Nonsensical briefing

So I’m going to be off for a couple of days as I visit a friend for American Thanksgiving. I feel like I should head over to an animal sanctuary to feed a couple of turkeys. But I felt the need to at least post a little something before I head out onto the road in this terrible Los Angeles traffic. So here are some brief comments I have on the games I’ve played the past month.

Far Cry 2 on an unsupported graphics card makes all the textures look like solid colors used with led pencil. The frame rate is horrific and the action is god awful to play through. I’m loving it.

Fallout 3 I have made it through have way and the only quest I’ve truly loved is the Bladerunner nod to the Replicated Man. I’m about half way through and though I am enjoying it I’ve come to the point where I am just mindlessly going through routine. It’s a good game but it’s definitely not Fallout.

Mega Man 9 is wonderful though I still can’t beat Wiley’s Castle. It took me three months to finally beat Croncrete Man’s stage–that was embarrassing. My advice, start playing the game during the A.M. hours and you’ll surprisingly do much better than playing at reasonable hours of the day. Now…where’s my Game Genie?

Dead Space was beaten in a day and I felt ultimately unsatisfied at the end. It is the equivalent of of Hollywood Oscar fodder. It’s good, but everything about that game is too easy from its design to the style. The game definitely has the auro of a researched, marketed product which is a shame because the developers seemed very passionate about creating something new and original.

Mirror’s Edge is great but still full of flaws. I read an article from Keith Stuart about how reviewers don’t appreciate innovation. That is statement is absurd. If you don’t intend for to make an FPS, don’t place those elements in the game. If you want to create something new and original, don’t pander to some imaginative demographic that you probably won’t get just for a few more sales numbers. I’m hoping they refine everything about Mirror’s Edge in their next outing. Oh yes, less Quick-Time-Events please.

Super Street Fighter Turbo HD Remix is the first game that I successfully got my roommate to play. Thank goodness for this neo-retro movement as maybe I can finally get some two player action going in this non-gaming house I am in.

Left4Dead is amazing fun.

Occasionally playing Civilization 4, Peggle, World of Goo, Company of Heroes, Audiosurf, Burnout Paradise, Professor Layton and the Curious Village, Hotel Dusk, Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, Space Invaders Extreme, Animal Crossing: Wild World, and numerous flash games in between.

I’ll be back in three days to panic about the three terms papers I have yet to complete for the semester. So have a happy turkey day, watch some football, and play some games. GSG Out.

Avant gaming – interactive art

The twitter has been a flutter with Esquire’s recent feature article on Jason Rohrer’s 2007 game The Passage. Straddling between the line of interactive art and video games, Rohrer’s experiment comes from the same intellectual aspirations as games such as The Path and You Have to Burn the Rope. These are extremely short, linear “games” that propose to invoke emotional responses towards the player. I will not claim that repeated playthroughs will inevitably reveal the mystery of the designer’s intentions. One of the greatest debates concerning digital media is the question of ownership and this include both the player’s experience as well as the digital “property.” But I do encourage everyone to play through the game more than once. In the case of The Path you may even achieve different results upon the game’s conclusion.

By now you’re wondering why I haven’t provided a description for each game. The reason is the less you know the better the experience will undoubtedly be. I have talked about transcendental-art games the likes of Pixel Junk Eden, Everyday Shooter, and Rez in a previous post. But these games are much different. In fact, that have more in common with fl0w than the previous games I mentioned. There is no official objective, no pressing danger, or even a challenge per say. It is a the kind of avant-garde gaming that separates it from categorization in the interactive game and the puzzle game.

I have recently become enamored with digital art whether it is pixel art or the various works to come out of the demoscene. But arts from these subcultures lay upon a foundation of our previous understandings of art (i.e. photography, music, painting, etc.) There is a standard where we can refer to our critique of the work. But games like You Have to Burn the Rope are more attune to game culture not only in its dynamic-ism with player interaction but in reference to what we view as a contemporary video game. We can go on about the definition of the video game verses interactive media–which many have done with fl0w–but ultimately I must hark back to the colloquial expression: “I know it when I see it.”

What we have here is a game as well as interactive art. I will not lie, I did not achieve an emotional response playing any of these games. But I did become intellectually stimulated. Art can do either and it can do both. Of course, these are mainstream games in the slightest sense. They have more in common with experimental film. And that is perfectly fine. These are games that reside on the fringes of the Internet allowing players to discover it for themselves. In certain facets these games achieve much more than Jonathan Blow’s Braid in its simplicity of design and its immediacy in creating an affect towards the player. And I hope that these games do create a subculture of experimental gaming. You can already see its influence in recent blockbusters such as Fallout 3 and Alone in the Dark where the player is constrained to merely interact by speaking in simple infant speech or blinking.

On the flip-side of these arguably high brow games we have these pop-art games which I believe are just as compelling. Don’t Shoot the Puppy is a great experiment in player tolerance that I would defend as an a form of interactive art just as much as the game previously stated. It is not surprising the experimentation in interactive art grows out of the same atmosphere of the lowly flash developers. These are starved programmers in the same vein as starved artists. Why should it be of any surprise?

And this is all great because as videogames grow as a medium they become not only defined by its industry but of it’s subcultures. I ave become extremely pleased with this kind of punk-rock approach of the indie developer where a programmer will design the foundational structure of a game and go on a message board calling for artists to help tighten and ad assets. I love that XNA, PSN, and WiiWare are attempting to assist these indie-developers. I love that the Internet has brought a Renascence in independent flash games that eventually make it to these previously stated outlets. I love that the medium has garnered artists to explore and experiment in interactive art without the priorities of monetary reciprocity. As more as these game design assets are released such as Kongregate.com’s flash tutorial, Little Big Planet, and the multitudes of engine mods that continues to release on the PC I hope that the ease and creativity from the independent scene that has now taken to the forefront will continue to excite and inspire the new generation of games that we have yet to see.

Egads! Return from hiatus!

As the last few weeks of the semester ramp up and finals plus term papers are just around the corner, things have been pretty slow on the site. Sorry my few but loyal readers. I have not been good to you. But I shall return! In the mean times here is a little presentation I wrote up for class to wet your pallet.

We have arrived to a point where interactive media as we know it is over 60 years old and the video game as we know it is over 30 years old. Only now the gaming culture has not only embraced a return to retrogames—and by that I mean the sense of revere gamers have for products in the vein of systems like the Commodore 64, the Atari 2600, and classic arcade games—but also the emergence of these kinds of neo-retro games. Examples today are Pac-Man Championship Edition, Super Street Fighter II Turbo: HD Remix, Bionic Commando: Rearmed, Arcanoid DS, or Space Invaders Extreme. These are games that take the foundational programming of the original series and update it with modern design techniques or graphical improvements or both. It is a reintroduction of a classical game with the sensibilities of modern audience expectations. This is opposed to the retro which is merely a re-release of a classic series as it was produced back during its time.

Mega Man 9 which was released this past September is peculiar in that it resides somewhere in-between the retro and neo-retro. Here we have a game that continues not only the aesthetic of Mega Man which was released in 1987, both in its graphical technology but in its design as well. The game also lacks many of the design evolutions of subsequent games in the series. This includes certain moves in Mega Man’s repertoire such as the “Charge-shot” or “Power-slide.” But it also diverts from the recent neo-retro trend of the series as indicated by Mega Man: Powered UP! which is a remake of the original Mega Man with a graphical overhaul and also the purely retro trend indicated by the release of Mega Man: Anniversary Collection.

But what is really strange, is the limitations that Mega Man creator Kenji Infune, placed upon the game’s conception. Returning to the 8-bit graphics the game maintains the limitations of a classic Famicom/Ninendo game. In an interview with producer Hironobu Takeshita, he reflects on the development of the game where Ifune had butt heads with the staff whom was making not only the graphics but the level design of the game too complex. But even more jarring, is inclusion of Legacy mode. Legacy mode is automatically turned on when the game is first loaded, and what it does is it turns on many of the graphical bugs in the game such as map slowdown or sprite flickering. But what it also does is open up many of the most well publicized glitches apparent in previous Mega Man games. Some of these glitches will not appear unless sought out and some may accidently appear because of the limitations of the game.

It is here that I want to that I want to draw the connection of Mega Man 9 within interactive media into the realm of film theory. And to justify this connection I want to touch upon the subject of remediation. David Bolter has written on the subject of New Media as a remediation of the old. When we look at products that not only come out of the realm of computer games or web 2.0 we directly relate these with familiar media sources of the past. In the case of video games, the focus lies on reproducing a cinema experience. But why should this merely rest upon subjects of reception, response, and immersion? And this is why I propose to integrate the theoretical approach of psychoanalysis towards the medium.

Interactive media differs towards cinema in a very distinct manner in that the media itself is “reactionary.” Chris Crawford’s published book The Art of Computer Game Design discusses this aspect where he contracts two forms of interactive media: the game and the puzzle. Whereas the puzzle remains static, the game by contrast changes with the player’s actions. The notion of the puzzle relates to cinema as a static product where the interaction remains much more internal for the audience in regards to the film compared to a more external interaction between the game and the player. But I would still argue that this variance in game reaction is superficial in that it is illusionary just as cinema. And therefore, as we may discuss cinema as attuned to a sort of dream, so can we do the same forvideo games as well.

This is where I would like to introduce the concept of secondary revision in terms of the game. Following Ian Bogost’s inspection in Persuasive Games, video games are considered as compact reflections of our interactions in society. We create internal games in how we function in everyday life and video games compact certain types of interactions in each game. This can also relate to the duo relationship of the subject with the unconscious when we dream while we find ourselves dreaming. Christian Metz points out that a film spectator is less invested in the image than the dreamer because the real images presented are “perceived” less real in a film. The actual perceptible object is the film itself. While watching a movie, secondary revision continuously functions on an unconscious level becoming intimately invested in the image on screen but maintaining a divisional gulf for the separation of the viewer’s status as a subject, the eye, to the object, the film. Secondary revision occurs, of course, when we realize we are aware of the object as a film similar to when we realize when we are in the act of dreaming.

The same mentality occurs if we divulge into interactive media. Even though the player becomes more of an active participate in the realm of the game, the premise remains the same. So looking at the model of secondary revision let us investigate more. The dreamer dreams while the Other maintains the realism of the dream and censors the content protecting the dreamer from ever becoming aware of his unconscious. Once the dream becomes too intense or confronts the dreamer he realizes he is in a dream and either awakes or begins lucid dreaming. It is here the process of secondary revision reveals itself as the subject attempts to recuperate the contents of the unconscious into plausible coherency. Film as an impression of reality suggests this kind of liveliness even though it is a recorded archive. This also applies towards the video game as its existence as a product is more or less identical.

In the case of Mega Man 9, if you look at it as a sort of live progression of re-designing and redistribution of the same content you see a kind of secondary revision. As games progress, the developer not only improves the design of the game, but closes out many of the glitches inherent in the programming that break the immersion of the game. These not only include graphical deficiencies but also technical ones as well. As with any sort of programming, bugs in the system break the function of the program. You would expect if you install a program it becomes invisible and functions on its terms. When there is a glitch or a bug it breaks the impression of the product’s purpose. If you look at the evolution of Mega Man it follows the same path as any other gaming franchises progressing in both technical and graphical improvement.

At this point I discuss secondary revision as form of editing the text in relation to the concept of the glitch. If a glitch becomes integrated into the text of the game, it becomes part of the programming and therefore preserves the impression of the game. This has happened before in fighting games such as Street Fighter where the glitch created attack combos for players to implement into their fighting technique. This glitch of stringing combos has become the corner-stone for fighting games since. This same concept applies in secondary revision, particularly in lucid dreaming where the trauma within the dream can allow the dreamer to maintain dreaming and therefore incorporate the awareness of dreaming within the dream.

But Mega Man 9’s bugs do not fit into this model as they for one are not integral components of the gameplay, but were previously fixed in the series and then reintroduced in this instance. So what we have is an Other, in this context Ifune, subverting the normalcy of secondary revision by purposefully allowing the disruption of immersion while not integrating it into the gameplay. But I want to emphasize that these glitches not forced upon the player but open to confrontation by the player. And therefore, the discovery of the glitch becomes a shared desire of both the Other and the player. This is the direction I want to approach my answer to this conundrum which relates back to Lacan which is the desire of the desire of the Other.

UPDATE!

As I have been bogged down with papers hopefully I can squeeze in a post sometime before the weekend it out. But I urge everyone to read this blog post from a designer on the Spore team on the importance of the secondary-hand market. He touches upon a wonderful factor on used games as it places monetary value for the consumer as well as his own take on DLC. http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=111

Enough with the camp

In continuing my diatribe against Gears of War 2–I’m actually joking–I have read a lot of reviews singling out the narrative elements in the game. Particularly that it is an improvement over the first game, but still fails to surpass the kinds of narrative we see in games today. A lot of people have mentioned the B-movie quality of the dialog and the story, that somehow this is acceptable in games. Are you serious? Do we not have enough B-movie schlock in games today to wet our pallet? This is not some trash media tour deforce the likes of John Waters, this is just crappy story.

Personally, I believe video games have ample amounts of games producing half-hazard passable narratives in games. We don’t need more B-movie material. This was a huge problem I had with Uncharted: Drakes Fortune at it is clearly attempting to invoke this sort of B-movie rip-off of the film Romancing the Stone. Sure it is acceptable material and the production values are clearly there, but I don’t think because games have set the bar so low in narrative that we must surrender to such material. And to be honest, the bar is not that low. We already have numerous examples of games that offer great stories and memorable stories like Grim Fandango, Silent Hill 2, Shadow of the Colossus, System Shock 2, Planetscape, KOTOR, Fallout, Beyond Good and Evil, Bioshock, and the list goes on. We do not need to succumb to accepting this continuous shovel of trite game plots in our medium.

It is a feat of the medium that gameplay, mechanics, and design can be considered the core experience that can make-up for a lacking narrative. But as video games and cinema continue to merge we should expect more as it becomes a mesh of the two. This a major problem I see with the gaming community as that they were willing to overlook this major deficiency their medium. Video games is a rare medium where developers can take ideas from one another whether it is design, mechanics, or even aesthetic. Though it is looked down upon, many people still view it as a sort of technological progression. If something works why not incorporate that same innovation into your product as well. It is accepted for the same of progression and user convenience. But creatively and narrative-ly, the video game industry has speedily evolved to the level of the film industry in that it is creatively bankrupt. What we get is the same product but in a different context from the majority of material released to the public.

What is basically comes down to is admiration for the production design over the substance. What is the value of these narrative interactive experiences when the narrative does not deliver in quality? There is an admiration for special effects, costume design, set design, acting, and all the production values in films but if the story sucks the movie won’t be worth the time. Why? Because there are plenty of other movies to take its place that offer the same high level of production. We have come to a point in the games industry, especially now, where we have a multitude of games offering similar experiences and monopolizing our time. While design is of vast importance it is no longer enough. If a game’s major selling point entails its narrative it should be placed to the high standards that have already been released in the medium.

It is vexing how accepting the gaming community is willing to overlook this issue. There is an impression that the bar is so low when in fact, once the bar is raised it is ignored. Gamers should be more vocal and critical on wanting not only a memorable interactive experience, but also a narrative experience in their narrative games. While games are excelling in the communal, social, and even artificial experience of games there is a huge lack in the singular experience. It is not surprising that players have become their own authors in their experience when it comes to sandbox gaming and open world gaming. So I implore you, whenever someone accepts below average narrative in their games call them out on it. This should no longer be accepted in the game space and we should push our developers to create memorable narrative experiences for us instead of providing the typical B-movie.

Greed is good.

Please note the ironic title. I have not been the biggest fan of Epic Games in the past few years. I played Gears of War a year after its release and realized I was in the minority of the crowd that was displease and unimpressed with the title. I have disagreed with numerous comments made by Cliff Bleszinski. And like many PC gamers I know, there is an unwarranted begrudging feud with Epic’s output and perceived abandonment of the PC marketplace. With all the commotion for Gears of War 2 I can’t help but feel hesitant to pick up the game–especially when many reviewers claim that if you disliked the first game this will do little to change your stance. But I have grown increasingly critical of the company’s business model.

Epic boss Mike Capps commented in an interview from videogaming247.com about the company’s stance on second-hand retail sales and its effect on the game market.

“The secondary market is a huge issue in the United States. Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales, and so you’re starting to see games taking proactive steps toward that… I’ve talked to some developers who are saying ‘If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free’. We don’t make any money when someone rents it, and we don’t make any money when someone buys it used.”

For those that do now know, Gears of War 2 ships with exclusive DLC in the form of weapons for purchasers of the game. This is absolutely fine, but the exaggeration that Capps makes is a frightening future. Personally, I am surprised by the stance the enthusiast press has taken upon second-hand gaming. More often than not, I have come into contact with journalists supporting developers that “force” gamers to purchase games and deter them from renting or buying used games. While they are the most vocal advocates are games as art, they have no issues with this blatant attempt at taken advantage of the user. It may not be to the scale of Activision boss Bob Koteck’s reliance on game franchises, but it is a similar philosophical sentiment.

It is confusing when the games industry is the fastest growing business market today, yet there is this perceived crisis of the second-hand market threatening games. The truth is, developers are getting greedy. This is a large factor in why Epic and many other PC developers have moved into the console space because it is widely more profitable for them. But they’re stuck in a triple “A” business model that will eventually implode on itself–this is what happened to the music industry. When games take $300 million to make there is definitely something obscene for the amount of money to make a game. This will eventually become a fiscal nightmare for studios that want to remain in the blockbuster marketplace without the finance–Midway’s gamble on Mortal Kombat vs. DC is the most recent example that comes to mind. Which is why second-hand gaming has grown to be such a large issue for developers that rely on million selling titles.

But my biggest issue with the current business model is that it is sacrificing content and convenience for the gamer in favor of the share holder, and it is doing it in a nontransparent fashion. Studios are stuck in this number of units shipped mentality that treats gamers as a statistic. And it is a relationship that I no longer want to be a part of. If you look today at the PC games market which has a mix of both the utmost hardcore players along with the largest number of casual players, companies are following different means of remaining a viable. Valve, Blizzard, Stardock, and PopCap have all created business models that not only provide quality content, but have a much more intimate relationship with its user base. Apart from continuous updates, user/developer interaction, transparent software, and arguable reasonable pricing for content, these developers have a better understanding of answering the demands of its users.

Currently, game studios have a tenuous relationship with its users. And that is a problem when the needs of its retailers and shareholder overshadow its customer base. We’ve seen this with EA’s handling of Madden DLC and Activision’s handling of Guitar Hero DLC. Criterion’s handling of its DLC and Harmonix’s approach to Rock Band song transfers are a step in the right direction. If you look at Phil Harrison’s recent tenure at Atari I believe a lot of interesting approaches for game distribution will be immerging from that company. Technology breeds a mentality of convenience and percieved rights in regards to content. And we have learned from the music industry that if a business is unwilling to adapt they will reach a crisis–which is happening now with second-hand games. Gamers have survived decades with used and rented games and this demand will no disappear. And if studios continue to combat user demand they will eventually become left behind and forgotten for good reason.

The defining edge

While on my regular podcast runabout, I was listening to the Player One Podcast where CJ Johnston relayed a criticism about the Mirror’s Edge demo with the criticism, “It is a glorified series of Quick-Time-Events.” CJ was inclined to agree, but he was unable to elaborate a bit more about the comment.

I have previously discussed my own disdain for the QTE, both loving and loathing the simplicity of the mechanic. Omari Akil at Eat|Think|Game has informed me of his own manifesto for the QTE which includes: sparse usage, minimal button sequences, no game over on failure, never use it to end a boss battle, and use only when least suspected. These are all fair requests, though I do believe the QTE becomes confined into the horror-game arena under this itinerary.

It is not surprising that the QTE seems to work so well in horror-games because they can easily fit into this list. My major gripe with the QTE are in action games where it is much more difficult to integrate the mechanic into the genre because the player is already performing visually superior and rewarding actions. Which is why I became interested in this criticism for Mirror’s Edge as it is promoted as less of a traditional action game and more of a platformer.

Of course I have only played the demo and both CJ and the commenter have only played the demo as well. There is the chance that this may merely be over analyzing the play mechanics because a jump button is a jump button and so forth. But there is clearly something different and special about Mirror’s Edge that has prompted players to question the presentation and execution of the game’s control scheme.

By describing Mirror’s Edge as a glorified QTE I have begun to ponder to what the QTE actually is. One game that had blurred the line for definition is Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones where a flicker would appear on enemies indicating the player to press a button to time a correct attack. A similar technique was used again by Ubisoft in the battle mechanic for Assassin’s Creed. The only difference is that it does not integrate the “Simon Says:” repeat the button sequence mechanic, but still follows the importance of timing to complete the desired event.

If we a following semantics, this rhythm gameplay is basically a QTE. There really is no discernible difference except one visual is replaced for another. The largest difference is one may visually be within the game while the other gives off the impression of an in-game cinematic. So what makes Mirror’s Edge a QTE instead of a platformer? I believe it is because the visual action of sliding, jumping, rolling, and landing presents the same animation every time it is executed in the first-person perspective. And though the environments may be varied, the animations are singular. From what I have seen of the game, the protagonist Faith does not seem to have a diverse repertoire animations to prove my suspicions otherwise.

So is Mirror’s Edge a glorified QTE or merely the control and visual aesthetic of the game? Heck, even Fallout 3’s V.A.T.S. can be considered a loose QTE. I don’t think the problem with Mirror’s Edge is that it is a glorified QTE, but that the definition of QTE can be misleading, because every aspect of control mechanic can be a QTE to some extent. Perhaps we should rename it an SIP: Sequence Input Progression. If anything, the parkour elements of Mirror’s Edge can be equated to the QTE as purely a gimmick. Which, is what I believe, to be the largest criticism towards the QTE. Whether it will have the design and intelligence of last year’s Portal has yet to be seen, but luckily we do not have too long of a wait to find out.

Good Grief

While having lunch with friend, we came upon the subject of “griefing” in videogames. He had mentioned an article he read in the Times about online griefers and Craigslist harassment spilling outside of the Internet space. In response, I bought up an old Computer Gaming World article I had read called “Confessions of a Online Hitman” (I believe that was the title) of a gamer who was hired, almost like a mercenary, to purposefully go online to games such as Halo or Counter-Strike to annoy a particular player whether it is closing in specifically from the opposing team or just hindering and irritating the player as a teammate. The extent that this gamer would follow the gamer from match to match is outrageous and frightening.

I’m sure we are all aware of the funeral raid in World of Warcraft from the clan Serenity Now. There is the humorous Team Fortress 2 videos from Team Roomba. And of course, VentertainMe whom Shawn Elliot had introduced to me takes Ventrillo harassment to genius levels. The best griefing comes from creative individuals that know the limits of their victims psyche and capitalize on their annoyance. These griefers think intensely outside the box and to their credit it can produce hilarious results. But there is also the presence of the psychotic in these individuals. They show little remorse and purposefully hinder the enjoyment of others. This is not Internet trolling. This is bullying. And yet the majority of gamers condone these actions. I myself am guilty of such an act. I make no qualms with the fact that I utterly enjoy these videos. It is strange how much entertainment we can partake in from another persons’ suffering. Of course we can rationalize it believing that because this is merely a game the stakes are so low they become inconsequential. We also admire the thought and methodical nature that goes into how there griefers approach their prey.

Kieren Gillen had interviewed Team Roomba months ago in The Escapist. In the article, FLOOR_MASTER (aka Ryan) makes one of the most telling statements about griefing and our enjoyment of the practice.

“The move to griefing videos was prompted by the most dangerous of influences: plain boredom. ‘You run out of things to do and start looking for unconventional ways to have fun with a game.”

“Boredom” is probably one of the most telling facets in all media. I remember a discussion I had with one of my professors about the French New Wave and avante-garde. When it comes down to it, boredom is probably the most important element in creation of the new, the different, and groundbreaking. It can be the foundation for the divorce from everything in the previous movement. This sentiment of boredom can easily be found in games with its repetitive and rudimentary design to the routine of multiplayer matches. And that may be why we appreciate griefing of this kind so easily. It lets us view the game in a different light- at a different angle. I have recently come across commentators claiming that griefing is becoming an art-form. But we must tread lightly to how we respond whether it is enjoyment or disdain because the further we go down the rabbit hole we may not like who we see when we reach the end.

Push it to the limit

It has been almost five years since I have upgraded my PC. Sure I have replaced parts on occasion because I would need a new motherboard or CPU, but essentially I have been using the same PC for half a decade. My graphics card is nearly five years of age, an Nvidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB. And though I have pondered the idea of upgrading I keep convincing myself to wait until the next big thing is released whether it is a cheaper duo core, Intel motherboards, or even a Direct X 11 Graphics cards. Sure, I have come across comparable deals for $20 GeForce 8600 cards after MRI (Mail-in Rebate) but even deals that are a steal have me at hesitation. I am the PC gamer that refuses the upgrade until every part of his rig is obsolete.

Thankfully Dead Space ran like a dream on my PC, albeit with above average original Xbox graphics. But optimal graphics can be over-rated. Just like the Nintendo acolyte, I too believe that graphics are not the end all be all of this console generation or the next. Which explains my disappointment with the current growth of game design these last few years. For the past year, I have told myself that Fallout 3 will be the game that makes me purchase a new rig. Well, the release date has passed and still I am content with my current PC situation. I often joke that when Half-Life 3 arrives in 2014 it will the be year I finally upgrade.

But perhaps I am reaching my limit. Currently, I am playing two extremely graphics intensive games on an unsupported graphics card, Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3. Both can run the game fairly smoothly but of course everything is on low settings. All of the textures in Far Cry 2 are merely solid colors and whenever I am in the heat of battle the frame-rate drops exponentially and Fallout 3 crashes if I play more than an hour. Plus, the fog of war makes me feel like I am playing Turok for the N64. Often I will get shot at by invisible enemies until I walk close enough for the models to pop-up into my view. It is not the most convenient way to game nor is it what the developer intended the experience to be.

And though I do own the next-gen consoles (my first time owning a console in more than a decade) I am unwilling to move away from my PC loyalties. Playing Bioshock on the Xbox360 verified my suspicions that the console FPS just isn’t for me and while playing Valve games on my PC online remains adequate, it does not convince me that I have any need to upgrade just yet. This is the diatribe of a stubborn gamer and also a good argument against PC gaming though I will fight you to the death if you claim such a farce.

The same argument can be said to those not playing games on an HDTV. In fact, the reason I have not upgraded my PC is because I am investing in an HDTV. Gaming’s relationship with technology and entertainment is a fickle one. Unlike any other medium where technology is often combatant with music and film, games have blossomed under business models such as subscriptions and digital distribution. And the relationship between Nvidia, ATI, Intel, and AMD with the gaming world is fascination. But I digress as this is probably an entirely separate blog post in itself.

The fact of the matter is, perhaps I have finally reached my limit to hardcore PC gaming at the moment. Though I will attempt to trudge through Fallout 3 with my diplorable minimal settings and I am certain I will definitely be playing Left4Dead on my PC, I doubt that I can keep up with the majority of the PC games that are released an longer. But despite this fact, I sure as hell will try. The Witcher and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. were amazing two titles releases the past year and I am sure that many more PC games will be released in 2009 that I will definitely attempt to test out with this old PC. Unofficially supported be damned, I am a masochist gamer and PC fanboy. And though I am sure it would visually and optimally make sense to purchase multiplatform games on the console, old habits die hard. It is funny how much a platform of choice allows a gamer to rationalize and tolerate at obscene limits. And though my experiences with my inconsistent frame-rate, model popping, solid texture, limited field of vision, and game crashing will definitely hinder the intended enjoyment of these games, it is small potatoes compared to the ability to play on a machine that I built and love to play on–warts and all.

Reveling in the splatterfest

Elephant in the room: Game violence. Since the arrival and passing of 1992’s Mortal Kombat, game violence has become a notorious topic and often combated with immediate aversion from gamers. If some one brings up the issue they are instantly viewed as some sort of prude. Nowadays the hot topic is sex in games, but glorified violence is still ripe with discussion especially as games reach another milestone of graphical prowess approaching the uncanny valley.

I had just finished Dead Space and though I adore the entire absent HUD aesthetic of the game, I was taken aback by how pornographic the death scenes in the game are (my favorite clip is at 3:28). I would not go so far as to say that I was offended or disturbed by having the protagonist Isaac being ripped in half or eaten. But I do have to say that the gore in combination with the rag doll animation was strangely both bothersome and visceral. There is an extremely voyeuristic quality that goes along with the splatter film that is not only disturbing but compelling. Just as with a car accident on the road we a drawn to this unseemly horror in horror games as well. But Dead Space has the luxury of escaping this sort of violence in gaming argument. Instead the game can be categorized as violence in media because the violence confronts the player as a consequence as opposed to being conducted by the player.

This glorified violence is just as gruesome in other games as well. But the reception and connotation of violence takes on a different meaning when performed by the player. In Fallout 3 using the V.A.T.S. system to finish off enemies will change the camera angle to view to third person and then jump to the enemy in slow-motion to augment the violence. This is amplified even more if the player has the Bloody Mess perk which enhances the violence to satiric degrees with heads exploding and limbs flying. It is not wrong to assert that violence is the reward to the player for using V.A.T.S. in the game. Fallout has always been an ultra-violent series, but the violence in the previous game was itself confrontational whereas the violence in Fallout 3 becomes confrontational moreso because it purposefully highlighted rather than merely violent. Personally, I gain a huge sense of accomplishment when I shoot a nail-gun at a person’s head only to have the particular anatomy nailed onto the wall behind the limp body that is feet away from the limb.

In an era where Gears of War curb stomping is acceptable and No More Heroes and Mad World can be considered the saving grace for the hardcore to the Nintendo Wii it is interesting how we intake our violence. But what is fascinating is how subjective we are in how it disturbs us in a case by case basis. David Ellis of Gamevideos.com has been particular vocal in how appalled he was with Fallout 3’s violence. But he did not give a second thought to Gears of War whose dismemberment is just as glorified. That is not to say that he is wrong, but something in that game’s depiction of that violence was disturbing particular to him. And maybe, that is one of the successes of Fallout. Developer Bethesda intended Fallout 3 to become a game with consequences, and by accentuating the violence it reveals itself as a consequences. The world of Fallout 3 is a detrimental dystopia to live in and there is an atmosphere of desperation, sadness, and loneliness that marries itself well with the game’s explicit gore. This may be a cheap cop-out and giving Bethesda too much credit. But if a gamer can begin to confront violence as a consequence of his actions, it not only vindicates the philosphy of this game, but adds another element of player response that is underplayed and ignored in interactive media within the community.