While !Finished has a new home!
From now on all new posts will be available at http://whilenotfinished.theirisnetwork.org.
The IRIS Network publishes Cerise Magazine, keeps a directory of women game bloggers, and hosts several blogs as well. It's also an amazing community, and I'm excited and proud to be contributing to it through doing interviews for Cerise and now blogging about games.
I hope y'all will join me there~
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Dear Developers
(This entry is part of the July Round Table at Man Bytes Blog. Check out the other entries here or via the drop-down menu at the end of this wall o' text.)
I will probably not make it through your game if I have to play any given boss or section more than three times.
I don't play games to be frustrated, and in my mind, when I'm playing a game, any frustration that lasts for more than five minutes can't be "good" or "motivating" frustration. I will never play N+, or a hardcore roguelike. Wanting to break something--most likely the expensive piece of electronics in my hands--is not my idea of a good time. When a review says a game is "punishingly difficult," I direct my browser elsewhere. When I get frustrated, I take a break from the game--sometimes for good.
There are plenty of games that I claim to enjoy or even love that I have not finished. Odin Sphere, Dragon Quest VIII, Shadow of the Colossus, the original Legend of Zelda, the first two Metroid Prime games, and more all sit stagnant in my collection, and every time I get the urge to play one of them I remember the frustratingly difficult section that made me stop to begin with.
Instead of the challenge, I play games for the experience. The story. To immerse myself in a world crafted by a team of creative and technological minds. I want to discover, to relax, and to have fun. Part of what makes games such an interesting medium is that people get different things out of them, and experience them in different ways. The best part? All these ways are equally valid.
Two games I'm currently playing are Assassin's Creed and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I'm not particularly far into either, but even so, I can tell you which game I will get completely through and which one I will not. (Hint: it's the one with an easy mode!)
So please, include that easy mode. It's just considerate.
I will probably not make it through your game if I have to play any given boss or section more than three times.
I don't play games to be frustrated, and in my mind, when I'm playing a game, any frustration that lasts for more than five minutes can't be "good" or "motivating" frustration. I will never play N+, or a hardcore roguelike. Wanting to break something--most likely the expensive piece of electronics in my hands--is not my idea of a good time. When a review says a game is "punishingly difficult," I direct my browser elsewhere. When I get frustrated, I take a break from the game--sometimes for good.
There are plenty of games that I claim to enjoy or even love that I have not finished. Odin Sphere, Dragon Quest VIII, Shadow of the Colossus, the original Legend of Zelda, the first two Metroid Prime games, and more all sit stagnant in my collection, and every time I get the urge to play one of them I remember the frustratingly difficult section that made me stop to begin with.
Instead of the challenge, I play games for the experience. The story. To immerse myself in a world crafted by a team of creative and technological minds. I want to discover, to relax, and to have fun. Part of what makes games such an interesting medium is that people get different things out of them, and experience them in different ways. The best part? All these ways are equally valid.
Two games I'm currently playing are Assassin's Creed and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I'm not particularly far into either, but even so, I can tell you which game I will get completely through and which one I will not. (Hint: it's the one with an easy mode!)
So please, include that easy mode. It's just considerate.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Lesser of Two Evils: Altair and the Assassin's Creed
When it comes to Altair, protagonist of last year's most polarizing game, Assassin's Creed, I'm torn between adoration and disgust. On the one hand, Altair is a total badass who can run across rooftops and climb church towers with ease. On the other, he is really not so nice a guy, even aside from the whole assassin thing.
It's clear Ubisoft put a lot of focus on the free running system (which, by the way, is pure fun) and the animations that go along with it. The animations in particular convey a lot about Altair: he moves with confidence, even arrogance, and runs, leaps, and climbs with the grace of a skilled athlete. Upon reaching a perch high above Jerusalem, Altair crouches on a thin plank like it's no big deal. He's like a cat; he even swaggers a bit when he walks.
All of this goes quite some way to endear him to the player (or to me, at least). Yes, he's a cocky little bastard, but he can clearly back up all that talk.
And yet the game constantly reminds you that, while (in the first three missions, which is as far as I've gotten) Altair's targets are clearly evil men--the first brutally stabs and murders an innocent man in the middle of a public square--Altair himself is merely the less evil of the two. The evil side of our murderous protagonist is shown through both not only in cutscenes, but through certain game mechanics as well.
It is made clear off the bat that Altair doesn't think much of the Creed, one rule of which states that assassins must not kill innocents, when he murders an old man in the opening scene of the game. Soon enough, the assassin leader demotes Altair (losing most of the sync bar and his weapons) for breaking the Creed and causing a lot of trouble. Altair isn't phased; the leader and the men at the Assassin's Bureaus scold his continued arrogance and disdain for the Creed.
Altair's violent personality is reflected in the options available for interacting with the people of the various cities he travels to. Of particular note is the game's somewhat troublesome treatment of the homeless beggars.
Women beggars (they are all women, as are the citizens you can rescue, which strikes me as very strange, not to mention unrealistic) are placed in certain areas of a given city, and when Altair enters that area, they will run up to him and harass him for money, prevent his movement, and draw attention to him by loudly telling him about their poor starving family.
At first I felt bad for them, but as they became more and more abundant and really began to impede my progress, I just felt annoyed. The only options given to the player to deal with them are to gently push them out of the way if you're not in a hurry, or if you are, kill or beat them. You can't give donations (another odd thing, given that you can pickpocket "thugs", though for knives, not money).
That the violent reaction, however, falls in line with Altair's character: the arrogant killer we're supposed to be rooting for. The game defies expectations by not making the protagonist a noble rebel killing off truly evil men who deserve what they get, and the gameplay is not conflicting with the story here, which is good. Every other investigative option given to Altair thus far is violent, with the exception of eavesdropping, but that's easy and it comes at no cost to Altair at all (whereas giving alms would cost him money he could spend on weapons and whatnot). As disgusting as it is, this is our protagonist through and through. (That said, I would like to see Ubisoft take a different approach to this in future installments.)
So I want to like Altair, with his effortless skill and arrogant ways, but I can't, because he's only slightly better than the men he's sent to kill. Of course, having only finished the first two assassinations, I'm looking forward to seeing what character arc (if any!) occurs as the story progresses.
It's clear Ubisoft put a lot of focus on the free running system (which, by the way, is pure fun) and the animations that go along with it. The animations in particular convey a lot about Altair: he moves with confidence, even arrogance, and runs, leaps, and climbs with the grace of a skilled athlete. Upon reaching a perch high above Jerusalem, Altair crouches on a thin plank like it's no big deal. He's like a cat; he even swaggers a bit when he walks.
All of this goes quite some way to endear him to the player (or to me, at least). Yes, he's a cocky little bastard, but he can clearly back up all that talk.
And yet the game constantly reminds you that, while (in the first three missions, which is as far as I've gotten) Altair's targets are clearly evil men--the first brutally stabs and murders an innocent man in the middle of a public square--Altair himself is merely the less evil of the two. The evil side of our murderous protagonist is shown through both not only in cutscenes, but through certain game mechanics as well.
It is made clear off the bat that Altair doesn't think much of the Creed, one rule of which states that assassins must not kill innocents, when he murders an old man in the opening scene of the game. Soon enough, the assassin leader demotes Altair (losing most of the sync bar and his weapons) for breaking the Creed and causing a lot of trouble. Altair isn't phased; the leader and the men at the Assassin's Bureaus scold his continued arrogance and disdain for the Creed.
Altair's violent personality is reflected in the options available for interacting with the people of the various cities he travels to. Of particular note is the game's somewhat troublesome treatment of the homeless beggars.
Women beggars (they are all women, as are the citizens you can rescue, which strikes me as very strange, not to mention unrealistic) are placed in certain areas of a given city, and when Altair enters that area, they will run up to him and harass him for money, prevent his movement, and draw attention to him by loudly telling him about their poor starving family.
At first I felt bad for them, but as they became more and more abundant and really began to impede my progress, I just felt annoyed. The only options given to the player to deal with them are to gently push them out of the way if you're not in a hurry, or if you are, kill or beat them. You can't give donations (another odd thing, given that you can pickpocket "thugs", though for knives, not money).
That the violent reaction, however, falls in line with Altair's character: the arrogant killer we're supposed to be rooting for. The game defies expectations by not making the protagonist a noble rebel killing off truly evil men who deserve what they get, and the gameplay is not conflicting with the story here, which is good. Every other investigative option given to Altair thus far is violent, with the exception of eavesdropping, but that's easy and it comes at no cost to Altair at all (whereas giving alms would cost him money he could spend on weapons and whatnot). As disgusting as it is, this is our protagonist through and through. (That said, I would like to see Ubisoft take a different approach to this in future installments.)
So I want to like Altair, with his effortless skill and arrogant ways, but I can't, because he's only slightly better than the men he's sent to kill. Of course, having only finished the first two assassinations, I'm looking forward to seeing what character arc (if any!) occurs as the story progresses.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Games I'd Like to See: Fire-Breathing Edition
I'd really like to play a good dragon game. Drakan was all right, but the controls went counter to every other flying game out there. And we all know about Lair. Why do we keep asking "When will we get the Citizen Kane of video games?" when what we should be asking is "When will we get the Dragonheart of video games?"
While we're asking these silly hypotheticals, I think "Where is the Watchmen of video games?" is a much better question than either of the ones above. Or have we gotten our Watchmen already? What would that involve?
While we're asking these silly hypotheticals, I think "Where is the Watchmen of video games?" is a much better question than either of the ones above. Or have we gotten our Watchmen already? What would that involve?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
How the World Ends
(Contains some vague spoilers for the first third ofThe World Ends With You.)
The World Ends with You for the DS is, like its PS2 cousin Kingdom Hearts, very much a game about friendship and teamwork. While both games deal with this theme in a way that's fairly heavy-handed, only in TWEWY does it result in one of the most unique RPG combat systems in a while.
As a quick overview: combat in TWEWY, an action RPG, takes place on both screens of the DS. Neku, the protagonist, fights on the bottom screen and is controlled using various slashes, touches, and taps of the stylus. Simultaneously, Neku's partner--for the first third of the game, a fashion-loving girl named Shiki--fights on the top screen and is controlled using the D-pad (or A/B/X/Y buttons for lefties). For Shiki, the combat involves the player hitting directional buttons to follow a path to one of three cards in order to match three cards at the top of the screen; when three cards are matched, a Fusion attack--a flashy team-up attack that damages all enemies on-screen--becomes available.
What really makes the battle system a team effort between the characters is the light puck, a ball of green light that gets passed back and forth between Neku and Shiki like a sparkly tennis ball (or the magic projectiles volleyed between Ganondorf and Link in many of their epic confrontations). In order to send the light puck to their partner, the player must inflict a certain amount of damage before the puck fades away. Continued volleys increase each character's attack (some enemies can only be damaged when the character has the light puck) and net more experience points at the end of battle. The light puck simultaneously adds depth to the already intricate battle system, streamlines the dual-screen combat by giving the player an idea of which screen to focus on at a given moment, and emphasizes the game's theme of teamwork and friendship; it contributes to both gameplay and story.
In TWEWY, the two characters fighting together actually communicate with each other, calling "I've got this!" and "Good job, Neku!" as the light puck bounces back and forth. This natural battle-chatter is something you don't realize is missing from RPG battles until you hear it done well.
In a larger sense, the characters become stronger as the relationship between them becomes stronger. As Neku and Shiki face greater obstacles and stronger enemies, they bond over their shared hardship and learn to trust each other. By the end of the seven days of the Reapers' Game, Neku and Shiki are close friends and promise to meet each other after the Game ends. It's rather elegant that the gameplay reflects and emphasizes this growing relationship, unlike many games where, because of gameplay design decisions, the player can choose to act in a way that is completely different than what the story dictates the character(s) should be like.
The World Ends with You for the DS is, like its PS2 cousin Kingdom Hearts, very much a game about friendship and teamwork. While both games deal with this theme in a way that's fairly heavy-handed, only in TWEWY does it result in one of the most unique RPG combat systems in a while.
As a quick overview: combat in TWEWY, an action RPG, takes place on both screens of the DS. Neku, the protagonist, fights on the bottom screen and is controlled using various slashes, touches, and taps of the stylus. Simultaneously, Neku's partner--for the first third of the game, a fashion-loving girl named Shiki--fights on the top screen and is controlled using the D-pad (or A/B/X/Y buttons for lefties). For Shiki, the combat involves the player hitting directional buttons to follow a path to one of three cards in order to match three cards at the top of the screen; when three cards are matched, a Fusion attack--a flashy team-up attack that damages all enemies on-screen--becomes available.
What really makes the battle system a team effort between the characters is the light puck, a ball of green light that gets passed back and forth between Neku and Shiki like a sparkly tennis ball (or the magic projectiles volleyed between Ganondorf and Link in many of their epic confrontations). In order to send the light puck to their partner, the player must inflict a certain amount of damage before the puck fades away. Continued volleys increase each character's attack (some enemies can only be damaged when the character has the light puck) and net more experience points at the end of battle. The light puck simultaneously adds depth to the already intricate battle system, streamlines the dual-screen combat by giving the player an idea of which screen to focus on at a given moment, and emphasizes the game's theme of teamwork and friendship; it contributes to both gameplay and story.
In TWEWY, the two characters fighting together actually communicate with each other, calling "I've got this!" and "Good job, Neku!" as the light puck bounces back and forth. This natural battle-chatter is something you don't realize is missing from RPG battles until you hear it done well.
In a larger sense, the characters become stronger as the relationship between them becomes stronger. As Neku and Shiki face greater obstacles and stronger enemies, they bond over their shared hardship and learn to trust each other. By the end of the seven days of the Reapers' Game, Neku and Shiki are close friends and promise to meet each other after the Game ends. It's rather elegant that the gameplay reflects and emphasizes this growing relationship, unlike many games where, because of gameplay design decisions, the player can choose to act in a way that is completely different than what the story dictates the character(s) should be like.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
June 2008 issue of Cerise!
... is out! The theme is Heroines and Villainesses.
Check it out, it's my premier issue as an interviewer~
Check it out, it's my premier issue as an interviewer~
Monday, June 2, 2008
Liking Something Sexist Doesn't Necessarily Make You Sexist
I had to comment on this because I am dismayed and disappointed by Leigh Alexander's thoughts here, and surprisingly impressed with some of the Kotaku readers.
Alexander does two seriously unprofessional things in this post: 1. Puts words in Samhita's (of Feministing) mouth, and 2. Attacks Feministing, both without addressing the actual issue here: that GTA IV is a sexist game. And it is, there is no doubt about it.
However, enjoying GTA IV doesn't make you a sexist. Here is where Alexander's scramble to defend the game comes in: she's not a sexist--she's a woman, in fact!--and she likes GTA IV, so it must be okay! Yeah, no. First of all, she writes, "Are those who enjoy [GTA IV] misogynists? Feminist interest blog Feministing certainly thinks so..." which is totally inaccurate. Samhita didn't say anything of the sort. Where did Alexander get this from?
Example time: I enjoy the Phoenix Wright games, which contain, among other issues, a male gaze-rife portrayal of one of the female characters. The second game also has a racist portrayal of a Native American. Does enjoying Phoenix Wright make me sexist or a racist? Of course not. But I'm not naive enough to pretend the games are an equality fest.
Alexander brings out the usual arguments against criticisms of GTA IV (all of which avoid the real issue)--the Mature rating, the social satire aspect, the idea that the game just reflects real-world sexism. It's imitating life, huh? If that's so, where are the male prostitutes? Where are the male strippers? Why are there no women with personality? If the game is "about choice", then why can't you date a man, or hell, be friends with a woman? Why are all women potential dates, and therefore potential sex partners? Surely there are plenty of men--even mobsters--out there in the real world who have female friends they don't sleep with?
Alexander goes on to say:
First of all, if you think feminists want women to have special treatment, you're incredibly off-base. Go read the Feminism 101 blog. Feminists want equality, not preferential treatment for women. And the treatment of people in this game is not equal between women and men.
Secondly, totally avoiding the subject while criticizing the Feministing site? (The logo is a reclamation of the mudflap girl, by the way--much like Bitch Magazine is a reclamation of the word "bitch.") Not a good way to make an argument. It also angers me because the online gaming culture is already so anti-feminist that Alexander's comments just reinforce that mindset. There are definitely things to criticize about Samhita's post, but attacking her and the site is not the way to go about it.
The complaint is that the game reinforces the misogyny already well entrenched in our culture. Just because other things are worse, just because that's the way it is, just because it's a game, just because it's supposedly satire, just because Samhita didn't play the game, doesn't make it not sexist. In fact, there are people out there who played the game, enjoyed it, and found it sexist! Hey, here are two of them!
I applaud Kotaku commenters KcP and badasscat for their eloquent points.
So relax, Alexander, you're not a sexist for liking GTA IV. You're a sexist for denying that the game is at the very least problematic.
Alexander does two seriously unprofessional things in this post: 1. Puts words in Samhita's (of Feministing) mouth, and 2. Attacks Feministing, both without addressing the actual issue here: that GTA IV is a sexist game. And it is, there is no doubt about it.
However, enjoying GTA IV doesn't make you a sexist. Here is where Alexander's scramble to defend the game comes in: she's not a sexist--she's a woman, in fact!--and she likes GTA IV, so it must be okay! Yeah, no. First of all, she writes, "Are those who enjoy [GTA IV] misogynists? Feminist interest blog Feministing certainly thinks so..." which is totally inaccurate. Samhita didn't say anything of the sort. Where did Alexander get this from?
Example time: I enjoy the Phoenix Wright games, which contain, among other issues, a male gaze-rife portrayal of one of the female characters. The second game also has a racist portrayal of a Native American. Does enjoying Phoenix Wright make me sexist or a racist? Of course not. But I'm not naive enough to pretend the games are an equality fest.
Alexander brings out the usual arguments against criticisms of GTA IV (all of which avoid the real issue)--the Mature rating, the social satire aspect, the idea that the game just reflects real-world sexism. It's imitating life, huh? If that's so, where are the male prostitutes? Where are the male strippers? Why are there no women with personality? If the game is "about choice", then why can't you date a man, or hell, be friends with a woman? Why are all women potential dates, and therefore potential sex partners? Surely there are plenty of men--even mobsters--out there in the real world who have female friends they don't sleep with?
Alexander goes on to say:
To call misogyny here is divisive, actually, implying that the treatment of women needs to be elevated above the treatment of any other group – as if “woman” were a separate, special "race" with a unified mind. We aren’t, thank you.
In fact, with all due respect for the feminist community, demand for that sort of favoritism seems to breed resentment – perhaps even the very resentment that GTA IV provides the framework to explore. Just who are those large-breasted logo silhouettes on Feministing's website supposed to be giving the middle finger to, anyway?
First of all, if you think feminists want women to have special treatment, you're incredibly off-base. Go read the Feminism 101 blog. Feminists want equality, not preferential treatment for women. And the treatment of people in this game is not equal between women and men.
Secondly, totally avoiding the subject while criticizing the Feministing site? (The logo is a reclamation of the mudflap girl, by the way--much like Bitch Magazine is a reclamation of the word "bitch.") Not a good way to make an argument. It also angers me because the online gaming culture is already so anti-feminist that Alexander's comments just reinforce that mindset. There are definitely things to criticize about Samhita's post, but attacking her and the site is not the way to go about it.
The complaint is that the game reinforces the misogyny already well entrenched in our culture. Just because other things are worse, just because that's the way it is, just because it's a game, just because it's supposedly satire, just because Samhita didn't play the game, doesn't make it not sexist. In fact, there are people out there who played the game, enjoyed it, and found it sexist! Hey, here are two of them!
I applaud Kotaku commenters KcP and badasscat for their eloquent points.
So relax, Alexander, you're not a sexist for liking GTA IV. You're a sexist for denying that the game is at the very least problematic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)