October 27, 2014

MGS2+MGS2 = 5

Book 3 of 100: 1984

Surprisingly I never actually read this one before, though, again like Hamlet, a lot of the plot or overarching themes and ideas I've seen parodied in countless different works. (Futurama being one of the ones that comes to mind most readily).

1984 is considered to be an Anti-Utopian book, which goes out of its way near the end to point out that it is in every way the opposite of a Utopia. Even the people who benefit the most and uphold the idea of Big Brother and the Party are under no illusion that people will be happy under the system. The fatal flaw, though, I see in the ideals of the Party is the fact that there is no reason to keep people alive under such a rule. They want power, absolute power, but power over a people who aren't, in any shape or form, people anymore, isn't much. At that point they might as well just create robots and replace the population with a race that won't ever need the large amounts of resources to police and monitor them. No more doublethink and no more thoughtcrime. With a robot, you can literally delete the 'erroneous' information and replace it with the 'correct' version. Once deleted, the robot will no longer remember it ever being any other way. No twinges of irrationality, no fruitless passions or hopes, and no free thought.

While it is definitely a fairly scary version of a society run amok, it makes absolutely no sense why anyone should want to continue it. The people below who fight and rebel are systematically brainwashed and broken to live for a couple more years until their eventual annihilation, the people above don't actually benefit that much from the work of the people below, since they have very little actual freedom even up above.

And, in the end, that's essentially the point of the book. Futility is futile. Everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Once you step back from the setting of the book, you realize that a lot of what it talks about in the book is actually true. I've mentioned before that when you die, you essentially become a shadow of who you used to be. People will always color your memories from their perspective, so what you actually said or did (and why) will all be misconstrued. Empirical evidence is the only concrete statement of your life, and that can be faked or destroyed. I mean, as it is, large portions of history are already whitewashed for the modern audience. It's telling that we focus on dates and numbers and physical actions within history classes, but the stories, how they effected actual people, and what in turn caused other people to act are all glossed over in favor of making sure that students understand that the Phoenicians had the first written language and that the Mesopotamians wrote the epic of Gilgamesh. That's what makes history class so boring and hard to follow all throughout school.

And this all ties into another game that is remarkably similar to 1984: Metal Gear Solid 2.

I always liked this game. I loved Raiden, which was a nice change of pace from the classic Solid Snake. He was a real person who tried to understand what was going on around him in a world of Virtual Realities and subtle societal control.

While the plot was really hacked up and complex, (made worse by large parts of the script being hastily rewritten after 9/11 right before it shipped) the few elements that are easy to catch is the Patriots (The La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo) and the persistence of memory and reality. Raiden is told to go into a facility to rescue the President and a bunch of hostages while simultaneously taking down the terrorists who have held the entire place for ransom.

Soon after arriving Raiden starts seeing things that don't add up. And eventually, it comes down to a conspiracy involving a mysterious group of men who might actually control all of the world's information, the Patriots, and the idea of the meme. Not funny cat pictures with the Impact font saying something in broken English, but the idea of a cultural knowledge. The game awkwardly tries to get you to think about this by saying that there are 26 letters of the alphabet, but what if there were 28 and someone deleted the extra two. How would you know there was ever anything different? I grant that Hideo Kojima likely couldn't do the exact 2+2=5 parallel from 1984, but this is never really well explained later.

The idea is that the Patriots have been in charge of things for so long that they exist in the internet and all information exchanges. Clarifying the example from the game, what if, in 1800, there were two extra letters in the alphabet. The Patriots wanted it gone, so they started to systematically destroy all evidence that it ever existed and eventually, 200 years later, no one was alive who remembered that there ever was a letter for the 'CH' sound and a gutteral 'F' sound. That's the idea of what the Patriots are. They are Big Brother. Only they work in secret.

Big Brother keeps people ignorant by controlling their thoughts and monitoring them. The Patriots aren't that much different, only they control the information that reaches the public, thereby controlling their thoughts by the flow of the information they receive.

The game comes down to the same argument of what is real. Raiden was trained to be a super-solider a la the "Legendary Solid Snake" through a series of Virtual Reality training segments. In fact, the events in MGS 2 are the first time he's ever actually been deployed into the field. Once they try to destroy the master program the Patriots are using to control information, Raiden's support team (only ever contacted through the CODEC) start behaving erratically. The people who he was supposed to have the most faith in on the field turn out to be nothing more than computer programs, created by the Patriots. Even his girlfriend, Rose, who was helping him through the mission, turns out to be a program (or is she?) Raiden has to cast doubt on if he had ever even met Rose in real life, since so much of his life was lived inside a computer program. The entire events of MGS2 are supposed to be, for Raiden, a recreation of the events from MGS1, imitating the key plot points and characters that turned Solid Snake into such a legend. All this so the Patriots could create another Solid Snake that they could control.

It's actually a recurring theme after the events of Metal Gear Solid 3, that the US Government wants to make a super-soldier that could be like Big Boss. To accomplish this, they do everything they can from cloning Big Boss (the Les Enfant Terrible project) to trying to brainwash and mind control an ex-child soldier into becoming just like Snake. Snake, who is the only person to ever defeat Big Boss.

In the end of MGS 2, Raiden makes a statement that his reality will be his own choosing and he throws away the dog tags that you printed your name on. In essence, he is throwing YOU the player away. He doesn't want you to control him anymore. And the concept of the meme is brought back in MGS 4, by the way that all soldiers invariably take nanobot injections because that's what you do as a soldier. The nanobots have become a meme at this point. Everyone has them and even if you don't you're aware of what they are without ever being told.

In 1984 Big Brother controls the memes. A majority of the first part of the book talks about things that aren't ever directly stated. Things like what will get you caught by the Thought Police, what is a crime despite there being no laws, what you're expected to do when, all of the sudden, the government changes who they're at war with. The societal knowledge, the memes, found in 1984 is how the Party controls the populous. If they were to be explicit about it, people would rebel. Just like if the President announced tomorrow that the new official language of the US was French. But, if the President, bit by bit, has spies and people working under him, slowly start working more French into normal discourse, in the course of 100 years, we could all be speaking French without ever realizing what happened.

It's a terrifying system, but there is no fear of it coming to pass in America. The best example, for the people who are claiming government conspiracies left and right, is the fact that you can openly tell this conspiracies from any venue, and yet you aren't "vaporized". People are left who knew who you were and who know what you said. Empirical evidence continues to exist that you, at one point, existed. These are things that aren't present in 1984 and due to the internet can never be completely erradicated. I mean, look at what happens the moment someone wants a picture of their house taken down from a website. It's duplicated and mirrored so many times that it becomes impossible to destroy it completely any more than it would be possible to gather every grain of sand off a beach.

MGS 2 continues to be one of my favorite games as far as a complex plot goes, and 1984 was a great book that teaches us the consequences of letting a society stagnate.

October 20, 2014

Wherefore Art Thou Hamlet?

Continuing with our list of 100 books to read, we read Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Back in the time of traveling acting troupes, often times they would put on Hamlet as a last minute addition, since it's the Bard's shortest work. Cramming it into an already packed rehearsal schedule, mixed with the rather morose and poetic prose found in the play, caused many actors to overact many of the parts, especially Hamlet, who goes on and on about death and revenge and the like. From this situation do we get the term "Ham" for an actor who overacts or is otherwise cheesy.

But, I found that I really enjoyed this play. This is the first Shakespeare play that I've read outside of a classroom setting. I had previously read Romeo & Juliette in my high school English class and I thoroughly enjoyed it when I had a definitions guide readily at hand. The version of Hamlet I read had tons of footnotes to help me with understanding.

The bulk of the story, you already know if you've seen the Lion King. Uncle kills King, Prince seeks to kill Uncle for killing King. Everyone dies at the end.

This play, however, brought up some fun existential crises that a lot of people have to face at some point or another. The first, of course, is if there really is an afterlife. Hamlet's famous speech, "To be, or not to be" basically covers all the possible outcomes of suicide and rules it as a Catch 22. Is it better to endure the tortures and torments of mortality and inherit an afterlife or to kill oneself and thereby ending the pain and torment. But, he goes on, that only works if there is no afterlife. What's the point of enduring this all if this is it? And what if there is an afterlife and I'm punished for taking my own life?

The story constantly plays between the fear of the afterlife and the inevitability that comes with death. His own mother reminds Hamlet to not be so sad about his father's death, since everyone dies eventually. (Try telling your children that at the next funeral they have to attend. Don't worry Sally, everyone dies, so there's no point in being sad!) What's more is the delightful, even comical, insanity that Hamlet puts on. It makes you wonder how great it would be if you could pretend to be crazy, and thereby getting a free pass on anything you say to people?

Hamlet is approached by his dead father who tells him that his uncle killed him, so Hamlet, wanting to make sure that he wasn't hallucinating anything, sets up a situation to unnerve the usurper king if he was really guilty. In here we find a bit of scathing denouncement of other forms of entertainment that were stealing patrons from Shakespeare's plays, as Hamlet bemoans the plight of the actors who are top-notch having to resume traveling to make any money. It's one of those moments, where you really start to see these actors as people and not just words on a page.

Finally, I think it's interesting how everyone ends up dead. Poison. Poison everywhere. Hamlet accidentally kills a man whose son teams up with the usurper king to kill Hamlet. They'll duel with rapiers, one of which is tipped with poison. As a backup, the usurper king also poisons the wine Hamlet will drink. The queen toasts to Hamlet after the first round and drops dead. Hamlet gets poked by the poison-rapier and, in the scuffle, also pokes the would-be assassin with the same weapon. Then everything stops and he's all, "Bro, I'm sorry it ended this way. Please forgive me, if I forgive you for killing my father. The King put me up to this." And Hamlet is all, "Yo dawg, we cool. But this rapier is poisoned? Shiggidy SHANK." And then he stabs the usurper king. So everyone dies and the person who was framed for killing Hamlet's father ends up inheriting the kingdom in a brilliant turn of irony.

Also, it's hard to write Hamlet a bunch of times without writing once, Ham Melt, and now I'm all hungry.

October 8, 2014

The Huckleberries Taste Like Huckleberries!

So, me and my wife saw the Equalizer this past month, and it got us reading a list of 100 classic books to read. Among the books in the list (with works like Don Quixote, Hamlet, The Old Man and the Sea) was Huckleberry Finn, which I had read half of in high school but never finished. So we both started with that.

I loved the book, since it was hilarious, beautifully critiquing the adult-run world from a kids' point of view. Everything from religion to slavery was covered in an interesting, all-innocent child's point of view, as Huck tries to understand the point of so much hoopla, and is also forced to deal with the (at the time) moral dilemma of helping a slave run away from slavery.

It's important to remember that this would be tantamount to grand theft auto now, considering the usefulness of slaves and the exorbitant prices a good one would fetch. Huck knew the owner and felt bad that he was essentially robbing an old widow of one of her slaves. On the other hand, he knew Jim (the runaway) and liked him and felt partially responsible for his well-being as a friend.

But that's not what I'm writing about today. Apparently, there is some sort of controversy or discussion going on since the 60's about the books ending, and whether or not it was a fair ending.

In the end (spoilers?) Jim turns out to have been freed in the will of the widow, Tom and Huck turn out okay, and Huck's pap was killed by some ruffians early in the book, so Huck is still a rich little brat without his abusive, alcoholic father a constant background threat in his life. It's a slightly unexpected happy ending all around, but I do say, slightly. The overall feeling of the book, as it seemed to me, was intended for children. Granted, children who were either living in that time who understood more than Huck, or young adults living today. And in my opinion, I don't think Mark Twain had it in him to put poor Jim or Huck into a bad spot in the end.

But, that is completely ignoring the last ten chapters of the book. The book seems to cover about three separate arcs: The first third of the book describes Huck and Jim escaping "sivilizayshun" and the misadventures they have together. It's Huck learning more about the world around him and coming to love Jim as a friend.

The second third introduces the King and the Duke, two con-men who Huck takes to traveling with. In some aspects, these represent the lowest possible moral aspect that Huck could achieve. No matter what his moral dilemma is with helping free Jim, he's never so low-down as to completely agree with what these two blackguards are up to. They are so terrible to their fellow man that Huck wants to just be done with them.

This leads into the last third of the book, wherein Tom Sawyer is reintroduced and starts really shining. Here is where the book seems to slow down to an almost irritating level.

Despite what's gone before, it was easy to read the book, as the stories flowed well from one to another. But here is where the story seems to stagnate. Jim is recaptured and is awaiting resale or claim in a very minimum security hold while Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn are both going about planning his escape. Huck starts off by pointing out that the key isn't guarded, there are no guards posted at any time, and the dogs know Jim, Tom, and Huck well enough not to make any noise to arouse suspicion. Considering that the ploys in the book up to this point were both clever and simply executed, it is a very strange change of pace for Tom to come blustering in here on a steamboat and complicating a fairly simple obstacle.

Filled with harrowing stories (mostly fictional) of prisoners escaping, he turns what should be a simple opening of a door and a leisurely amble to the river into the Shawshank Redemption on steroids. Instead of what the previous two sections gave us; Huck running into obstacle after obstacle, overcome by his cleverness or some extremely good luck (or both), the book now gives us nothing but obstacles for literally obstacle's sake. Tom vehemently insists that they dig a tunnel to get Jim out, and that Jim has to befriend animals in his "jail cell", while leaving woeful and cryptic messages hewed on stone and plates.

While we eventually find out that Tom was going through so much hoopla because he already knew that Jim was freed, and therefore there was nothing at stake, it was frustrating to me, as a reader, to watch Tom complicate a mostly simple book. At times I felt so frustrated I wanted to beat the crap out of Tom Sawyer and tell him that I could toss him into a basement, then he could have all the fun he would ever want spending years building up a good escape plan and story. What few chuckles you get from Huck and Jim both shrugging, saying "Well, if that's what all the authorities on jailbreaks say..." and going along with Tom, are easily overshadowed by the suffering of Tom's poor aunt and the anxiety that Jim must be feeling as his freedom is available at every opportunity, and Tom's insistence on complications are closing that window fast. In fact, because of Tom's Tomfoolery (yeah, that just happened), Jim gets caught during the jailbreak and is sentenced to wear heavier chains and is put on bread and water rations and is more closely guarded, essentially losing his chance at freedom.

The grand deus ex machina at the end does leave something of a sour taste in your mouth where in the space of a few paragraphs we find out that both Jim AND Huck are free from their respective slaveries (Jim from actual slavery, and Huck from his proverbial slavery to his father) and then nothing more. I mean, you find out that the body Jim and Huck found early on in the book was Pap Finn's, in the penultimate paragraph in the book. Literally no description is given of how Huck felt about finding out his father had died in a gruesome way. It just ends.

That said, do I think that the book has a good ending? Well, it was the ending that Mark Twain wanted to write, so I think that yes, yes it does. While improbable as it is that Jim would be freed in a will of all things, stranger things have happened. And the abrupt end goes along with the idea that Huck, a child, is narrating the story to us, and therefore would have no sense of decor to give us a proper denouement. He told us what he thought was best to tell and left it at that. It's funny to think that the book sets itself up for a sequel, with Tom and Huck going to the frontier to have crazy adventures with the "injuns". (Apparently Mark Twain did start writing the sequel, but someone else finished it with mixed success)

The ending is as strange and non-consequential as so many other stories in the book, that it seems strangely in place to end like this. No further explanation is given, just this is how things ended up, and now you'd be ready to hear about how Huck and Tom and Jim all got on with their next adventure.

In the end, I think that it's best to look at this book in an academic light first, then pull back and honor the preface that Mark Twain wrote:
"PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

September 8, 2014

SAO: Syntax Are Original?

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine suggested I watch Sword Art Online. I blew it off, since he always got super excited about different anime that I, "Just HAD to watch." It wasn't until last year when another friend compared it to Dot//Hack that I got interested in the show. Then I binge-watched the entire series (at that point) on Netflix. I fell in love with the story and the world and drank it all up, even though the thought of being trapped in an online game had a few problems.

Compared with my experiences with other MMORPGs, like World of Warcraft, I saw a few flaws in the show's premise. First was the fact that it took 2 years to beat the game, and even then, only because they discovered the man responsible for the whole undertaking was with them and were able to fight him on the 75th floor, instead of the 100th floor, shaving off another year of entrapment, more or less. In a real-world situation, the game would've been completed in a few months, since there are a lot of MMO players who level grind. And level grind. And grind and grind, killing the weakest enemies over and over again until they reach the level cap. Then the rest of the game is a cakewalk. While Kirito was supposed to be super strong and special for getting to level 100 long before anyone else, in reality, he'd be far behind those people who did nothing but kill slimes all day and night. (Since it seems like the world of SAO doesn't require things like sleeping or eating to survive.)

Second, the game split itself into elitist groups, by ostracizing and attacking the beta-testers, dubbing them cheating beta testers, or Beaters, which if the game wasn't a full-body experience, would probably be an accurate statement of a fair number of them. Not only does this seem counter-productive, it completely flies in the face of what the actual completionists in the game would be doing. Instead of driving them away, they'd become remoras, sucking onto the accomplishments and know-how of the more experienced players to get better loot, even second-hand from the better players.

And finally, it seems to me, that the explanation that the series gives to answer my first two problems is that there seems to be some sort of EXP economy in the game. Like, there are a finite number of monsters every day, and once they're dead, they're gone. Not only is that a really stupid idea (people play RPGs to watch bars increase, not wait.) but it also makes no sense. There's an infinite skill system, or rather, a highly specialized skill system at play. There is no correlation to your sword skill and enemies that you kill, but rather how long and how frequently you use a skill. This works the same for cooking, smithing, tailoring, and creating jazzy show-tunes (I'm sure it's a bard-specific skill). And before I catch flak for that last jab, yes, I know that there is no rigid class-system in SAO.

Problems aside, when I found out that there was a SAO video game for the PS Vita, I immediately began paying attention to an otherwise overlooked and awesome handheld for the first time. (What's wrong with it and all that jazz is a topic for another time.) The first game I bought for it, of course, was the english translation of SAO: Hollow Fragment (or whatever.)

I was super-stoked for this game for two reasons. First is that I miss playing Dot//Hack on my PS2 and a portable Pseudo-MMO sounds fantastic. It would fill that niche I needed for a grind-heavy action RPG that works so well on short trips on the bus. Second was the idea that SAO was already a pretty well established game in the anime, so the actual game, even if it caught a tenth of the game in the show, would have to be really engrossing and awesome.

Then I got the game.

Despite having a pretty neat character creation system, you play as Kirito from the anime. Not really a problem, except that I named my character Tekk, and so all my status screens and stuff say Tekk, but Kirito is the character. So, there's a separation from my character and Kirito. I changed his appearance to look more like Kirito in the anime (AKA the default) but I can't change the name back.

Second, was having to play as Kirito at all. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem being forced to play as a certain class or a character in these games. I mean, I happily played as Kite, a twin-blade, when I would've preferred a heavy in Dot//Hack. But I wasn't given the illusion that I could create a player at the outset of the game. So when I made a bitchin' orange-haired, fluorescent green-eyed samurai Tekk, I was caught off guard that everyone called him Kirito and he was, in all important aspects, Kirito.

The next issue I encountered was the fact that it starts you off at level 100. Now, this truncates to level 1 pretty easy in my mind, but I'm given a dozen skills that I didn't earn right off the bat, with equipment that I didn't earn, and 10,000 exp to go until 101. So I feel like I picked up someone's Final Fantasy VII save right after Aerith died, so I have no idea how to play the game nor have I grown to appreciate the subtleties and nuances of certain attacks. While some people praise the fact that you don't have to have the low-level grind of most RPGs, I actually like that part. A lot. The first 20 levels is where you can really feel the difference between level 1 and level 2. I mean, when you start off with nothing but a basic attack, and then you get a finishing move, you start to really appreciate that finishing move and when is the best situation to use it. It allows you to adjust the flow of battle to your experience and preference. And more importantly, it introduces only one element at a time.

That's where the beginning of SAO:HW falls flat on its face. The game starts off with a pseudo-boss battle, which is supposed to act as a tutorial to the combat system. But instead of doing it a slower-paced, one element at a time, way like most games would  opt for, it throws everything in a few splash panels and then starts.

In more words, I prefer a tutorial like the following: First asking if you want to skip the tutorial (a necessity, really). Then, this is the battle screen. Here is your health. It regenerates after some time. Once it hits zero, you die. (There are no resurrection options available to you) Here's your Burst Gage. This tracks your stamina. It depletes with every swing of your sword. Having a full gauge allows you to chain more attacks together to make a combo. Give it a shot. Then you play for a bit, watching the burst gauge fill and deplete. Then it would pause for a moment and explain the risk meter right next to your burst gauge. Then it would explain special moves and the SP bar. The ideal tutorial allows you to become familiar with a concept or mechanic before pushing you along to the next that relies on the previous to understand fully.

Instead, this game starts you off with a 3-page splash panel that uses terminology that you're not familiar with yet. What is a burst gauge? What does it do? Why is there a risk gauge next to it? Are they connected somehow? Probably. But you only get the vaguest kind of answer from the game as it sums up the entire use in a sentence before moving on to the next part, the SP bar and special attacks. So you're still reeling from the first part, then they throw part two and three at you. Very confusing.

All of this is compounded by the worst part of the game: the translation. On the whole, the game is pretty okay. But the translation has less care than some early PS1 imports, and in this day and age, that is an unpardonable sin. I've heard others complain about this, but a lot of people shoot them down by being all, "You can get the gist, and that's all you need!" to which I respond, if I just wanted the gist of a game, I'd watch someone else play it. SAO has a fun array of characters and an interesting world I'd love to get lost in. But when someone says something like, "He has a pair of ace" it makes it really hard to get lost in that world. But the mistranslations range from laughable like the above, to almost gamebreaking. In the game, you can talk to your companion to change their battle-tactics. They'll say something like, "Attacking quickly is a great strategy." Then you can respond, "You're a great help!" or "You've got my back." It took me a couple of tries to understand that what they're saying to you at the outset is a question. (I.E. Would you like me to focus on normal attacks?) then the responses follow the normal RPG convention of positive option one or negative option two. To make the exchange more understandable it should read more like, "Attacking quickly would be a good strategy... Should I focus on that?" to which you could respond, "That would be really helpful, thanks!" or "You're doing great with what you're doing now."

But that still holds nothing to the dating sim part of the game. Now, this bleeds into another gripe which I have a little further down, but the companions you have can get closer to you by having chats with them. This turns into a small mini game where they say something and you get the opportunity to respond with either "..." or "!!!" to which I figure means, a passive statement to move the conversation along, or an agreement or contribution to the conversation, depending on what the companion is looking for. I don't know if this is an error in translation, or if the original game text made this impossible to deduce out of logic. Because the conversations usually follow something like, "...The legendary table..." to which you can (correctly) respond "!!!" which belts out a hearty, "Indeed." I mean, it seems like you're only catching snippets of the conversation, which is fine. But if you want me to know what you want me to say, give me a little bit of background. And I'm not making that example up. That's one of the first ones I ran into talking to Asuna and got correctly by guessing.

I don't know what the relationship system is supposed to do. Especially since the start of the game starts after the happenings on Floor 75, but before the end of the game world or something. Which means that the relationships that Kirito has are already set in stone. He's married to Asuna and they have Yui, who is like a surrogate daughter. That is canon both in and out of this game. But they treat Asuna like someone else who is just vying for Kirito's attention, not like they've already been married and spent months together living alone. So when I try to hold her hand or carry her in the town, she gets embarrassed like, "Wh-Wha??? Do you think we're at that relationship level yet?" To which I respond loudly to my Vita, "We had crazy cyber sex and you're embarrassed to hold my hand? WHAT THE HELL?" And this segues into my largest gripe that I've run into: Leafa is there.

Leafa, is actually Kirito's sister who started playing an MMO called Alfheim Online after Kirito beat SAO and released everyone. Her appearance in SAO:HW is not only anachronistic, it flies in the face of several canonical issues in the lore of the game. First of all, how did she get a copy of SAO and access to the server two years after the news broke that everyone in the game is trapped in a digital prison/game of death. Second, why does she get to keep a custom avatar from a game that hasn't been developed yet, when everyone else had their avatars removed at the outset of the death game? And thirdly, and most importantly, why does she tell Kirito that she's his sister? And then constantly make suggestions raging from oblique to explicit that she wants him in a romantic way? It took most of the Alfheim saga for him to realize that Leafa was his sister, and for her to realize that Kirito was her brother. And even then, they didn't discuss her incestual feelings of attraction to her brother until a while after that momentous occasion. In the game, they stumbled across her in a forest and she's all, "KIRITO! There you are! It's me, your sister! lol" Which, again, makes no sense any way you slice it keeping the world they're living in, in mind. The only rational explanation you can make is that they added her to keep the game fresh and exciting. The developers of SAO:HW, not SAO in the game. When the only explanation for a key character existing in the game is a meta-answer, then you've failed.

All of those points aside, it's a pretty fun game and it fills the exact niche I was looking for. The combat is repetitive and if there's a lot of variance, I haven't really found it yet. I'm sure if I wanted to, I could find something online that explains it in more detail, but I haven't gotten there yet. On the whole, if you're a fan of the series, you might enjoy the game, but if you're a fan, you'll also run into the same issues I ran into. If you're not a fan of the series, but are looking for a action/RPG with MMO elements, then you'll probably enjoy it more than a fan of the series.

In the end, I really hope that they make an SAO game that allows you the freedom of starting a new MMO. Character creation and exploration starting from the ground up. Dot//Hack had a great set-up for that. While you played as only Kite, it let you understand how he worked from the beginning and you got to customize his abilities through the ability system in that game. What's more you were more attached to Kite because you suffered through so many deaths together in those low-level moments. I would kill for an SAO pseudo-MMO for the Vita that has nothing to do with the core-story of the anime. Or if it does, it's tangentially related, so as not weigh down the player with a bunch of canon. I mean, again, Dot//Hack did a great job of keeping Dot//Hack.Sign and the game series separate and connected. SAO is already set up and established for that, they just need to create a little more of a game. Even if the entire game was the plot of SAO with Kirito and Asuna removed (or left in, but in the background) the game would be fantastic.

But that's all my own gripes, I suppose. It's not the game I really wanted, but it's pretty fun as it is.

June 11, 2013

Games I Suck At - Bomberman 64

Being in a all year school is strange for a kid. While it’s nice to get 3 weeks off for every 9 on, there are some things you start missing. I’m not talking about summer vacation. Contrary to popular belief, you still get summer vacation. Just not as much of it. Of course, my track was running so that I was off track right at the end of summer, meaning 3 extra weeks of pre-teen hedonism.
You start missing things like friends to play with. None of my friends were on the same track as me which meant that I had to figure out how to keep myself entertained. Both of my parents worked and my siblings were off at school. So, in reality, being off track meant three weeks of pizza Lunchables and a new game to rent every week.

The only thing magical about those pizzas was how you managed to have enough sauce for 7 pizzas, but only enough cheese and pepperoni for 2.
Of course, this meant that I had to navigate the odd world of N64 releases around 1998. It was a tricky minefield. Because you only have so long at the video store before your mom says it’s time to go. You have this fun little panic attack where you have to decide right then and there if you were going to risk your entertainment for next week on something new and unproven. Or if you were going to rent Banjo-Kazooie again. This lead to me having to also decide what game to rent solely on the front cover. Anything that looked mature was out because my mother would veto that pretty quick. So I had to stick with kiddy looking games. That’s how I discovered how hard something can be while looking so cute.

This looked innocuous enough to my 8 year old self. Of course, there’s no way of telling based on the cover certain gameplay limitations that might be frustrating or impossible for a small child to wrap his head around. The back of the box will tell you about what you can do. You can play in frantic 4-player multiplayer! (A moot point, since I was alone at home with no friends.) Customize your Bomerman with different costume parts. (Sounds awesome until you realize that it’s linked firmly to point number 1) And 24 levels to explore. Well, that sounds hunky-dory until you start thinking about what Bomberman can’t do.
First and foremost, Bomberman cannot go through airport security. Like, at all. You do not want to be anywhere behind this guy if you’re in a hurry. Bomberman cannot survive his own bomb blasts. I suppose that’s fair. I mean, most bombers can’t, right? Well, except the “Blue Bomber” but then again, I never understood that particular nickname for Mega Man. But I think the most important thing that Bomberman can’t do is jump.

In previous Bomberman games, this wasn’t really that much of a problem. Mostly because of the 2-D nature of the games, jumping  would’ve been a convenience at worst and game breaking at best. But in a world of full 3D, the ability to traverse the Y axis is pretty important. Especially since the games’ worlds and levels are all built to utilize all three axis. Now, there’s little more frustrating to a kid than to put something on one platform, place you on a different platform, and then tell you to get said something but not tell you how to jump. So, naturally, this became extremely irritating, and it also became extremely difficult for me to enjoy during the week that I had it. After watching a Tool Assisted Speed run, I now understand (being some 14 years older than I was at the time) that in order to traverse the scary world of “Up and Down” required me to plant bombs and then “bomb jump”. That is, Bomberman is rigged to bounce if he lands on one of his bombs. That’s neat and all, until you remember that these are the same volatile explosives that can detonate with nary a moment’s notice and take you to your grave in a fiery ball of charred flesh. Even worse is that some secrets and collectables, required you to make a “bomb staircase” which involved planting bombs in just such a way that they’d bounce on top of one another, stacking two or three of these in sequence and then jumping on the first to go up the slope of explosive death. (Hopefully still alive.) This required both precision timing and being able to movie precisely so you could bounce in the right direction, since if you were off, you’d bounce off the stairs and then have to restart the whole damn thing.
screw it
Well shit…
Bomb planting was made easier, partially, by finding a little heart with a bomb in it. Somehow, this translates to remote detonator, which was damn handy once I figured out what the hell I’d done to my bombs! Since this game was ridiculously difficult for me, I turned to my Game Shark. The first thing I discovered was that the white guy who showed up in some levels, Sirius, wouldn’t talk to me anymore. Which meant no more cryptic hints or tips to help me navigate this labyrinth of hell-spawn and cutesy graphics. But soon after I made the connection that my Game Shark had negatively impacted the game, just by using it (a new concept to me at the time), I picked up the remote bombs and suddenly, my bombs wouldn’t explode. I thought I’d borked my game. I think I started crying bitter tears of frustration, since I was kind of a crybaby then. It’s funny now, but put yourself in my shoes. I had just “broke” the game that I was supposed to at least pretend to enjoy for the week that I had it so as not to anger my parents about wasting their cash. I had no clue that in order to detonate the bombs, I needed to press the Z button. The very button that up to that exact moment served no use in the game.
Of course, this is exactly the kind of thing that Sirius would tell you in the game, if he wasn’t being all angsty about you cheating.
Your general incompetence at this game hurt my feelings. So, no, I won’t help you. Not until you apologize and stop being such a pussy.
This was just basic navigating the levels. The boss fights were hard. Not the one on one boss fights. Those were ridiculously easy, even for me. Especially once I figured out about the remote bombs. But the end of world boss fights were a pain, since they moved so easily and Bomberman was so damn clunky with his movement. They’re shooting lasers and I’m lobbing a bomb that’s going to land nowhere near the enemy. I felt overwhelmed. It wasn’t a pleasant experience for a kid. Even worse is that the game looked like it should be easily accessible to a small child. I didn’t want to ask my brother for help. Just judging from the visual style and music, it seemed too damn cutesy. In fact, I felt almost embarrassed to rent it at that age, because I was afraid of ridicule of any kind. So I just had to angst quietly at home, hoping that maybe this time I wouldn’t suck so bad at a kiddie game.Of course, I would suck, play frustratedly for a few hours, switch off the 64 to eat some cold Lunchables pizza and watch whatever was on PBS in the middle of a weekday.
Looking back, my childhood wasn’t an exceptionally happy one…

This post was simulcast both here and at Thoseguys.tv Why not pop on over and see what else they're cooking?

May 7, 2013

Why Square is for Squares

So by now you know a little bit about me, I'd hope.

You know all about how I tend towards the retro market and RPGs. You know how I procrastinate and how much I let having  job influence my off-time. You know that I have access to the murky depths of Google Images and am not afraid to show what I find. You also know that I have some weird obsession with Sonic the Hedgehog and have a thing for Sally Acorn.

I swear this is the last Sally joke.
So you also know that I'm huge into Kingdom Hearts. I somehow got sucked into easily one of the worst-sounding cross-overs in history. Let's all be honest. The concept was complete crap, and yet it was so wonderfully done. I'm a little surprised that I even get so invested in the story, despite the fact that it sounds like weirdly optimistic poetry written by a 14 year old girl.

"My Friend's Heart Memories
By Mary Sue Ellen (Grade 8)

My friends hearts are in my heart. And that's where I store my memories of our friendship. And even though darkness is all around me, the light that our memories share will shine from my heart into the memory of that darkness so that all of my friend's hearts can be one in memory and heart."

(Teacher's note: This is the third F you've gotten in a row. I think you seriously misunderstand the concept behind a 'Haiku'. See me after class.)

The story is kind of a cluster-bomb of random themes and words that somehow come up with a compelling, if not a little silly, story. Even with glaring plot holes how by Kingdom Hearts II, the Heartless had hearts and no body, while the Nobodies had bodies but no hearts. Seemed kind of weird to me. But then so does having a death scene with Goofy in it. I'd seen the guy survive falling off cliffs, waterfalls, and having anvils and safes dropped on his head. No way is a piece of rock doing him in.

I've played all the games, and even shelled out cash for the Final Mix+ for Kingdom Hearts II that I've still yet to play since I botched the modchip in my PS2 and now it's a fancy brick. I've beaten all but one of them. (I've explained before that card-based battle systems aren't my forte.)

So, of course, no one is more excited than me for some sort of Kingdom Hearts III related news.
Alright, maybe him...
But of course, there isn't any to be had. Not since the teaser trailer from Kingdom Hearts 3DS that we learned that the next installment will be Kingdom Hearts III and not a side-story.

HD Remixes don't count. Although I will be pre-ordering the hell out of this as soon as I have money.

No, the real reason why there's been such a lull in the story after KH II is because the creator, Tetsuya Nomura, said that while he had a bunch of ideas for Kingdom Hearts III, there'd be no work made on it until his work with Final Fantasy XIII Versus was finished. Which, when I first heard it, didn't sound so bad. Disappointing yeah, but not the end of the world.

Of course, that was like, 7 years ago and Square has gone scarily silent about Final Fantasy Versus. It's becoming the Half-Life 3 of the RPG world. Not only did FF XIII come out (the game Versus was supposed to come out against, hence the name) but the sequel to FF XIII came out as well. And Square has already announced production on Final Fantasy XV. (XIV was another MMO like XI was, and it turned out to be a bust). What's even more worrying is that the dev team for Versus explicitly stated that Versus would be for the PS3. Now, we're getting on towards the PS4 being announced, and things are looking bleak for Versus. It's either going to be recycled in development time to take advantage of the PS4, or it'll be released as a blockbuster hit (or flop) on a dying system. One that already came out stillborn and was just barely starting to gain a pulse.

Of course, that also means that the PS3 will come and go without a Kingdom Hearts title. And while that really sucks, it's even more disappointing that Square seems to think that Final Fantasy is its only franchise worth working with.

Name three things wrong with this picture.
In the sake of journalistic integrity (I know! I'm surprised as you are!) I actually looked up Square-Enix's financial situation. This is from their investors report from the last fiscal year.

"In view of the rapidly changing environment of the game businesses, the Company has decided to implement major reforms and restructuring in its development policy, organizational structure, some business models, and others. The Company expects to incur loss of approximately ¥10 billion [approx. $100 million] from such restructuring efforts to be recognized as extraordinary loss about loss from restructuring in the settlement of the account for its fiscal year ending March 31, 2013"

The company is starting to realize that its, "Churn out a Final Fantasy game and re-release crap" business model is a poor one. This is extremely important, but kind of a no-brainer. Square has been sitting on so many cash-cows that they might be better off going into the dairy business. 
Then their only competition would be Natsume.

A Final Fantasy VII remake would sell like hot-cakes at a weight-watcher's convention. But of course, what I really want to get at is the Chrono Trigger series.

Despite the initial game being hailed as a cult-classic, warranting two re-releases (one for the PSX and one for the DS. I have all three versions.) and all of them doing well financially, Square refuses to do anything but sit on the franchise. Sure Chrono Cross was a disappointment. (To them) But that's not because they'd lost their "dream team" that produced Chrono Trigger. It was because they were trying to implement a wonky battle system while trying to claim its sequel status even though no sequel-like elements are found in the game until far late in the game. It'd be kind of like having Super Mario Bros. 2, only you don't play as Mario or any of the cast from the first game, and only near the end was there a convoluted and confusing series of dialogue heavy scenes connecting the two. I guess that's not really a perfect metaphor since Super Mario Bros. 2 has about as much to do with Super Mario Bros. as Super Mario Bros. has to do with Donkey Kong. But at least the protagonist is the same, allowing for easy sequel status.

Chrono Cross is a great game in its own right. The battle system takes some getting used to (Square went through a time where they could crap out a battle system and label it innovative.) but the story is extremely deep, even though you really have to work for it. Most of the surface elements you're going to pick up on the first time around seem almost like cameos. The Prometheus Circuit actually being Robo. Lucca's involvement in the whole shebang. (Only later retconned into the ending of Chrono Trigger.) And then getting accosted by the ghosts of Crono, Marle, and Lucca, though the committee is still out to debate on that one.

But Square has done jack-shit with the franchise. The only thing it has done is shoot down all fan-made efforts to expand on the series. It's understandable that Square would want to protect its intellectual property, but they come off as dicks by not doing anything with it themselves. I mean, hell, Square looks like the rich kid who invites kids over to play, but doesn't let them touch his toys. Selfishly holding on to the RC Car, saying, "I don't want to play it, but I don't want you to play with it either. It's mine."

And it's a real shame because even though Chrono Cross pretty much satisfactorily ended the story line, there's still more story to be told. There's something of a sub-plot in Cross about the Porre army conquering Guardia. The very place where Crono and Marle should be ruling. So, the question is: What's become of them? I doubt very much that an army could kill Crono and Marle considering that Crono stopped Lavos all by himself. Besides he's literally survived death. So, what happened to them? What happens when the Time Devourer is defeated and the time-lines are merged again? Does the whole archipelago disappear too?
Does Magus ever find his long, lost twin brother, Guile?

There is very fertile ground for a series if I'd ever seen one. But the longer that Square sits on the property, the more the fanbase is going to expect from the next game. That's only going to make the shock of what they get even worse. Let's face it, if Duke Nukem Forever came out when it was originally scheduled, it would've been the game fans had been dying for. If Half-Life 3 came out when it was scheduled th- Wait... When was Half-Life 3 supposed to come out?
Uh... eh... What was I talking about again? Something about... Bomberman??? Does that sound right?
I'm afraid that the same thing will happen to Final Fantasy Versus at this point. Sure the demo video they've got looks effin' amazing. But that doesn't mean anything. There's tons of pretty looking games out there that are terribly disappointing. If Final Fantasy Versus doesn't get the push that it needs when Fitch, God of ruling and arbitration finally smiles upon us and deems us worthy of such a gift, how long do you think it'll take for Square to start looking to put blame on someone for the struggling finances of the company? Do you think it'll be the production crew that got stuff out on time, but it turned out to be crap? Or the crew that kept a highly anticipated game in production for almost a decade, spanning two consoles, and it turned out to be overhyped?

Of course, this being Square they might just try and release another Final Fantasy Spin Off.
Heavens knows they love doing that.

April 30, 2013

Games as Art

So, it's been only a scant two months since my last post. Mostly because I discovered something interesting: a job gets in the way of my previous writing style.

It used to be, another day off. Which NES game am I going to gripe about today? I'd find a comically bad one, play it while snagging a bunch of screenshots and then write about it right afterwards.
Then I'd find random stuff on Google Images and write funny captions to them.
Having a job complicated that quite a bit. Since I'd come home, sit down and if I was going to play a game, I was going to enjoy it. I didn't have time to play crap.

Well, that's not true.

Just recently, for some reason (which I'm sure is inspired by Game Grumps) I decided to play Sonic 06 again, but this time, to completion. Upon playing it again, I was surprised by how playable it was. Provided that you knew exactly what was going to happen. And, having watched the Game Grumps struggle through every level twice now (still working on Silver) I knew it all by heart.

It never ceases to amaze me how bad the Game Grumps are at playing games. Due to them talking about random crap that is barely even funny, they miss out on golden moments in the game, instructions, or even basic patterns needed (to quote Egoraptor) "to live and to... be..." But the really amazing thing is that I continue to watch them for some reason. They're entertaining somehow. Even when they're frustratingly bad at simple tasks.

But that's beside the point. I promised myself that I'd wait at least another year before writing in depth about Sonic again.

No, today is a much meatier discussion that me and my friend had recently.

I discovered that a close friend of mine, someone I grew up with and was practically a brother to me, doesn't like Earthbound. This actually took me off guard since much of our childhood consisted of us playing it during sleep overs and thoroughly enjoying the writing and game in general.
Ah ha ha ha ha!

Recently he finally played it all the way through and found several aspects of the game to be irritating. And I discovered that he and I diverge greatly on the subject of rating games. Whereas I judge a game on pretty much everything included in the game (graphics, story, gameplay, music, etc) he judges primarily on whether or not he thought it was fun. Earthbound ranked a solid 5/10 for him. He admitted to loving the story, the music and the graphics, the gameplay was too cut and dried for him. To be fair, I knew he was biased against Dragon Warrior-esque RPGs from the get go, but this was a real eye-opener to me. Since I have it on pretty good authority that the game is far from average, as he claims.

This got us talking about the medium of video games in general. And I think that the big difference that we have is that when he pops in a game, he wants to have fun. Pure and unadulterated fun. For me, I go for immersion. I like to be swept away to a different world. A world of magic, or aliens, or incredibly awesome psychic hedgehogs from the future.
Yeah, I drew that.
But this opened up a large can of worms that had never before been in our friendship. Now, sometimes I can't tell if he's just trolling me or not, but he acts pretty scornful of the concept of video games as art. I wholeheartedly believe that games can be art, but admit that scant few are.

This is a discussion raging on somewhere else. We have people throwing up games like Shadow of the Colossus or ICO to demonstrate that they can be art. Then you have people like Roger Ebert saying that they'll never be art. I'm sure the same argument raged about movies, plays, books, and even story telling in general back their respectful haydays.

But video games are interesting since they have the perfect vantage point to be art. Since my definition of art is any piece intended to make you feel a certain emotion, games have a way of touching you that no other medium can. They make you the character. Or you control him. You live in that world. You decide what happens and you can get invested in the happenings like no other medium. It's a lot easier for a plot twist to impact you since it's you doing it. Imagine Bioshock's big twist ("Would you kindly?") if it were in a book or movie. It would lose almost all of its impact since it'd be up to the narrator or actor in question to depict to us that strange mixture of feelings of being both violated and manipulated at the same time. It wouldn't work. Bioshock used the medium of interactivity, coupled with the standard convention of quest-based obstacles to suddenly pull the rug out from the observer (the player). Every move that the player has made has been without question. You thought that it was just because you were playing a game. Suddenly the game asks you why you would do these things, and then tells you that you had no choice. The player character was mentally conditioned to follow the phrase "Would you kindly?" and without realizing it, the player was too. Blindly following the next objective that was always asked of you following the trigger phrase.

This was an awesome moment where we got a sneak-peek behind the curtain and understood a little about the possibilities that games offer over movies or books.
"Would you kindly buy the sequel?"
A book is a great illustrative device to paint a world from a certain point of view. There can be sparse detail or enormous amounts of it. Try reading Bram Stoker's Dracula to see what I mean. There was a time when books were something of more story-driven poetry, it seems. It was there to paint a picture with words more than to tell a story. And so, older books tend to be verbose and hard to read now because we just don't get into that much detail any more. And part of that is because we now have movies.

Movies deal with the imagery itself. If a book needed to have a really scary setting or imagery to convey the feeling it was trying to establish, it would have to be really longwinded. This causes the more modern reader to skim through paragraphs of sheer descriptions just to move the story along. A movie allows the story to move unhindered by needless descriptions by using a visual medium to demonstrate... well... the visuals. Instead of having a character describe Dracula has being pale with a thick mustache, we can simply call up a picture instead.
Somewhere along the way, vampires learned to shave.
Now this is a great medium to show off impressive visuals. Large explosions and flashy gadgets are a lot more fun to look at then to read about.

But early movies were terrible. They were badly paced, the acting was sub-par, and the camera techniques were practically non-existant. It was like someone just recorded a live play. Which of course, was exactly it. Plays, in turn, were just people acting out what was in a written story. Which is why we study plays in English class as part of the curriculum while we only watch movies when the teacher needs a nap.

Eventually, people realized that there was more you could do with a visual medium than just watch people stiltedly rehearsing lines at one another, moving for little or no reason across the stage with big sweeping gestures. And that was when people started realizing that you can tell a distinct story in a movie than one in a book.
Even if you use the same title.
Now, I would hesitate to call early movies art. But there are a lot of purists who say I'm wrong about that. And I'll grant that I'm woefully ignorant about early movies, since I don't find them entertaining. But I do understand that I share the same feeling about games. And I am starting to come around to the idea of why people might not enjoy Final Fantasy VI when compared to Final Fantasy XIII based solely on quality and entertainment.

But, here's the thing. Even though we're well into our third or fourth decade of having video games, we're just now starting to break out with ideas that challenge the way we conceive the interaction with these things. But most of the best games, with the best story telling, still rely heavily on concepts from movies. The cutscene for instance. Taking away interactivity so the game can show us something cool or pretty. There was a time when you were rewarded with a cutscene in a game. Now it's commonplace. It's not a unique story-telling device. In fact, it's a horrible one when the main defining purpose of a video game is interactivity. This is abundantly clear in movie-based games from the PSX era. If you beat the game or a level, you'd be treated to a low-quality clip of the actual movie. At some point, every kid had to ask himself why he rented the game itself instead of the movie. Especially since the gameplay of movie games are usually in the pits. But we all rented Spider-Man at some point, right?

The point is, video games are at a very early age as far as art goes. Just like movies borrowed heavily from conventions used on stage. And stage conventions relied heavily on conventions used in literature, video games are still relying heavily on conventions used in film. But we're now just coming to a point where we might actually be able to start doing things that can't be done via film or literature, due to the unique aspect that games bring to the table.

Bioshock used an interesting way to tell the narrative, not by coming up with anything new or revolutionary, but by using an outdated form of entertainment, the radio-drama. By having us listen to the recordings of people living in Rapture, we began to understand the events that unfolded before. This was a step up, as far as immersion and interactivity went, from using a cutscene or "flash-back". Instead of having a long, drawn-out explanation of the world Rapture was from a non-interactive movie, we were given the narrative as we could see the after-math of the events. So when we first see the banners for the New Year's party that was attacked, we can continue to poke around and look at the set while someone else gives us some information that is relevant to the story, while not going out of their way and saying, "It was 1958 when the Splicers attacked the New Year's Eve party. Splicers are people..." It helped build immersion by finding left-overs instead of straight up exposition. Allowing you to naturally understand the story like you would in real life.

Movies and books can do this too, but it's much harder. Books can often give too much exposition, because too little and the plot seems to come out of nowhere. Movies can do it too, but have to be careful. If a movie goes out of its way to hold on one plot point too long or one set piece too long, it will tip people off that it's relevant to the plot. Video games, where you interact within the story might give you an opportunity to learn about the world its set in without having to yank the camera away and force you to understand something.

That's why Bioshock has a much better story-telling mechanic than, say, Skyrim. Skyrim has a lot of story, but it's given to you in large info-dumps (books) or by listening to other characters. You rarely learn more about the setting by actually playing the game. By which I mean, you wouldn't really understand the struggle between the Stormcloaks and the Imperialists if you didn't actively talk to people. And that is a large part of the overall plot of the game. Whereas in Bioshock, you can get an idea of what happened in Rapture, even if you were to take out all the dialogue in the game.

This is a hallmark that most, if not all, games should shoot for.

But the problem is that games are funded in much the same way a movie is. So producers are less likely to spend money on a game that isn't a sure return of investment. Which in turn means that if a game can be like a blockbuster movie, then that game will get funding. If the game is deep and thoughtful and really makes you think about the way you interact with it, but isn't exactly marketable, that game will go in the "nice idea" category to be picked over when the company gets really desperate. (It's happened before, Square)

But, here's where video games are starting to take off on their own. Independent developers, which are small groups of people or small companies, are really starting to bloom. Now with marketing and distribution mostly handled via clients like Steam or Xbox Live Arcade, it's less costly and therefore less risky to take a chance on a game that deals with something as strange as, say, traveling back in time. Games are starting to evolve on their own merits, and that's great for me.

In the end, though, I feel like I'm a purist when it comes to games. Just like someone can watch a "classic movie" and think it's way better than anything coming out now, I can play an older game and appreciate it often times more so than a blockbuster game that's more recent. But, that doesn't mean we can't be tolerant of what is after-all something good. For example: I doubt that I would like Casablanca. Much to the shock of many, I just can't get into a black-and-white movie very easily, much less a drama. But, it would be near sacrilege for me to say it was an "average movie". I might not understand the appeal to it, but I wouldn't ever go so far as to say that.

And in the same vein, my friend is dead wrong about Earthbound.
True genius is never appreciated...