Why I Don’t Review Games

As I stressed last week, there is a difference between journalism and criticism. Journalism is the pursuit and sharing of truth and knowledge. Criticism is the analysis and evaluation of varying works. Those works, within the context of things this blog is dedicated to, are videogames and will forever be videogames. And still within that context I like to think of myself as a videogame critic.  … Actually, no. Not just within the context of the blog I run.

This is a resolution made public to the entire internet that I, Steven of The Age of Gaming, consider myself and hope to be taken seriously as a videogame critic.

Then what is entailed for being a videogame critic? Everyone has opinions, what is there to say that mine are better than someone else’s? Nothing. There is nothing. I accept and embrace that fact because it means that everyone has a valid right to their opinion and a valid right to express it as they please. Because what is criticism if nothing more than one person’s opinion engaging with another’s?

All opinions are valid yet, differences in how the said opinions are handled matter. Screaming and shouting are not effective methods of expression. Neither is saying nothing. It is with tempered, well-thought and researched speech that opinions can be properly expressed and shared. This is my belief in what separates criticism from standard opinions. These are also the standards in which I will follow.

It is because I focus on criticism that I hereby choose to forgo breaking news reporting and game reviewing. For one thing, it would be impossible for me to keep track and report on the breaking news as it happens. However, I will try to remain topical in my focus. Staying away from reviews so far has been an almost subconscious choice. Every website that accepts pitches for articles always warns that unsolicited reviews will be instantly ignored. That scared me off. Also it is within my personal belief that I could never compete with a review of my own to that of any other publication. So I shied away from reviews. At this time I feel just in making my stance official: The Age of Gaming will not review videogames.

 

When and if I have something to say about a game I will write about it in the format accustom to this blog. Because there are already enough people saying what is good and what is bad, what to buy and what not to; I want to take a step back from that and examine why it is good or why it is bad, where a game succeeds and where it fails. There is often more to learn from a game that does something wrong than one that does everything right. 

I previously wrote a book review of sorts seeing how the book related so strongly to videogames. In the future more game related reviews may present themselves or they may not. Honestly, I am not sure yet. Perhaps I shall rework the format into a long form critique of newer material. Or maybe that is just the definition of review. The future is unknown and shall concern me when it arrives.

I would like to end this post by saying I have no freaking idea where all this formality came from. I want to sound intelligent, but I don’t want to sound like I have stick up my butt. So yeah …. there’s that.  And I would like to say that I don’t do reviews, but I cannot get to a long from critique of every game I play. Because of that I have assembled a short list of every game I have played since starting this blog and no more than two sentences with my thoughts about them:

·         Ico HD Edition – Some of the puzzles could have been better implemented or explained. Built a strong and unique relationship the likes of which I have never seen before.

·         Fallout: New Vegas – Fantastic world with engrossing mythology and excellently implemented. Actual game play could use some work.

·         Journey – I cried. This game made me cry and never would have wanted it another way.

·         Flower – Gives the player an unprecedented freedom of movement that makes you realize how restricting other games are. Really confusing ending.

·         Metro: Last Light – Above average stealth for a first-person shooter along with a strong narrative and world. Actual shooting is just average.

·         Far Cry 3 – I did not finish the game. Killed Vass, but then all my player agency was ruined because of poorly executed narrative and gameplay conceits.

·         The Last of Us – One of the best games I have ever played.

·         God of War HD Edition – I missed you, Kratos. Finding you again brought joy to my life.

·         Borderlands 2 – Fun shooting and leveling, but a weak and drawn out narrative. Also some supposedly funny, but in fact really annoying characters and missions.

·         Spec Ops: The Line – Made me rethink everything I thought I knew about war games and videogames in general. Fantastic.

Character Studies: World Character

The world of a videogame can be a character unto itself. Play characters are the portal through which the player engages with the world and non-player characters are the ludic or narrative elements with which they engage. Yet, the world that surrounds everything within the game is itself a character with as much depth and importance to the entire experience as either of the other elements of a game. Beyond a simple setting, the world of a videogame is a livable place inhabited simultaneously by every person, character and idea related to the game. It is also a framing device used to establish the core elements of the game. The world character of a game ultimately defines not only what the game is, but what it will become.

In the most basic terms the world of a videogame serves all the same narrative elements that the setting of a novel does. It establishes a place of action and a feeling of place. Interestingly enough, place of action and the feeling of place are not always the same. In fact sometimes they are purposely conflicting. The place of action is the simplest role that a videogame world plays within the narrative. It is the literal ‘Where is this happening?’ ‘When is this happening?’ A feeling of place is a more complex concept. Adding a level beyond the concrete physicalities established by the place of action, a feeling of place is the emotion or sensation the world wishes to impart. When as a person in real life or a character in a game, you – the player, enters a new area what is it that you think? Do you look around and think ‘This room is approximately 40 sq. ft. with low ceilings, dirty possibly blood splattered floors and several dark menacing shadows?’ Or do you think ‘This place is creepy. I’m getting out of here.’ That feeling of fear, sense of slight disturbance that is a feeling of place. What you think as you enter a new area for the first time, the sensations imparted on you is the feeling of place a videogame world provides. Occasionally for added effect the place of action and feeling of place with conflict with each other to impart greater meaning to the player. Would the sunken city of Rapture from the original Bioshock be so memorable if it wasn’t for the juxtaposition of the broken and ruined physicalities of the place of action in relation to the grandeur imparted by the feeling of place? A videogame world is a character that provides the game with a place of action as well as a feeling of place.

The place of action and feeling of place are both concepts that videogame world character shares with other forms of media; books, plays, movies, ext. Together they form an establishment of setting necessary for all narratives. However, even in setting the interactive elements of videogames establish themselves forcing a change in the way world character is established. The world character does not only reflect and influence the narrative of the game, but so too does it affect the gameplay. As a ludic experience the game and therefore the world character must be dominated by the interaction and engagement that the player, the audience, you, gets to have with it. The place of action and feeling of place have immense ramifications on the gameplay of a game. When all the elements work in tandem; world character, narrative and ludic elements, the total experience is cohesive and all the more enjoyable. The best way to avoid ludonarrative dissonance is through the use of a properly aligned and strongly developed world character. Because ultimately it is the world inhabited by the game; its developer, its characters and you, the player, which create the tone of the game. That tone can range from playful, to sincere, to energetic, to somber depending on the game being played. And it is that tone which gives focus to gameplay. It would not make sense for Mario to stop on a Koopa and there be blood spilling out. It goes against the tone established in world character. Likewise it would be disruptive to have mushroom power-ups in Call of Duty. The place of action and feeling of place work in with narrative to develop a tone pervasive throughout the world character and it is that tone which focuses gameplay. 

Videogames have one last unique characteristic in relation to their world character; the world character of a videogame is transcendent.  Books and films have previously reached levels or transcendence become iconic in their own. But there is degree to their transcendence that is somehow lacking. Less about what the literature, film or even play meant to audience, but what is has meant over the course of time. Although that is a perfectly suitable definition, it is inapplicable to videogames. An unfortunate side effect of the medium being so young. Transcendence in videogames is achieved in another manner. It is directly related to the world character of a videogame that it becomes transcendent. The audience is always the final collaborator; they will bring to the game something unique that will change and differentiate the experience for them. And the world character of a videogame allows for that. Narratives, even in the most open and free form of videogames, are already set by the time a player engages with them. However the world is not. World character is a living conceptual place inhabited by all the collaborators of the game. The developer’s concepts are most strongly felt throughout this world; their characters inhabit the play space after all, but the world character of a videogame adapts and changes as the player engages with it. What you, the player, choice to take, interpret and make your own from the game becomes part of the world character. It is part of you and you are part of the game. In that manner, Fallout became a deeply personal self examination for myself. I choose to believe in something the developers had created therefore making it partly may own. It is for you, the player, to decide in the end how the game will play out and that makes you just as strong a force within the game as the developers who created it. World character for videogames is transcendent. It is a living place that evolves and changes holding on to the ideas and experiences of every person who contacts it. Just take a small dive into any of the massive fandoms surrounding videogames and franchises. All these people believing and committed to the world character of the game, constantly adding to it, expanding it, making it live. That is transcendence.

World character defines a videogame while at the same time elevating it. The establishment of place of action and feeling of place is also the establishment of tone and gameplay. World character feeds the other elements of the game ultimately creating a living fiction. A transcendent experience shared by millions, but utterly unique to each one. World character in videogames defines what the game is and what it will become.

Healing

When I first met Corporal Betsy I had every intent of killing her. The Corporal was a sharpshooter for the New California Republic. My allegiance was with the Legion for this playthrough. She and everyone else at Camp McCarran were going to die if I had my way. Allow me to explain. The universe presented in Fallout: New Vegas is one that I find highly appealing. Dark cynicism and black humor are the hallmarks of that world, a retro-futuristic result of the 50’s obsession with science fiction and paranoia about atomic weapons. It rides the fine line between tongue-in-cheek humor and dead seriousness. And it does so well. There are times when you will laugh and there are other times when you will seriously ponder the moral ramifications of your actions. Take for example this dilemma: Do I kill Corporal Betsy because she is my enemy or do I take her quest anyway?

The quest, I Don’t Hurt Anymore, isn’t really even Corporal Betsy’s. She does not give it nor does she finish it. However, she is the main focus of it. Corporal Betsy was raped. The event happened long before my new Legion Courier could have done anything to intercede. I am informed by her commanding officer that she will not seek help on her own. Instead, she has taken to hitting on every woman that passes by as a coping mechanism. Corporal Betsy is a self described “stone-cold bitch” and behaves in a way that I am told is “unacceptable in the 1st Recon”. Her commanding officer would disciple her, but he rather that she gets help. The quest is to convince Corporal Betsy that she needs psychiatric help/emotional healing.

I have been in that position before. 

So, I lay my options out in front of me: I could kill them all; I could accept the quest to gain their trust and then kill them all; I could complete the quest to gain the XP and then kill them all; or I could complete the quest and let them live suffering damage to my reputation to the Legion. I considered my options, five in total if you counted just walking away. But I was lying to myself. There as only ever one option and I knew I would take it. Reputation with the Legion be damned.

She was raped. Nothing is ever the same.

There is a line that I refuse to cross. Everyone has them. We set barriers for ourselves to keep who we are and who we want to be away from the things that might destroy us. Corporal Betsy represented that line to me. There was no possible way that I would not complete her quest. Not for the XP, but because I could not bring myself to let her suffer.

She was shy when we first met. I remember that with clarity. She was beautiful and I stood there thinking that I should get to know better. She was quite and withheld. It was so obvious something was wrong, but I could never have known what it was. She was brave, perhaps the bravest woman I have ever met. There was also sadness there. Just below the surface. Her eyes would cautiously sweep before settling on any one person or thing. She had a big secret that made her sad, but she never let it show. She was so brave.  

When speaking to Corporal Betsy about getting help she counters that she is a soldier. No one else in her squad complains about the little cuts and bruises. If your character has enough speech or medical skill you can right then and there convince her to get the help she needs. I was building up my Legionary to have a high medical skill that will be needed later in the game. I told her that just like bruises and scrapes emotional wounds need proper time and care to heal. She seemed to like that logic and agreed to go get help. After a firm thank you from her commanding officer the quest was complete.

Even though I never wanted to, there was no way to stop myself from seeing it, the wound in her heart. Watching her suffer was the hardest thing about being her friend. She would smile, laugh and make it look like everything is okay. At first I believed her. I wanted to. There was a desperate desire within me to believe that she was alright. That everything really did turn out alright. But, I looked into their eyes and I could see it; the fear, the anger and the pain. There is so much pain that it would over flow leaving myself and the few others who really deeply cared to soak up the rest. Then we held her as she cried and let her pain fill us because it was the only thing we could do.

There is another way the quest can be completed. If your character lacks the skills necessary to convince Corporal Betsy on your own, you can talk to the other members of the squad to try and get their input on the situation. Each one will tell you that they found some way to work past their troubled pasts. One was tortured by the Legion. One is of the few survivors of a massacre. Each of these soldiers is just a person that needed help. Without the care and support of others they would never have survived. That is what you tell Corporal Betsy and she seems convinced.  Quest completed. 

There is an uncomfortable feeling of powerlessness when you know someone who has been raped. I always wonder ‘What if I had known her earlier? Could I have prevented it?’ And it comes back to me that no matter what I do in the here and now I can never protect her from that horror. She has been raped. It happened and there is nothing I can do to undo that. When I hold her close and whisper that everything will be alright it burns in the back of my mind that it won’t. How could anything be alright ever again? And suddenly I’m holding her tighter. I want to comfort her. I am also deathly afraid of what will happen if I let go.

There is one last part of Corporal Betsy’s quest that seems almost trivial. After I convinced her to get help I must journey to the clinic and let the doctor know that Corporal Betsy is coming. It is not even a very far walk. Upon entering the clinic I speak directly with the doctor in charge. She says that Corporal Betsy can be scheduled in and sessions will begin immediately. It is a small gesture. By now I have known Corporal Betsy for a full fifteen minutes, but it feels like I have known her much longer than that. Being able to insure that she gets the care she needs fills a space deep within my heart. I know that I will leave the clinic and never return to Camp McCarran. I cannot kill Corporal Betsy nor can I kill her squad. They are her support and care. She needs them so she can heal.

She was raped. She is healing.

Borderlands is my Antitheses

Story and narrative are the two biggest draws of any game for me. If the characters are well developed and the dialogue is good, I can overlook gameplay inconsistencies. It is for that reason that both Heavy Rain and Fallout: New Vegas have worked their way into my good graces. Even though Heavy Rain controls worse than a drunk playing Simon Says, it weaves a compelling and emotional story that is well worth playing. New Vegas, on the other hand, is a glitched out mess. Insta-deaths, characters without skin and some of the worst check points I have ever seen fall by the wayside because the world is so well realized. Dialogue is engaging and I wanted to keep playing just to see where I would go next. No matter the flaws of the gameplay or design a good story can save the game for me. 

Then why do I like Borderlands? 

Don’t get me wrong, both Borderlands and its sequel are extremely good games. Combined I have spent about 100 hours roaming Pandora. Not too impressive a number to the hardest of hardcore Borderlands players, but it is highly significant when you consider the fact that none of the other games I own have even reached that number of hours played. And yet when Borderlands is brought up in conversation, the only time the story is mentioned is to say how bad it was. The narrative plotting of the first Borderlands goes something like this:

• ·         Get off the bus.
• ·         Kill bandits and take their stuff.
• ·         Do tasks that make you better at killing bandits.
• ·         Kill more bandits.
• ·         Oh yeah, this Vault thingy exists.
• ·         Kill more bandits.
• ·         Wait? …. You want to know more about this Vault thing?
• ·         Why can’t you be content with killing bandits?
• ·         Kill more bandits.
• ·         Ok fine … Have your stupid little Vault. But wait there is no loot in the Vault. Only tentacles and unfulfilled dreams!
• ·         Ha! Next time you should just kill more bandits.

Let us be kind and say that the first Borderlands is not have a grade A story. Nor did it have good dialogue. All the dialogue was attempting to be humorous and sometimes it succeed, but others if failed horribly. When you weren’t either getting or turning in a mission, the npcs spouted the same 5 or 6 recycled lines. By any of my aforementioned standards Borderlands would be a terrible game, but it is not. The saving grace of Borderlands is the gameplay itself. 

In many ways Borderlands is like Tetris. Tetris is the perfection of gameplay. No story, narrative or dialogue, just pure unadulterated gameplay. And it is in many ways perfect. The gameplay of Tetris is superb and stands alone. (The argument can be made that Tetris is a commentary on Soviet life, but that is for later). Although it defies my own standards I love Tetris. 

Borderlands aligns with Tetris on the gameplay trumping story side of tastes. Gunplay is slick and responsive. Randomly generated loot is addicting and the entire experience is just rewarding. The story fades out into the background as you focus on killing more bandits. Borderlands is just about having fun. A world is created and populated with enemies so you can be given several gazillion guns and go crazy. What about that doesn’t sound fun? Borderlands and its sequel are gameplay experiences over story. 

And I know this makes me a huge hypocrite, but I love Borderlands. Crap story and all.