Enlightened Asylum

Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear Commentary

2023-07-20T22:51:00.002-05:00

Baldur's Gate is possibly my favorite video game series of all time, considering how many hours I (and many others) have dedicated to it throughout my life. Therefore, it was no surprise that the (second?) expansion, Siege of Dragonspear, was so anticipated. However, with such a beloved franchise, people were bound to have very high expectations regarding lore and content. A lot of modern "re-writers" have essentially attached their filter to past franchises, changing content to suit their worldview. I had initially intended this article to be a "first look" at the game, but that time has long since passed. These days, we are waiting to see what Larian Studios does with the highly-anticipated Baldur's Gate 3. Regardless, let's take a look at Siege of Dragonspear. I had some initial concerns myself about the game, after reading this quote from a Beamdog dev in a Kotaku (woke gaming outlet) article:

“‘If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],’ said writer Amber Scott. ‘In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”

This is, of course, concerning for a variety of reasons, because often there’s a level of arrogance or false superiority that comes with that kind of proclamation. Thankfully, they didn’t attempt to fit their agenda within a series that was not created by them, to begin with, but they certainly took creative license with Siege of Dragonspear. So let's analyze their baseless claims of sexism. The devs assert that certain characters' personalities are the result of sexist representations, and therefore they wanted to branch out in a different direction for their new story. Now, I can support innovative ideas, but not if they lack creativity or even basic writing ability. I certainly don't like that they were willing to change the personalities of the characters that fans of the series have come to know and love, especially when we consider that this new story takes place between BG1 & BG2. How's that for breaking immersion and canon?

Regardless, the allegations of sexism by the aforementioned "writer" are completely unfounded (as a side note, I did some brief research on her and she appears to be a woke, pseudo-feminist who cares nothing for the material, which seems to be a requirement for such positions these days, including for TV/movies), and it would appear that she was unable to grasp the nuances of the characters' original iterations. The Baldur's Gate series has very layered characters overall, which is evident if one merely looks beyond the surface of what one sees. To make bold statements about a character like Jahiera being "a nagging wife" is overly simplistic. It is meant for comedic effect at times, but it's more indicative of her being overprotective, which she is of basically all the good-aligned characters. This overprotectiveness ends up being a justifiable attitude considering the events of the BG2.

However, claiming that Safana is merely a "sex object" is a much worse offense. Safana is a cunning and manipulative character, who uses her feminine charms and beauty to manipulate men, which is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, and she uses it to her advantage on numerous occasions in the original games. Women know that men often will underestimate women, especially if they are beautiful. Being able to do this in business or relationships is a skill if used properly, and can make them more powerful than a man, in many ways. Even Paris Hilton, who is a lot smarter than people give her credit for, is quoted as saying “I’m happy for people to know that I am not a dumb blonde. I’m just very good at pretending to be one."

Sadly, in today's woke world, a lot of people see things in black-and-white and are unable to comprehend deeper concepts. It doesn't just show how little they understand the material, but how sexist they are. Is a woman not capable of being sexy without being an object? Can a character not be emotionally complex without being "nagging"? Seeing people in such reductive terms must be tough, but, despite all this, the game itself was not too bad. I don't know if I'll bother writing a full review on it, as it wasn't exactly a long game and they didn't add any of the characters over to BG2, surprisingly, so it was okay as a standalone adventure, but nothing special. Anyway, I'm more excited to see how Baldur's Gate 3 turns out - that will warrant a full review.

Diablo IV Review (PC)

2023-06-29T01:48:00.003-05:00

Diablo IV is the latest iteration of the popular series by Blizzard, a subsidiary of Activision. This game itself is an ARPG and MMORPG hybrid, which has all game players playing together on the same server. The game takes place after the events of Diablo III and focuses on the war between the angel Inarius and the demon, Lilith - both of whom spawned the human race from a brief romantic (?) union - and who both disagree as to what the destiny of humans should be. The player character is an adventurer who, unless they plan on revealing some secret backstory, is no one of note, nor does the focus of the story seem on them, which is somewhat of a narrative departure from the previous games. The graphics of the game are all impressive, however, so let's take a look at what the game does right and wrong.

First of all, the graphics are impressive and built for the latest generation of players. It's a slight step above Diablo 2: Resurrected, which was a remake of Diablo 2, with the latter remaining the best game in the series thus far (in my opinion). Diablo 2: Resurrected, a.k.a. D2r, has a cool zoom feature, which highlights the attention to detail regarding both the character models and the environment. Diablo IV implemented the same feature, though the zoom doesn't go as far back as I would like. Regardless, the graphics are highlighted significantly throughout the story, with most cutscenes using in-game models rather than purely-cinematic vignettes. The animations are visually pleasing and so are the death animations of enemies, with some good gore to be had all around. It's funny because, for some reason, they changed certain character models to remove nudity, which seems like a strange thing to be concerned about when violence is so emphasized. Perhaps it's fear of retaliation from pseudo-feminists, who have been responsible for the videogame industry making character models uglier, just like in Diablo 2: Resurrected, which was one of the worst qualities of the game. The argument from these people is that beauty is not realistic, but that is a disingenuous argument. Beautiful people exist, so it's well within the realm of realism for them to exist in fiction. Furthermore, no one wants to look at ugly people in media and videogames - I don't think even ugly people do. In actuality, what they're saying is, "We don't want beautiful, thin people to be emphasized because it damages our already low self-esteem." What did work, however, was a return to the dark, gritty, depressing atmosphere of Diablo 2, instead of the bright, almost cartoonish atmosphere of Diablo III. So, overall, the graphics were handled quite well, though sadly that is one of the highlights at the moment.

Regarding gameplay, it has been fairly uninspiring overall. The combat mostly appeals quite well to the casual player, as there are the standard point-and-click attacks and ability activations using number keys - the latter of which was initially made popular in Diablo III - which are easy to understand and relatively fun to use. There isn't always synergy between abilities, however, so the playstyle is limited for more hardcore players who want variety. The skill tree is not bad, however, and - though some people did not like it - I found it to be fun to experiment with. The biggest issue is that, as I said, if you are looking to do well in endgame content or maximize your stats, it still needs a fair bit of work and optimization. So, now that we have discussed how the players operate, how does the game world compare?

The game world honestly seems empty compared to its predecessors, with less variety in location and uniqueness of content. It took me a while to realize exactly why that was, and it occurred to me that there's a dearth of places to explore in each particular area. Everything is spaced out much too far, whether it is enemies or dungeons, and both - minus a few notable exceptions, like The Sanguine Chapel - are fairly generic and unforgettable. Another aspect - no pun intended - is the "aspect system", which you unlock by completing various cookie-cutter dungeons. A good idea, in theory, but it takes the mystery out of each location when you see which aspect is unlocked for each one. You can still extract aspects from legendary items, but at a varied percentage, so it seems redundant to include both (In Diablo III you just did it once and could mix-and-match aspects, which was a better system. They also don't have a static completion tracker on the map either, as far as I can tell, as the green checkmark over the dungeon entrance disappears after one "logs out" or disconnects, both of which are very real possibilities.

The reason that the dungeons are so generic is for a few reasons. First, although I give them credit for trying new things, those things often are tedious. For example, side quests mostly seem like busy work, even for an MMO hybrid - i.e., fetch the “ghoul hearts” or “collect animus from enemies” - which can get old quickly. Sometimes we want to just clear a dungeon without having some factory-churned set of objectives to complete. I’m also torn about the mandatory boss at the end of each dungeon, because, although it can sometimes be interesting, the fact that there’s always a dungeon boss or “set” enemies makes it a little too predictable to play through. The bosses themselves don't have a lot of variety either, but I will say that the types of enemies you do encounter are pretty interesting. Regardless, I don’t play Diablo to go through the monotony of "fetch" quests and completing "dailies". I want unique and interesting quests that, although they may be randomized, are not indistinguishable across the entire game’s acts. That is, I feel like each dungeon is the same, regardless of what region I'm in in the game world.

I think that's the reason I still prefer Diablo 2 so much - the dungeons are labyrinthine, with multiple levels and exits to different locations. One of the issues of the “open world” concept in Diablo IV is that every dungeon has a single entrance and exit, and surprisingly there is only a single “floor” to clear. But, as of right now, it's all too linear and I don’t ever feel like I’m truly exploring or doing anything interesting. I hope they redesign this, but I don’t think it’s possible due to time and costs; they’d essentially have to revamp the entire game if they wanted to accomplish a greater sense of immersion.

One other thing that irked me was the loot drop frequency. Unlike in most games, rare (yellow, in this case) loot doesn't drop more frequently than basic magic (blue) and common (white) loot. Legendaries even drop more than magic and common loot, which is astounding. The unbalanced drops were so prevalent, and the stash space so sparse (only four tabs for inventory) that I stopped picking up most items altogether. It was too much of a pain to teleport back and forth with loot anyway because the servers have been so unstable, and if you get kicked out you have to redo the same boring dungeon. Now, Diablo 2 and Diablo III both had set items and uniques too, which were very rare to drop but that made it much more exciting. Diablo IV doesn't have set pieces but they do have unique items, though they are legendaries with a different color. Collecting cool loot is one of the staples of these games, so if one cannot even do that, it hurts overall longevity.

Regarding the story, I started enjoying it right at the beginning, but, unfortunately, there’s a massive slog shortly after the first act of the game is finished. It only started to get interesting again near the end of the game, when you’re with the Cathedral marching into Hell. However, at that point, the experience was mostly over. Diablo and Diablo 2 had enough mystery about them to make the story and exploration exciting, but I’ll admit that part of the problem with making multiple sequels is that ideas run out and, since we’ve seen most of it before, there isn’t that same “wow” factor. There were some ridiculous elements to the story, which I am going to spoil now, for anyone that cares. For example, the idea that Inarius randomly gets backstabbed by Lilith doesn’t fit his character. He was supposed to be "filled with hatred" so he wouldn’t have stopped fighting until Lilith was dead. The Donan scene with the "wall thing" was pretty ridiculous as well. Then, in the epilogue, the girl running off with the soulstone - which is a historically bad call - was just pushing the plot forward lazily; it didn’t make sense. The cinematics were all cool, and I did enjoy certain aspects of the story, but it definitely felt long and not necessarily in a good way. Honestly, the reason that Diablo and Diablo 2 were more interesting in many ways was that they didn’t explain every single thing or constantly show us the enemies machinating in the cutscenes; there’s something to be said about a little mystery and subtlety. I still remember that characters like Baal were only teased briefly in cinematics, so by the time you got to the Worldstone chamber you didn't know what to expect. I did like Diablo IV's side missions to some degree, as they often seemed to capture the lore and introduced new characters without being too repetitive or boring (though not always).

As an addendum to the story commentary, I noticed there were some woke elements in the game. Not as egregious as some games have gotten, but it’s there, such as the girl being a prodigy for no explicable reason, comparable to two Horadric mages that have been studying their entire lives. There's a lot of subtle - and sometimes not-so-subtle - misandry in these games, but that's partially due to the times we [unfortunately] live in, where characters' racial and/or gender qualities are more important than making them nuanced or interesting. However, as I said, Diablo IV isn't too insufferable about it, and I didn't see much racial tokenism either. I also think they [thankfully] avoided pushing LGBT content in this particular game because it's popular in China, and Blizzard has always had to maintain a moral relationship with them. I’m finding the anti-Christian trope to be a little stale too - it’s in so many games and TV shows now, and Diablo IV is no exception. We get it - you don’t like Christians. At least make it nuanced and interesting, maybe by showing some motivations as to why the characters were conflicted with their roles or faith, perhaps thinking they are doing the right thing but ultimately losing their way. But no, it was a very ham-fisted, one-dimensional “I’m righteous and you aren’t, hahaha.” The character of Vigo was an exception, however, as he was one of the few characters with depth; Lorath and Donan were probably the only other interesting characters besides him.

To extrapolate more on the endgame content, once you beat the game, you are transported back into the starting town and you can do several different activities, including Tree of Whispers quests (which are essentially bounties/dailies that you can complete and turn in for a reward), Capstone Dungeons (additional story dungeons), "Helltide" Events (randomized events on the world map), and Nightmare Dungeons (dungeons with extra difficulty). I normally don't like that you can't repeat the game in higher difficulties, but in this case, I don't mind, due to the story feeling so long. There is also PvP (player vs. player) content available, and you can change the difficulty/"World Tier" for PvE (player vs. environment) as well, though the latter is only available after you beat the game with a character for the first time. This is probably why it seemed too easy to play through, as the normal difficulty option was quite easy; the difficulty should either be balanced to be more difficult or at least give people the option.

The bottom line: Though I can tell that there was a good amount of thought and creativity put into this game, it still seems unfinished at its core, which is not a good sign from a AAA company like Blizzard. The game world is generic and sparsely generated, with cookie-cutter dungeons and a limited variety of enemies, as well as a mediocre combat system. The story was pretty good but there was a lot of filler between acts, and there were also some ridiculous elements to the narrative as well. The endgame content is one of the highlights until the expansion comes out, the latter of which will hopefully address some of the aforementioned problems the game has. Despite being a hybrid ARPG and MMORPG, there is little functionality for players who are interested in cooperating, which also needs to change. In essence, as of right now, the game is not great, but it's not bad either. It's certainly not worth the price I and others paid for it, standard edition or otherwise. However, Blizzard seems to be implementing patches that address changes already, so there is, perhaps, hope.

Verdict: 6/10

Payday 2 official review (PC)

2023-06-27T01:48:00.000-05:00

Payday 2 is a first-person shooter and heist simulator game by Overkill Studios and is the sequel to the first Payday game. The game focuses on the Payday gang, which [initially] consists of Dallas, Wolf, Chains, and Houston. These four criminals do various burglaries, robberies, and various other illicit activities, all in the effort of making it rich (and probably for the sake of the challenge too). Each of these heists is structured differently, with specific objectives for the gang to complete before jumping in the getaway van. The setting of Payday 2 takes place in Washington D.C., so it's hard to say who the real criminals are anyway. So, to begin, let's look at the game's graphics.

Payday 2 puts a lot of emphasis on realism, so the graphics are pretty realistic. The character models are lifelike and have a variety of idle and action animations, so whether your AI crew (offline/single player) is standing back smoking cigarettes whilst you wander around in quiet mode, or shooting up the feds during a bank heist, you'll find the graphics to be immersive enough. The environments hold up to casual scrutiny, though certain up-close details are bare. This is probably why the frame rate is so good, however, and it certainly doesn't detract from the overall aesthetic.

Speaking of realism, let's talk about the gameplay. Payday 2 is advertised as a heist simulator, and it certainly lives up to its name. The intricacy of the level design and game mechanics is quite complicated, with several hurdles the player(s) has/have to overcome to complete their main objective(s). First of all, there's often a choice in how one approaches the mission, with some allowing players to "go loud" or operate in stealth, whilst others are strictly one or the other. In stealth and/or casing mode, players have to avoid cameras, avoid alarms, avoid alerting civilians and guards, etc. There are ways around each of these hurdles, however. One can disable cameras with a jamming device, placing a feedback loop, or breaking them (the latter option is dangerous, however, as guards and civilians will notice this). All of the various triggers are interconnected. If you look suspicious, guards and civilians can react, the former by calling the police, and the latter by getting a guard or pressing a panic button. Other ways to avoid getting caught are killing or tying up guards and civilians. For the former, you can force them to surrender or kill them, though you will have to answer the guard's radio/pager afterward, upon which you have three-to-four attempts to convince the guards that nothing is wrong. For the latter, you can even order them to move around (assuming they're still alive). If they're dead, however, you can put them in a body bag and hide them so no other guards or civilians see them.

However, assuming all that fails, and the police are called, the game switches into "loud mode", and the objectives change to accommodate the new dynamic. The game discourages killing civilians, but there is less mercy shown for the cops (except in special events), though, for the most part, the enemies are federal agents (especially the FBI, which is corrupt in real life so don't feel too bad about it). These enemies range from standard to armored units, as well as specialty enemies, including riot shield officers, taser cops, "bulldozers" (heavily armored units, similar to juggernauts in Call of Duty), snipers, "cloakers" (dangerous, acrobatic and stealthy spec-ops units), and medics (I actually thought those would be a fun addition long before they came out). There are also non-standard enemies like gang members as well. As one can see, there are myriad decisions and obstacles one faces during each heist, and there are even challenges that one can attempt to accomplish during said heist (achievements) which yield cosmetic and gun rewards. If a heist is successful, the game will award you with money and experience, both of which I will discuss in detail later, as well as a random bonus item at the end.

The controls are fairly standard for FPS games, with either keyboard and mouse for PC/laptops and a controller/gamepad for consoles. The actions that the players can take are interacting with various items, whether lockpicking doors or safes, accessing camera feeds, placing shaped charges and other explosives, setting up turrets, dropping medkits, ordering civilians to drop to the ground to zip-tie them, setting up the drills on safes, etc. The shooting mechanics are pretty standard, though you can additionally visualize critical hits and hit markers on enemies, and certain unique enemies [often] need to be shot in specific places for maximum effect. Beyond the specific heist objectives and interactions, there is an RPG element to the game as well. For example, when characters level up, they can put points into special abilities that increase their stealth or combat abilities. Players can also spend money on weapons, weapon attachments, masks/accessories, as well as buy missions and special favors. Additionally, the devs offer a VR mode for this game, which is quite thrilling and works quite seamlessly between VR and non-VR players, who can play simultaneously in multiplayer. You can play in multiplayer and alone, though both have advantages and disadvantages. In multiplayer, there is a more fun team dynamic, in which people have to cooperate to achieve their goals, though there is always the chance of a noob or, to quote Heat, a "last-minute replacement", who can mess things up for you if they aren't good at the game. However, the player/crew AI has only been recently updated to be helpful in offline mode, though they can take a lot of punishment from enemies before going down, which can be useful on difficult loud missions. However, over a certain difficulty level in loud mode, real players are essential. Any stealth mission can be achieved on maximum difficulty solo, however.

As for the story itself, beyond heisting, Payday 2 centers around the various allies and enemies the Payday gang make throughout their heisting career and the subsequent consequences of their illegal trade. There is a lot of intrigue in the criminal underworld, with storylines dealing with everything from gang rivalries, crooked politicians, Mexican Cartels, and even seasonal heists during Halloween and Christmas. Though the game focuses on heists, there are unique circumstances that the gang has to adapt to, such as betrayals and double-crossers, jailbreaks, police interference, rivalries with private security groups and other gangs, and others. However, the gang - and its consistently growing numbers (you can even recruit and play as one of the original crew from the first Payday, Hoxton) - are the glue that holds the narrative together, including their consistent handlers, Bain and Locke.

For the aforementioned reasons, there is a lot of replayability to be found in Payday 2, and I still enjoy playing it to this day. From someone who has been a player since the beta, it is incredible that the Overkill team keeps releasing DLC and other content every month or so, along with bug fixes and optimizations. The level of attention that has been given to the community is nothing short of incredible, and - though a lot of the extra content is paid - there is a lot of heart put into the content, and they try to make it new and original as well. Another cool thing they've done is collaborations with different fictional characters, who players initially meet as contacts and/or who become playable characters/avatars themselves, such as John Wick from the John Wick series, Jimmy from Hardcore Henry, Jacket from Hotline: Miami, and even Scarface from the eponymous cult classic film. I hope they continue this feature in the next game in the series.

The bottom line: If you enjoy FPS games in which there is a lot of action, tense and smart stealth gameplay during heists, and everything in between, you'll love Payday 2. The soundtrack by Simon Viklund is also incredible to listen to whilst playing. There are thousands of dollars worth of DLC and content to keep you entertained, and that's not even counting that the third installment, Payday 3, is just around the corner. Do yourself a favor and pick up this game before the third one is released, lest you miss out.

Verdict: 10/10

Deus Ex Review: A Tale of Intrigue and Conspiracy (PC)

2023-06-23T21:25:00.003-05:00

Deus Ex has to be one of my favorite games of all time. It was released in 2000 and is set in 2052, in a dystopian world where there is social inequality, violence, totalitarianism, and even plague. The main character is J.C. Denton, who is an agent of UNATCO (United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition) and is tasked with combatting the terrorists that plague various parts of the world, most prominently the NSF (National Secessionist Forces). One important thing to note is that Denton is augmented with nano-technology implants, which increase his physical and mental attributes. The storyline follows Denton trying to dismantle the NSF, but in doing so finds out that there is a larger conspiracy at play, and the NSF are only minor players on this chessboard, and the real enemies are located elsewhere.

The game has a great story because they incorporate the mythology of certain murky groups and events in real life, such as the Illuminati and Majestic 12, the existence of aliens at Area 51, etc., and transforms it all into a science fiction narrative (interestingly enough, a lot of the so-called "conspiracy theories" in the game have found their way to reality, such as billionaires controlling a corrupt government and manufactured viruses with their vaccine counterparts... though the vaccines in the game actually work). What is particularly fascinating to me, is how nanotechnology is introduced, and, having been to real nanotech labs in Chicago myself, the way the technology is exiting the realms of science fiction and entering the very real realm of science. These things have happened before, such as with Star Wars and Star Trek (communicators = cell phones). As far as the game goes, the structure of the story, and how it introduces each subject to the protagonist, and his role in advancing said story, makes this game stand apart from others, especially considering its age. There are also subtle choices that one can make, which can alter the progression of the story in significant ways.

Dramatic buildup occurs throughout the game, and finishing each quest and uncovering new information really felt like the climax, putting together these puzzle pieces in an effort to solve a grand conspiracy/mystery. The “a-ha” moment where we find that UNATCO, FEMA, and other parts of the government are heavily involved in weaponizing the plague, and they are in fact the bad guys, and “terrorist” groups such as the NSF and Silhouette are actually good guys, is really the dramatic part of the story. As far as suspension of disbelief, there are quite a number of advanced technologies and government conspiracies that we must take for granted in the game, although perhaps we don’t deal with those things in quite the same way in the real world. Or rather, even if there were conspiracies, we would never know about them unless we were in a position of power to uncover them.

The endings are quite interesting as well – notice how I used the plural there. There are three main endings to the game, each leading you down a different path with different character interactions and objectives. The first option is to shut down all technology, sending the world into the dark ages. The next option is to merge with a sentient AI to become a demigod of sorts. Lastly, you can kill the leader of Majestic 12, Bob Page, who was responsible for setting the whole deadly plague plan in motion. Each ending to the game has its own merits and is really more dependent on what you believe is the best option.

The game’s mechanics are fantastic as well, with health centered around specific body parts (much like how the new Fallout games by Bethesda are), semi-realistic proficiency scaling (untrained, trained, advanced, etc., factoring into how well the player uses their weapons and abilities), stealth vs. loud gameplay, among others. For example, using stealth in an area might be easier than a full-scale assault, and makes the player adapt accordingly. Another example would be what characters can learn about the game and the players and organizations in it if they are competent at hacking. Players who aren’t will miss out on certain elements of the story. Essentially, having different skills allows for a completely different playstyle and overall experience.

In conclusion, Deus Ex is a unique and challenging game that offers a lot in terms of story, graphics (at the time), game mechanics, and replayability. This game is still relevant today, and people still enjoy playing it, which just shows that it was good enough to stand the test of time. I hope we can return to epic storytelling and overall solid gameplay like this in the future.

Verdict: 10/10

Assassin's Creed Odyssey: Shark Hunter on Nightmare Difficulty (video)

2018-12-06T15:29:00.005-06:00

For those of you playing the new Assassin's Creed game, Odyssey, you may have noticed that the underwater areas are handled with almost as much detail as on land, and the immersion is constant and seamless even in areas that most games have - and will continue to - neglect. Exploration is a major part of the experience, so be prepared to go diving often. However, the underwater enemies can be just as deadly as those on land; instead of killer bears and vicious cats, we have the apex predator of the ocean... the shark. Sharks can be a pain to deal with in this game, especially for new players. I started out playing the hardest difficulty (Nightmare), so I figured this video would be a quick and easy strategy for dealing with quests involving the sharks. Enjoy the video, and new content will be coming soon!

Guest Contributer: Grimm and Buffy - A Tale of Two Slayers

2017-03-31T20:46:00.001-05:00

“Grimm” is coming to an end, and I am surprised at how much I have come to enjoy the show and will miss it once it’s no more. It’s funny to look back on the show’s early days and think how derivative I thought it was of the iconic “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. The hero of each show finds out that they have gifts which allow them to slay demons or “wessen” or its ilk, in “Grimm” parlance. The death of a former slayer/grimm brings about the awakening of those gifts in the next person in line – in the case of Buffy, a former slayer, and in the case of Nick Burkhardt, his aunt.

The shows are remarkably similar in how they approach the slayer/grimm, as they find their feet, get their posse or “Scoobie Doo” gang around them, to selflessly vanquish evil. Buffy’s tragic relationship with Angel, the vampire, who is lost to her, but who becomes an ally and supernatural defender, is mirrored in Nick’s relationship with his girlfriend Juliet, who becomes the powerful Hexenbiest Eve.

Nick’s work life as a police officer, where he tries to maintain a normal demeanor while carrying out his duties as a Grimm, are like Buffy trying to be a normal schoolgirl while slaying demons and vampires. As Nick tries to learn about his gifts and responsibilities, he meets up with Monroe and Rosalie, and begins to spend a great deal of time at their Spice Shop, where they can research their old tomes to gain knowledge on the “wessen” of the week. This teaches Nick how he can use his abilities to stop these renegade “wessen” from killing humans in their own version of Sunnydale’s hellmouth – Portland. Buffy spent innumerable days in the school library, learning about demons and slayers from old books resurrected by her version of Monroe and Rosalee – Rupert Giles and his British counterpart, Wesley Wyndham-Pryce. In fact, the actor who played Wesley appeared in Grimm as a Royal who wanted Sean Renard, Nick’s Captain, dead!

Of course, no hero exists without his coterie, and again, we find great similarities between Nick and his gang, and Buffy and the Scooby Doos. In addition to Juliet/Eve, Monroe and Rosalee, Nick’s version of Xander is his partner Hank Griffin. Neither of these close friends have any powers, but make up for it with big hearts and fierce loyalty.

This brings us to their love lives. In both cases, our heroes have lost their true loves and moved on to lovers with supernatural powers, who ended up in that position after being courageously fighting on the same side after spending some time being ferocious enemies. From this of course, I mean Spike in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, and Adalind in “Grimm”. In both cases, the hatred that the characters had for each other were able to jump that thin line into love. Spike and Adalind, both strong characters, as vampire and Hexenbiest, are strong defenders of their loves – even against their own kind. Their turnabouts into good guys, after being reviled for seasons on the show, was really shocking and somehow inevitable.

Another character that played almost identical roles in both series is that of the second slayer/grimm – Faith in “Buffy”, and Trubel in “Grimm”. These two are from the same playbook – black leather jacket wearing tough girls, with strong streaks of independence, and wanting to do things their way, even though they left a trail of destruction behind them. However, once they were able to become more centered, they turned their lives around and used their gifts for good – providing help where they could, but as secondary characters that showed up once in a while for particular plot reasons.

Captain Sean Renard plays a prominent role in “Grimm”, and one could think of him like the Mayor in “Buffy”. The Mayor, for all his good words, was corrupt and in league with demons (and one himself), and had an agenda to take over the hellmouth – similar to Sean, who is found out to be “wessen”, and was on track to take over Portland until it was stymied by Nick and his supporters in Meissner’s band of good soldiers. (Remind anyone of Riley and his band of soldiers?).

The single main character in “Buffy” for whom I have no direct counterpart in “Grimm”, is Willow. Willow starts out as the nerdy friend of Buffy’s, who comes into her own power, gets corrupted by it, and then becomes like an ex-alcoholic. “Grimm” has no such character per se. The supernatural gifts are shown by Adalind, as a Hexenbiest, and she does become very powerful, and then loses a lot of her gifts, before they slowly return. However, I would say that Willow and Tara, her girlfriend, are not really part of the “Grimm” universe. It seems funny to point out here that Xander’s girlfriend “Anya” is a demon, and that Hank suffers the same fate in “Grimm”! Another funny point that seems relevant. Amusing too, that Sargent Wu plays a supporting role as a police officer who becomes a werewolf by mistake, like Oz does in “Buffy”.

“Grimm” has a tighter cast than “Buffy”, with “Buffy” having other extraneous characters, like family members for Buffy (her mom and sister – but then again, Nick has his son Kelly with Adalind, and her daughter Diana, with Sean), and Cordelia, and others. These other characters filled out the “Buffyverse”, as it spanned seven seasons. “Grimm”, which began with all these similarities and derivations, over six seasons, became quite singular, with interesting story lines, which broke away from the familiar “demon of the week”. The characters all had goodness within them, and that made them become dear to us over the years. Although they were not first, they were still able to touch us with their characters and stories. I will miss “Grimm”.

- Jean Dewar

March 31, 2017

Videogames as Effective Teaching Tools

2016-11-21T17:46:00.003-06:00

Videogames embody virtual spaces, some of which can give a representation of historical events and even supplement traditional teaching methods. When we think of history and its method of teaching, we often imagine an old professor with glasses and a tweed jacket, droning on about some historical event or another. It is largely not an inaccurate, albeit exaggerated, portrayal. History is a subject that many people allegedly don’t find interesting, and this has spawned alternate forms of teaching to traditional textbooks, all in an effort to bring a fanbase back to the subject. There have been times in school when a teacher has brought in a historical documentary, or Hollywood movie based on history, in which to get students more interested and excited about the material. However, there is another medium that is just as, if not more effective in raising interest in history: videogames.

Videogames are a popular form of interactive entertainment, which are considered by many to be the next evolution of movies. As games become more realistic, production value increases, and actors often lend their personas and voices to a game in order to complement the narrative structure. Many games center around fantasy, whether it is an entirely imagined premise, or based on real life to some degree. For example, Mass Effect is entirely a science fiction game, with little basis in our current reality. However, many games take a different approach and try to include historical bases in fact. All games, it should be noted, teach us something, to a certain degree. One must note that

“games, with their multimodal appeal to the senses, are more than simply entertainment. Successful commercial games incorporate sound principles of learning within the designs, and this is a fundamental part of their ability to engage players. Ranging from lightning-fast racing games, to duels with extraterrestrial invaders, puzzles, pet owner simulations, and city builders, games appeal to the desire to solve problems.” (McCall 2013, 4)

There are a few games in particular that I’d like to discuss: Age of Empires, and Total War, which are historical simulators and strategy games.

Age of Empires is a game by Microsoft Studios and is classified as a real-time strategy (RTS) game. The theme is ancient civilizations spanning different ages, starting from the Stone Age and working one’s way up to the Iron Age. During each age, there were military units that could be produced that fit within the appropriate timeline, and, during the single-player campaign, one could actually play missions that were modeled after real-life civilizations and their greatest leaders. Furthermore, “[d]igital-ludic reenactment games reinscribe history with a sense of the human experience that a concern with the larger systems and movements of history can sometimes forget.” (Chapman 2016, 224) That is, the human perspective gleaned from taking an active role in the historic narrative can be a unique and effective way of teaching the significance of said historical event.

Total War is a game by Electronic Arts, Activision, and Sega, respectively, and is classified as an RTS game. The themes introduced are similar to that of Age of Empires, in the sense that we follow different civilizations around on an isometric map. The campaigns are all based on real historical events and iconic battles between nations. The difference in these games is that they introduce you to the conflict, but it is up to you to choose your faction and defeat everyone else. For example, there is a campaign in Rome: Total War 2, where one can take place in the great conquest of the Roman Empire after the brutal murder of Julius Caesar. Mark Antony, Marcus Lepidus, and Octavian all joined together after this event, forming the Second Triumvirate, avenging the late Caesar, and destroying his enemies, before dividing the nations of Rome amongst themselves. However, it wasn’t before long that relations between the allies became strained, and there was a civil war. In the game, one can choose each of these leaders, and champion battles from their perspective. This could mean that Mark Antony could become emperor of Rome, even though this did not occur historically. However, it should be noted that the default option is to play as Octavian/Augustus Caesar, who ultimately won (see FIG 2.). Despite some creative licenses, the game does very well to show us factual historical events and their significance. Games such as Age of Empires and Total War show us that there is an alternative way of approaching history, and seeing glimpses of them from the comfort of our own homes.

Furthermore, it can be stated that these aren’t merely glimpses of history or experiences from the sidelines: these are, in many ways, reenactments. It puts one directly into the action, as stated previously, and gives one a unique perspective that is impossible to achieve through reading or watching source material.

“They are still historical representations capable of offering information and arguments in a number of ways, including of course dramatic storytelling. So too, their ludic aspect can have potential in other regards. For example, players of these games can encounter historical decisions (such as ethical dilemmas) that present arguments for the pressing factors involved in these situations…” (Chapman 2016, 224)

Building off the unique and fictional narratives introduced in games like Age of Empires, one can experience good storytelling while actually taking part in events firsthand, shaping the outcomes using one’s own judgment, and understanding the motivation behind nations and their leaders. That is, one may be able to see the perspective of Saladin during the Crusades and do battle for his faction, something which would be an impossibility in real life, but easily accomplished in Age of Empires. One not only ends up learning the broad historical events that occurred but also the culture and thought processes behind each nation.

However, one must ask how accurate one can be in representing a nation and its leaders. I would posit that, without direct quotations, our representations of many historical figures aren’t 100% accurate anyway. History is written by the victor, and many current nations have different perspectives on what actually happened during certain historical events. Just look at the United States and the Native Americans. That is a bit of history that always differs in telling, based on who is asked. “Since valid simulation games need not, and indeed cannot, represent each and every historical detail accurately, the criterion for an effective simulation game, instead, is this: Its core gameplay must offer defensible explanatory models of historical systems.” (McCall 2013, 23) Therefore, I would posit that digital representations are perfectly legitimate forms of teaching.

The representation of Lawrence of Arabia in Battlefield 1 (see FIG 3.), for example, portrayed the positives of his work with the Arabs in fighting back the Ottoman Empire. “If the study of the past is to help us understand motivations, actions, and consequences, teachers of history need to seize opportunities to make the past come alive for students, to place documents, images, and facts within a living context.” (McCall 2013, 13) That is, to think of history in only a literary sense is a mistake, and one can forget that even though these people lived ages ago, and are long dead (in some cases), they were regular people like you and me. Video games help create a narrative that puts some humanity back into the nations and people who lived in them, which in turn gives us a better perspective of their goals and motivations. This is why teachers should take advantage of this interactive medium in the teaching world.

Often times the characters in question are given dialogue, some of which I imagine are taken from primary sources, but, regardless, seems to be an effective way of portraying them, regardless of the actual accuracy of the words spoken. That is, while Charlemagne may never have uttered any of the words he does in Age of Empires, his overall goals align with what the character did in real life, according to our understanding. The truth is, no one can create a perfect representation, but one can do well enough to understand their basic motivations and even personalities. “And unsophisticated fictionalist interpretation of the gamer’s use of ‘I’ has considerable intuitive appeal.” (Cogburn and Silcox 2009)

One may ask, why video games? Why not movies? Both are indeed multimedia representations of history. I believe I can answer that quite easily. While movies are a great way to get an audience to witness something in a dramatized vein, it is not necessarily as productive as relinquishing control of the action to the audience itself. Instead of witnessing, one can take part in history directly. As I stated previously, games like Age of Empires and Total War achieve this with seemingly little effort. However, there is another aspect of video games that are essential to teaching. It is almost a hybrid of the textbook and the movie genres. For example, in games like Age of Empires and Sid Meier's Civilization, there are many icons and text that accompany the multimedia experience.

These text boxes and icons often give us information that coincides with the historical events occurring. For example, in Civilization, there is a codex that gives information about the technology at that point in history. That is, one can begin to learn the alphabet, then animal husbandry, then pottery, then literature, etc. There is a brief synopsis of what the technology is, and the purpose of its use. This gives us an idea of how real-life civilizations were formed and grew from uncivilized to civilized. Age of Empires has more of a narrative explanation to its historical processes (see FIG 1.), although Total War is a hybrid of both styles, using narrative also a codex system.

While textbooks and academic journals are arguably the most effective teaching method, they are also the most time-consuming, particularly compared to digital games. Age of Empires, for example, might total a complete playing experience of 20 hours, whereas a lesson plan with reading materials, from college (for example), may take an entire semester, a.k.a. months to finish. 20 hours may seem like a steep amount of time for a learning experience, but one must take into account that each campaign only lasts a few hours. That is, the Saxon campaign may only be two hours out of the entire game. That’s not even taking into account that one can save their game and exit at any time, so the experience is even more convenient. One can learn the general history of an entire civilization in a matter of hours, in a fun and interactive way.

In conclusion, video games are as effective a teaching method as other multimedia mediums, and are a legitimate way of supplementing standard teaching methods. While teachers have found watching videos an effective method of getting people interested in history, video games are just as valid an option, and could be much more fun for students in their learning experience. “Furthermore, the theory of learning in good video games fits better with the modern, high-tech, global world today’s children and teenagers live in than do the theories (and practices) of learning that they see in school.” (Gee 2004, 7) Indeed, the classroom is constantly evolving in our age of digitalization, and it would make sense to explore every avenue of learning, no matter how unorthodox it may appear. It is widely believed that video games “will likely prove to be a critical development in twenty-first-century education.” (McCall 2013, 4) Therefore, I urge everyone to consider playing historical games/simulators to complement, and enhance, their education.

Supplemental Images:

FIG 1. This is a screenshot from Age of Empires, showing the

textual information that I discussed.

FIG 2. This is a screen/ad for the Octavian campaign in

Rome: Total War 2.

FIG 3. This is an in-game portrayal of T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a.

Lawrence of Arabia.

Bibliography:

Chapman, Adam. 2016. Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge.

Cogburn, Jon, and Mark Silcox. 2009. Philosophy Through Video Games. New York: Routledge.

Gee, James Paul. 2004. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McCall, Jeremiah. 2013. Gaming the Past: Using Video Games to Teach Secondary History. New York: Routledge.

Star Wars: The Old Republic, A Review and MDA Analysis (PC)

2016-11-19T16:30:00.004-06:00

Star Wars: The Old Republic is an MMORPG game made by Bioware and Electronic Arts. MMOs have always been a popular form of gaming, as they are heavily cooperative, challenging, and often have complex mechanics that add to the difficulty of completing tasks. The Old Republic is an unofficial sequel to the Knights of the Old Republic series, which centers around a Jedi/Sith named Revan. Whereas the original games were single-player, SWTOR brings countless thousands of players into the adventure. We will discuss how the mechanics of such a game add to its playability.

The primary aesthetics of SWTOR are fantasy, narrative, and fellowship. There are other aspects to it, of course, but these are the most essential. The fantasy choice is obvious, as we are in a realm that is very science fiction in nature, with elements of fantasy as well (i.e. magic/The Force). While some of the original ideas in Star Wars were made a reality (much technology relies on the innovation of science fiction), there are still technologies and concepts that are years away from being discovered, if ever. We have spacecraft, but none that work quite as well, or are on the scale of as say, a Star Destroyer. The Force is a very cool idea, but as of yet there is no proof of anyone being able to use telekinetic abilities, or channel lightning from their fingertips. The dynamics we can see in the fantasy aspect are the visuals of wondrous landscapes, strange beasts, and alien life that are not of our world, combat using blasters (laser weapons) and lightsabers (energy swords), and visuals of technologies that surpass anything based in our current reality. The mechanics of this are heavily based on the dialogue and combat system, which translates text from alien languages, and combat icons that use fantastic abilities that do not exist in the real world.

The next aesthetic is narrative, because, as in all things Star Wars, there is a battle between two opposing ideologies: the Jedi, and the Sith. What is fascinating about this game is that both factions are playable, and each faction has four different types of characters they can choose from, each with its own unique story. Yes, you read that correctly. Not only are there two different factions, but you can play four entirely different games for each one. Storytelling on that scale is practically unheard of, as is the ability to choose how each story ends up. Since it has RPG elements, each story has its own unique choices as well, and one can choose to make light and dark side decisions as well. The dialogue system needs to be brought up again for the dynamics, as one can choose one of three dialogue options in every response during a conversation and can choose a light, dark, or neutral option when prompted. These responses change the outcomes of the story, sometimes only a little, and sometimes drastically. The visuals, including the cutscenes, which have professional cinematography, also add to the narrative and one’s immersion in the story and game world. The mechanics would be the way said dialogue system works, along with the consequences of the story being realized through the complex variables present in the game system.

Finally, we have fellowship. Because the game runs entirely on a multiplayer server, like all MMOs, it is reliant on people playing together to achieve goals in the game. While the story missions can be completed alone, there are difficult areas, missions, instances (group missions), and raids (large group missions) that must be played with others to achieve. Combat against other players (PvP) requires a large number of people to play as well. This game, along with others of its kind, is all about working together and fighting each other. There is a great deal of player interaction. The dynamics would be party formation and the visuals of seeing other real players on your screen. The game makes you very aware that there are other people playing, and there is a real-player chat box in the corner of the screen, that is meant to be helpful for people to find groups and work together, but often becomes a victim of trolling. The mechanics would be the list that appears of your group members, and their current health and stats. This shows you that you are in a group with one or more players, and helps you better interact with them.

In conclusion, SWTOR is an extremely layered MMORPG that contains many positive aesthetic experiences, which all combine to create a unique and immersive experience. There are high elements of fantasy, narrative, and fellowship, and they subtly affect the way we interact and experience the game. The aforementioned dynamics and mechanics of the game explain the ways in which the developers successfully evoke said aesthetic experiences.

Verdict: 9/10

Negative and Positive Feedback In Videogames

2016-11-19T16:26:00.003-06:00

I thought about describing the positive/negative feedback from games, such as losing a level, dying, not being able to rack up a score multiplier. I wanted to talk about a game like Rockband, and how one gets a positive or negative reaction from the audience depending on one's playing ability. Hitting the majority of "notes" earns you audible praise from the audience, whereas missing most of them will earn you boos before you lose the level. It's definitely a good tactic to get one to improve. This is, of course, actually an effective way of teaching if you happen to play drums, which is the closest representation of an instrument in the series. Games like Rocksmith have adapted and improved on this idea, and one can actually plug in their real electric guitar into the computer and have the same experience.

However, not all games have positive and negative feedback that directly affects the player. It may culminate into a negative or positive experience later on. I was thinking particularly of Dishonored, where the player is rewarded for not killing, and not alerting enemies. Not only are there achievements for not killing and keeping completely out of sight, but the interlude and endings of the game are much darker and undesirable if you are a violent, killing machine. I have no moral issues with the killing aspect in games, so I think it's a bit annoying that developers seem to consistently push that; I think there can be more nuance implemented than simply "killing bad". Bioshock 2 had a similar system, where consuming the children of the Big Daddies would lead to an "evil" ending. Star Wars: The Old Republic, for example, works with a morality system that is much more nuanced. However, if we just consider the difficulty aspect, achievement-wise, avoiding confrontation is certainly more difficult than just slaughtering everyone.

Edward Tufte and Information Visualization: Plague Inc. Edition

2016-10-25T00:57:00.009-05:00

I thought that the game, Plague Inc., was a great example of Edward Tufte's preferences for data visualization. The objective of the game is to spread a deadly pathogen until the entire world population is deceased. Throughout the process, one can click on a country to see how your pathogen is faring, and how the country is reacting to it. In this image, we can see Iceland is not doing so well. On the top, it shows a pie chart with the amount infected (the entire population) and the current deceased (only 11%). Below the pie chart, one can see that if there were any uninfected, they would appear as "blue" on the chart. Below that one can see the amount of medical research being conducted, which is an attempt to stop the pathogen. On the top right, we can see that it is now impossible to enter the country via land, air, and sea, respectively (the icons are fairly obvious). Below that one can see the current actions being undertaken in the country, with events that can either harm or help your pathogen's chances. The player/pathogen must then learn to adapt to the actions of the surviving countries. This is a pretty fun example of how detailed data can contribute to strategy in a videogame. Another great example of this would be Sid Meier's Civilization, in which there are many pages devoted to the economy and well-being of your nation.

The Spacebar: A Tribute

2016-03-28T01:18:00.001-05:00

I wanted to talk briefly about the significance of the spacebar in PC gaming. Ever since gaming transitioned from "arcade" style to interactive storylines, we have seen the use of many types of keys. Today, the usage of keys varies from game to game, but one can agree that it is substantially more than the way it used to be.

For me, I started off my PC gaming (not counting the educational games my mom got me like Zoombinis and Math Blaster) with games like Wolfenstein 3D and Dark Forces, which my dad and I played together. He designated me as the "doorman", because I was quite young, and I would remember pressing the spacebar over and over again, which was in essence, the historical beginning of the "use" key. One would see this quite a bit in games from the 90s - I'm thinking of Rise of the Triad, Doom, Quake, Hexen - the old classics.

However, as games became more advanced, we started to see the spacebar being used in different ways, because of the sheer amount of commands that were being added to games, as they increased in complexity (game genres branched out as well, which we will talk about later). Now we had the "jump" command, which was in response to the worlds being more spacious and multi-layered. Therefore, the "e" key or something of the like would be used as "use" instead. The definitive game that transitioned this rule was Duke Nukem, which still used the spacebar for "use", even with a jump feature; the alternative "jump" was usually the "x" key. Games that switched to the "spacebar jump" were: the Half-Life series, Unreal Tournament, etc.

However, as I stated in the aforementioned paragraph, the spacebar would come to mean something to different genres of games as well. I'm thinking of some late 90s RPG games in particular: The Baldur's Gate series. These games revolutionized what it meant to use the spacebar in a game. Instead of "use" or "jump", it was designated as "pause", which is important when one is strategizing attacks in an isometric view.

Today, the spacebar is still often used for "jump", rather than the "use" key, even for MMO games. It's interesting to think how something as mundane as game controls/key mapping could have such an interesting backstory and such an influence on a veteran gamer such as myself.

Fallout 2: Frank Horrigan Boss Fight EASY MODE

2016-02-25T16:28:00.006-06:00

Hello, everyone! Here is a video I created on YouTube. I have a channel on there called Enlightened Asylum Gaming (@enlightenedasylumgaming), which shows the easiest way to beat Frank Horrigan from the classic RPG, Fallout 2. It's a bit of a cheap exploit, but the results don't lie. Watch this video and see me complete the entire fight without being hit once!

Immersion in Videogames

2015-11-09T22:56:00.012-06:00

So, to begin my discussion on immersion, I will first have to choose a game. Now, the overall impact of a game's immersion is very dependent on three main factors, as we learned in the notes, but one has to wonder if they are all equally important, or if one is slightly more important. I would also like to add that the graphics quality of a game can certainly be a factor in immersion as well, as well as player perspective. Overall I would find a game with complex graphics such as The Witcher 3 to be more immersive than say, Minecraft. Both games are fun of course, but you can maybe see my point. I also find games that allow for first-person perspective tend to be more immersive because you feel like you are seeing from your own eyes, rather than a character's, and the action seems more in your control psychologically.

For my discussion, I decided to pick Half-Life 2. It's an older game, but Valve's Source engine was the first (I believe) game engine that properly simulated the physics of our world. In fact, the gravity gun that they made for the game was primarily created just to show this off. This analysis falls under the Realism category, by the way. Objects were able to be lifted, proportionate to realistic human strength capabilities, and destroyed with objects such as a crowbar or a grenade. One could pick up fragile objects and throw them as well, watching them break when they hit the ground (depending on the speed at which they fell - glass and ceramic mugs are a perfect example). The physics of guns seemed solid as well, and enemies died after only being shot once or twice, depending on the vulnerability of the part of the body being hit (better than some games that take like eight million bullets to kill enemies). Falling from extreme heights is fatal, one could drown, get burned, get radiation damage, etc. With the extreme similarities to Deus Ex, a much earlier game, I was tempted to talk about that instead, but it just looks much older, and the physics aren't nearly as impressive as Source.

As for Agency, I would say that the controls for the game are quite easy to comprehend, and there is a decent amount of control that one has when operating Gordon Freeman, the main character. However, the story is very linear so the amount of choice that one feels is somewhat limited, unlike Deus Ex, which had a great deal of meaningful choices throughout the game. Since this category isn't as extensive as the first one, I'm going to move on.

The Urgency in Half-Life 2 is an interesting concept - I find it interesting in most games. Either one has an established character that speaks frequently, or they have a sort of tabula rasa individual, who doesn't speak or do much of anything beyond what is scripted in the story. I would argue that both of these types of characters are useful in making a player feel immersed. On the one hand, the lore of a talking character in a non-linear game gets built up over time, and the choices one makes eventually seem like your choices, especially if there are arguably serious consequences to that character's reputation, moral standing, etc. In RPG games that force you to create your own character, this is particularly effective. However, there are other games that have mute characters, which in a way adds to the immersion, as their lack of identity can be swallowed up by your presence instead. For example, in Half-Life 2, and in the rest of the series, Gordon Freeman never talks, and you rarely - if never - see his face beyond the game art. This leaves the rest of the character's personality to you. You sort of fill in your personality into the one that is so nonexistent. Therefore, when you choose to put a bullet in the head of a scientist for no reason whatsoever, it feels like you are making that decision rather than the character. Thus, one scenario is you relating to the main character, whereas the other is really relating to yourself. He does have an interesting backstory, however, which is another important method of identifying with a character. The strength of writing for the NPCs, on the other hand, is a different story, and one can always connect emotionally with them just like in a movie (unless the writing sucks). Half-Life 2 made us feel for the characters involved, and the deaths of any of said characters were certainly not a happy experience.

Overall, at this point in gaming history, Half-Life 2 was revolutionary in a lot of ways and became a stepping-stone to some of the more realistic games one sees today.

Another game I'd like to talk about is Payday 2, which is an FPS/heist simulator. This game is very immersive, I think, for the following reasons. The realism of the game mechanics is quite impressive, and every aspect of a heist is covered in the game. There are many different maps that your team (four total players) can perform heists in, with the tactics and final outcome all dependent on the players. For example, if one was to rob a bank, there would be two main ways to do so: loud or quiet. If you pick loud, you essentially go in guns blazing, tying up hostages, shooting cameras, and placing the thermal drill on the vault door. Usually, people don't care if the police are alerted in this mode (hence guns blazing), and believe me, there are many ways for that to happen. However, should you choose to go quiet, you case the building initially, avoid security and civilians (both of which can hit a panic button or call the police), avoid cameras, motion sensors, alarmed glass, etc., and then manage to pull off the heist without anyone noticing. Going quiet is generally harder, but there is a bonus for doing it this way. Objects like glass break, and the AI usually responds pretty realistically to gunfire and such.

As for Agency, there are many procedures that the players must use to achieve their goal, such as collecting security cards, avoiding detection, detaining hostages if they do get caught, fighting off the police, and then bagging up money and other valuables in bags that eventually need to be stored in the escape vehicle. There are many different ways that one can achieve their goal, and each character has an incredible amount of freedom to achieve that goal. The game mechanics and controls are simple as well, so that doesn't detract from the experience either.

Finally, for Urgency, there are extensive backstories on each character, and they have to voice in-game commands as well, which makes you associate them more with their character than yourself. I feel that when a character talks, it feels more like someone else than if the character is completely silent. Now, one might say that one shouldn't relate with murderers and bank robbers, but they have a certain appeal for those who have ever wanted to engage in a heist fantasy or something equally exciting like that. It's all in good fun. Anyway, the camaraderie that one feels with the other players is akin to playing on a sports team, and so you end up caring for the other characters like you would a dysfunctional family. Overall I think it is a very immersive game, and I play it pretty frequently.

As for MMOs, I have an interesting history with them. I started playing Anarchy Online when I was a kid, although I wasn't very good because I was like 10 years old - I wasn't terrible, however. Later on, in college, my friend got me into World of Warcraft, which was a fun experience. I mostly tanked for people, but I had a few DPS and healer characters too. However, as soon as Star Wars: The Old Republic came out, I instantly quit WoW and decided to play that instead, since I love Star Wars so much. I have played SWTOR since beta and I still play to this day. I have like 4 max level characters and 16 characters total, which is how invested (one might say addicted) I am in it, lol.

I think that the appeal of these games is the leveling-up system, in which gain power by gaining experience, therefore improving yourself with every quest you do or enemy you defeat. It's like its own society in which you can escape, or achieve #1 status, even if that is not necessarily reflected in real life. People enjoy fantasy, and being able to tune out from reality on occasion. The greater the immersion of the game, the greater the appeal to do so. I myself play MMOs, as I told you, and have somewhat of an emotional investment in SWTOR because I spent a lot of time and money (there's a subscription) on the game.

Mondly, A Language App Review

2015-11-09T22:49:00.005-06:00

I usually don't do software reviews, but I wanted to make an exception in this case. I just started using a product called "Mondly", which is a somewhat clever French/English blend of saying "Worldly". This is available on the iPhone App Store for free, with some in-app purchases. So... I am trying to learn German and Russian in my spare time. German, I have some experience with. Russian, on the other hand, I have absolutely no experience with speaking. However, I learned the Cyrillic alphabet the week before this exercise, so I have that advantage. With Mondly, my goal is to learn more Russian, but you can select multiple languages to learn at once, which is pretty cool. Of course, I cannot expect to be fluent in Russian by the end of this exercise, but I can at least gauge whether there is an improvement or not. For the purposes of this exercise, I will say that my goal was a success. I can speak more Russian than I could before. I went through different steps to accomplish this - I open the app, select the lesson I wish to use, answer questions and learn material for over 10 or so interactive slides, and then complete the lesson and move on to the next. I do this for as long as I wish, and I gain "experience" points every time I complete a lesson.

In terms of interface, I am very familiar with technology so I don't think I actually learned any new interfaces, per se. On the main screen, they have little bubbles in which you can activate your lessons. You click on one, and the aforementioned interactive slides show up for your learning pleasure. They use different techniques to help you to learn, which are "swiping" in a direction to select the correct word, typing what you hear (in English and the language you are trying to learn, depending on what comes first), speaking into the microphone to mimic words that were spoken to you, having you match English and the other language's words, and having you select pictures with your finger. There are possibly some other combinations, but these are the main ones. These are standard interfacing techniques available on a touchscreen phone, so I had no issue whatsoever in completing them.

As for the technical aspects of the app, I found it quite user-friendly. It took no more than say, 2 minutes to learn how to use the product. It is very interface-friendly, and I believe they make it that way on purpose. Thankfully, I did not need support during the time using the app, but I believe there is a way to contact them via email if you have questions. The app has a feedback section in the App Store as well, so that is pretty standard. The app has retained my progress so far, and I have not lost any data yet. If you have any app purchases and somehow lose content, they have a standard "restore purchases" option that is self-explanatory. It seems to be fairly secure, as I don't think it's an easily hackable program (relying on constant internet connectivity).

Overall, I believe that the system has provided me with a great deal of content towards helping me in my goal, but to be honest I wouldn't know if they were lacking any, as I am not very familiar with a lot of language apps that function the way that this one does (game/exercise format blended with text). The functions, such as swiping, typing, speaking, and reading were all done correctly for the most part, except for a few mistakes that I noticed (sometimes the word did not match the pronunciation of the letters). I actually think I used the majority of the functions on the app, other than learning the other languages, so I have a pretty good idea of how the app works. I haven't tried the intermediate or expert lesson tiers available, but I suspect that would happen down the line.

If any improvements were to be made, I think that perhaps they could've included more written text to study certain words or conjugations in bulk. I think they could add some more variety to each section as well, although to be fair they switch the order for each repeated lesson. It would be cool if they introduced other vocab in each section, however. Otherwise, I believe everything was more than sufficient to help me with my task. Make sure to check out Mondly today if you're interested in learning a new language!

Verdict: 8/10

The Legacy of DOOM

2015-09-29T19:18:00.010-05:00

There are so many games that have had a lasting significance on the computer/video game industry, as we read in the unit notes (i.e. Spacewars!, Pac-Man, Pong, etc.), but there are a few more-recent ones that have shaken the core of the gaming industry. I am of course talking about the birthplace of the FPS, or First Person Shooter. I decided to pick the ever-popular Doom for this discussion, as although technically Wolfenstein 3D came out a year earlier (1992 compared to Doom's 1993, both titles being created by id Software), Doom was an overall improvement over Wolfenstein 3D. If you look up Doom on the internet (i.e., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/10499993/20-years-of-Doom-the-game-that-put-a-gun-in-your-hand.html), you'll see that it is indeed considered one of the most influential video games of all time. Now, to the specifics of why that is accurate.

Doom has had the most significant impact on the video game industry because, even though there were a few FPS titles before then, Doom was the one that really stuck with people. The increased pace of gameplay and more creative and visually interesting levels, coupled with the brutality of the combat system and heavy metal music spread throughout, created a much more memorable experience. While Wolfenstein is still the go-to for the theme of killing Nazis, Doom paved the way for futuristic sci-fi shooters up until this day, with its theme of killing demons/aliens on Mars. When listing creative influences for first-person shooters, many people will mention Doom in some fashion. Doom itself was based partly on Aliens and Evil Dead, movies that have earned significant cult followings themselves. Doom itself was even made into a movie, starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Karl Urban.

As for the controversy, the release of the game certainly spawned multiple instances of such. Some people criticized the game for its content, which included high levels of blood and gore, as well as demonic/Satanic imagery. Certainly, the religious groups and sensitive parents that worried about this content did not like the inclusion of heavy metal music either. Other than general concern about the violence in video games, the most notable incident that is associated with Doom is the Columbine High School shootings. While these happened years later, people were worried about the correlation between the game and the shootings because one of the shooters mentioned their wanton slaughter would be akin to playing Doom. I personally don't believe there is a link between violent video games and actual real-world violence, as those involved usually have some form of Antisocial Personality Disorder, and thus it is merely coincidental that they also enjoy playing video games. The fact that games like Doom are violent may be an attractive quality of the type of game they enjoy, but it is certainly not the cause of any violence toward others.

Games like Doom definitely made designers think differently about how they developed games, especially in the way I previously mentioned, regarding the evolution of the first-person shooter. In games like Doom, there is a more personal connection with the protagonist of the game because you are not just a voyeur into the world of the game, you are in control; you are viewing it through their eyes, for all intents and purposes. It gives one a visceral feeling that they are the character, and perhaps the decisions one makes in the game hold more weight because of this.

Another crucial aspect of Doom's legacy was the fact the game was designed three-dimensionally. While the character models were still 2D, the player could move 360 degrees; up, down, forward, back, left, and right. This also enabled developers to think differently, as now they would be able to create more advanced worlds, which encompassed a much greater sphere of existence. This also meant the player was no longer restricted to a single screen, like in Pong or Pac-Man. This would not only apply to the first-person shooter either - games such as Baldur's Gate and Fallout would take the same sort of idea and convert it into an isometric view. I don't presume that Doom directly influenced them, but its initial contribution could very likely have led to some of their designs, which surfaced 3-5 years after Doom was released. Other first-person shooters such as Quake (also id Software) were very much along the vein of Doom, even down to the industrial music created for the game by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. Duke Nukem 3D was quite similar. Non-id Software games said to have had a direct influence might be Half-Life, Deus Ex, Rise of the Triad, and Unreal Tournament, to name a few.

I think Doom taught people they can have a more personal relationship with the games they play, as well as reminding people that the technology of games had limitless potential, which has been accurate up until today. While the graphics and gameplay have become more complex over the years, the step from 2D to 3D was one of the most significant. Doom and its aforementioned qualities solidify it as one of the most influential games of all time. Doom is still available for purchase from a variety of gaming platforms, including Steam, Xbox Marketplace, GOG.com, and even the App Store for the iPhone/iPad. The next step will be virtual reality, most likely (currently in progress), and perhaps even full-body simulation like The Matrix.

Outlast: First Impressions

2013-09-20T00:34:00.001-05:00

I am a horror aficionado, to say the least, and make it my business to find the best the genre has to offer, whether it's a film, a novel, or a videogame. Now, I recently heard about a new type of horror game, in which the protagonist is unable to fight the monsters that seek to rend you asunder. The first of these games I knew as the Amnesia series. I liked the idea that developers would give you a character to control, that is himself/herself the furthest from any kind of control. What better way to elicit fear than to make the monsters, for all intents and purposes, unstoppable?

Every game that offers you a way to combat the thing which you fear, is inadvertently, perhaps, making the game less scary. In my opinion, being completely defenseless is what is truly scary, and this lack of security also forces you to rely on your wits to escape harm; it forces you to rethink your tactic of survival - and rethink I did in Outlast, a survival-horror game by Red Barrels Games. Before I get to the game, there's something I'd like to bring up. I mentioned the idea of a helpless protagonist to my father, and he summarily said, and I quote: "That's fucking stupid". Elaborating on that, he went on to explain that anyone with half a brain would either be armed when exploring an unknown place (especially a creepy asylum suspected of violating human rights), or would at least find something to arm themselves with once they realized shit was going down (i.e. knife, scalpel, wooden board...). On the realism side of things, I'm inclined to agree with my dad. Whoever wouldn't try to arm themselves in such a situation deserves to be eaten or... have whatever other unfortunate method of execution befall them.

However, notwithstanding the unrealistic nature of the protagonist's behavior, playing the game is an entirely different experience. Last night was my first time playing, and within the 22 minutes I ended up playing, I was near to having a heart attack. Outlast managed to scrape together every sort of horror cliché, yet jumble it together more effectively than I've seen in many horror films. And then there's the video camera, which offers a surprising contrast to the visceral feel of controlling the player character, whose appendages are nearly always present on the screen, reminding you of your human frailty. Night vision mode is available for the video camera as well, which offers some reprieve from the darkness, and perhaps alleviates some fear of what might be lurking in the shadows.

Now, keep in mind that most of this is going through your head, and it's only been 20 minutes... This is enough of an achievement to where I feel the concept of the game merited some attention before I write my eventual review. My first impressions are good, and I look forward to (and dread) progressing further into the game. Playing without a gun or even an improvised weapon is certainly outside my comfort zone, but I'm sure I'll survive by hiding under many a desk.

Diablo 3 Expansion: Reaper of Souls First Look

2013-08-29T01:07:00.001-05:00

In the wake of Diablo 3, the latest installment of the extremely successful Diablo series by Blizzard, an expansion is in the works called the Reaper of Souls. After the end of Diablo 3, in which Diablo is killed (definitely not a spoiler if you're familiar with the series) things are relatively quiet, but - and this is merely an assumption from the opening cinematic - they likely weren't quiet for that long as Tyrael and his posse are only just sealing away Diablo's soulstone. At this point, we are introduced to an even more badass angel than Tyrael, known as Malthael. Malthael is clad all in black with dual scythes, and bears the moniker "angel of death". He lives up to his name after wasting some of Tyrael's crew, throwing Tyrael to the ground like a rag doll, and stealing Diablo's soulstone for himself... or at least one would presume so. Some new features include a new act (Act V), a raised level cap (70), a new playable character called the Crusader (hello Paladin of Diablo 2?), new game types (Loot Runs and Nephalem Trials) plus a plethora of other new content such as monsters and items.

I'm personally excited about this expansion, as having an angel be the final boss is going in a new direction (hopefully not anti-Christian, however), and Kehjistan should be interesting to see as an environment (sans Kurast of course). I'm sure the new Crusader class will be fun as well, but all kidding aside I do wonder how different it will be from the Paladin class in Diablo 2. One thing is for sure - merely the gameplay and story are enough for me to preorder Reaper of Souls as soon as possible! I'd be curious to hear what others think of the new content, however: satisfied or not?

Payday 2 - Missing Features? No Problem!

2013-08-26T21:49:00.001-05:00

So for all you Payday fans out there, let me just say that I've only just recently discovered how awesome the franchise is, particularly so with the newly-released sequel: Payday 2. Now, I was playing the beta a few weeks before release, and I discovered the full version would include certain new features such as making your safehouse (needs no explanation hopefully) customizable, and inclusion of the "Cloaker", a badass special enemy which I didn't even know existed until trying the first Payday when I was taking a break from 2's beta.

Payday 2 has been fully released for a few weeks now, and many of the special features the devs talked about have not been implemented in the final version. I had originally gazed upon various forums for confirmation that I wasn't just being a noob and couldn't figure out how to get the features to work, but also to see the reaction of others. Many were upset; many were not.

Where do I stand? Think of it like this: for the staggeringly low price of $29.99, an already solid game doesn't even need these extra features at all really. Sure, they were promised to be in the final release, but Overkill Studios assures us that these features will, in fact, be added anyway, once all the bugs have been worked out. They claim to want to ensure the features work as intended when they're added, and that sounds pretty reasonable to me. So yes, they essentially missed a deadline, but who hasn't (think Duke Nukem Forever)? The positive aspect of this is that Overkill appears to be a trustworthy, competent, and benevolent company, who are not only working on these features for free but is making frequent updates to improve the game's stability and content.

So, if you're like me you'll be racking up the heists for now, and saving an enormous amount of cash in preparation for the new content. As Dallas says... "time to break a little bad".

Far Cry 3 Review (PC)

2013-02-12T13:15:00.001-06:00

Far Cry 3 by Ubisoft Montreal, is the latest installment in the videogame series of the same name. Like its predecessors, this game is an open-world FPS with a minor RPG element to it. The open-world setting takes place on a rather large, tropical island, which hosts a plethora of neutral NPCs, enemies, and flora and fauna, all of which are essential elements to the PC's evolution, which we will discuss later.

The story is about a group of vacationing college friends who are taken prisoner by the criminal network that resides there - think Turistas or something similar - and this is when our protagonist, Jason Brody, is introduced to the psychopathic pirate Vaas. After the player character (PC)/Jason manages a thrilling escape, the open-world element is introduced, and the PC can choose to continue the story of the campaign (save friends from pirates), and/or do challenge missions, or just mess about in general. The story is quite long, and well-written, in my opinion, and the challenges ensure that one will get their money's worth out of this game in terms of game length/replayability. My only complaint about the story is that it's an extremely linear one, and the only real choice you get to make is at the end of the game. The endings themselves are good, but it was almost as if having more than one was unnecessary.

The graphics are also quite impressive, and whether it's non-player characters (NPCs) or the environment, the realism of said graphics adds immersion to the whole experience. One is even able to see the player character's body, something which many games don't bother to do, but should. Even the methods of killing have a creative aspect to them in terms of graphics, whether it's stabbing, shooting, or fragging. I particularly like the animations for the bow, as in the tropical setting it makes one feel a bit like an actual hunter.

This brings us to the actual gameplay - the controls are fairly simple and the movement/actions of the PC make combat and general maneuverability quite comfortable. The PC is able to fight or move on foot or in vehicles, and the transition to either is easy to do (think the Battlefield series) as well. Ranged combat is very similar to that of other games, but the melee/takedown moves are a little different. When one has the element of surprise, it is possible to do a melee takedown, and as the PC levels up they are able to chain melee attacks, melee chains with a ranged finishing takedown, and even a takedown that involves pulling the pin on an enemy's grenade and kicking them away. The health system is half regen-based, half health bar. Basically if one of the health bars loses only a portion of health, the bar regens back, while if all the health in the bar is lost, it is only able to be refilled by holding down a button to restore the health via stimpacks. The enemy AI is fairly realistic; that is, they are intelligent but not more brilliant than one would expect pirates or low-level criminals to be.

Another thing to note is their crafting system, in which pelts from animals you kill/skin can be used to upgrade ammo bags or weapon pouches, etc., or stims from plant ingredients. Thus, whether you are getting XP from killing enemies to level your abilities, skinning animals to upgrade your items, or searching the land for the various plants to make healing poultices, it is clear that everything you do in the game is relevant to your experience, and this ensures that all sidequests/challenges/upgrades are worth undertaking. That is, the game doesn't have you do anything tedious that is not for your long-term benefit.

In terms of originality, I would say the story - other than the general premise being used before - is pretty original, and as I said well-written. There are some similarities and differences between this Far Cry and the last two in the series, but overall, for the sake of the length of the review, I won't be dissecting all of them. Needless to say, from the positive characteristics I have mentioned previously, Far Cry 3 is a worthy addition to the series and I believe the developers are heading in the right direction. After playing the stand-alone expansion that has been released - Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon - I can stand by that praise. Look forward to a review of the expansion in the near future.

The bottom line: Far Cry 3 is a worthy addition to the series, but is just as incredible as if it was a stand-alone game. Its sensational graphics, gameplay, and story - inserted into a beautifully created open-world setting - ensured not only my enjoyment of the game but ensured that the replayability value would keep me playing for the foreseeable future.

Verdict: 9/10

Dishonored Review (PC)

2012-10-22T12:01:00.001-05:00

Dishonored is the latest Bethesda Softworks game to hit shelves. Classified as a first-person stealth action-adventure videogame, Dishonored takes place in the fictional city of Dunwall, which highly resembles England during the Victorian Era, but with steam power being at the forefront of the world's technology. To those who are unfamiliar, the previous sentence almost perfectly describes the typical "Steampunk" setting (think Arcanum). We can see during the introduction sequence to the game that the developers want to emphasize the Steampunk setting to the player and get them acclimated to that type of environment and lore.

The story itself is about the legacy of a man named Corvo Attano, who is the bodyguard to the Empress of Dunwall, and it is during the aforementioned intro sequence we are informed of the PC's identity, as well as the identity of many important supporting characters such as the Empress's daughter, Emily. At the end of the intro sequence, the Empress is murdered by assassins (not really a spoiler, don't worry - it's the premise of the game), and her daughter is kidnapped. Soon after the guards arrive and they believe that you are the murderer. It is Corvo's goal throughout the game to clear his name, rescue Emily and ensure her coronation as the new Empress, and get revenge on all those who crossed him. The story, for me, is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game, as I was hooked on it as soon as I started playing.

The graphics are decent, but not the best that I've seen in a Bethesda game, especially considering Skyrim was out before that. However, the graphics are still good, and thus we have a result in which one does not need a particularly high-end computer to play it. Indeed, the graphics are good enough that all the messy execution moves and environmental effects are not only thoroughly enjoyable but somewhat realistic looking as well.

As for the gameplay, it seemed pretty fluid and incredibly user-friendly to me. The PC has an assortment of weapons and abilities to use to dispatch or bypass enemies, but are just there for ease of use and fun factor, as the run/jump/stealth controls are perfectly capable of getting you from A to B by themselves. That is, whether you want to summon rats to devour your enemies or just hug the shadows and avoid being seen at all, the game gives you the choice - either are viable options. Given the intensely broken nature of the powers (fully upgraded for the most part, but some even at stage one), one would be foolish not to take advantage of them - for example, there is a move called "blink" that allows the PC to teleport a short distance, which, when upgraded to longer distances, can essentially ensure that one can bypass a lot of enemies and even the entire map in a short period of time. Another, "stop time" is self-explanatory, and I think one can see why that has the potential to be overpowered. That is not to say there aren't areas that require great skill to pass unseen regardless of powers, or that the AI aren't inquisitive to suspicious activity (they act fairly intelligent when alerted to a noise, sighting, etc.), but being able to either skip large segments of hostile areas with little consequence or rely on the powerful weapons and abilities which essentially make the PC become an unstoppable juggernaut of death, can make people skeptical as to the overall value of the game.

However, the developers were very cunning in their creation of this product, and they have challenges/achievements for those that can play through the game without being seen, killing anyone, using any powers, etc., which is a brilliant tactic to entice completionists like me, in my opinion. Yes, if one wants to get through the game using a full arsenal at their disposal it's certainly not difficult, but if you have all that power and yet aren't allowed to use it for fear of voiding the challenges... well I for one think that's more of a resolve test than anything, but it proves that the game can be extremely challenging depending on how you play it.

Another byproduct of making challenges for stealth versus heavy combat/assassination is that not only can it make the game easier or harder, but the story changes subtly depending on how many people you kill - or don't kill - with the result of a good/evil ending (with other variations depending on who is left alive). The most interesting way to see the consequences of one's actions throughout the game is through Emily. Her drawings will be normal or become dark and violent, as she looks up to Corvo and will emulate his behavior/outlook. It is definitely nice to see a non-linear implementation in a fairly linear game.

This game seems to borrow from a variety of different games that I can think of, such as Thief, Bioshock, and Might & Magic: Dark Messiah. Now, that being said, I don't fault them too much for that as some of these games had a profound effect on the gaming community in terms of what would be the norm for game genres of a similar vein. Thief is a landmark stealth game and has seemingly paved the way for many other games since then that rely on noise, light/darkness, and disturbance to the environment as a means of stealth/detection against the enemy AI. However, Dishonored has changed it up by having the screen turn black and white whilst in stealth, instead of a crystal that lights up. Being noticed by an enemy is an improvement in Dishonored as well, with a grey ring of lightning appearing above an enemy's head if they're suspicious, and that ring turning red if spotted/engaged by an enemy. This is really a minor similarity, as this system has become mainstream, but the similarities to Bioshock are much more evident. Bioshock's graphics, gameplay, morality system, weapons system, and power/abilities system are extremely similar to Dishonored - so much in fact that I would've thought Dishonored to be a spiritual successor of sorts. I don't want to get into too much detail about the similarities, but look up Bioshock if you are unfamiliar and I'd like to hear if you get a sense of déjà vu as well. Another game with similarities to Dishonored is Might & Magic: Dark Messiah, in terms of the animations/combat system in terms of both melee weapons and spells/abilities, but the reason it stands out so much to me is the similarity of Corvo to the thief specialization in the game. Sneaking, maneuvering, and stealth kills are very similar in their animations. Now, if Dishonored had just borrowed from one game, I think it would be profoundly less successful, but because they managed to take specific things from other games and combine them to make it their own spin on the first-person stealth action genre, I think it's more of an improvement than it is being unoriginal.

The bottom line: Despite the similarity it has to some older games, Dishonored comes off as new and fresh, putting a very entertaining spin on a popular videogame genre.

Verdict: 8/10

Heavy Rain Review (PS3)

2012-05-01T14:41:00.011-05:00

Heavy Rain is a third-person crime drama/thriller game by Quantic Dream, a French game developer that is most well-known for the game Indigo Prophecy. Heavy Rain is a film noir story that centers around four different playable characters: a father who must stop at nothing to save his son, an obsessive FBI profiler with a narcotics addiction, an alcoholic P.I., and an investigative journalist. The one thing they have in common is the interactions they have with the Origami Killer, who abducts and kills young boys by leaving them to drown in the rising rainwater that occurs during the spring - hence, "heavy rain". Throughout the storyline, one can see how the lives and motivations of these characters intersect. The story is compelling for the most part, with difficult decisions at every turn – prompting you to consider what director David Cage asserts is the most important part of the experience: “how far you’re willing to go to save someone you love”.

That being said, the game was a highly satisfying experience in ways other than the complex and dramatic storyline. The graphics, for example, are literally the best I've seen in a game to date, and they work seamlessly and without lag on the PS3 (Playstation 3), the platform on which the game is exclusively executed. The high quality of these graphics makes the game not only seem more realistic but immerses the player much more deeply into the dark atmosphere and drama of the game. The acting is so well done that you can truly empathize with the struggles of each character, and really experience their raw and anguished emotions. While the story can certainly be “heavy”, it is worth playing for the same reason we go to see dramatic films – and Heavy Rain is up to par with the best of them.

The controls for this game are heavily oriented around action sequences, which is a fairly commonly-used gameplay style in games of late. However, no game has ever incorporated them as greatly as this game, in which the success or failure of these sequences determines the outcome of said sequence. For example, there is a sequence in which the FBI profiler is chasing a suspect through a supermarket, and your ability to react to it will determine whether or not you apprehend said suspect. The game has no active save system per se, but instead autosaves on the aftermath of these sequences, meaning that the consequences of your actions are permanent – and characters can even die as a result. The story ends where you let it – so if all four characters die, the game concludes by presenting your achievements up to that point.

Heavy Rain forces you to make difficult choices that will determine whether or not you can save your loved one from the clutches of the Origami Killer, and how the lives of the protagonists will play out during the length of the story. The fact that the action sequences are timed makes the player feel the adrenaline and the stress that these circumstances would evoke. While the controls can be a little complicated and are not the easiest to get used to for most people, there is a difficulty setting that allows players of different proficiencies to enjoy the game. PS3 trophies are also enabled for this game, so there is an incentive to go back and try to get different outcomes in the story.

The bottom line: The combination of stunning graphics, gripping story, and believable characters, make Heavy Rain a great addition to any gamer's repertoire. There will be DLC (downloaded content) available for this game in the form of episodes; the first one already released is The Taxidermist.

Verdict: 9/10

Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm - Multiplayer Discussion

2012-04-23T02:41:00.008-05:00

I remember playing Starcraft a long time ago and loving it - it was one of my favorite strategy games, along with Command & Conquer, Age of Empires, Sid Meier's Civilization, etc. I always thought it was cool to be able to raise an army and compete against another player (or A.I., whatever) for dominion over a map. I thought Starcraft was particularly awesome because it seemed like all of the three available factions had pretty balanced advantages/disadvantages. When Starcraft 2 came out I was blown away at the upgrade in graphics as well as gameplay, but how it also managed to retain a great deal of the old style that we came to love, in my opinion. The story was interesting, although one of the major "twists" wasn't exactly difficult to see coming. Regardless, I am looking forward to the next installment, Heart of the Swarm, in which the Zerg will be the main focus, with Kerrigan at the command (won't get into it mainly for spoiler reasons - however I will say that it will kind of work in an RPG style, which is interesting). While I think we've established I'm looking forward to this game, what do all of you - who are interested - think about how this game will be different from Starcraft 2? I can obviously glean that the story will be different, and with new units and characters making an appearance we will have our hands full, but what about the rest of the multiplayer aspect? How can they make that substantially different than Starcraft 2 when all the units from each faction are made available for you already? That is, while the single-player campaign primarily allowed for the control of Terran forces and the same with the Zerg in Heart of the Swarm, and with the multiplayer from Starcraft 2 allowing for all three, how can we expect the multiplayer in the new game to be all that innovative? I pray that I am wrong about this, but I believe it is worth mentioning. What do you all think? Here's a video of Heart of the Swarm from YouTube:

Max Payne 3 - No Loading Screens?!

2012-04-21T16:33:00.013-05:00

So I have followed the Max Payne series from the beginning and was suitably impressed with the John Woo-style combat mixed with the film noir genre. Those of you who remember The Punisher will find a connecting theme with the dead family and whatnot, but I liked how Max Payne's experience took much more of a psychological thriller approach (i.e. hallucinations). With the constant innovations in computer graphics and mechanics, Max Payne 3 looks like it will be continuing an upward trend (not counting the movie, which was kind of boring, in my opinion). What this new installment seems to promise at the moment is no loading screens at all. I'll give that a moment to sink in... Okay, so this would potentially make Max Payne 3 one of the most immersive and "real" experiences in any game to date, with the only detraction being the comic-style additions that are the game's signature style (although apparently, these occur during live-action gameplay). This, along with improved and more realistic mechanics (different types of cover being more easily penetrable than others - i.e., stone, metal, wood, etc. - something that could have been used in Call of Duty), should make for a pretty intense experience. Plus, killing people looks more fun than ever!

But, while all this is promised and more, we all know by now that actions speak louder than words. The combat could be fun, but the story could suck, no depth to characters, etc. I wanted to discuss this game, or at the very least the concept, to take a step back and objectively contemplate whether this will be the next great innovation in gaming history. No loading screens is something that I would've laughed at back when playing say, Deus Ex (still the best FPS ever, by the way), which to me would have seemed too complicated to be able to handle a feature like that. Getting rid of loading screens will be the next step in gaming, like when 3D graphics were first made a possibility. As far as I know, even open-world games do not even have this feature (*cough* Skyrim). What does this mean to you as a gamer? Would you miss loading screens or feel weird at their absence because you are so used to them? I would really love to hear some input on this.

Here is a video found on www.examiner.com explaining the aforementioned: http://www.examiner.com/video/max-payne-3-design-and-technology-series-visual-effects-and-cinematics

Dark Souls Review (PS3)

2011-11-25T11:19:00.001-06:00

The success of Demon's Souls was an unexpected but not unwelcome surprise for hardcore RPG fans such as myself. It was rumored to be one of the most difficult games to ever be made, and in some ways it was. With challenging enemies, an expansive world to explore, and a great deal of character customization, this was arguably one of the best RPG, or even best, games of the year. It is no surprise then, that Demon's Souls would yield a spiritual successor... Dark Souls. But does this new game stack up to its predecessor?

Dark Souls is set in a fantastic and dangerous world, with the protagonist beginning his/her (the PC can pick their gender) adventure in a prison cell of the Undead Asylum. For those of you who are familiar with Demon's Souls, the "starting area" is a place in which there are messages that explain the game controls and mechanics and gives you a taste of what to expect for the rest of the game (i.e., a tutorial level). There is no real difference here, with the boss of this intro level (Asylum Demon) playing the exact same role as Vanguard in the Demon's Souls intro level. In fact, these bosses are so similar in appearance and fighting style that one could say this Dark Souls boss is a rehashing of the Demon's Souls one. This is a problem that is pervasive in the game, and which we will discuss later.

The first difference I noticed upon starting Dark Souls was that my player character (PC) was undead, a rather unattractive version of the decent-looking character I had made in character creation. This was "hollow form", which is like spirit form in Demon's Souls, except you took no penalty to your health and thus there was no reason not to stay in hollow form except if you wanted people to help you (cannot summon phantoms - other PCs - in hollow form). Whereas the health penalty in Demon's Souls made it so one would prefer to be in human form during a level, in Dark Souls being in hollow form prevented black phantoms from invading my game and since there was no health penalty I spent most of the game in hollow form. It did not help that humanity (currency which one could spend to become human again) was scarce to begin with (its primary acquisition is farming it from rats in the Depths), or that, upon dying, you would lose all of it along with your souls... assuming you could not get back to your corpse without dying, that is. I'm not complaining about the difficulty, but rather that it would have behooved the developers to bestow a penalty on "hollow form" so that there would be more people in human form, which would in turn ensure more people could phantom (whether blue or black) into other players' games. As it is, there are great difficulties surrounding this familiar concept.

Not only are there significant amounts of players in hollow form, and thus fewer worlds to phantom into, but the servers are split into multiple ones, rather than on one central server. This was a slap in the face to fans of the series, as in Demon's Souls there was a central server and thus every player could interact with each other. Now it meant that players who were on different servers could never see the messages or summon signs left by players on other servers. This great division of players ensured that the multiplayer aspect of the game was trivial and broken and that many of the impressive additions such as the Gravelord summons were essentially nonexistent. The hollow form debacle was bad enough, but to dilute the players down like this was even worse for those who wanted a greater PvP interaction. In the time I played in human form (hours for levels I needed help with), I was only invaded by one black phantom. Also, the server that the player is sent to is randomized upon signing into the game's network, so if you had friends you wanted to play with it was too bad for you, as they could be - and usually were - put on a different server.

Now, that is not to say that this shoddy multiplayer implementation was a deal-breaker, however. Dark Souls is certainly a good game, it just doesn't quite hold up to the quality of its predecessor. Now that I've gotten my main complaints out of the way, I'd like to talk about what does work. For starters, the graphics are even more detailed than Demon's Souls, something which I did not expect to happen considering the brief period of time between the two games. When you add this factor to the fluid combat techniques that we loved about the first game, you get a pretty impressive visual experience. For the most part melee and ranged combat (i.e., bows and crossbows) is the same, but this really emphasizes the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The magic/miracles system in Dark Souls has been slightly changed, however, with miracles similar to those in Demon's Souls but magic being split into both magic and fire spells, both of which require their specific catalysts in order to cast them. This certainly has improved the customization options for the PC, and would have made PvP much more interesting had it not been destroyed by the developers.

Another thing that I found refreshing was the new open-world environment that Dark Souls had implemented, which is in stark contrast to Demon's Souls, in which the PC would instantly travel to different worlds from warp stones (the only exception in Dark Souls being the Painted World of Ariamis, in which you, in fact, warp to). Saving progress and leveling up now takes place at various landmarks around this open-ended world, in the form of bonfires. This is essentially the replacement of Demon's Souls's Maiden in Black. I personally find this system to be more challenging for players and thus more desirable, as this is certainly not a game that should cater to noobs. And it really doesn't, with challenging enemies and boss fights throughout the entire game. There are unofficial difficulty levels for each section of this expansive world, but each section can, for the most part, be completed in any order. To complete any specific section in Dark Souls, you need to kill the boss of said section (just like in Demon's Souls). These bosses, while challenging and artistically creative, are, for the most part, essentially copies of those in Demon's Souls. The Asylum Demon = Vanguard, the Belfry Gargoyles = Maneater, Dark Sun Gwyndolin = Fool's Idol, the Moonlight Butterfly = Fool's Idol, Pinwheel = Fool's Idol, The Bed of Chaos = the Dragon God (and it's core = King Allant), and Gwyn Lord of Cinder = The Old King Allant. As one can see, there are many reproductions of the Demon's Souls bosses, but to be fair there are also some great and innovative bosses such as Chaos Witch Quelaag, Crossbreed Priscilla, Great Gray Wolf Sif, The Four Kings, and Ceaseless Discharge (terrible name though). Enemies and NPCs are more diverse in Dark Souls, and the latter can even help the PC fight bosses if he/she is in human form. Also, there are NPC black phantoms now as well, who appear to thwart the PC's progress if he/she is human as well.

Another cool implementation was covenants, which are different factions that the PC can join. Each has its own benefits (weapons/armor, spells, etc.), and each serves its own purpose in this game world (i.e., Darkmoon Covenant is a group that seeks retribution against "bad" players). As you rank up in these covenants, you unlock more of the aforementioned benefits, although you can only be a member of one covenant at a time. However, the third rank in the covenants seems unfinished, with the majority of them yielding no extra benefits (unlike the first two). In terms of weapons and armor, the same sort of upgrade paths is available as in Demon's Souls, although the unique weapons aren't really that unique or worth the effort in upgrading them, other than for the trophy.

The bottom line: Ideas such as the aforementioned ensure that Dark Souls isn't merely Demon's Souls 2.0 and that players would see it as the spiritual successor that it is instead of a sequel. Overall, while the multiplayer isn't as fun as in Demon's Souls, Dark Souls holds up to its predecessor in terms of gameplay, graphics, and even story. However, the game doesn't leave me in awe and wonder as the first one did, and I hope to see more innovation in future installments.

Verdict: 7/10

UPDATE: A Dark Souls: Remastered game has been released, which addresses some of the issues in the original game.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution Review (PC)

2011-09-27T21:02:00.015-05:00

I can't explain to you how badly I wanted Eidos Montreal's Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the prequel to Deus Ex, to be released after I saw the teaser trailer for it a long while back. Much of this excitement was due to the fact that I'd played the first game, which, in my opinion, still ranks as one of the best games of all time. When I finally got my PC preorder in the mail, I was ecstatic. But did it hold up to the standards of the original? Well, after watching the intro movie and using the player character (Adam Jensen) to look around Dr. Megan Reed's office, I decided I was already impressed.

The graphics were above average for the standards of today, and there was the same immersive feeling from the first game in which you could manipulate objects and read computer emails, newspapers, and other forms of data, except - like everything else in the game - the graphics were updated. While I was pleased by this, I was hoping this game wasn't merely a graphics update of the original (i.e. Duke Nukem Forever compared to Duke Nukem 3D, Fallout 3 compared to Fallout 1, and likely iD Software's upcoming game, Rage, compared to Doom). Not that there's anything wrong with those, but we often like innovation in the stories of our sequels. Or at least I do. But I digress...

Arguably the story in FPS games isn't always so important, and it is hard being compared to an original cult classic, so what other good qualities does Human Revolution have? What did they do right, and what did they do wrong? Well, the first thing we should examine is the combat. The AI seemed to be smarter which was a plus. I first noticed this in the "tutorial" level when they fanned out, exploring almost every possible hiding place that I could be in, and making proper use of space and cover when provoked.

Another thing I liked in terms of realism was the fact that enemies you rendered unconscious could be killed afterward, unlike in the original where nothing short of a LAM explosion would transition an unconscious body to dead. While the original game arguably had "boss" characters, they didn't really have boss fights like in this game (the exception being the final boss fight in Human Revolution, which is a blatant copy of the original's Illuminati ending). In my opinion, the boss fights took away from the realism that the rest of the game had in terms of enemy health (whereas two bullets to a normal enemy became 102 for the bosses).

A way around this was the fact that the player character regenerates health, which was an initial concern among hardcore fans. The original game's health system seemed much more essential to the gameplay like having a damaged arm lowered accuracy, damaged legs meant crawling, etc. I was willing to get over that, however, as many of today's health regen games (like Call of Duty) make up for that by making the enemies more difficult. Human Revolution was no exception.

As for the weapons, I was pleased that they took a note from the original and made them mod-friendly as well as realistic in damage. I didn't know how to feel about melee being completely replaced with lethal and non-lethal takedowns (depending on your preference - either way, they are much cooler than the original's melee animations), and that they cost energy on top of that, but it did certainly change the dynamic of the game, as well as the reliance on certain tactics. Also, the skill tree that would normally accompany the aforementioned weapons was fused with the augmentations tree, something that was done separately in the original.

Now, the gameplay was arguably more user-friendly in Human Revolution, and although I never had a problem with the original game's complexity, most people would say that it was an improvement nonetheless. I agree somewhat, as it, to me, seemed not to be overly complex for casual gamers but also not overly simplistic like Deus Ex: Invisible War, the second game created in the series. Also, I felt like the easier controls were due to Human Revolution's release on multiple platforms such as XBOX 360 and PS3.

One thing people loved about the original Deus Ex was its nonlinear gameplay - every decision, big or small, yielded consequences, and made one feel more immersed in the game's universe. Human Revolution followed in those footsteps to great success, a great example being a hostage situation in which the player character could kill the terrorist, knock him out, let him go, kill the hostage, knock her out, talk the terrorist into releasing the hostage, etc.

The story itself in Human Revolution is not as good as the original Deus Ex, but it is still an interesting one. It is certainly worth seeing what events led up to the original game. If you have played both games though, you'll notice similarities between characters, intentional and unintentional. For example, Adam Jensen is a clear homage to JC and Paul Denton (although it is implied that Jensen and the Dentons share the same genetic material). Malik is a female version of Jock, even up to the point where the game puts you in an optional rescue scenario where you can save their lives, Sarif and Manderley are both employers that keep secrets from the player character. Pritchard and Jacobson are both computer techs (the former is much more of a jerk, however). Cassan and Daedalus are both AIs that the primary antagonists try to link to (Zhao and Page respectively). Fallout 3 did the same thing by making President Eden essentially the character of The Master in Fallout 1. However, this kind of rehashing is perhaps to be expected, as the developers clearly expected the majority of people to have not played the original game.

Lastly, I had mixed feelings about the multiple endings. Whereas the first game made you choose completely different ways of ending the game, Human Revolution merely had you choose endings by pressing a button. That being said, the endings for Human Revolution had a better dialogue than Deus Ex's endings.

The bottom line: Despite its flaws, Human Revolution is still a very good game by itself and is a worthy homage and prequel to the original.

Verdict: 7/10