The release date for Telltale's new episodic Game of Thrones series has been released following two exciting trailers thrown at the web last month. PC and PS4 will see the new game on 2nd December, whereas X-Box fans will be a day behind on the 3rd. December 4th will see the game to ios and PS3 players are waiting until the 9th to get their digital hands on it.
The game will explore the story of House Forrester and is twinned with HBO, meaning more potential for series cross-overs and a higher likelihood of faithful voice acting. The allegiances between House Forrester and the Starks will allow the game to explore some of the well-known story elements of the already-instated series, including characters, settings and politics. I just hope Telltale makes the most of its decision-based dynamic seen in Walking Dead and creates a game that relies on its tactics as much as its sword, truly adhering to what we've come to love about Game of Thrones.
For more information, head to the Telltale Game of Thrones website and in the mean-time, enjoy entertaining the idea of these possibilities:
Nintendo have just revealed that the 'Master Cycle' is to accompany Link in his escapades in the first Mario Kart 8 add-on content pack and it looks pretty impressive - Link, as always, means serious business. It's a shame they haven't made the full step and just straight up added Epona to his vehicle list, but you never know. This got me thinking about character crossovers - there's something about the reunion with your favourite protagonist in another setting that's bizarrely entertaining. Oh! Look - there's that classic Nintendo character i've seen dozens of times before in a classic Nintendo game i've been playing for years! Brilliant, how do they come up with this stuff?! It's like seeing a teacher outside school - strangely unnerving at first but after a while you feel like you need to tell everyone you see that you just saw Mr Smith walking past Subway with a Boots bag and how exhilarating the experience was for you.
Going from seeing Link battling his way through the dark forces of evil under the guiding light of a distant hope to hurling bananas at Baby Peach in an attempt to just get second place on Rainbow Road has been challenging to get my head around. It feels like this is what Link does on his day off - well that's what I like to think anyway.
Maybe we should start thinking outside the box on this one. Perhaps Bowser should take up a tenancy in Animal Crossing for a while, or if you're really hopeful perhaps a Jak and Daxter / Crash Bandicoot crossover - but that might be a tad optimistic given that neither title has really been active since 2004. I don't think a Princess Peach appearance on GTA would really do much for Nintendo's image however...
New details have emerged concerning the production and development of a film adaptation of best-selling game The Last Of Us. Neil Druckmann, the producer of the original game and now the lucky screenwriter for the film has revealed that the story will focus more on the relationship between Joel and Ellie in an effort to condense 15 hours worth of gameplay into a 2 hour film. Which is actually quite a challenge considering the sheer amount of plot depth that The Last Of Us has to offer as well as the fact that whatever poor Druckmann does with the film, it's going to be difficult to please the people who want to explore more of the universe of The Last Of Us as well as those who simply want to enjoy seeing their beloved characters and plot
come to life. Perhaps this is why so many video games simply do not cut it as films - they can either step away from the actual gameplay themselves and simply use the marketable title and the expected themes to propel themselves, or they can become a remake of the actual game itself and risk boring players who have been through it several times, got the collectables and won the trophies.
It seems like this film is in good hands though, with Sam Raimi (Evil Dead) also at the helm of production and with Maisie Williams (Game of Thrones) being heavily considered for the role of Ellie. The risk lies in the players' love for the game and the difficulty of recreating the feeling of experiencing something ground-breaking for the first time simply because of the fact that it is no longer ground-breaking.
It seems however, that Druckmann (who has pretty much been given complete creative control by Naughty Dog) is not simply remaking the game into a film - he's focussing on different aspects of the storyline and the universe of The Last Of Us in an attempt to please everyone's oh so high expectations. He's got a challenge ahead of him though - he's got power over one of the biggest topics in the video game industry at the moment and the expectations of so many fans resting on all his decisions, so as Sam Raimi's Spider-Man taught us - with great power comes great responsibility. (Well it was actually Stan Lee but they said it in the Sam Raimi film and that would fit my point a lot better...).
Once upon a time I made a vow never to give The Sun a second of my time but I couldn't let their latest well practiced dive into sensationalism slide. Their latest headline claims that video games are 'as addictive as heroin'. Not only are most of their assertions flawed but it's almost guaranteed that some of The Sun reading population will take their hype as gospel and use it to fuel their Daily Mail induced ignorance.
While, yes, there are a small minority of people who would be technically recognised as addicted to video games, it is worth bearing in mind that this is indeed a small minority of gamers across the whole world. In fact, the market we usually expect to be most 'at risk' - young adults and children - will rarely display any signs of addiction to video games more so than they would watching a favourite TV show or reading the next book in their favourite series, let alone the whole 'nation' being 'gripped' by video game addiction.
Not only is the article frustratingly exaggerative but it's taking hearsay research findings that themselves are taken out of context. So many everyday substances are said to be as addictive as heroin including, ironically, the actual sun - as in the giant orb of fire. The Sun suggests that Britain is in the grip of a video game addiction epidemic - a far cry from the reality that is a lot of people like to play video games, like a lot of people like to watch films or listen to music or read books etc. etc. etc.
To equate video games and heroin seems like a pretty perfect example of journalism jumping on the anti-gaming bandwagon. I'm not going to go on about the demonisation of video games in the media - we've all been around to see that and have our own opinions on it. But it seems that mainstream media these days will publish a story like this as a safe bet that it will feed the already prominent views held by similar papers and breed either fear or anger in its readers - both of which are valued.
I know i'm dangerously addicted to The Sims, in fact it's not uncommon for me to create elaborate backstories that often involve countless family trees and creepily detailed memoirs for each one of my poor subjects. Yet, when the first ripples of The Sims 4 rumours began to bob towards the shores of my attention way back when in May 2013 I understood that I probably wouldn't get my hands on the software for at least five years after its release. My reasoning behind this was born out of experience as it was only last year that I managed to gather the disposable income required for The Sims 3, some 4 years after its release in 2009. My reasoning behind this was also painfully correct, as The Sims 4 has been tagged with a £70 pre-order price that is desperately out of my student reach. I can still revel in the new features of the game however and that is just what I have done with my new-found post-exam freedom. It's certain that The Sims 4 has a lot to offer us, even if all of these new features just contribute subtly to create a game that's more realistic and therefore more immersible than ever. We've had several exhaustive lists of all the different features of The Sims 4 but what do these features actually mean for overall gameplay? Well, reader, I give you your long awaited answer... Create-A-Sim - This life-creating workshop has been given a make-over in itself with new controls that include the ability to physically drag and mould physical characteristics of Sims. Not only does this unlock a world of potential creativity but also means, sadly for those who have always struggled to make Sims that look anything like individuals in the real world <cough>, there is absolutely no excuse for Sim-you to look nothing like real-you. Sim Individuality - A big focus of The Sims 4 is on the uniqueness of your individual Sims - each individual has their own set of characteristics and emotions that come out in more realistic expressions of body language and interaction with objects and people with the general physicality of Sims becoming much more life-like. Fluidity - In general, socialising is a lot more streamlined alongside other activities and behaviours. This is primarily brought in through the use of the multi-tasking tool presented in the game which acts to create more fluid, less blocky gameplay. No longer will you have to hang up the phone before starting dinner, or have a lovely conversation with a friend while your mother stands still next to them staring at you in silence (but if that's how your Mum rolls i'm not judging) because now all those things can happen all at once - integrating interactions in such a way that makes gameplay look a lot more practical. - Not only are interactions a lot more streamlined, but general movement now works on a 360° axis meaning your characters aren't going to get stuck in that obviously non-manoeuvrable space between the dining table and the wall. Realism - A running theme through all of Maxis' adjustments is a higher element of realism throughout the game - it's what all these developments have led to. Having different clothes and decorations evoke different emotions and behaviours from Sims is a leap of pure genius in the way of the authenticity and coupled with longer lasting effects of traumatic incidents - divorce, death, alien abduction etc. - creates more well-rounded, engaging and independent Sims. Segregating relationship types between Sims has also taken a leap in terms of realism with a distinction made between feelings of romance and friendship making for some pretty interesting dimensions of gameplay.
A Word About Realism - I must admit, however, that this is where Maxis confuse me somewhat. While I appreciate that The Sims has always thrived on a balance between the painfully realistic and the nonsensical absurd I feel that with these new developments so obviously aimed at bringing more realism to the game it feels strange to have bizarre new features of gameplay such as Sims laughing themselves to death, keeping a spare rocket ship in the back garden or resorting to voodoo dolls to fulfil their wishes. To begin with I was concerned that Rachel Franklin's intent to make the game more realistic would be undercut by these new fantastical elements of the game that are considered cartoonish. However, it has since occurred to me that this is how The Sims works, and a higher level of authenticity in the game might serve these outlandish dis-realities well - creating more vivid and emotional stories based around these bizarre happenings and expressing a higher level of what can only be described as how-would-I-react-ness that will definitely be fun to play around with. Overall i'm trying (and failing) not to get too excited about The Sims 4 as I know the price-tag is far from my tiny reach but give it five years or so and expect to see a pretty awesome review ;)
Click to go to Sims Globe for a comprehensive list of all new Sims 4 developments and features
It had never really occurred to me before stumbling across an article on Nintendo's Tomodachi Life, to consider the role the LGBT community plays within the video games industry. It was only when this matter was brought to attention through Nintendo's apologies surrounding the lack of possibility for same-sex relationships within this game that I really thought about video games as an expression of these ideas.
Nintendo recently issued a statement of apology after they were criticised for ignoring the possibility of same-sex relationships in the English-language editions of their life simulator video game Tomodachi Life and were unable to change the game. This exploded a whole can of hate from Nintendo fans and saw Nintendo once again under fire from gay rights organisations.
As sad as it is, I can't remember ever playing a game which included features of homosexuality and it's perhaps even sadder that before this day I hadn't even noticed the absence from my gameplay experience.
GLAAD CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis suggested that Nintendo "catch up with peers like Electronic Arts, which has been inclusive of LGBT gamers for years". Unfortunately it was not always easy for EA to incorporate such themes into their gameplay seamlessly and often LGBT content is subject to furthering the normalisation of heterosexuality rather than homosexuality, leaving the homosexuality to be considered a gimmick, censored or plain ridiculed. EA came under fire after introducing LGBT characters into their games in the first place with comments plaguing forums and message boards because apparently the inclusion of this facet of reality is "another clear example of the gay agenda in a place it doesn't belong" according to one particular individual. Because obviously the very real "gay agenda" (whatever that means) has no place in a representation of the real world. Because why should video games, now an established art form (see Video Games vs Art), be exploring ideas and themes that need to be explored and addressed in the 21st century? Because how little credit can we give these new generations of gamers that we can't even trust them with an understanding of homosexuality as commonplace? Because that's what it is - a fear of pissing off the young, white, heterosexual male gamer who is obviously the only reachable market. (Sarcasm over).
So I took it upon myself to take a pre-revision look at the changing levels of inclusion of the LGBT community in the video games industry, which ended up becoming a trawl through an irritating amount of tedious game changes throughout the 90's - I apologise to my exam grades in advance.
- In 1992, Nintendo refused to sell Dragon Warrior 3 on any system until Enix removed a gay bar...
- Later in 1992, minor enemies who happened to have been written as homosexual in Final Fight for Sega CD were censored...
- Streets of Rage 3 featured a gay villain wearing Village People attire (because why not) who was removed and a transsexual villain was changed simply into a man with long hair losing so much character depth and making the whole ordeal a lot less interesting.
Bioware have, in a way, led an LGBT gaming revolution, taking charge with LGBT relationships in Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Skyrim which all seem to take the significance of openly gay characters in their stride as just another facet of character. From what i've heard it sounds like I need to get playing Mass Effect 3. The fact that Cortez's sexuality is laid so bare right from the start of the game maps some pretty hefty progress since the days of ironing out a gay bar. Dusty Everman, writer of the relationships featured on the game, pretty much sums the game's refreshing nonchalance up when he says "I believe that by the 22nd century, declaring your gender preference will be about as profound as saying, 'I like blondes' - it will just be an accepted part of who we are". The homosexual relationships are given just as much time, effort and exploration as the heterosexual - they are normalised through comparison and similarity which is possibly one of the most exciting steps i've seen in the video games industry in a long while.
We basically need more of this, and with motivated producers within the industry itself, a sophisticated audience and the correct representations the games industry can wake up to the change in attitudes that it now has to face. Games are drawing more and more upon mainstream culture and are now viewed as a modern art form thanks to their inclusion in Bafta categories however in the words of Spiderman - with great power comes great responsibility. As the sincerity of their authenticity and opportunity for creative expression grows, games are beginning to explore essential social issues that need to be addressed. As homosexuality is normalised in mainstream culture, it will follow that it will be in the art that surrounds that culture - with video games sadly trailing behind film, literature and music.
"Imagine the impact games could have... for gay people to enter fantasy worlds to make homes and hold hands with partners of choosing regardless of gender, they move beyond the passive world of television into the active world of gaming, heightening the impact" - Luis, A Ubinas - Electronic Arts' Full Spectrum awareness event in New York
Ninty's released word of the 2DS. I know, I had to double take too. It soon dawned on me though that this is in fact a smart move on Nintendo's part. A realistically affordable slight downgrade to keep consumers up to date with new releases in a way that displays Nintendo's developing ability while keeping us lot in the know. The 2DS is set to hit shops just in time for the early Christmas market on 12th October, and its press releases have left me with a few questions.
Size Matters.
We all know that size matters, really. So when images were first released of the 2DS i was left reeling confused by the actual size of the device. However, after reading up on the subject it seems that the console fits nicely in the hand (as nice as a brick could fit), the synthetic touch of the surface making for light, easy gripping ability. However, perhaps the top screen isn't all it could be, seems a bit constricting which could make for more vibrant gameplay but i think might just get on my nerves.
3D Games 2D Screen
The console is designed to allow more people to play games designed for the prestigious 3D system. So, how will 3D games play on a 2D screen? Will it be the same as simply adjusting the 3D function on the 3DS system itself or will there be some kind of drawback in this department? I heard that inside, the 2DS is identical to its 3D cousin so will that make for better gameplay, or is the screen different? I'm afraid this is one section of questions that we'll have to wait until October for.
Design Issues
For me, I feel that the brick-like appearance of the handheld will not do Nintendo any favours. It looks like a child's toy replica of a 3DS bought for a destructive 2 year old to salivate over and crayola up. Controls are high up on the system which apparently helps the gameplay side of things but would just irritate me. I feel like it would be too... tall? For optimal gameplay? You need both your hands to hold it up comfortable so how are you going to (comfortably) touch screen?
To be honest, if i had no 3DS I would probably save up that extra couple of pounds and buy a second hand 3DS. The 3D effect is what sold the console to me in the first place and I feel like the design of the 2DS would be too restricting and downright infuriating. But that's before i've even laid eyes on it in person, before i've even seen it in a shop so who knows, maybe Nintendo will prove me wrong.
Final Verdict: A great move for Nintendo, including everyone in their new software introductions but maybe it's a little late now seeing as the 3DS has been out 2 years now. In terms of design though, i'm yet to be convinced.
For me, the Wii U is a strange being. I neither really desperately need it in my life nor can i firmly decide that i shouldn't buy one. The reviews aren't great. The entire Wii brand in general hasn't received much critical success, being overshadowed by its younger and flashier predecessors, the Wii is like the chubby kid in the playground with his finger stuck up his nose - cute for all of 5 minutes but then boring and kind of sticky. I have always been a heavily, slightly creepily, loyal fan of Nintendo but there comes a point in every fandom when you realise that your long esteemed heroes are, in fact, not super-human. They have weaknesses and they make mistakes. Bringing the Wii U out as a separate console was a mistake.
So, as Wii U prices plummet and Asda gives up trying to stock it all let's take a look at why the most recent offspring of the Nintendo world perhaps isn't living up to its parents' expectations. The Wii U has failed because of the 3 areas it would have to succeed in to be any kind of contender in today's rapidly evolving technology market.
Console
The console hardware itself is not up to scratch. The single touch controls are practically prehistoric when compared with Apple's daily dual touch releases and this gives the whole gaming experience a fairly heavy, clunky feeling which is reflected in the actual feel of the console and its slow, small internal hardrive. There's a camera on the front of the handheld though... great. We can take a low quality photo of ourselves using this instead of the HD high resolution camera that all devices come loaded with now, double chins an' all.
Marketing
The Wii U was a marketing flop. Strangely constructed adverts and a bizarrely quiet run up to its release left consumers baffled over what the actual piece of plastic was. It took real research to find out about this console before its release, research which casual gamers wouldn't have bothered to complete and more importantly shouldn't have bothered to complete in this day and age when information is at its most available. Many consumers ended up believing that the handheld was just an add-on for the existing Wii that every family had in their home. It's no surprise then, that its sales have been abysmally low, superseded by the PS Vita within months.
3rd Party Support
No-one can do it on their own, which is why Nintendo's lack of 3rd party support is the final nail in the heavy coffin of the Wii U. It began with the ludicrous lack of new content available, Nintendo re-released ports from PS3 and X-box during the Wii U's release. Sales suffer from Nintendo's inability to attract and maintain 3rd party content and both developer and consumer are stuck in a spiral of publishers and sales figures. The Wii U isn't selling because there isn't enough 3rd party content, yet in a Catch 22 situation, 3rd party publishers are worried about these sales figures and therefore not bothering to develop for the dying console. You would think then, that Nintendo would happily accept the faith of a developer however small in bringing the Wii U back from the dead but no, they turned their backs on Japanese indie developers... interesting move Nintendo... interesting move... It's sorely disappointing that Nintendo couldn't pull it out the bag for the Wii U. Miyamoto complains that there wasn't enough hardware development time which hindered the development of content as well which would suggest reason behind the Wii U's continuing failure. Whatever the cause, the console just isn't flashy enough to survive in the evolving digital technology market and will always be the little chubby kid in the playground. Hopefully that chubby kid will grow up to be respected for his chubbiness, in the same way the Wii U may just be valued for its simplicity and virtual console capabilities but who knows.
Can anyone really be that tired of Mario's chubby little rosy face? He's the happiest damn plumber in the world so why shouldn't Nintendo pick on its poster guy for its new releases? Charlie Scibetta, Nintendo of America senior director of corporate communications has defended Nintendo's new Mario E3 releases - Mario and Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games, Super Mario 3D World, Mario Kart 8 and Mario and Luigi: Dream Team Bros saying that Nintendo is catering to a market calling for more Mario. He offers the idea that with each new Mario game comes new dynamics and gameplay of a brand new ip but with the lovably recognisable Mario main character.
Mario has always been Nintendo's poster boy. From the beginning, Nintendo was practically synonymous with Mario so it's surprising that the number of "Mario" titles in the past is fewer than I would imagine - just click the link for a comprehensive list of Nintendo published games.
It seems that Mario has been adopted by fans and developers alike as the favourite and there's nothing wrong with wanting to exploit a favourite if, like Charlie says, the games are all unique and new. Fans furrowing eyebrows at frequent Mario releases should question if they would be as dubious over a brand new Nintendo game with slightly different art for the main character.
There has recently been much debate over the role of publishers and developers in the game development industry - not least from Official Nintendo Magazine's feature 'Overcomplicating Publishing' which presented publishers as overbearing and controlling through the medium of Mike Roush, the co-founder of Gaijin Games. Is this a fair assumption though? It's all too easy to think of
publishers as the cold, hard businessmen of the gaming world, stifling creative ambition and drowning puppies on their days off. What is the true role of publishing in game development and how has the publisher, developer relationship changed over the years.
After reading the aforementioned article, I was le
ft immediately confused by the actual process of game development. That is, how a game moves from production to the publishers to the distribution. In its simplest form, the developer creates the game with possible commission from publishers who then control which products reach the market and do all the scary PR and marketing shizzle.
Apparently, Mike Roush finds difficulties in the way developers and publishers interact. He suggests that Nintendo needs to move on - make the submission process quick and easy - not the labyrinth of problems and puzzles worthy of Layton and his posse. Steam is a quick online upload site used as a platform for a number of easy game publications that believe it or not, create 10 - 20 times more revenue than console games - sign of the times maybe? Perhaps Nintendo do need to up the game slightly in terms of their submission process - arguing over icon appearance and paperwork is only going to tire and frustrate the common talented game developer. The nature of the relationship between the humble, shy nerd of a game developer and the flashy ambition of the publisher has gone through some significant moderations since the days of NES and the discovery of fire. It's possible now to get a game out there without a publisher - just look at all the indie game developers (http://ilikegamesandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/revolutionary-gaming-with-fezzes-and.html) - possible but very improbable. Kind of like Mario is able to save Princess Peach on his own, but things would go a lot easier and quicker if he had his mates around to give him a hand. But then his mates might go changing his outfit - blue dungarees were so 1998 and only farmers can get away with caps in this day and age, ultimately manipulating the general manner in which Mario saves ol' Peachy. However, the bottom line is, this is not a utopian world that we live in. Independent game designers have to work FAR harder to produce their games and then get them noticed compared to giant publishers. As much as we hate to admit it - it's all about the green stuff (cash - calm yourself policeman reader). Just look at the fiasco that was Bayonetta 2, after the original game's dismal release on PS3 no publisher would pick up the game for a sequel. This is the sole reason the game may never have come into existence - if it wasn't for the knight in shining armour that is Nintendo. As image conscious as they are, publishers in reality are necessary for a popular game. Ultimately, a lack of financial and marketing support will result in the developer's nightmare - the 'Zombie App'. One that is available but never downloaded. The homeless game, a wasted bout of creativity with no reviews, no comments, no download rates and no revenue just wandering aimlessly through the abyss of download sites. It doesn't bear thinking about so let's take a minute of silence for any game in this limbo of existence before continuing. Perhaps this kind of app store arrangement could work for Nintendo, and already we are seeing the eShop being used slowly for more independent games, it's slow progress but they're trying.
A real problem for fresh-faced, excitable little developers is the lack of control they may face over their product. Ayabe from the Guild team - a group of individuals working within a team to create their own original games - suggests that "innovation in game design as a whole is diminishing" - essentially creators are conforming to the needs of the end users too much and not standing strong and creating what they want to
create. The Guild lot are a great example of this originality in game design. From a first look at their game 'Bugs vs Tanks' it can be argued that some of that green stuff (yes policeman reader) was included in the creation of their games. This would never have made it to publishing but represents the personal ideas of game developers, not the publisher's assumptions of the audience's requirements - a very different order of events. The ethos of Guild is essentially that all individuals have different wants. Now, this has been applied to both the developers wants and the audience's wants. Guild seem to be the first collection of people to have recognised that an audience is unique, it's like the invention of the wheel all over again. Back to the idea of control, the team behind Guild were working on a lower budget and team size which meant less pressure and more creative control, interesting equation. An equation however that seems to have been ignored by Nintendo, who is looking to increase its team size - interesting. It has been said that publishers mistreat developers - they strangle their creative decisions and demand. No one likes demands. Guild has taught us that publishers need to give developers their freedom in doing what they do best - developing.
Publishers are like parents. They demand and control but are still an absolute necessity in survival. Your mother will always ask you to complete random jobs around the house before you're allowed to step foot outside the door - as if you're the ONLY person in the world with the qualifications to put the washing on or tidy the lounge but equally you will always ask your mother for £20 before stepping out of the front door. It's a give and take thing. I don't do jobs and my mother would rarely give me £20 before i went to the pub - a tenner maybe. Though I am insanely excited about 'Bugs vs Tanks' and have just seen that it is available now on 3DS eShop in the UK - good times.
Edmund McMillen, with his Wolverine beard, I don't like his glasses though :/
I'm watching a documentary at the moment, entitled 'Indie Games, The Movie'. It basically goes into the production and release of two specific independent games. These are games that are independently created by literally 1 or 2 guys in a bedroom with a mac and then sold to Microsoft etc. and downloaded to consoles everywhere. It made me realise the work that really goes into game development, and the scary levels of anger it creates. These two guys created this game 'Meat Boy', a creepy concept of a boy with no skin, going against his antagonist 'Dr Fetus', a fetus in a jar, and this game just represents everything good about simplistic gaming. It took about 550 days for 2 guys to develop it, and it sold about 22000 units in it's first day - earning Edmund McMillen more than he had earned in the last 6 years. I have to admit I haven't actually played the game as of yet, due to my lack of an X-Box (burn me later), I have however seen videos and fallen in love with the feel of the game.
Look at this crazy, slightly cross eyed monkey of a game designer, granted his beard is less Wolverine, more Comic Book Guy from Simpsons and his glasses are way nicer than Wolverine but he's still an angry mofo
This is all very well in a success situation. However, when Phil Fish won awards for his game 'Fez' way back when, he probably didn't envision releasing it nearly 5 years after it was announced, redeveloping it 3 times and losing business partners in the process. This film showed him totally freaking out over this game, and while this idea of the amateur rising is exciting everyone in the gaming world, perhaps some 'amateurs' are just... too... amateur??
Mainstream companies create large scale, high quality games that appeal to a wide market. Independent game developers create simplistic, nostalgic games. The real clincher in this deal, is that the games are so personal to the developers, that they often represent their own ideals, messages and memories. It is this personal touch that is seeking to decrease the gap between developers and players of games, something which i'm totally up for. Two guys spending a year creating a game, then selling it on X-Box live is an embodiment of the revolution of amateur production. We've seen it with YouTube, and MySpace, however now perhaps the gaming world will be hit by the force of the amateur.
I think the only reason the game is called 'Fez' is cos he has a little red group of pixels protruding from his giant white head.
Super Meat Boy - bit of a strange concept but ultimately endearing...
So here in this Chris Crocker style post, I will give my opinion concerning the sensationalistic aggressiveness of the media's conduct towards video games. Now that you know my stance on the matter, let's get down to the business in hand.
For some reason, the media feels like it needs to hype up the obviously apocalyptic effects of video games. According to certain sources, video games are obviously creations spawned by the devil himself, with intentions only concerned with mutilation and violence. Certain sources suggest that Grand Theft Auto is the cause of all evil in the world, from school shootings to tsunamis. Certain sources even have the audacity to suggest that video games are responsible for "growing a society of alienated, aggressive, untrusting adults" (Kimberly Thompson for the Boston Globe if you're interested in reading senseless, melodramatic ramblings). These sources are based on their own 'research' that suggest 'links' between aggression and video games.
It's interesting how the idea that aggressive children may want to play more aggressive games has not been researched as thoroughly as the sensationalist idea that video games are turning the next generation into mindless serial killers.
It's interesting how children are obviously only now affected by violence in their lives. It's not like children of all generations have been shown respectively the same level of aggression that's seen as violent by their respective eras. Fairytales such as Grimm and Anderson while not as graphically violent, were seen as aggressive in their era, yet where is that generation of murderers?
It's interesting how the focus has been sadistically centred on the few who are affected, the school shooters and the children prone to aggression, but the vast majority of unaffected children and decent members of civilization who enjoy a COD or a GTA aren't deemed fascinating enough news for hyped up articles.
From the very same researchers who have slammed video games for their obvious psychopath breeding skills comes this statement "There's absolutely no scientific evidence showing a positive correlation between violence in individuals and the games they play,"... awkwaaarrrddd.
Video games are a new, 21st century form of craft. Never before has the interaction of the viewer determined the nature of a piece of art. Surely, instead of exploring this minor possible trigger for an innate or built up frustration and aggression, those who are obviously so concerned for the lives of civilians or future of society, however uninteresting it may appear in the news, will all turn their attention to other, more likely explanations for any violence. This is even though adolescent and child violence is at an all time low in the U.S at the moment... just sayin.
And now reader, we will begin our journey through the psychological stuff relating to video games. Why Tabs? I hear you ask, as you are already reaching for the mouse to click off the page and go watch a cute video of a kitten instead. So let's get that out the way first - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8 - all out your system now? Good, let's get down to this shizzle.
The Sims has been voted one of the most popular video games of all time, which is surprising as it's not a conventionally exciting game, never the less, there are a lot more Sims addicts inhabiting this socially reclusive world than there are extreme fans of GTA, or SSX. In the game, gun fights and car chases are replaced with washing up and baby spawning, yet it has become one of the most widely played games of the 21st century. Since its release in 2000, the true psychological possibilities of the game have been brought to a metaphorical light.
The game was actually created with human psychology closely in mind. To create the actual sims, ideas such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs were used and personality was created with Myers-Briggs. So, basically The Sims 2 uses the psychology that certain theorists have discovered to be present in humans. This is why many seem to project themselves into the game. Studies which have been completed in this area are mostly exploratory, as the nature of the research is relatively new. In a particular study looking into how a player projects themselves into the game and pass on personal values to their sims, participants were told to play the game for 30 sim days (or about 10 human hours). They also answered a few questionnaires about personality and values (something the 12 year olds in Tonbridge obviously haven't grasped yet) etc. etc. The whole gist of the finding was that people recreate characters in the sims which are closely linked to themselves - we all know this already - it's what we all do when we first get our hands on the game. You make yourself (taller and thinner, with nicer hair and muuuuch more attractive) and then get abducted by aliens, have a litter of alien bubbas, buy a mansion and live with your 12 little aliens and a robot butler, obviously.
Another little thing that was quite interesting about this research was the fact that participants with parents who were divorced, often made their sims divorce each other. When you think about it though, it's pretty obvious that if you were recreating your life in a virtual world, you'd recreate everything. However, it's when people play for different reasons that these shared values and personalities become significant. For example, people play to feed a God complex, wanting to control everything through the 3rd person view of the birds eye camera. People play to have their virtual self go through experiences that they themselves are too scared to complete, they use the sim as a test subject for their life, even creating a potential partner to see how a real life relationship would turn out.
So, this post has the capacity to be very boring if you're not a simmer. However, if you have, like myself, been addicted to the series since The Sims 1 came out on playstation and it broke and then your Dad bought you The Sims 2 on PC, hopefully you can identify some of the aspects of different sim use in your play. We can even go as far as to predict The Sims becoming an unconventional tool for use in future psychological research or treatments, as it has the capacity to become more realistic than the usual Rorschach tests and dolls.
I play The Sims for a break. I suppose in some ways I do project myself into some of my households, but I don't consciously create a sim that represents myself and see myself in different situations. A lot of my families are actually quite different to my own life, I have sporty sims for example, whereas my exercise for the day is walking from the living room to the fridge. I think that's because The Sims can become an tool for escapism, creating a life that's totally different to your own that you can control and dictate is a lot more fun than research for English Lit, or essays for English Language.
So, if you are a simmer, or have ever played The Sims, why do you play? Are you a psychopath who has run out of live victims and need to torture the virtual? Are you bored of your life and would prefer an alien brood?
So, with the Sony recently claiming that the new Wii U console is 'in its own generation', it's impossible not to think of Nintendo's many generations. Nintendo are not necessarily seen as the leaders of gaming technology by everyone - there are the X-boxers and the lovers of Sony. However, it can be noted that Nintendo have led many console developments. The Nintendo Wii was at the forefront of a brand new type of motion controlled console gaming, paving the technological roads for X-box kinect and the PS3. The 3DS is the first console to have fully functional 3D, with capacity for the manipulation of this asset in the form of a 3D adjuster. This is certainly the first that the gaming world has come into contact to which has been widely recognised as a leading innovation. However, as we all know, I am a total Nintendo whore, and this information is not totally tainted with my totally biased views. It cannot be ignored that the Nintendo Wii is definitely the weakest of the motion controlled consoles. It's the least powerful, disregards many possible applications and uses of the motion feature in many games, and is not generally seen as what can only be described as a 'big boy's console', it's been designed for Nintendo's basic games (Nintendo Sport, Nintendo Party etc.) and it shows. Even though Nintendo paved the way for motion gaming, they have been left behind. So, can it be assumed that X-box and Sony are going to take 3D technology, and create a console better than the 3DS and, having learnt Nintendo's pricing mistakes, overtake the original 3D console with an even better platform. This is what we saw with the Nintendo Wii, and it looks like Sony are already eyeing up the Wii U technology, eager to participate in this new 'generation' of gaming.
