• 16Jul 08

  Are games too realistic?

  I recently picked up the newest game in a franchise that I've loved for some time now: Devil May Cry 4. It was fast-paced, visceral, and the combat both in cut-scenes and in gameplay was simply spectacular. At the same time I also picked up Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, a game of which I had heard many great things, but never actually played. I have to say, I was incredibly disappointed. Devil May Cry brought me back to the days when games were intended solely to be fun, like classic Mario. Ghost Recon was trying to be as realistic as possible, quickly destroying any fun there was to be had. Unfortunately, Ghost Recon isn't the only perpetrator of a certain trend in games that I find annoying.
  
  The trend that makes me really angry is intentionally clunky controls. Games like Brothers in Arms, or the new Battlefield for instance, seem to have an annoyingly slow crosshair. When you push the stick to move the crosshair, it doesn't just move. It has to accelerate. While it may make the game seem more cinematic, it actually destroys realism, and fun. In my opinion, the controls make the game. The player has to feel as if his personal reactions are in tune with his character's. For example, in Halo, (while the game itself is a bit lackluster) what really draws people to it are it's simplistic, yet incredibly effective controls. When you push the stick to move, he moves. He doesn't walk slowly for a second than start jogging, he just moves. When you move the left stick to control the crosshair, you are in complete control of the crosshair. It doesn't move slowly for a second, than speed up.

  In games where the controls are intentionally laggy, all sense of realism and connection to the character is lost. You may see a bad guy, and push the stick in his direction to shoot him, but your character reacts too late, and now you're dead. Everything comes down to control. If you're fighting your own character to make them do what you want them to, than the rest of the game is pure moot.

  • Posted Jul 16, 2008 9:45 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 22Jun 08

  Is Jack Thompson right?

  Jack Thompson is a name that sends waves of frustration and anger through the minds of gamers, but truth be told, not everything he says is misinformed bull crap. (though most of it is)
  
  Jack has made the point that it is quite easy for kids to get a hold of violent video games. Most game advocates will tell you that it's not their fault, and that it's the parents' duty to watch over what their children are viewing or playing. This is also true, but to a degree. Even if you are a good parent, and you make sure your children don't get hold of media that you have expressly forbidden, you can't cover all the bases. When I was younger my parents would not allow me to play Grand Theft Auto at all. However, if I rode my bike to a friends house, Grand Theft Auto III would be there prepped and ready for me to enjoy. The point is: unless you bar your children's windows and lock them in their rooms forever, they will get into things you don't intend them to. And it's not just media. It's just part of life.
  
  In this respect I believe there should be laws to prevent children from buying games that are above their age requirement. However, if a parent choses to buy a mature rated game for their child, that is their choice, not the governments. I promote video game awareness, not censorship or banishment. That's where I draw the line.
  
  Video games, just like movies, drawings, and music, are protected under the first amendment of the Constitution. These games have every right to exist and be sold, but just like movies, drawings, and music, it should be difficult for small children who aren't ready to hear or see mature materials to get hold of them.
  
  Another point that anti-video game activists use, is the idea that video games "train" you to be an efficient and deadly killing machine. This is quite a jump. It is undeniable that violent images will instigate violent thoughts, but it does not necessarily translate into real life violence. Playing GTA for three hours won't influence a guy to jump in his car and go murder someone. It might however make them more likely to resort to aggression over a more peaceful solution. Also, violent video games don't "train" you to do anything. The most they can do is improve your eye-hand coordination, but as far as I know there is no square button on an AK-47.
  
  One of the big questions about violent video games is 'why do they have to be so violent in the first place?' The answer is, they don't. If people only wanted blood gore and violence, Manhunt 2 would be a considerably more respected game than Portal. People don't play games for the blood, they play them for the thrill. In GTA IV, which is more fun? Killing someone with a knife, or careening at high speeds, on a bike, into a tree, just to catapult Niko high into the air? It's the same thing people look for in a roller coaster, or an action flick. They want big, loud, crazy, over the top, adrenaline pumping action. The blood in Gears of War is awesome, not because it is realistic, but because of how ridiculously unrealistic it is. It's the chaos people are after, the over the top extremities and wild craziness that these types of entertainment can provide. Hopefully the industry will begin catering more to the younger crowd, and let them have the thrill without the blood.
  • Posted Jun 22, 2008 5:31 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 4 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 10Jun 08

  Going on Vacation

  I'm going to be in a cabin in upper New York for the next two weeks so you won't be seeing me around. But when I get back I'll put up a new album review.
  
  EDIT: or not.
  • Posted Jun 10, 2008 12:23 pm PT
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »