the hero - named after a scene in the Green Lantern comics when Kyle Rayner's girlfriend is killed and literally put into a refrigerator for him to find) of a female character (see Marian from Double Dragon). An even more subtle version of sexism is to have a female character occupy a stereotypical female gender role, such as having a big strong male hero protect the weak female character.
It's also accepted that games with women on the cover of a game don't usually sell as well. Naughty Dog had to fight to keep their female lead on the cover of their most recent game, The Last of Us. How many game covers can you name that have a female on the cover? Not many. And how many are there where a female character is the only one on it? Even less. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the Tomb Raider games.
Why is this? It may be because gamers in America are, on average, younger than the rest of the world, so they aren't as mature. They have a hard time seeing female characters as strong characters, instead preferring to see heroes as these ultra-macho aggressive men. But, this seems backwards to me. These forms of entertainment should be telling these kids that women can be leaders and heroes too and can be as much worth as men can in the same positions - maybe some good can come of it. Of course, these lessons should be taught by parents, but that's a different discussion for a different time.
But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. There are a lot of games that present strong female characters, and it's starting to get better than it used to be, and that has a lot to do with the recent popularity of this discussion. It's also important not to accuse games that present strong female characters as sexist (like the aforementioned The Last of Us). Not every game is sexist. We still have a long way to go, but I think we can get there.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Next Generation of Video Games
The time that I've been dreading for close to three years now is finally upon us. The next generation of video games. With the Wii U having been released late in 2012 and Sony and Microsoft each having their own conferences for their upcoming systems (Microsoft's having occurred just yesterday), it won't be long before we're in the eighth generation of home consoles. It was inevitable, but I was hoping for longer. The systems that are out now haven't even reached their full potential.
Let me preface what I'm about to say by first pointing out that I've been a home console gamer my whole life. It's what I prefer to do. I like to have the controller in my hands. Not to mention that I've really never had a computer that had the capabilities to do the kind of intensive gaming that I like to do. That's why it pains me to say that I'm not looking forward to the next generation. Not one bit. In fact, it's got me so disillusioned that I'm considering dropping home consoles altogether, save for the ones that I already have, and switching to PC gaming. There are some exceptions and some rays of hope, but I'll get to that.
Why am I not looking forward to the next generation? In a general sense, I'm going to tell you that it has to do with diminished returns and increased cost. Consider this: I purchased my PS3 and my 360 at a combined cost of approximately $600 without tax. What do you think the systems are going to cost come the next generation? I have no basis in fact, but I'd say that $600 each is a reasonable amount to assume they'll charge. If I were planning to get both next-generation consoles not put up by Nintendo, that would cost $1200. Do you know what I could get for that money, as far as a gaming PC is concerned? It would be pretty damn good.
Not only is the cost exorbitant, but you get a smaller increase in quality between generations. If you're not sure what I mean, let me explain. Take the original PlayStation and compare it to the PlayStation 2. The difference in quality was quite large. Now take the PlayStation 2 and compare it to the PlayStation 3. The difference in quality was definitely noticeable, but it was not as large a jump from the PS1 to the PS2. And now, from the PS3 to the PS4, the difference is even smaller. I'm not saying that the graphics aren't fantastic, but the jump is not near the same as previous generations.
For the next parts, I'll be doing a slight review of my preliminary feelings of each company's (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) eighth-generation.
I'll start with Nintendo. I really really really dislike Nintendo for the most part. Their thing seems to be releasing another stupid gimmick with each generation, and this one is no different. Even though I considered purchasing it (only briefly), it's just a mess. I absolutely hated the Wii's gimmick. It's motion controls. It gave birth to the below-average Kinect and Move released for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, respectively. Now the Wii U has that ridiculous gamepad with the second screen. No thanks. Sure, change is nice, but some consistency is nice too. When was the last time two Nintendo systems in consecutive generations had a controller that was at least somewhat similar to the other? Oh, and what games does the Wii U have that's worth getting the system for? Now, as much as I dislike what Nintendo does, they haven't really done anything completely worth of my outright rage.
In my opinion, Sony has done the best so far and they have an enormous advantage heading into the console war with Microsoft (Nintendo is a completely different demographic that it's hard to really consider them in competition, if you ask me.). At their conference, they featured games. They unveiled an updated controller. It was nothing to write home about, but it wasn't terrible, overall.
Now we get to Microsoft. What a disaster. First off, their soon-to-be system has an awful name. Awful awful. Xbox One. How in the hell is that the name? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who called the original Microsoft home console the Xbox 1, much in the same vein that the original PlayStation was PlayStation 1 after the PS2 came out. And where were the games? The Xbox One was advertised as a sort of all-in-one system. Obviously, they're trying to broaden their audience, but that just feels like they're pandering to the lowest common denominator. A cheap tactic to try and outsell the PS4.
That's not the worst of it. Far from it. The all-in-one system is not anything worth total condemnation. What does earn the Xbox One condemnation, in my opinion, are some of its new features. Rumors are going around that you have to connect to the internet at least once every 24 hours to play it. Not everyone has an internet connection. To outright keep it from working is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.
But, worse than that, is the idea that you have to download each game to your system. This causes each individual game to be "connected" to your system. What's more, it means that if anyone were to try and play the same game with the same disc on a different system, they have to pay a fee. If you're anything like me; if you're a passionate gamer, or you care about people getting screwed over, this makes you angry. This idea would put a serious damper on the used game sales. You couldn't let your friends borrow your games without them paying a fee. And what about video game rental services like GameFly? Your guess is as good as mine.
Possibly, even worse than that are all the complacent suck ups who applaud what Microsoft is doing. This says to them that people approve of their abysmal business practices and, in fact, endorse it. "Oh, Microsoft, you're so great." "Oh, Microsoft, what a genius idea." "Oh, Microsoft, we should be more like you." With absolutely zero thought for the consumers. More or less, they're high-fiving each other for fucking people over.
If what I've seen and heard are true and continue to be true up until the PS4 and the Xbox One are released, I will not be purchasing an Xbox One. I may not even purchase a PS4, simply due to the price, and I may move on to PC gaming.
Let me preface what I'm about to say by first pointing out that I've been a home console gamer my whole life. It's what I prefer to do. I like to have the controller in my hands. Not to mention that I've really never had a computer that had the capabilities to do the kind of intensive gaming that I like to do. That's why it pains me to say that I'm not looking forward to the next generation. Not one bit. In fact, it's got me so disillusioned that I'm considering dropping home consoles altogether, save for the ones that I already have, and switching to PC gaming. There are some exceptions and some rays of hope, but I'll get to that.
Why am I not looking forward to the next generation? In a general sense, I'm going to tell you that it has to do with diminished returns and increased cost. Consider this: I purchased my PS3 and my 360 at a combined cost of approximately $600 without tax. What do you think the systems are going to cost come the next generation? I have no basis in fact, but I'd say that $600 each is a reasonable amount to assume they'll charge. If I were planning to get both next-generation consoles not put up by Nintendo, that would cost $1200. Do you know what I could get for that money, as far as a gaming PC is concerned? It would be pretty damn good.
Not only is the cost exorbitant, but you get a smaller increase in quality between generations. If you're not sure what I mean, let me explain. Take the original PlayStation and compare it to the PlayStation 2. The difference in quality was quite large. Now take the PlayStation 2 and compare it to the PlayStation 3. The difference in quality was definitely noticeable, but it was not as large a jump from the PS1 to the PS2. And now, from the PS3 to the PS4, the difference is even smaller. I'm not saying that the graphics aren't fantastic, but the jump is not near the same as previous generations.
For the next parts, I'll be doing a slight review of my preliminary feelings of each company's (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) eighth-generation.
I'll start with Nintendo. I really really really dislike Nintendo for the most part. Their thing seems to be releasing another stupid gimmick with each generation, and this one is no different. Even though I considered purchasing it (only briefly), it's just a mess. I absolutely hated the Wii's gimmick. It's motion controls. It gave birth to the below-average Kinect and Move released for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, respectively. Now the Wii U has that ridiculous gamepad with the second screen. No thanks. Sure, change is nice, but some consistency is nice too. When was the last time two Nintendo systems in consecutive generations had a controller that was at least somewhat similar to the other? Oh, and what games does the Wii U have that's worth getting the system for? Now, as much as I dislike what Nintendo does, they haven't really done anything completely worth of my outright rage.
In my opinion, Sony has done the best so far and they have an enormous advantage heading into the console war with Microsoft (Nintendo is a completely different demographic that it's hard to really consider them in competition, if you ask me.). At their conference, they featured games. They unveiled an updated controller. It was nothing to write home about, but it wasn't terrible, overall.
Now we get to Microsoft. What a disaster. First off, their soon-to-be system has an awful name. Awful awful. Xbox One. How in the hell is that the name? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who called the original Microsoft home console the Xbox 1, much in the same vein that the original PlayStation was PlayStation 1 after the PS2 came out. And where were the games? The Xbox One was advertised as a sort of all-in-one system. Obviously, they're trying to broaden their audience, but that just feels like they're pandering to the lowest common denominator. A cheap tactic to try and outsell the PS4.
That's not the worst of it. Far from it. The all-in-one system is not anything worth total condemnation. What does earn the Xbox One condemnation, in my opinion, are some of its new features. Rumors are going around that you have to connect to the internet at least once every 24 hours to play it. Not everyone has an internet connection. To outright keep it from working is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.
But, worse than that, is the idea that you have to download each game to your system. This causes each individual game to be "connected" to your system. What's more, it means that if anyone were to try and play the same game with the same disc on a different system, they have to pay a fee. If you're anything like me; if you're a passionate gamer, or you care about people getting screwed over, this makes you angry. This idea would put a serious damper on the used game sales. You couldn't let your friends borrow your games without them paying a fee. And what about video game rental services like GameFly? Your guess is as good as mine.
Possibly, even worse than that are all the complacent suck ups who applaud what Microsoft is doing. This says to them that people approve of their abysmal business practices and, in fact, endorse it. "Oh, Microsoft, you're so great." "Oh, Microsoft, what a genius idea." "Oh, Microsoft, we should be more like you." With absolutely zero thought for the consumers. More or less, they're high-fiving each other for fucking people over.
If what I've seen and heard are true and continue to be true up until the PS4 and the Xbox One are released, I will not be purchasing an Xbox One. I may not even purchase a PS4, simply due to the price, and I may move on to PC gaming.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Violence in Video Games
Let's face it. Violence is everywhere in video games. Even older games like Asteroids and Space Invaders had violence, however unrealistically portrayed. However, since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, some powerful people (I'm looking at you, Wayne LaPierre) have decided that the violence in video games is one of the causes for tragedies such as the one in Newtown.
This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Often, when a violent crime occurs, there's someone pointing the finger at video games. A notable recipient of these claims is the Grand Theft Auto series. Admittedly, the series is quite controversial, but to say that video games are to blame for violent crimes is unrealistic and outright ridiculous. If a violent crime is committed and the police find a copy of a Grand Theft Auto game in the home of the perpetrator, the only conclusion one should come to is that the person plays Grand Theft Auto, not that the game is responsible for their actions.
And frankly, that's just lazy. There's a real gun culture in this country and the issues we face with these mass killings is a social issue and not just about banning guns. To say that video games are to blame just says to me that the people lobbying against violence in video games aren't actually interested in solving the problem and more interested in just finding someone or something to blame.
First, I can't say I know of anyone who has ever said after playing Grand Theft Auto "Hey, you know what would be cool? If we went out and went on a rampage through the streets just like we did in the game." Do you know why? Most people are able to easily differentiate between real life and fiction. Personally, I laugh at the things I do in the Grand Theft Auto (and similar) games, but doing those things in real life? If I were being chased by the police and smashing my car into other cars and people and barriers, I wouldn't be laughing.
Second, in the entertainment industry, video games are one of the most regulated. Let me explain. If you've ever bought CDs, you know that some of them have a sticker on it that says "Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics" or something to that effect. Did you know that there are no defined requirements for it? The record company is the one that decides whether or not to put that sticker on it. Film and TV are on a similar level as video games, admittedly, but this is just to discuss video games.
Video games in all countries have ratings, much like film and TV. North America has the ESRB. Europe has the PEGI. Japan has the CERO. These assign a rating based on the content in the game. (again, much like film and TV) The most contentious of these ratings is M (Mature) which accommodates more graphic content. However, there's another rating that's abbreviated to AO. (Adults Only) AO rated games are very few and far between and highly restricted. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all have polices against allowing AO rated games on their consoles.
Returning to M-rated games, a lot of stores require an identification before purchasing the games if there's a doubt that they're not 17. (The M rating has 'Mature 17+' written above the M) And games have clearly written content descriptors on the back. (again, similar to film and TV) So, ultimately it's up to parents to decide what they allow their children to play. If they have a problem with what their children are playing, they should do a better job of monitoring it, rather than blaming video games and the companies that make them for the content they allow their own children play.
Third, as the years have gone on, the ability to make games more realistic has increased drastically. And maybe that's contributed to the hysteria. There's evidence to support that hypothesis. As I said, violence has been around in video games basically since their inception, but where was the outcry then? In fact, the ESRB wasn't put in place until 1994 when games were incorporating increasingly graphic content. But, why should we blame people for making use of advancing technology? The ones who work on movies and TV shows use advances in technology for the same purpose; to make things look more realistic.
Finally, if you want to blame video games and violence in them for violent crimes, why not look at other forms of entertainment? There was a movie recently released titled Bullet to the Head. Need I say more?
What it comes down to is these powerful people like Wayne LaPierre being completely out of touch with the public. Instead of finding something to blame, they should look for an actual solution.
This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Often, when a violent crime occurs, there's someone pointing the finger at video games. A notable recipient of these claims is the Grand Theft Auto series. Admittedly, the series is quite controversial, but to say that video games are to blame for violent crimes is unrealistic and outright ridiculous. If a violent crime is committed and the police find a copy of a Grand Theft Auto game in the home of the perpetrator, the only conclusion one should come to is that the person plays Grand Theft Auto, not that the game is responsible for their actions.
And frankly, that's just lazy. There's a real gun culture in this country and the issues we face with these mass killings is a social issue and not just about banning guns. To say that video games are to blame just says to me that the people lobbying against violence in video games aren't actually interested in solving the problem and more interested in just finding someone or something to blame.
First, I can't say I know of anyone who has ever said after playing Grand Theft Auto "Hey, you know what would be cool? If we went out and went on a rampage through the streets just like we did in the game." Do you know why? Most people are able to easily differentiate between real life and fiction. Personally, I laugh at the things I do in the Grand Theft Auto (and similar) games, but doing those things in real life? If I were being chased by the police and smashing my car into other cars and people and barriers, I wouldn't be laughing.
Second, in the entertainment industry, video games are one of the most regulated. Let me explain. If you've ever bought CDs, you know that some of them have a sticker on it that says "Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics" or something to that effect. Did you know that there are no defined requirements for it? The record company is the one that decides whether or not to put that sticker on it. Film and TV are on a similar level as video games, admittedly, but this is just to discuss video games.
Video games in all countries have ratings, much like film and TV. North America has the ESRB. Europe has the PEGI. Japan has the CERO. These assign a rating based on the content in the game. (again, much like film and TV) The most contentious of these ratings is M (Mature) which accommodates more graphic content. However, there's another rating that's abbreviated to AO. (Adults Only) AO rated games are very few and far between and highly restricted. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all have polices against allowing AO rated games on their consoles.
Returning to M-rated games, a lot of stores require an identification before purchasing the games if there's a doubt that they're not 17. (The M rating has 'Mature 17+' written above the M) And games have clearly written content descriptors on the back. (again, similar to film and TV) So, ultimately it's up to parents to decide what they allow their children to play. If they have a problem with what their children are playing, they should do a better job of monitoring it, rather than blaming video games and the companies that make them for the content they allow their own children play.
Third, as the years have gone on, the ability to make games more realistic has increased drastically. And maybe that's contributed to the hysteria. There's evidence to support that hypothesis. As I said, violence has been around in video games basically since their inception, but where was the outcry then? In fact, the ESRB wasn't put in place until 1994 when games were incorporating increasingly graphic content. But, why should we blame people for making use of advancing technology? The ones who work on movies and TV shows use advances in technology for the same purpose; to make things look more realistic.
Finally, if you want to blame video games and violence in them for violent crimes, why not look at other forms of entertainment? There was a movie recently released titled Bullet to the Head. Need I say more?
What it comes down to is these powerful people like Wayne LaPierre being completely out of touch with the public. Instead of finding something to blame, they should look for an actual solution.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Video Games as Art and the Indie Scene
If any of you pay attention to video games, you know that the indie games have been making quite a bit of noise lately. Arguably, most of these games are complete and utter crap. Others rise to become more popular than the others, such as Limbo.
Unfortunately, most of the quality indie games get overlooked. One such game is a game I recently watched a full playthrough of and actually purchased on Steam called To the Moon. This game has one of the best stories I've ever experienced in ANY medium, not just video games. I've only ever been moved by a fictional story as much as that a few times in my life.
But, a lot of people don't know about this game. And it there are two factors as to why. First, it's a video game. Second, it's an INDIE video game.
How is it being a video game a factor? Let me clarify:
Video games are still very much the little brother to cinema and television. While it's very lucrative, it's still a form of media that's looked down upon and not recognized. Sure, you all know who Morgan Freeman or Tina Fey are, but do you know who Nolan North is? Do you know who Jennifer Hale is? Do you know who Troy Baker is? Are you familiar with them without having to look them up? Chances are, most of you don't and those three are all veterans in their own field.
I can say with almost 100% certainty that most people don't look at video games as an art form. Let me use the previous example of Morgan Freeman. He's a well-respected member of society who earned that respect through his ability to act. How many voice actors have earned that? Granted, they haven't been at it as long. But, in ten or twenty years, will these veteran voice actors earn that kind of respect, or anything close to it? It's hard to say; I don't have any kind of foresight. But, I find it highly unlikely.
And yet, video games have the potential to be as legitimate an art form as books or movies or television or stage or painted art. There are some truly fantastic games out there with great stories, beautiful environments, fleshed-out and interesting characters, and engaging storylines - all created by people who have spent years perfecting their craft, just the same as any author, director, or painter would.
Even still, many of these go unnoticed by a majority of the public. People still see video games as childish and immature when, for the most part, it's the opposite. As time passes, (most) games are maturing with their audiences. And I'm not just talking about adding in more sex or violence. There are subtleties and themes present in games that younger crowds may have a harder time grasping. Of course, there are still plenty of games that spoonfeed its audience, as if we're idiots and need everything explained to us.
That brings me back to my point. People will ignore games with fantastic stories like To the Moon for the simple fact that they're video games. But, games like these deserve to be experienced. It has nothing to do with it being a video game and everything to do with the presence of such a fantastic story. You should want to experience these things because of the story and nothing else. If you like good stories, you're doing yourself a disservice by not witnessing some of these stories, such as the one from To the Moon.
In a lot of cases, you don't even need to purchase and play the game to experience what it has to offer. Many games, including To the Moon, have playthroughs on YouTube - many of which are divided up into manageable chunks of time, since most people don't have time to sit for four hours straight (the approximate playtime of To the Moon) to watch a playthrough. Not liking to play video games isn't much of an excuse anymore.
That leads me to another question. How many more games like To the Moon are being neglected, not just by the public, but by many so-called "gamers"? This isn't just exclusive to games either. Books and movies are also just as susceptible to it. It can be discouraging from the point-of-view of a storyteller (which I am one) to know that no matter the quality of your work, it still may go ignored by a great many people.
It just goes to show that big companies care more about selling big than giving their consumers a quality product. After all, companies like EA or Activision keep regurgitating the same product under the guise of new, and people keep buying them. I bet if they actually improved the quality of their products, a large portion of people who previously purchased their products wouldn't buy what they were putting out. Change scares people. Gamers are no different.
I'll close by saying that if you made it this far, seriously go and check out To the Moon. Seriously. Either buy it on Steam for $10, or watch people playing it on YouTube. You won't regret it.
Unfortunately, most of the quality indie games get overlooked. One such game is a game I recently watched a full playthrough of and actually purchased on Steam called To the Moon. This game has one of the best stories I've ever experienced in ANY medium, not just video games. I've only ever been moved by a fictional story as much as that a few times in my life.
But, a lot of people don't know about this game. And it there are two factors as to why. First, it's a video game. Second, it's an INDIE video game.
How is it being a video game a factor? Let me clarify:
Video games are still very much the little brother to cinema and television. While it's very lucrative, it's still a form of media that's looked down upon and not recognized. Sure, you all know who Morgan Freeman or Tina Fey are, but do you know who Nolan North is? Do you know who Jennifer Hale is? Do you know who Troy Baker is? Are you familiar with them without having to look them up? Chances are, most of you don't and those three are all veterans in their own field.
I can say with almost 100% certainty that most people don't look at video games as an art form. Let me use the previous example of Morgan Freeman. He's a well-respected member of society who earned that respect through his ability to act. How many voice actors have earned that? Granted, they haven't been at it as long. But, in ten or twenty years, will these veteran voice actors earn that kind of respect, or anything close to it? It's hard to say; I don't have any kind of foresight. But, I find it highly unlikely.
And yet, video games have the potential to be as legitimate an art form as books or movies or television or stage or painted art. There are some truly fantastic games out there with great stories, beautiful environments, fleshed-out and interesting characters, and engaging storylines - all created by people who have spent years perfecting their craft, just the same as any author, director, or painter would.
Even still, many of these go unnoticed by a majority of the public. People still see video games as childish and immature when, for the most part, it's the opposite. As time passes, (most) games are maturing with their audiences. And I'm not just talking about adding in more sex or violence. There are subtleties and themes present in games that younger crowds may have a harder time grasping. Of course, there are still plenty of games that spoonfeed its audience, as if we're idiots and need everything explained to us.
That brings me back to my point. People will ignore games with fantastic stories like To the Moon for the simple fact that they're video games. But, games like these deserve to be experienced. It has nothing to do with it being a video game and everything to do with the presence of such a fantastic story. You should want to experience these things because of the story and nothing else. If you like good stories, you're doing yourself a disservice by not witnessing some of these stories, such as the one from To the Moon.
In a lot of cases, you don't even need to purchase and play the game to experience what it has to offer. Many games, including To the Moon, have playthroughs on YouTube - many of which are divided up into manageable chunks of time, since most people don't have time to sit for four hours straight (the approximate playtime of To the Moon) to watch a playthrough. Not liking to play video games isn't much of an excuse anymore.
That leads me to another question. How many more games like To the Moon are being neglected, not just by the public, but by many so-called "gamers"? This isn't just exclusive to games either. Books and movies are also just as susceptible to it. It can be discouraging from the point-of-view of a storyteller (which I am one) to know that no matter the quality of your work, it still may go ignored by a great many people.
It just goes to show that big companies care more about selling big than giving their consumers a quality product. After all, companies like EA or Activision keep regurgitating the same product under the guise of new, and people keep buying them. I bet if they actually improved the quality of their products, a large portion of people who previously purchased their products wouldn't buy what they were putting out. Change scares people. Gamers are no different.
I'll close by saying that if you made it this far, seriously go and check out To the Moon. Seriously. Either buy it on Steam for $10, or watch people playing it on YouTube. You won't regret it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)