Wow. It's been nearly two years since I've posted anything here. But, don't be discouraged, reader! I still have many thoughts a-brewing in my big, juicy, delicious brain.
My very first post on this page was about the top and bottom five companies in video gaming and I thought for my first post back, why not post an updated list. As before, this list is completely subjective. If you personally disagree, that's fine, but remember these are opinions! Unlike before, however, I am rescinding my rule about third-party companies only. It didn't seem right to disclude them just because they were working with Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.
So, without further adieu...
Top:
1. Rockstar Games
Notable Games: Grand Theft Auto series, Red Dead series, Max Payne series
Since the writing of the original list, Rockstar released probably the most hyped game of the last half-century, and the latest installment of their critically acclaimed series, Grand Theft Auto V. Regardless of how you feel about the GTA games, there's no denying that they are a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by sales of GTA V. It broke industry sales records and became the fastest-selling entertainment product ever.
Many of my points from my original list still stand, particularly the ones pertaining to their quality releases, as well as the fact that they remain unafraid of controversy; they like to push the boundaries and see just how far they can go, which I find an admirable trait in the industry these days, especially with so many companies nowadays too willing to rest on their laurels and just go with the same thing over and over.
Rockstar remains one of the heavy-hitters in the industry and their games are lauded both critically and commercially. I don't think there's a Rockstar game that I've played that I didn't enjoy or spend many many hours immersed in the open world.
2. From Software
Notable Games: Dark Souls series, Demon's Souls, Bloodborne
A brand new addition to this list, and they jumped right near the top. The original list I wrote didn't include them because I hadn't played any of their games. I'd heard about how difficult their games were, but I'd never actually tried any of them. At the time, I believe I was of the mindset "Why would you make your games so hard? It just feels cheap." I didn't understand the appeal to their games.
And then I decided to say "screw it" and I went and bought Demon's Souls (which was an adventure in and of itself), and after playing some of it, I knew why people loved these games so much. There are times where you're angry, yelling at the game, and you want to throw your controller through the TV, but when you finally succeed at what you were trying to accomplish, it feels good. It feels really good. Like it was you that did it.
There are a lot of games these days that do a lot of hand-holding. From Software's games are not games that could be accused of this, not even with their story-telling. You are thrown into a world with barely anything and told "Here's your world. Survive it if you can." and there's something truly wonderful and gratifying about that kind of experience. It really feels like you're going on an adventure. And what puts them so high is that they're just so consistent.
3. Valve Corporation
Notable Games: Portal series, Half Life series, Left 4 Dead series, Counter-Strike series
Valve still deserves a spot on this list. Their achievements as far as games go are nothing to scoff at. The Portal games are fantastic, as are the Half Life games, and the Left 4 Dead games are great as well. They also do a lot for the gaming community with Steam, and the advances they've made in that department, in regards to the SteamOS, the Steam Machine, and Steam Greenlight, which gives opportunities to indie developers that they might not otherwise get.
However, the reason for their drop (albeit slight) is simple: they haven't released a game that I was interested in more than four years. Four years! I won't argue that Dota 2 or Counter-Strike: Global Offensive are good, fun, enjoyable games, I'm just not really interested in either of them. The last thing they released that I wanted to play was Portal 2, in 2011.
Also, I think it's fitting that I put Valve in the number 3 spot because they seem to be deathly afraid of that number. Portal, Left 4 Dead, and Half Life all suffer from this. There's hardly a Valve fan out there that isn't still patiently anticipating the next Half Life installment, whether it be Half Life 2, Episode 3 or Half Life 3.
4. Naughty Dog
Notable Games: The Last of Us, Uncharted series
I would be remiss to not include the company that was responsible for probably one of the single greatest gaming experiences of my entire life. In 2013, Naughty Dog put out The Last of Us which, to this day, I still go back to, whether it be playing it myself or going to YouTube to watch others play it. This game was the sole reason I decided to change my previous rule about no first-party companies on the lists (not including honorable/dishonorable mentions).
To put it simply, the kind of experience I got in The Last of Us was not one that is easily replicated. Just as in their Uncharted games, they are known for creating very cinematic experiences, and The Last of Us was no exception. However, the emotions that I felt during that game are ones that very few games have been able to create. By the end, I was deeply invested and had come to care very deeply about the characters in the game. I felt real emotional attachment to the characters and the outcome of the game. This is one of those games that I wish I could forget, just so I could experience it for the first time all over again.
Naughty Dog deserves a spot not only because of their technological prowess, but because they have managed to take cinematic experiences (often derided as making the player too much of a viewer) and turned them into pieces of art. If the upcoming Uncharted 4 is only half as compelling and emotionally engaging as The Last of Us was, then we're in for a real treat.
5. Bethesda Softworks
Notable Games: Fallout series, The Elder Scrolls series
Again, this was a difficult choice. I was considering putting BioWare here as well as Telltale, but recent events made certain that Bethesda is once again included on the top five list. As with Rockstar, many of my points from before still stand. Their games still have notable bugs at release. However, their face models seemed to have improved over time. They still present immersive experiences, and Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are still fantastic games.
Shortly before E3 this year, they announced that Fallout 4 would be coming out this year. Not only that, but at E3, they included in-game footage of the game, which increased my hype meter by about 1000%. Fallout 4 is probably the most anticipated game release since Grand Theft Auto V in 2013.
However, Bethesda keeps itself from moving any further up the list because of The Elder Scrolls Online, which was an unfortunate disappointment and a lot of wasted potential. However, they can be forgiven since they were not in charge of development, only the publishing aspect of it.
Honorable Mentions:
Telltale Games
Notable Games: The Walking Dead series, The Wolf Among Us, Game of Thrones
This company has been around for a little while now, but they really only started to get noticed after they released The Walking Dead season one. Telltale is known for their episodic games, and for bringing about a revival of sorts of the point-and-click adventure genre. While The Walking Dead season one was a strong (and emotional) outing, and their Game of Thrones release has been very good so far, some of the writing on their other games leaves a little to be desired, and keeps them out of the top five.
NetherRealm Studios
Notable Games: Mortal Kombat series, Injustice: Gods Among Us
Out of the ashes of Midway Games came NetherRealm Studios, started by Ed Boon - one of the minds behind the Mortal Kombat games. Since its inception in 2010, it has released three games. The first was Mortal Kombat in 2011, a reboot of a series in desperate need of such a reboot. Next came Injustice: Gods Among Us in 2013, a DC fighting game which proved that DC characters could have their own fighting game and they didn't have to worry about being attached to Mortal Kombat either, as in MK vs DC. I'm a DC fan, so this was good. Finally, they released Mortal Kombat X in 2015, a highly anticipated sequel to their reboot of the series in 2011, which became an improvement upon the previous game in virtually every way. However, the company is still new, and still has some things to prove, but things are looking good for them.
BioWare
Notable Games: Mass Effect series, Dragon Age series
Once again, the dark cloud of EA hangs over the head of this company. Dragon Age: Inquisition was a very good release, and they earned a lot of points by teasing Mass Effect: Andromeda at E3 2015, but the relatively little we saw of the latter, as well as the prevalence of micro-transactions in their games (no doubt due to EA's influence) keep it from pushing into the top five. Bethesda's announcement of Fallout 4 and subsequent demonstration of the game was just too good.
Rocksteady Studios
Notable Games: Batman Arkham series
Another dropper. This is not because the quality of their games have gone down by any significant margin. No, by all accounts, their most recent release, Batman: Arkham Knight, which I have not played yet, but I intend to, is an excellent game. However, their reason for the drop outside the top five altogether is because they have not released anything else. The only other game they've released not under the Arkham series is Urban Chaos: Riot Response in 2006. If Rocksteady could (or were allowed to, as the case may be) branch out a little, we could see what they were truly capable of outside a Batman game.
Bottom:
1. EA
Notable Games: Madden series, FIFA series
Once again, EA finds itself king of the mountain. Except this mountain is made out of every horrid thing you could imagine. Very little has changed since the last list, and I feel like I would just be repeating myself to include everything. However, they've become one of the companies that indulges in micro-transactions, and that's bad. It's especially bad because all of their bad business practices (micro-transactions included) are getting noticed and validated by other companies, just because it seems to have worked for EA.
Also worth noting is that some of their notable series' (their sports games, primarily) suffer from the fate of new games feeling basically the same as their old games. EA has been named (more than once) as the worst company in the country and, whether or not you agree with it, it's very telling. They have said that they don't want to be that anymore and they want to be for gamers, but everything they've done suggests that they really don't care. They just want their money.
The unfortunate reality is that they've got their fingers in so many pies these days that it's hard not to buy a game that contributes to EA's machine. BioWare, for example. If you want to buy and play a Mass Effect or Dragon Age game, you'll probably be giving your money to EA.
2. Activision
Notable Games: Call of Duty series, Destiny
Activision retains its spot on the worst list. They are the epitome of "Let's put out the same schlock as last year! People bought it before, they'll buy it again!" And I can't say what's worse - that they do it or that it works. Frankly, it's insulting that Activision can continue to make games and people will still continue to buy them and praise them as great. EA, Activision, and the next company on my list are probably have the worst business practices in the industry.
Just as with EA, I feel like I could write almost exactly what I wrote last time and it would still be accurate. Also, Destiny. It should probably be a red flag when a game gets so much hype and so much advertisement time. Destiny was supposed to be the next Jesus, but all it did was fall flat. I'm just glad that I didn't buy into the hype.
3. Ubisoft
Notable Games: Assassin's Creed series, Far Cry series, Splinter Cell series
Now I know what you may be saying to yourself. "But you put Ubisoft on your best list last time!" Yes, I did, and I realize now that it was probably a mistake for me to do so. Many of its games suffer from repetition as well; it feels like nearly identical games to predecessors are being released. Assassin's Creed (and to a lesser extent, Far Cry) suffer from this. I could go on a rant about Assassin's Creed, but suffice it to say, I was once a really big fan, but recent releases in the series have made me hesitant about the future. The next installment looks like it could be interesting, but for now, it's guilty until proven innocent.
However, what makes Ubisoft so bad is Uplay. Explaining it would take up a lot of writing space that I would rather use on the list, and even then, some of it may not be clear as to what it is. To put it simply, Uplay is completely unnecessary and just adds another layer of hoops that people have to jump through, especially when they want to do anything online in Ubisoft games.
4. Konami
Notable Games: Metal Gear series, Silent Hill series, Castlevania series
Konami was once a gaming giant. Silent Hill, Metal Gear, and Castlevania were all once gaming staples. However, with the possible exception of Metal Gear, that is no longer the case. Castlevania is a shadow (or Lords of Shadow, durr hurr) of what it once was. Silent Hill has become a joke, and has not released a good title in the series since Silent Hill 4. Metal Gear remains fairly strong and continues to look that way as Metal Gear Solid V approaches.
However what really earns Konami on this list is the fact that they have made Hideo Kojima unhappy enough that, after Metal Gear Solid V, he will be leaving the company. Kojima was the one lone bright spot remaining in the company and the planned collaboration between himself, Guillermo del Toro, and Norman Reedus (titled Silent Hills) looked to be a new beginning for the Silent Hill franchise. But, now with Kojima leaving and Silent Hills officially cancelled, Konami looks to be in dire straits. This also leaves the future of the Metal Gear franchise up in the air, as Kojima is the primary driving force behind the series, but it's ultimately owned by Konami.
The reality is that without Kojima, Konami looks like they are bound for mediocrity (at best) for the foreseeable future. At least until something changes drastically.
5. Quantic Dream
Notable Games: Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls (also known as The Sadness Trilogy)
My biggest problem with these games is that they just don't make any damn sense. That, and the arrogance of the head of the company and main writer of these games to think that he's just so good at writing is what baffles me. I could get into each of the three games and how they don't make any sense, and that they really are bad games. Simply put, when you play these games, it really feels like each scene was written separately from the others without much thought on how it connects to other scenes, or even the overarching plot. It's really the only explanation that I can come up with.
I could forgive these errors if it weren't for the fact that these games are built upon their story. That is their one and only selling point "Play this game because it has a deep story, but not a lot of game mechanics." Again, this kind of thing is not a bad thing. Telltale does it in their games and they do a relatively good job. But, Quantic Dream... Quantic Dream does not. I've heard people say "Oh, you don't like it because it's different." But that's not the problem. Different does not equate to good. Just because you're doing something that not a lot of other developers do, doesn't mean that you're doing it well. Quantic Dream's games suffer from this.
Dishonorable Mentions:
Capcom
Notable Games: Resident Evil series, Street Fighter series, Dead Rising series
Capcom still makes decent games. However, the quality of most of their games has dipped. Resident Evil has strayed from its roots, and the last good game in the main series was Resident Evil 4, which is somewhere near ten years old by now. Dead Rising also doesn't quite have the same feel that it did. Also, Capcom's bizarre treatment of their beloved Mega Man, by not making games for him, drag it down. However, there is hope. Street Fighter V is coming out, and Resident Evil: Revelations 2 felt more like a return to classic RE form. We'll see how things play out.
Eutechnyx
Notable Games: Ride to Hell: Retribution
Ride to Hell: Retribution is one of the worst games ever made. It was originally supposed to be an open world biker game, and was supposed to be part of a multi-game set. The others were supposed to be available. for other platforms. However, the end product was a disaster, and Eutechnyx was largely to blame. It probably belongs on the bottom five, but I really think they all deserve to be there more than Eutechnyx does.
Sega
Notable Games: Sonic series, Yakuza series, Total War series
Sonic games have not been good in years, let's face it. Some of them have been okay, most of them have not, and a couple have been outright failures. When your company is responsible for two of the worst games in the 21st century, then you're doing something wrong. However, they do put out other non-Sonic games, and many of them are actually quite good. This is the company's only saving grace.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Sexism in the Video Game Industry
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.
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.
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.
Friday, August 31, 2012
City of Heroes: 2004-2012
Today, I received some news that I found to be devastating, for lack of a better term. The makers of City of Heroes - an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game) that I'd been a part of since 2005 - announced that the game was to be shut down. In light of this news, I've decided to give a eulogy of sorts to a game that's been a very important part of my life for more than seven years.
I first came into contact with City of Heroes in the summer of 2004 (I think) when I saw my brother playing it on his computer. I was spending a week there, along with my parents, and I spent quite a bit of that week playing the game. It took me a little while to get used to things; it was my first ever experience in the MMORPG genre. Once I did, I fell in love with it.
In the months after that, I'd been hoping to come across it for sale somewhere in stores, but I never did, not until April of the following year. It was on a trip to Washington D.C., on the other side of the country, where I found it in a game store in a mall.
I took it back home and set about downloading it onto our computer. Back then, we just had dial-up. Needless to say, actually downloading the game took a very long time. Not only was it a 20+ hour download on its own, but I had to stop the download at times, since the dial-up connection tied up the phone line; I was determined to play this game.
I faced more obstacles on my way to actually playing the game. Once I finally got the "Play" button to click, it still wouldn't start. Eventually, I discovered that the firewall on our computer was keeping me from accessing the game.
Finally, I managed to log into the game for the very first time, and I was so excited. It had been almost a year since I'd played it on my brother's computer, but the controls felt as natural to me as they did when I'd stopped the year before. I suffered through my dial-up connection to play this game. I had the worst lag imaginable, but I still played it.
I was so excited when we decided to get better internet; I could finally play this game at a reasonable pace! And, as excited as I was when we got good internet, I was at least that excited when I got my own computer to play it on. I think my parents (especially my dad!) were excited that I had my own system as well. I don't even know how many times I got yelled at to get off the computer. I admit that a lot of times, I milked my time for as long as I could. I remember having the internet completely shut off a few times; it was the only way to evict me sometimes.
It was sometime in 2006, a new kid came to our class in high school. We had sort of an awkward introduction to each other, but I eventually came to discover that he too played City of Heroes. That came as a genuine surprise; someone else from this very small community happened to play this game that didn't exactly have the most subscribers.
I remember my very first character. His name was Carmyna and he used stone. I don't remember a lot of his story, save for the fact that he had named himself after his deceased sister, who was named Carmyn. He didn't last long; my second character I named Nitrogen Frost, and he used ice. Seven years later, I still have this character, though he now goes by the name Nitrogenn and his story has changed a few times, but he remains.
About two years into my stint, I moved most of my characters from the server of Liberty to the server of Virtue. The reasoning was that the latter was the (unofficial) RP (roleplay) server. It took me a little while to get into the swing of things and to get to know people, but it paid off.
I've met a lot of people on that server in my five or so years; some good, some bad. In fact, I met my (now ex-) girlfriend there. Some of my very best friends in this world, I met on Virtue (and by extension, City of Heroes) and, truly, I don't know where I'd be without them.
I had a bout with depression recently, and there was a particular group of people that, no exaggeration, kept me going. No matter how bad I was feeling, I knew I could get onto the game and they would cheer me up.
Through all my years roleplaying, I developed a connection to my characters. I genuinely cared about them - I still do, and I will continue to even after the servers have been shut down. Their loves, their hates, their feelings all became mine. I don't know if I'll get to play these characters again in any other medium after the servers shut down and that saddens me. It feels like the death of an actual person that I was close to.
Even though I have ways to keep in touch with the people I cared about most on the game, it won't ever be the same without City of Heroes to bring us all together. The servers haven't been shut down yet, but the impending doom of the game has left an empty feeling in my chest, again, similar to the feeling after somebody has died.
Ultimately, it was the community and the roleplay that kept me around. For the most part, I'd become less interested in content than before; there was very little of the endgame content that I participated in.
I'm not sure where I go from here. I have options. There are other MMOs out there that I've been interested in, but there are few ones focusing around superheroes, and the ones that do aren't exactly up to the standards that City of Heroes has set.
I want to close by saying thank you. Thank you to everyone who was involved in furthering this game creatively from beginning to end. Thank you to everyone from the game who's been a friend to me.
Thank you, City of Heroes.
I first came into contact with City of Heroes in the summer of 2004 (I think) when I saw my brother playing it on his computer. I was spending a week there, along with my parents, and I spent quite a bit of that week playing the game. It took me a little while to get used to things; it was my first ever experience in the MMORPG genre. Once I did, I fell in love with it.
In the months after that, I'd been hoping to come across it for sale somewhere in stores, but I never did, not until April of the following year. It was on a trip to Washington D.C., on the other side of the country, where I found it in a game store in a mall.
I took it back home and set about downloading it onto our computer. Back then, we just had dial-up. Needless to say, actually downloading the game took a very long time. Not only was it a 20+ hour download on its own, but I had to stop the download at times, since the dial-up connection tied up the phone line; I was determined to play this game.
I faced more obstacles on my way to actually playing the game. Once I finally got the "Play" button to click, it still wouldn't start. Eventually, I discovered that the firewall on our computer was keeping me from accessing the game.
Finally, I managed to log into the game for the very first time, and I was so excited. It had been almost a year since I'd played it on my brother's computer, but the controls felt as natural to me as they did when I'd stopped the year before. I suffered through my dial-up connection to play this game. I had the worst lag imaginable, but I still played it.
I was so excited when we decided to get better internet; I could finally play this game at a reasonable pace! And, as excited as I was when we got good internet, I was at least that excited when I got my own computer to play it on. I think my parents (especially my dad!) were excited that I had my own system as well. I don't even know how many times I got yelled at to get off the computer. I admit that a lot of times, I milked my time for as long as I could. I remember having the internet completely shut off a few times; it was the only way to evict me sometimes.
It was sometime in 2006, a new kid came to our class in high school. We had sort of an awkward introduction to each other, but I eventually came to discover that he too played City of Heroes. That came as a genuine surprise; someone else from this very small community happened to play this game that didn't exactly have the most subscribers.
I remember my very first character. His name was Carmyna and he used stone. I don't remember a lot of his story, save for the fact that he had named himself after his deceased sister, who was named Carmyn. He didn't last long; my second character I named Nitrogen Frost, and he used ice. Seven years later, I still have this character, though he now goes by the name Nitrogenn and his story has changed a few times, but he remains.
About two years into my stint, I moved most of my characters from the server of Liberty to the server of Virtue. The reasoning was that the latter was the (unofficial) RP (roleplay) server. It took me a little while to get into the swing of things and to get to know people, but it paid off.
I've met a lot of people on that server in my five or so years; some good, some bad. In fact, I met my (now ex-) girlfriend there. Some of my very best friends in this world, I met on Virtue (and by extension, City of Heroes) and, truly, I don't know where I'd be without them.
I had a bout with depression recently, and there was a particular group of people that, no exaggeration, kept me going. No matter how bad I was feeling, I knew I could get onto the game and they would cheer me up.
Through all my years roleplaying, I developed a connection to my characters. I genuinely cared about them - I still do, and I will continue to even after the servers have been shut down. Their loves, their hates, their feelings all became mine. I don't know if I'll get to play these characters again in any other medium after the servers shut down and that saddens me. It feels like the death of an actual person that I was close to.
Even though I have ways to keep in touch with the people I cared about most on the game, it won't ever be the same without City of Heroes to bring us all together. The servers haven't been shut down yet, but the impending doom of the game has left an empty feeling in my chest, again, similar to the feeling after somebody has died.
Ultimately, it was the community and the roleplay that kept me around. For the most part, I'd become less interested in content than before; there was very little of the endgame content that I participated in.
I'm not sure where I go from here. I have options. There are other MMOs out there that I've been interested in, but there are few ones focusing around superheroes, and the ones that do aren't exactly up to the standards that City of Heroes has set.
I want to close by saying thank you. Thank you to everyone who was involved in furthering this game creatively from beginning to end. Thank you to everyone from the game who's been a friend to me.
Thank you, City of Heroes.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Mass Effect!
The extended cut of Mass Effect 3 was released yesterday, and with it, my enthusiasm in the games has once again been restored. The new endings are how the original endings should have been in the first place. I don't necessarily agree with the direction they went, but I'm glad that they had the confidence to stick to their artistic vision of the ending. The new endings just expand on the old ones, but a lot of questions are answered. This allows BioWare to satisfy a lot of people (myself included!) and stick to what they wanted.
Is this the end of Commander Shepard's story? It's been suggested by BioWare that it is. However, that remains to be seen. I would like to say that there's incredible potential for more stories in the Mass Effect universe and I hope that they pursue these avenues.
Garrus was one of my favorite characters within the trilogy. Out of the NPCs, (non-playable characters) he was probably my second favorite (after Tali) and it's a very close second. I can easily see a Mass Effect game with him as the central character. IN FACT, I would love to see a game with Garrus as the central character. I have the perfect premise for it too:
Between the first and second Mass Effect games, he went through a big change. Left the employ of (basically) a police force for a giant space station and found his own squad and took up being a vigilante. People who have played through at least the first and second games know about this.
THAT is just one of many potential stories available in the Mass Effect universe. There's literally a whole galaxy of ideas at their disposal. Another idea that comes to my mind is the idea of the Morning War - the war between the quarians (an organic race) and their subservient geth (a synthetic race who the quarians created) that ended with the geth being victorious. They forced the quarians off their homeworld and relegated them to being nomads roaming around space.
The Morning War was 300 years ago as of the beginning of the original Mass Effect trilogy, making it take place in the late 1800s, but they could even go further back. As of the beginning of the trilogy, there have been uncountable cycles of extinction every 50,000 years or so perpetuated by a race of sentient machines known as the Reapers.
The previous cycle was dominated by a race known as the Protheans, who were eventually eradicated by the Reapers in a centuries-long war. I would be interested to see a Mass Effect game that takes place during this war, during this cycle before the war, or during cycles even before the Protheans.
These are just a few ideas. As I said, there's quite literally a whole galaxy full of possible stories. This may be the end of Commander Shepard's story, but I certainly hope it's not the last I hear of the Mass Effect universe.
Is this the end of Commander Shepard's story? It's been suggested by BioWare that it is. However, that remains to be seen. I would like to say that there's incredible potential for more stories in the Mass Effect universe and I hope that they pursue these avenues.
Garrus was one of my favorite characters within the trilogy. Out of the NPCs, (non-playable characters) he was probably my second favorite (after Tali) and it's a very close second. I can easily see a Mass Effect game with him as the central character. IN FACT, I would love to see a game with Garrus as the central character. I have the perfect premise for it too:
Between the first and second Mass Effect games, he went through a big change. Left the employ of (basically) a police force for a giant space station and found his own squad and took up being a vigilante. People who have played through at least the first and second games know about this.
THAT is just one of many potential stories available in the Mass Effect universe. There's literally a whole galaxy of ideas at their disposal. Another idea that comes to my mind is the idea of the Morning War - the war between the quarians (an organic race) and their subservient geth (a synthetic race who the quarians created) that ended with the geth being victorious. They forced the quarians off their homeworld and relegated them to being nomads roaming around space.
The Morning War was 300 years ago as of the beginning of the original Mass Effect trilogy, making it take place in the late 1800s, but they could even go further back. As of the beginning of the trilogy, there have been uncountable cycles of extinction every 50,000 years or so perpetuated by a race of sentient machines known as the Reapers.
The previous cycle was dominated by a race known as the Protheans, who were eventually eradicated by the Reapers in a centuries-long war. I would be interested to see a Mass Effect game that takes place during this war, during this cycle before the war, or during cycles even before the Protheans.
These are just a few ideas. As I said, there's quite literally a whole galaxy full of possible stories. This may be the end of Commander Shepard's story, but I certainly hope it's not the last I hear of the Mass Effect universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)