#oneaday Day 643: Out, Hyperbolical Fiend!

I think I'm allergic to hyperbole.

Well, okay, maybe "allergic" isn't quite the right word. I don't break out in a rash or anything any time someone says that something popular is good. But I do tend to find that excessive hype actually dulls my enthusiasm for something rather than fuels the fires as it may once have done in the dim and distant past.

Take the recent release of Batman Arkham City. By all accounts, it's a marvellous game (apparently) but I have very little desire to rush out, buy it and play it. There are a number of reasons for this — cashflow, the fact my Pile of Shame grows seemingly by the day at times, and the fact I'm still playing Xenoblade Chronicles — but seeing the relentless fawning all over it recently has been a little offputting. I find it doubly offputting due to the anti-consumer practices which have been foisted upon it — for the unfamiliar, a chunk of game content is locked off behind a single-use code, meaning that only people who purchase the game brand new will be able to access it without paying extra.

From what I've heard, this butchered content actually isn't particularly good, anyway, so at least that's something — but it still smarts to know that companies are wilfully screwing over consumers in the hope to make an extra buck. There is literally no good reason for this to be implemented in the case of Arkham City, which is a single player game. Online passes which lock off multiplayer modes can use the "it's helping to pay for the servers" argument, which is slightly more plausible, though which can still be easily debunked.

But we're not talking specifically about Online Passes here. We're talking about hyperbole in general.

The "big games" of the year are all coming out within the next few weeks, and it's surprising how little I care. I attribute this to several factors: firstly, most of them are first-person shooters that involve Soldiers With Guns, and secondly, having seen the PR circus teasing pointless information about them for the last [x] months, I'm sick of the sight of them already and they're not even out yet.

I perhaps wouldn't be quite so sick of the sight of them were it not for the fact that the publishers of these heavily-hyped titles treat them as "products" or "consumables" rather than what they actually are, which is interactive creative works.

Let me give you some sample quotes from press releases to give you an idea of what we're dealing with here.

This delay is a move to ensure players and fans of our promise and vision to produce high-caliber games that deliver the best quality game experience.

— Sony, on the Payday: The Heist delay.

We are thrilled to see Ezio enter the world of Soulcalibur, as we believe the values of both brands fit together. We think that this partnership will bring a great new gameplay experience to both Soulcalibur and Assassin's Creed fans.

— Ubisoft, on Ezio being the guest character in Soulcalibur V.

Letting fans vote for the UFC Undisputed 3 cover athlete is a unique way for us to connect with our extensive worldwide audience of UFC fans, fighting game enthusiasts and more casual sports followers. We look forward to seeing if Jon Jones, Anderson Silva, Georges St-Pierre or Cain Velasquez has what it takes to grace the cover of what will be the most invigorating MMA videogame release to date.

— THQ, on the pointless social media marketing ploy that is getting people to vote for what sweaty man will appear on the box of UFC Undisputed 3.

As you can see, these titles are being treated as products, commodities, things to be sold. All soul is sucked out of them any time you let someone with a title that includes "Vice President of [pointless-sounding department]" or "CEO" talk about it. Meaningless adjectives are applied, and talk turns to "brands" and "engaging with audiences" rather than "making a fucking badass game".

The developers should be talking about these games. The people who are creating them, building them, testing them. Not some suit who has probably never picked up a controller by choice in his life.

Imagine how much better a press release would be if it were written by the developers and they were allowed to show some enthusiasm and/or honesty about their work, rather than sticking to a rigidly defined PR schedule.

In fact, let's do better than that. Let's write one.

LONDON, October 23 2011 — Studio A33 today announced their new game "Hobbit Blasters", soon to be available for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360.

The game revolves around the tired old concept of pointing a gun at things and pulling the trigger, but this one features arcade-style point scoring with big numbers and loud noises that make it more fun than anything you've ever played ever.

"Seriously, you know, it might sound a bit lame," said Dave Thunder, lead programmer on the project, "but give it a chance. Hobbits are annoying. No-one ever seemed to comment on that fact when Lord of the Rings was big. We're allowing you to blow the shit out of those little scrotes in HD and you wouldn't believe how satisfying it is, particularly if the guys from the publisher have been in all morning making us sit through pointless meetings about stock value and other things we really couldn't give a flying fuck about. There's blood and guts and it really, positively, absolutely is fun, I promise. And if it isn't, you can have £10 of my own money. And a pint. And a cake."

Hobbit Blasters is in early stages of development but Studio A33 is more than happy to show off its work, warts and all, to any who are interested in seeing it.

"It's a bit shit at the minute," said Sally Harpy, lead graphic designer on the project. "But that's to be expected. We've not long been working on it. What do you want, stunning graphics from day one? Give me a fucking break here. I've been slaving over concept artwork for months, and now I have to implement all that shite into the game. But if you want to come and have a look, be my guest."

Hobbit Blasters is due out when it's finished.

#oneaday Day 507: Bang

I often labour under the mistaken assumption that I don't like shooters. I know, I know, to assume is to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me", and to incorrectly assume things about yourself is doubly stupid because after all, you should know yourself pretty well by now.

But anyway. What I mean to say is that I've fallen a bit out of love with recent shooters. Sure, they're pretty, and spectacular, and they make a bucketload of money. But they're boring. With a lot of modern shooters, you have two choices: incredibly linear, tightly-scripted single player campaign, or endless hours of multiplayer against people you will never, ever beat because all they do is play Call of Duty all day.

In the Ubisoft sale a while back, I picked up the two Far Cry titles for an obscenely low price, along with Crysis. I tried Far Cry 2 briefly and am looking forward to delving into that later, but the original Far Cry in particular is reminding me that the genre can indeed be fun if handled correctly.

The difference is in feeling like you have a choice of how to handle things. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the Call of Duty series, it's very scripted — go here, do this, proceed to this mission objective, use this weapon right now because we say so, BAM — car chase, things exploding, save this guy, oh you can't because it's scripted that he should die, etc. etc. But Far Cry is a bit different. Besides featuring hilariously atrocious voice acting and the most sarcastic protagonist I've ever had the pleasure of looking out from behind the eyes of, Far Cry's objectives are less tightly scripted, being of the "There's a thing you have to do about a mile away" variety, and then leaving it up to you how you approach it.

Do you steal a vehicle, powerslide through the middle of a bunch of enemies then pick off the rest with a mounted rocket launcher? Do you swim out to sea, jump atop a rock and pick them off from a distance? Do you lie in the bushes, observing their patrol patterns and assassinate each of them quietly one at a time? The answer is "yes", because you can handle situations in pretty much any way you please. The "all guns blazing" approach rarely works, but that's good — it forces you to think of solutions that are a bit more creative.

Even the indoor missions, while necessarily slightly more linear, have multiple paths and alternative routes to try. Do you open the door, throw in a grenade then clean up afterwards? Or do you crawl through the air vent in an attempt not to be seen? It's top-quality stuff, and the simple fact that when you die you don't have to go back and handle the same bit in the same way makes the whole experience infinitely more appealing than a more linear — albeit probably more spectacular — recent title.

So, good job, Far Cry. I am enjoying you. And I am looking forward to your sequel, despite it apparently having literally nothing to do with you.

#oneaday, Day 32: Brown Ops

Earlier today, this animated image from Insomniac Games' Resistance 3 did the rounds. Impressive. But also rubbish.

Ooh, controversial.

But seriously, look at it again. What is the one thing that sticks in your mind after watching that short clip? You probably answered either "post-apocalyptic", "monster" or "brown".

The trouble with things like this is that they completely lose their impact after a time. I'm sure Resistance 3 is technically very proficient, particularly if that clip was rendered using the game engine, which I'm guessing it was. But the fact it looks like Gears of War meets Fallout meets any other post-apocalyptic brown "destroyed beauty" sort of environment completely kills any interest for me—there's just too much of it around. And not just in the sci-fi genre; I haven't played Modern Warfare 2 for months (I traded it in after I got bored and decided I had no interest in the rest of the Call of Duty series after it) but my one enduring memory of that game, too, is that there was a lot of brown around.

This is nothing new, of course. I vividly remember getting all excited over the original Quake, the first high-profile "true 3D" first-person shooter. My brother, obviously already sick of it having been exposed to it every day on PC Zone, referred to it as "oh, the brown game". And yes, Quake was overwhelmingly brown, though there were a few blue bits in it too. This was just the beginning, though.

Yes, post-apocalyptic environments probably are going to be grey, brown and miserable. Although one thing that Halo: Reach shows is that it is possible for armageddon to be happening and it still be a vibrant place filled with colour. In the case of that game, it's arguable that the impact of the destruction is all the more profound because of the splashes of bright colours that are everywhere.

Or alternatively, developers, how about fewer games involving things that have collapsed or are in the process of collapsing? Fewer games where there's nothing but rock and stone? More games in organic, natural environments that aren't dead. More games that aren't afraid to take a few risks and be a bit more stylised rather than "gritty" and "realistic". Some of my favourite games of all time are the Timesplitters series, proving once and for all that I don't hate FPS games, I am just very tired of them all being identikit and boring. Timesplitters was colourful, distinctive and humorous but still managed to be atmospheric. And the news that CryTek are considering resurrecting the series fills me with an enormous amount of joy… and hope that they don't fuck it up.

Perhaps this is why I like JRPGs at a time when more and more people seem to be getting switched off by them. They may be their own particular kind of generic, but at least they offer some colour as part of their aesthetic.

#oneaday, Day 26: On Culture, and Farting on Things

The other night, I posted a question on Formspring. I thought I sent it to just a couple of friends but apparently somehow shared it with the entire Internet, as a lot of people, some of whom I hadn't come across on Formspring before, appeared to be very enthusiastic to answer it. I was somewhat surprised at the amount of depth people were putting into their answers, because it was, after all, a somewhat flippant question that I wasn't expecting people to take seriously at all. How wrong I was.

This was the question:

Out of The X-Factor/American Idol and equivalents; Jersey Shore; the music of Girls Aloud; the Call of Duty series; and cakefarts (don't look it up, it's exactly what it sounds like), which has had the most beneficial impact on society, however small?

My thinking behind it was this: here is a list of arbitrarily-chosen things that are all either irritating, disgusting, amusing or awesome depending on your outlook. Is there one that people see as significantly "better" than the others?

Turns out not, actually. Everyone had some good points to make.

@Ajguy had a short but sweet answer:

Cakefarts by far. Yes, I am familiar. And yes I've gotten a lot of friends with it.

It's probably important to choose who you're going to show Cakefarts to carefully, because after all, it is exactly what it sounds like. But it's the sort of thing you can show to people and they certainly won't forget it in a hurry. (If you're not familiar, seriously, don't look it up, especially if you're at work; the clue's in the name) If you are acquaintances with people who don't "get" the Internet, you'll be an Instant Legend.

@Cidergirli agreed with AJ, but for different reasons:

I'm going to have to go with cakefarts, purely because it's the only one which appears to be open and honest about its use of cake. Also: cake.

@MJPilon had a thoughtful take on the issue and came out in favour of American Idol/X-Factor:

The answer I have off the top of my head is American Idol and equivalents because despite all the craziness that has sprung up around these shows, at their heart, these shows demonstrate that people should not give up on their dreams and that if they work for it, they can achieve what they desire. Anything which can still evoke these feelings and notions in people are beneficial for society.

He was concerned immediately after that he may have missed the point of the question, but I think that's a decent answer; though personally I feel that "ambition" shouldn't require a TV show to inspire people to reach for the stars.

@C64Glen came out in favour of Girls Aloud, though not for the reasons you might expect. Or possibly the reasons you might expect, given his username. I wasn't familiar with the factoid he shared, though. TIL.

Girls Aloud easily, some of the tracks and production on the 'Out of Control' album is great. Some of it by former C64 musician Matt Gray. E.g. Untouchable (instrumental)

@Shinogu showed where his priorities lie with his response:

Jersey Shore? They were the only people of that selection at the LittleBigPlanet 2 World Record event.

@Cilllah, ably aided by @Culley25, got straight to the point of the matter:

All of them prove one very important fact – mental illness makes money.

Fair point. @Bungiesgirl then came up with an image that you will either find delicious or nightmarish depending on your opinion of two of the things mentioned in the original question:

Surely it is a combination of Girls Aloud and Cakefarts?! Girls aloud because they have a hot(ish) redhead, cakefarts just for the LOL! preferably these two things should be brought together into one super site of Girls Cakefarts Aloud.

I like the redhead in Girls Aloud. Nicola. She has a name. Nicola. I like Nicola. I understand she's not the most popular option. That's just fine by me.

Sorry, where was I? Oh, right. @minifig came up with some fair points in favour of Girls Aloud and Call of Duty, with a disclaimer:

Call of Duty probably wins it, since the development of the game has at least pushed a few technological boundaries a little way, and probably just enough to outweigh the huge timesink it is for the people that play it. However, I think Girls Aloud probably come second since:
1. They have a couple of songs that aren't too offensive and
2. The amount of masturbation they've induced may well have had an impact to reduce the fertility of large numbers of men, thereby reducing the world's already excessively large population.

Not that I like either CoD or Girls Aloud.

It was around this point that the answers started to gradually increase in length, depth and intensity of feeling. Here's @docbadwrench:

Thankfully, I only know what a few of those things are. However, I think I get the general point.

Based upon the available data, I would have to conclude that Call of Duty has the most beneficial (though incredibly small) impact upon society. It encourages aiming, which is highly important if you use a gun.

In fact, if all fans of the aforementioned list could improve their aim, then they might kill one another; this could be another net gain for society. Perhaps, if we could plant subliminal messages into Call of Duty games encouraging people to buy guns. Then, extending the message further, perhaps their American Idol viewing parties would include handguns, just lying around on the table, in case there's a conflict about whether the latest off-key primadonna is the bestest of them all.

Definitely Call of Duty.

"allpointsnorth", whom I'm not sure I know on Twitter (apologies if I do) had this to say:

I suppose the knee jerk and natural response is that none of those programmes have any beneficial impact, but that would be a touch lazy and, not really fair.

Like most things it depends upon how you measure it. If we take beneficial to mean that more people enjoyed it so it must be more beneficial then I suppose I'd have to say Call of duty? 55 million sold worldwide. I guess Call of Duty would also fall into the 'brought economic rewards to many' view of beneficial too, though I'm sure that Jersey Shore brings in the cash too as will Girls Aloud.

However, I'm not really a big fan of measuring society against some sort of scale. I don't think it really works like that. To break society down in such binary ways is tempting as it allows us to explain and comprehend the world around us so much more simply. However, society isn't simple and what benefits one, no doubt, harms another. Even if that harm falls into a socially acceptable form of harm that we ignore.

Of the things here I'd say that Girls Aloud benefited me most as I've enjoyed a selection of their poptastic hits and the videos to go with them more than Jersey Shore, Call of Duty or Cakefarts – none of which I have seen. So, clearly, the music of Girls Aloud is the winner here and has done the most to benefit society at large.

Interesting point. What is "beneficial" to society? Is it something that brings economic rewards? Something that benefits art and culture? Something that makes people happy?

@planetf1 had a simple but accurate answer to my question:

I'd go for xfactor/idol simple as it's given a lot of people pleasure, helped many with a career/breaking into the music industry, has stimulated discussion & allowed many people to share a common experience.

Discussion there certainly is; like it or hate it, during any high-profile "reality" show on TV, Twitter will be abuzz with discussion about the show in question, whether it's in-depth debates about which floppy-haired twat is the "best" or people ranting and raving how much they don't care about whatever programme it is.

Two more, then we're done. @MituK had this wonderfully analytical, scientific approach to share on the subject:

Ooh, interesting. Well, let's assume that 'beneficial impact' can go into negatives, and assess each accordingly.

I know that there is a difference between X-Factor-type-shows and Jersey Shore, but both seem to elevate fame for it's own sake; even where hard work and talent are not what is being rewarded. This has led to a whole generation(s) of kids valuing fame for it's own sake, rather than as a consequence of hard work. Definitely negative impact. We'll give this a -5 rating for 'beneficial impact'

Similarly, the music of girls aloud – this has created tunes I can happily bop along to when in the mood, but it's also meant Cheryl Cole, who most little girls (according to a recent survey) would like to grow up to be, so this creates the same problem as described in the first paragraph. We'll give this an arbitrary rating of -0.5, weighing up those two things…

The CoD series – hmm, perhaps there has been no negative impact other than the already-existing self-perpetuating desire for studios to churn out yet more of these types of games. HOWEVER, it's existence has no doubt also inspired some of the many smart people interested in game design to want to create more interesting video game experiences (think indie scene). So, perhaps in a way this has had beneficial impact of +2 (of course I'm being idealistic here).

Cakefarts get a 'beneficial impact' rating of 0, because that is precisely how long I want to think about cakefarts.

So, on that scale, CoD wins, I guess!

And finally, @jennfrank shares a convincing argument in favour of Jersey Shore:

I've had more conversations about Jersey Shore than I've ever had about Idol or Talent or Call of Duty, and while these are all legitimate cultural milestones, OH MY GOD, don't get me started on all the million reasons Jersey Shore is my heart and soul.

I love these earnest people earnestly, without a wrinkle of irony–I do!–and I love their passion for life and their perfectly foreign codes of morality and chivalry and fashion. But it's this amazing anthropological study that no other show dares attempt, which is edgy in its way, and the cast, in turn, are these amazing actors who improvise their warts, these utterly authentic famewhores who relish in their own faults and even explain them all out, looking directly into the camera in partial states of drunkenness and undress.

Watching the show, for me, reproduces much the same crackle I felt as a tween watching early Real World, but instead of feeling a voyeur's envious thrill at the specter of adults away from home for the first time, I instead know the envious thrill of watching kids away from home for the first time. So it's the same, and it's not the same.

Also, these folks are classy: Snooki is a NYT bestselling author, and Jenni "JWOWW" Farley is a spectacularly talented painter.

So there you have it. Points in favour of all of them, and proof positive that easily-derided cultural phenomena sometimes carry more significance than you might think personally.

Still hate X-Factor, though.

#oneaday, Day 7: Video Games: A Primer

A lot of my fellow One A Day bloggers are avid video gamers. Many of them even write words about them on a professional basis. But there are others, like Pete Fraser, who are understandably bewildered by the whole thing. Sure enough, it's a fast-moving, exciting medium which many believe is difficult to penetrate if you haven't been along for the whole ride.

To that I say: pish, pfaugh and nonsense. There's never been an easier time to get into video games and find out more about them. Let me explain why.

It's unfortunate that the early days of gaming were plagued with stereotypes (which some people, see the delightful Jeff Minter, pictured to the right, are still more than happy to live up to) and this put a lot of people off getting into the hobby. It wasn't a "cool" thing to do. It was the thing that "nerds" did, and the sort of thing that could potentially get you beaten up at school if you were in a particularly rough and less-enlightened place.

The thing is, though, at least some of the stereotypes had partial basis in fact. Early gaming demanded many things. Patience. An understanding that you were dealing with a brand new technology that wasn't particularly refined yet. In many cases, a mathematical mind. A willingness to practice things until you got better. Early games were frequently simple affairs that artificially inflated their playtime by being ludicrously difficult. This made the hardcore gamers very happy when they were able to finally beat a particularly difficult level, but for people who might be interested in passing? They didn't want to spend that much time in front of a TV listening to the whining and squeaking of a cassette deck loading games.

Over time, though, games have become more and more sophisticated, family-friendly and accessible. A big part of this movement has come via games consoles, which have actually been around almost as long as home computers. Games consoles are made to be hooked up to "the big television" of the house and, in the early days at least, were often filled with experiences made to be shared—indeed, the very first gaming machines were primitive multiplayer "tennis" affairs. Later, we got many arcade conversions, and TV advertising, particularly the cringeworthy efforts from Atari, encouraged family participation and friendly competition.

As consoles became more and more sophisticated, developers started experimenting with a greater focus on developing narratives throughout their games. We saw titles such as the ambitious Final Fantasy series telling surprisingly mature, sophisticated (if now clichéd) stories through the SNES and PlayStation 1 periods having graduated from their primitive roots on the original NES. Graphics improved at a rapidly-increasing rate, giving us games that wanted more and more to be like the movies. But still they were tied to arbitrary control schemes that required practice; there was still a barrier of entry: "you must be this skilful to enjoy this medium".

Until we get to this generation. This generation of gaming has exploded. We're at a stage now where gaming is accessible to pretty much anyone. We're at a stage where gaming is no longer confined to one specific demographic. We're at a stage where you don't even need a controller to work your Xbox if that's the route you want to take.

Love them or hate them, several things have done a huge amount to make gaming more accessible to the masses. The Wii and the variety of plastic-instrument music games such as Rock Band brought family-friendly, "lifestyle" and party gaming back, reminding people how much fun it was to get together with friends and play in the same room. Kinect for the Xbox provides entertaining, active games that kids and adults alike can enjoy without having to remember which button does what. Facebook games like Farmville, while shallow to people who have been playing games for years, provide bored office drones and soccer moms with fun things to do on the Internet. Call of Duty lets the frat boys (and girl-equivalents) of the world blow seven shades of shit out of each other whilst shouting racial epithets at one another. And the blossoming independent development scene sees digital artists and creative minds pushing the boundaries of what "interactive entertainment" really means.

Games may or may not be art—that's an interminable question that may never be answered conclusively. But one thing games aren't? Just for teenage boys. Give 'em a shot. You might surprise yourself.

#oneaday, Day 332: Fire The Canon... He's Not Pulling His Weight

What are those games you have to play?

The answer, of course, is none at all, but there are plenty of people out there who believe that you can't call yourself a "true gamer" (whatever that means) unless you've played this game or that game. And for sure, at one point that was true, simply because the volume of games being released was such that it was easy enough to keep up to speed on at least all the big releases, if not absolutely everything that was available.

Nowadays, though, gaming is such big business that it's impossible to keep up with triple-A releases, let alone delve into the increasingly-awesome pool of independent and/or smaller titles out there.

Rather than this being a frustrating thing, though, this is a very positive sign. Speak to someone who's a film snob and they will probably turn their nose up at the prospect of a Michael Bay film, yet there are plenty of people out there who go and watch various childhood-raping movies that ensure you can never look at Transformers in quite the same way ever again.

And it's the same with gaming. There is no one set "canon" of games that you absolutely must play. I've come around to this idea, having had it first mooted by my good buddy and fine, upstanding gentleman Calin. There are games that are important to the history of gaming, sure. But they're not things that everyone has to play. If everyone plays all of the stuff from history that is supposedly "important", they'll never get to anything from today. It's a balancing act.

What I've been wondering is if it's possible for someone who is a full-on gaming enthusiast to spend their time playing nothing but non-triple A titles. Surely there are enough indie and "cheap-fu" titles out there now to enable someone to have an enjoyable experience without having to spend $60 a time for the privilege? And yes, I'm using dollars to illustrate my point because I'm in the States. When in Rome and all that.

This approach isn't for every gamer, just like watching only foreign and/or arthouse movies isn't for everyone who purports to "like movies". I love ASCII-based roguelike Angband, for example, and have sent any number of heroic @-signs to their death now, but I don't expect everyone to find that sort of experience palatable. I can certainly play that game and find it enjoyable, however, and there are times when I'd pick playing that over something like, say, Halo. I'd certainly always pick it over Call of Duty.

But there are people who feel the opposite too. And it's pretty cool that we've reached a stage where we can say that about the gaming industry. The only difficulty that comes with this territory is the fact that the gaming press is not able to cover everything that is out there, meaning some spectacular stuff can get completely overlooked, or sell poorly, or be unfairly judged.

This is where word of mouth comes in. You found something awesome you think friends might enjoy too? Tell them. Don't keep it to yourself. I know that I've convinced at least a few people to play Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale since I started banging on about it a few weeks back, and I'm sure there are others out there who might be interested in trying other things I've mentioned. Similarly, my obsession with Persona 3 and 4 can be entirely attributed to a blog post my friend Mark wrote extolling the virtues of Persona 3, a post which was enough to make me think "I have to play this game."

We're in an age of active involvement and active socialisation. The gaming press still certainly has a place—I should hope so, anyway, since I'm involved in it—but there's just as much importance, if not more, on word-of-mouth recommendations and discussion.

Think about the last game you played. Was it something you played because reviews were good? Because people were talking about it? Or something you took a chance on and then felt like telling everyone how good/bad it was?

In my case, the last two games I played (Recettear and DEADLY PREMONITION) were the latter two. I took a chance on Recettear and adored it. And I couldn't not play DEADLY PREMONITION after hearing some of my closest friends discussing it in appropriately reverent tones. I actually can't remember the last time I bought a game purely on the strength of a review.

#oneaday, Day 297: Read This Or I'll Punch You In The Balls/Face

The latest episode of The Squadron of Shame SquadCast is currently uploading. In it, we discuss the ever-present topic of video game violence. Is it really destroying our children and turning them into violent assholes?

Well, you'll have to listen to the podcast for our group conclusions, but here's my take on the whole thing. Video game violence has now been around for some time. In fact, it's been around for quite a bit longer than some people realise. A couple of the guys brought up Forbidden Forest on the Commodore 64, a game which, while laughable now, was pretty shocking and gory for the time. I know that certainly five-year old me would have been freaked out by the big-ass spiders.

One side-effect of the violence issue being around for so long is that it's now somewhat taken for granted. Whether or not this is "desensitisation" per se is a matter of opinion. But the fact is, violence in video games is very rarely shocking these days. Shoot someone in Call of Duty and it doesn't carry much in the way of emotional impact, because you do it so much. Shoot someone in Heavy Rain, though, and it carries much more gravitas due to the context, and the fact it happens less.

But desensitisation to violence in the video games medium doesn't mean that we as a culture are desensitised to violence as a whole. I've played a ton of games that involve ultra-violence, dismemberment, heads exploding, that sort of thing. One of my favourite games in recent memory was Bayonetta, which features a huge range of over-the-top violence and implements of extreme torture. But if I saw something like that happening in real life, I would be horrified and disgusted. I see a photograph of something violent and I feel sick. And anything involving eyes—even if it's just on a TV show or a movie—ugh, count me out.

So it's clear, then, that video games haven't desensitised me, personally, to anything except video game violence, which is something much more akin to cartoon violence than anyone else. I doubt there's anything that can adequately prepare you for real-world violence and gore, save being immersed in it for some time by being either a psychopath or a soldier on active duty. And neither of those things are particularly desirable.

What I have observed, though, is a knock-on effect from some of these games, and it's not necessarily the violence itself that is to blame. Back where I used to live, a lot of kids used to play in the streets rather noisily. Nothing unusual, you might say, until you heard the language they were coming out with. It became abundantly clear to me from listening to them, and the fact I had played through Modern Warfare 2 relatively recently, that they were re-enacting something they'd seen in a video game. And the parents didn't seem to care that their kids—aged between about 5 and 10, I'd wager—were out in the street, yelling "MOTHERFUCKER!" at each other and threatening to blow each others' legs off.

"Kids will be kids," is the easy response, of course. But these kids picked up on this material from somewhere, and obviously hadn't had a discussion with their parent(s) about what was appropriate to be shouting in the street, and what wasn't.

I don't envy the task that parents have these days. There is so much crap out there that kids can access easily. So the challenge is not to stop them from seeing it at all—that's an impossible mission that grows more impossible by the day—but to help them understand what is and isn't "appropriate" in certain contexts. And some parents, it seems, just can't be bothered to have those conversations. And, as a result, assholes beget assholes.

It's a big topic, far more than just one blog post can cover. Want to hear more? Then check out the latest episode of the SquadCast, which will be up online very soon. Head over to the Squadron of Shame Squawkbox in the meantime to debate the issue.

#oneaday, Day 295: Eat Your Words

Call of Duty: Black Ops is currently in the process of being launched. This game, for the uninitiated, is going to be rather popular, and it's expected to sell by the millions. Fair enough. It's always good to see something enjoy so much success. (Unless it's, say, a nuclear bomb or terrorist plot or something.)

It's also something that I couldn't give two shits about, but this blog post isn't about why I don't give two shits about it. This blog post is about why it doesn't matter that I don't give two shits about it, and why it doesn't matter that you, the reader, might think it's the best thing ever. All that really matters is your own personal opinion on the matter, and it's this principle that the Internet at large (including, occasionally, yours truly) forgets sometimes.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, of course. But who really has the right to say what is the "correct" opinion? No-one, of course. The only "correct" opinion is the one you hold. If your opinion doesn't happen to gel with the majority, then that's fine. If you hold an opinion that's popular with the majority but unpopular with your circle of friends, that's fine too.

In most cases, anyway. Opinions involving being a Nazi, a racist, enjoying raping and/or killing children and/or animals or reading the Daily Mail are generally agreed to be Bad Things. These are societal norms. They're universally accepted. (Except by the racist Nazi child-raping animal-haters who read the Daily Mail, of course.)

But there are no societal norms on what you "should" think about Call of Duty. Sure, there's a large number of people out there who really dig it. Some may point to sales figures or Raptr usage statistics and claim that Modern Warfare 2 is the "most popular game of all time" and therefore one of the most important that everyone should like and appreciate. But that's not the case at all.

The simple fact is, all forms of media have, over time, broadened their appeal. No-one can be expected to be "into" everything. There's no-one out there who's read every book, seen every film, watches everything on TV. For one thing, there simply isn't time to do that. And while it was once possible to play every game there was thanks to their short length or relatively limited availability, we're now at a stage where there's no need to play every game out there. In fact, it's arguably undesirable to do so, because it would inevitably mean you'd miss out on some of the hidden depths of some titles. Consider the person who romps straight through Fallout: New Vegas' main questline and beats it in, say, 20 hours, versus the person who fully explores the world and invests over 100 hours into that game. Who's had the fuller experience and got better value for money? I guess there's arguments for either, but personally speaking on reflection I'd much rather have a deeper experience with less titles than whore around with every game that's available out there.

What that means, then, is that if you're someone who isn't interested in Black Ops, you don't have to feel bad about all the fuss. But at the same time, there's no need to be an ass to the people out there who are buzzed for that game. They probably wouldn't be into the idea of playing Deadly Premonition, Aquaria or Super Meat Boy.

So, basically, do your thing, enjoy what you enjoy and don't be hatin' on those who like something you don't. Similarly, if you like something and someone else doesn't, don't be hatin' on them for not liking it, either.

And the world will be a happy place.

Who am I kidding? This is never going to happen. Call of Duty sucks and everyone buying it is a lame-ass fagbrain!*

* This is a joke, tightass.

#oneaday, Day 276: Age of the Crossover

The Internet was left reeling yesterday with the news that Professor Layton and Phoenix Wright were to star in a game together, news which left me in a state of semi-orgasmic shock, and yet slightly disappointed that they hadn't also included Trauma Team and Hotel Dusk in the mix. But no matter; as my Jaffa Cake-loving friend Jasmine Maleficent Rea pointed out, the idea of Edgeworth and Layton sitting down together and discussing tea is too awesome for words.

So it seems we're in the Age of the Crossover. We've had the odd crossover title before, of course, Marvel vs Capcom being one that springs immediately to mind, as well as Square Enix's bizarre 3D fighting game Ehrgeiz that featured a number of characters from the Final Fantasy series. And Kingdom Hearts, of course, which almost ignores the fact that floppy-haired J-protagonists are interacting with Disney characters presented in a completely different art style and is all the better for it.

But what else would work well as a crossover? Well, a short while back I suggested that a Call of Duty and Call of Cthulhu crossover might be a good idea. I still think that would be awesome. Particularly as there's already been a first-person Call of Cthulhu game that was pretty good, if a bit buggy in places. In fact, I'd be more than happy with a multiplayer FPS version of awesome co-op board game Arkham Horror, although we're kind of getting a bit off the crossover point there. Drop in the, erm, memorable Call of Duty characters, maybe?

But what else? As I suggest in today's comic, doing interesting things with cars is always a good thing. Split/Second proves that you can make a cinematic, exciting driving game that uses a dynamic movie-like soundtrack rather than a boring licensed one. So why not take that to the next level and combine the already-epic-and-explosive action of Split/Second with the utter nonsense that is a JRPG boss battle? Let's have racing around giant Shadow of the Colossus-style enemies, setting off environmental effects to attempt to take them down whilst they do their very best to throw the player off course. All the while accompanied by a full orchestral score and a choir of people singing loudly in Latin, naturally. (Incidentally, if you've never played any driving game with a custom orchestral soundtrack that involves a choir of people singing loudly in Latin then I can highly recommend it. It makes the whole experience considerably more exciting. Try the soundtracks from Castlevania Lords of Shadow or The Matrix Revolutions.)

Or you could go completely wild. Rockstar already seem pretty determined to do very odd things to Red Dead Redemption what with the zombie DLC and whatnot, so why not go the whole hog and do a Firefly crossover? It would be stylistically appropriate, after all (more so than bloody zombies) and provide an interesting twist on the Western formula, something which Firefly already does rather ably. Not to mention the fact that Nathan Fillion and the gang have already pretty much reprised their Firefly roles in Halo ODST. Shiny.

There's plenty of scope for all manner of nonsense if you start pushing different franchises together in the name of entertainment. And I'm not talking about Alien vs Predator here. Let's see more of these big names in gaming coming together to produce something beautiful.

So what would you like to see?

#oneaday, Day 244: Halo? More Like...

I have a peculiar and complex relationship with the first-person shooter genre of gaming. On the one hand, I have very fond memories of growing up playing Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. In fact, as I may have shared before, such was my obsession with Wolfenstein 3D and the early days of the mod scene, that 10 of my levels are part of the official Apogee "Super Upgrades" expansion pack, a feat which netted me $200 and means that I can technically call myself a professional game developer.

On the other hand, I have vivid memories of playing Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 and getting inordinately frustrated with sequences that are so difficult they require you to play, die, play, die, play, die, play, die, sometimes for hours at a time until you figure out the way to beat that particular sequence.

Such is the experience I'm having with Halo: Reach at the moment. There's no denying it's a great game, and the sheer amount of stuff that Bungie have crammed into the game is incredible. The fact that any mode can be played in multiplayer, and the fact that Forge World actually allows the construction of some truly hilarious structures, is enough to make me adore the game and praise its name for all eternity.

What was almost enough to make me fling it out of the window, though, was the Campaign mode. I had played through the mission called "The Long Night of Solace" and was reaching the end of it. Those who have played that mission will know it's the awesome one that includes space combat. As a matter of fact, the space combat was so good I happily proclaimed on Twitter that I'd play a whole game based on that engine. And I stand by that. It was stunning. Not only that, it allowed a full 360 degrees of movement, which is practically unheard of in console-based space sims. So hats off to Bungie for that.

Unfortunately, all of the hard work that mission did to convince me that yes, Halo is not all that bad really, was promptly undone by the very last sequence of that mission. Here, you get jumped by about six Elite Specialist enemies, all of whom are armed with weapons that are quite capable of one-shot killing you. Not only that, but they spread out around the room so there is no place where you can find cover. Not only that, your companion who, it should be added, has an absolutely fucking massive gun and is invincible, is utterly useless at killing them, so of course it's up to Muggins, sorry, Noble Six, to save the day.

I must have repeated that sequence a good thirty or forty times. By the end of it I was literally screaming obscenities at the television. I was very glad that no-one else was in the house.

"Well, then," you may say. "Don't play the Campaign mode. Play the stuff you do like." But… Achievements…

In seriousness, I do kind of want to play the Campaign mode through to its conclusion because of my good friend Mr George Kokoris' regular assertions that Halo's lore is, in fact, far more in-depth and interesting that "OMG SPACE MARINEZ AND ALIENZ LOL". And to be fair, thus far I've mostly enjoyed the Campaign. I just find it a pity that there are short sequences such as the one I've described above that (temporarily at least) spoil the experience. It causes a curious ping-ponging effect where I bounce back and forth between loving and hating the game. Sometimes I get stuck on the "hate" part, and it's for that reason I never beat the original Gears of War and have no interest in the remainder of the series. There was one sequence that involved a sniper who repeatedly one-shotted me in that game that eventually caused me to turn it off, put it in its box, trade it in and never speak of it ever again except to slag it off.

Hopefully it won't come to a fit of nerd rage with Reach. At least there's plenty of other stuff to enjoy if the Campaign does get too much.