Attention. Grand Theft Auto is not about Roleplaying.

Now that Grand Theft Auto hit the $1 billion sales markfaster than any videogame or film of all time, you, non-gamers, might be wondering what the attraction is.

Are gamers just outcasts, escaping reality by playing virtual rags-to-riches stories spiked with copious doses of drugs, sex and violence?

Newsflash world. Grand Theft Auto is not there for you to pretend to be a mobster, or even to “escape” reality. It is there for you to entertain yourself, to play, not to live out some gangster fantasy. Gamers don’t care about the often paper-thin narrative and movie-plaigarizing that grounds the main “story” in the game.

Grand Theft Auto is an action adventure game with light role playing elements. The attraction is the sand-box world and free-roaming spontaneous mayhem your avatar can wreak. The strength of the game isn’t the violence, it’s the challenge and variety that ensues when gamers play out different scenarios in a game world with rules and structure. In fact it’s the thrill of trying to survive with the police hounding you that make Grand Theft Auto entertaining. The ability to experiment and free roam in a structured world, the clash with authority and the game-world that you rub up against are essential to the challenge and drama that grounds the game. A five-star chase is fun only because of the strength of the law enforcement that comes after you when you go on a crime spree.

Grand Theft Auto is just a superior form of entertainment than traditional TV and film. It is spontaneous, filled with variety and allows you to act. Your agency as a player eclipses traditional media where you are merely passive as a viewer. That’s why game reviews continue to be dominated by the category of gameplay unique to the entertainment category and distinct from traditional entertainment criteria like aesthetics and narrative.

The world has changed, and games that continue to push exciting, fresh, spontaneous game-experiences, like Grand Theft Auto 5, will continue to outperform staid traditional entertainment.

Return to Main Page.

Getting to Gold League – One Gamer’s Climb up Starcraft 2’s Ladder

The brutally competitive, cutthroat, do-or-die Starcraft 2 ladder wasn’t going to claim me but I knew I was no MC. I had started playing Starcraft since its early days ten years ago, but was always afraid of the 1 vs 1 scene. Sticking to barely competitive team games and “arcade” games where the stakes were low – I had yet to overcome my fear of online competition. Somehow, in Starcraft 2, I felt I had to make the leap into the competitive 1 vs 1 scene to be a “real” Starcraft player.  After watching MLG competitions and whencheese fails humorcasts, I knew I was missing something by not playing one on one games.

As I selected the one vs one match icon and clicked the find match button I gulped. Each time you looked for an opponent to start a match, the game stalls as you wait to find an opponent. An ominous sound played as I waited for the computer to look for my first competitor. After what felt like an eternity waiting, I faced a Terran enemy.

“GL HF” he said. Good Luck, Have Fun was the traditional Starcraft greetings between gamers at the start of a game. After 15 minutes my Terran adversary sieged my base and I lost.

“What could I do better?” I asked him.

“Expand earlier.” He replied.

My first ten games on the ladder were brutal - involving relatively unskilled, unplanned tactics against better gamers. Learning through trial and error, I learned to abuse air units against Zerg opponents. Triumphantly, I get my “zealot” portrait after my first ten wins with my chosen race – Protoss.

I would learn, fail and then grow stronger. Every game pitted me against a human opponent making decisions, issuing commands and strategizing. My Protoss strategy had been honed from watching replays of professional players, and Day9 tutorials. Survive the ten minute marine/marauder push by Terrans. Let your nexus tank before engaging, then outmacro and win in the late game. Against Protoss go for 4 gates and then colossi. For Zerg lean on two-base immortal sentry pushes.

I figured the secret to getting good at Starcraft was playing more games. But the nerve-wracking find-game countdown caused me to play no more than one or two games a day just out of anxiety. But I couldn’t get better without playing more. Time for a psychological tune-up, I figured.

“It doesn’t matter what league you are. It doesn’t matter what achievements you have or what portrait you have. Just enjoy the game.” I told myself.

I discarded my zealot achievement portrait in favor of the beginner portrait everyone gets by default -  a partially bearded, vaguely middle eastern man wearing earmuffs and a ballcap. I had to take the pressure off myself if I wanted to play more games and overcome the fear and anxiety of competitive laddering.

The secret to overcoming ladder anxiety in Starcraft is to take the pressure off yourself to win. Karma only uses the “Kachinsky” portrait when laddering competitively.

I started learning unit counters through trial and error. My stalkers were weak against marauders, but zealots and force fields would allow me to prevail. I tended to get four-gated to death by other Protoss, but by four-gating in turn I at least had a fighting chance against Protoss opponents.

50 games in I was winning about half of my games against silver league players and all my games against bronze players.

I needed to improve. I started looking for resources online - using day9 beginner tutorials, reading up build orders on team liquid, asking for help on online forums and watching professionals play in MLG. The most important changes were using pre-determined build orders going into each game. I honed my APM (actions per minute) until I could click more every game. I used hotkeys and kept my worker production up.

80 games in I was starting to win more than I lost against silver players. Now it was back to watching professional tutorials on youtube. I learned about my “mechanics”, how I use the mouse and minimap to efficiently control my game. I started learning about build order counters and started scouting for my opponents’ unit composition.

Suddenly I was winning against gold players. Wow! I kept at it

Macro – that’s how I was going win. Micro referred to the skilled micromanagement and control over individual units during battles. Macro referred to the overall management of your resources, expansions and bases. Drag out the game as you slowly whittle away your opponent and gain an economic advantage. Shut down your enemy’s expansions and protect your own. Shockingly I matched up against a metallically portraited opponent.

“What league are you?” I asked. No response.

After being outexpanded in a 20 minute game by my mystery enemy, I checked my loss screen. Platinum. I was being matched against opponents in higher leagues.

Then another match against a gamer with a bluish tinged potrait. After a rather brutal beat down with dark Templars and even carriers, I was confronted with the sheer skill of my enemy after the game – diamond league! The system was placing me against opponents as high as three leagues above my lowly silver character – and I was consistently losing.

Back to the drawing board.

I learned and anticipated the common "dirty tricks" of Starcraft: Zerg mutalisk harassment from the air, Protoss’ invisible dark Templars, and the dreaded Terran one-one-one. The one-one-one was a triple threat from aerial banshees, ground siege tanks and marine infantry. I was learning about more intriguing dangers from the Starcraft playbook and I was learning how to deal with them.

I started winning about half of my games against gold league players - a little more than half against Terran, and what felt like a lot less than half against Zerg players. I was determined to hone my anti-Zerg skills.

Up against a gold Zerg, I walled my base off. Making a strong ground army on my part, I scouted my alien opponent switching to air. Mutalisks I thought. I cannoned my bases and switched to High Templar. Rapt in attention, I gazed at my oversized monitor. Fingers stretched too far, nervous at the sudden influx of Zerg aerial harassment units. I cringed at the flock of feared Mutalisks entering my base.

Dancing archons, and anti-air units between my bases as I defended against relentless air harassment, I managed to hold for 20 minutes. I conservatively expanded. As the clock hit the 30 minute mark, I started releasing my upgraded ground army against my opponent’s large, but paper-Tiger, forces.

Finally, Gold League in Starcraft 2: My epic achievement in videogames: My 1v1 record is 130 games total with 69 wins. The other 1000 or so games are team games

After a 40 minute endurance match, my opponent surrendered – GG, short for “good game”. The score screen loaded up. I noticed a buttery-yellow frame surrounding my portrait. Could it be?

And then it hit me.

You have been promoted to gold league! A gold hexagon now replaced my meagre silver icon. Taking a moment to finally breathe, I knew this was the real beginning of my Starcraft 2 gaming career. After 130 ranked 1v1 matches and 69 wins I had moved from Silver league to Gold league. Tassadar only knows what I will face out there on the ladder. But, for now, I can celebrate. 

Return to Main Page.

Next Assassin’s Creed in India

Signs point to Next Assassin’s Creed in India

Arbaaz Mir apparently will be the Assassin in Assassin’s Creed Brahman, an upcoming graphic novel in the Assassin’s Creed franchise. The Ubisoft Graphic Novel is set in 19^th century India and has Arbaaz Mir fighting against oppression by the British. Developers have said before that Assassin’s Creed was about exploring areas that weren’t already boring or done to death. Assassin's Creed has already gone through the Middle East during medieval times, Italy in the Renassiance and now revolutionary America. Main characters have included: a Middle Eastern, Italian, and Aboriginal main character. Game Developer Alex Hutchinson has gone on the record previously with OXM pretty much outright saying settings of World War II, feudal Japan or Egypt are boring and done to death and practically guaranteeing that the next Assassin’s Creed will not be in those three setttings. At the same time, Hutchinson told OXM that Assassin’s Creed 3 writer Corey May really wanted to do India and that he (Hutchinson) would really love to do the Raj. Now given what we know about the interests of Assassin’s Creed’s creative director and writer, and the fact the graphic novel is set in India, there’s a strong possibility the next Assassin’s Creed will be set in India.

This is not Prince of Persia or Aladdin

Despite comments that an Indian Assassin’s creed would be too similar to Prince of Persia or well-ploughed territory in movies such as Aladdin, those two settings were actually set in the Middle East. Aladdin was allegedly set in the Middle East but the Disney cartoon movie imported a lot of ambiguously Indian elements – for example snake charmers on the streets. This might have been part of a trend in much of Western media to collapse the distinction between the Middle East and India, despite there being two separate worlds and peoples. Prince of Persia was not set in India, but in Persia and generally revolved around climbing mechanics rather than assassinations. Hence an Indian Assassin’s Creed would be a step in a new direction: clarifying where and what exactly India is, separating it from Middle Eastern imagery and showing us a different history and set of experiences.

Excellent: New setting, New Experiences, Unexplored Territory

Public ignorance of India as a unique setting distinct from the Middle East reveals why India would be a good direction for the series – it would explore a hithertho unexplored world. Exploring unique settings is pretty much at the core of the franchise, starting with Altair in the first Assassin’s Creed. Given Assassin’s Creed’s treatment of an Aboriginal main character, we can probably guess the next episode, if in India, will not just be a hodge podge of stereotypes or ambiguously Middle Eastern characters. One would expect confronting the East India Trading Company, the British Raj and possibly elements from neighboring China or Afghanistan. Additionally India has access to the Indian Ocean and so one could expect heavy ship and sea mechanics as well. This is also around the time of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and could result in the main character being embroiled in major anti-British conflicts. Given the diversity of India and tensions at that time, this could be an excellent setting.

Return to Main Page.

Dragon Age - Why you should buy Dragon Age: Origins and NOT buy Dragon Age 2

If you’re new to PC RPGs, and looking for the best RPG games, the choice is simple. Buy Dragon Age by Bioware, which is on discount now, and skip out on Dragon Age 2 entirely. No Dragon Age 2 – nada, never. Additionally, don’t bother waiting for the upcoming Dragon Age Inquisition, as key Bioware Founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk left the company, leaving dim prospects for good future installments.

Dragon Age 2 got rid of Choice

Let’s start by getting why Dragon Age 2 isn’t worth buying  out of the way. The worst, most damning element of Dragon Age 2, is the lack of character choice: ie the inability to pick a race, lack of choice over family, last name or origin story. It was such a huge reversal of basic RPG game mechanics from the days of Baldur’s Gate I all the way to Dragon Age to do away with character customization. In Dragon Age 2 you had to basically play as a white anglosaxon human whose last name was Hawke and had a pre-determined family set. Hell, even Cloud Strife would have been better. That restrictive anti-role playing decision is just brutal and unforgiveable. Unlike most RPG games you couldn’t pick the inventory of your other party members.

Dragon Age 2's Story was made from the leftovers of the original Dragon Age

Some story elements that only made the B-list in the original Dragon Age, as mere sidequest fodder, have been promoted to the plot of the main storyline in Dragon Age 2. For example the simmering tension between the Templar and Mages, already well ploughed ground from Dragon Age, is forcefed down your throat in Dragon Age 2 – to the point where you just get sick of it. The overall plot of Dragon Age 2 is fairly linear with the key events being predetermined regardless of your player’s choice. Fine, that’s not such a big deal, except that the sidequests were lacklustre as well. Major optional bosses that should have been impressive, were placed in boring contexts with lacklustre stories. Most disturbingly, you play through the same maps over and over so the element of surprise, wonder and exploration is removed from the game. Some designer thought it was ok for you to shuffle through the same underground mine or woodshed over and over again.

Dragon Age 2 Had a thematic Identity Crisis 

The game lacked a certain “gritty realism” throughout. Yet it never quite adopted a totally cartoon like Yoshi’s Story theme either. The game just had a mixed, confused identity-crisis of what it was trying to be. The excessive cartoon like animations, ie crossbow bolts from the sky, felt like a need to appease newer gamers, but in the end it accomplished nothing. Former fans were alienated as Bioware’s old secret sauce was watered down; and new gamers may have found the combat accessible, but hardly impressive, compared to modern “twitch” action games. The lure of Dragon Age was overall game-world coherence coupled with tactical strategic combat. Bioware used to make great RPGs, and they went downhill, probably irreversibly, with Dragon Age 2.

Dragon Age 2 had cheesy cartoon-action combat in a pausable game

Additionally, Dragon Age 2’s combat system emphasized the least fun combat elements of RPGs of healing-management and endurance in combat over careful planning and finding the right strategy for the situation. There were too many endless easy mobs that swarmed you. There was an unnecessary focus on immediate party “positioning” during fights, akin to a console action game, that felt out of place. For example there was a rock boss that had random explosions where you had to hide behind pillars during the fight. This might be exciting in a spontaneous action game like Devil May Cry, but not in a strategic pausable game where you simply pause and command your party to move out of the way. Basically the combat wasn’t strategic in a way that requires you to think ahead to how to use of all of your party members’ abilities to overcome interesting bosses.

Dragon Age: Origins had Freedom and Good SideQuests

Dragon Age: Origins, on the other hand, allowed you to play as any one of a variety of different complex races, such as dwarves, elves, and humans. Additionally it allowed you to pick between different class origins in society, such as between Dwarven Nobility or Dwarven Commoners. Even the origin stories, which were short 10-15 minute segments at the start of the game, were gripping and entertaining. By the end of the story, you customized your entire party, made fateful choices that could result in character deaths, and got to pursue a variety of intriguing, well-crafted unique quests, including quests for ancient relics and exploration of the strange otherworldly “Fade”. The game maintained an emphasis on gritty realism throughout, and because of the seriousness of your choices, you tended to feel satisfied by the finale of the game – which was frankly a great end to a great game. The only problems were that the combat might have actually been too hard for newer entrants to RPGs and there might have been too much emphasis on the overcoming-the-blight-and-killing-darkspawn main theme that limited the developer’s ability to produce more sidequests.

Nevertheless, Dragon Age was a far better game than Dragon Age 2, and one of the best RPG games on the PC in a long time.

Click to go back to the Disgruntled Gamer Homepage

Dark souls 2 “plot” possibly Spoiled, and Major Flaws with the original Dark Souls (Spoilers?)

Apparently Dark Souls 2 is set in a different “place” or “time” than Dark Souls 1 according to interviews with From Software Director Yui Tanimura. The story is entirely independent of the original Dark Souls though set in the same universe. This appears consistent with speculation that your character is connected to Gwyn, the final boss from the original Dark Souls. Previously the fur adorned getup of the trailer player-character appeared consistent with the look of Gwyn.

Dark Souls had No Plot

With that out of the way, let’s take a look at some of the most serious problems with the first Dark Souls. Dark souls had no plot. Dark Souls had a lot of lore - but not plot. There was the background of the fall of the Dragons, the treachery of Seathe and the tragic misadventures of Artorias. But the actual plot was: ring two bells, then pick up a giant bowl and fill it up until a door opens. The plot was trash, no worse than trash - mere worm compost, flushed down the toilet, then re-processed with the unuseable left-overs from a sausage-factory. It was unspeakably bad.

Dark Souls re-used Bosses

Two, the game had some cringe-inducing boss-names. Centipede Demon? Ceaseless Discharge? Are you serious? Why not Fire King? Demon Monkey? Big Boss? Wait that’s from another franchise.

Three, some of the bosses were repetetive. At least a significant number were heavily influenced by bosses from Demon Souls. Gwyn was like flamelurker. The Bellfry gargoyles were obviously easier versions of maneater. Iron golem was like Tower Knight. Bed of Chaos was like Dragon God.  Most offensively Dark Souls re-used the same boss design in the one game repeatedly. Firesage demon = asylum demon = Stray Demon. Bad.

Some Settings were Redundant and Uncreative

Four, some of the settings in Dark Souls sucked hard - large uncreative fields populated by the same bad guys repeated endlessly, endless Taurus demons and capra demons in a fiery volcano expanse, giant two-legged umm-monsters in a fiery expanse etc..  Some of these settings we’ve seen before and added no new player-experience. Blight town was a lot like the valley of defilement from Demon Souls and frankly should have been cut from the game. We don’t need another poison sewer/swamp with precarious platform level design. We had it and needed to try something different. We’ve also had enough of fiery volcanoes with fire demons, another setting we’ve seen before in Demon Souls.

Did I mention the plot sucked?

Click Here to go back to the Main Page.

Starcraft 2 Novice Playing on the Ladder, See Right Hand Link

I've uploaded a page on the right for Starcraft 2. I am playing on the North America ladder. I'm basically a silver league protoss and will be streaming some 1 vs 1 games here on Twitch.

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Used Games do NOT kill the videogame industry, and How Game Developers try to Justify Game Restrictions

Do Used Games kill the Videogame Industry?

A disgruntled Microsoft employee allegedly complained about the reversal of used game restrictions on the X Box One complaining that the reversal was a bad idea because selling used games is killing the videogame industry. Secondly this alleged employee claimed modern games require huge budgets and that decreased revenues will make it unprofitable to produce movie-quality games. Is he right? Are used games killing the industry? Never mind that used games have been sold since videogames have been around, and the industry has only gone up in profits. Never mind that some people would not even buy games if they had to pay full price.

No. Intellectual Property Reproduction Rights shouldn't Trump Individual Ownership Rights

Basically, no one likes being “owned” by someone else. It’s just unfair. Think about the situation with intellectual property and other works of arts. Videogames, like artwork take a lot of energy up-front in the initial design and expression. After that it is easy to reproduce and anyone could come in and profit off the originator’s hard work. Hence we have copyright, to protect an artist’s reproduction rights. They get exclusive reproduction rights. But wait, that’s not the end of it, there’s stuff like The First Sale Doctrine in the United States. Once you’ve sold your produced work, it’s out of your hands and someone else owns it. They can enjoy it, use it, resell it etc. That’s fair and meets our expectations. Unfortunately in the electronic world developers increasingly want to give customers something short of ownership in a product. They want to turn everything into a license. You’re limited to how many computers you can install a product on, and how long you can use a product and you have no resale ability. Nevertheless that business model just doesn’t work when a competitor (let’s call them Sony) swoops in and retails an actual ownable product. Boom goes the business model of the greedy corporate exploiter. And frankly, that’s the way it should be. 

Videogame Developers Shouldn't work With Movie Budgets

Used game resale rights are a valuable incident of property rights in the bought game. But even if profits are limited in the videogame industry – that’s a good thing. We don’t want videogame developers to work with unlimited budgets. There have to be incentives for developers to be cost-effective in their development. Developers should look to outsourcing, limiting graphic improvements that do nothing (read Final Fantasy) or not purchasing unnecessary song rights (once again see Final Fantasy) as long as their budget is channeled into quality gameplay. The fact is, videogames shouldn’t be about delivering movie like experiences. No one is interested in shovelling their hard earned money into shareholder pockets when they could be using it on their own lives.

Game Developers are Trying to Sell What the Public Doesn't Need 

When you break it down, game developers are trying to sell you something you don’t need. To justify a bigger share of the profit pie, developers are appealing to the costs of blockbuster, movie-quality rendered games. But who wants movie-quality videogames? This reminds me of a time I showed up at an aggressive coffee store. The cashier told me, “we have breakfast special, $2.99”. I tell her I just want a coffee and I’m not hungry. She replies, “There’s a sale on breakfast just $2.99 dollars.” But I’m not hungry. I don’t just hand over money because you’ve come up with a deal or invented some new widget; I spend my money based on my needs and my wants. Some retailers just don’t get the message. They want to create over-the-top consumer desires in the videogame industry that don’t exist. I don’t need or want movie-like games and bloated studios and budgets – and I’m not going to pay for it. 

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Connor was a deeper character than Ezio in Asassin’s Creed (Spoilers)

Assassin’s Creed has had multiple heroes. In light of the upcoming Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, it is time to explain why Connor from Assassin’s Creed 3 is an all-around better character than Ezio from Assassin’s Creed 2.

Connor allowed you to play as The Outsider

People hate on Connor for being somewhat boring, a bit dour, and generally having less flash than his counterpart Ezio. But Connor gave us a more unique experience. Aboriginal characters are rarely represented in videogames as a title character. Here was a chance to play as a member of an outcast/displaced culture. Moving from Ezio to Connor was like one day playing a plain vanilla human and then trying out a dark elf in an RPG. One race fits into the mainstream seamlessly, the other has to overcome sociocultural barriers as he makes his way in the world. Even the name “Connor” was an assumed name (he kept his true name wisely to himself) to help the main character move around more easily within a semi-hostile community. Connor’s story was closer to the immigrant experience or the experience of someone who is not part of the privileged class and hence was a richer vein of experiences than that of Ezio in Italy.

Connor had better Personal Qualities than Ezio

Connor had better “qualities” as a person than Ezio. Connor was praised by his archnemesis for showing great conviction, strength and courage – all noble qualities. Ezio seems to be more of a braggadocio and a womanizer needing some direction from other characters like his Uncle, Leonardo etc. I always got the impression that Connor was more driven and considered himself honor-bound to follow through on helping his people.  Connor was influenced by his internal compass and was more introverted. Ezio was more extroverted, less self-aware and less directed by internal principles.

On that same point, Connor just had the more developed principles and values. This sometimes came out in a negative way such as when he judged his mentor Achilles. Nevertheless you get the impression this guy believed in something bigger than himself. This might have come from his culture or religion but he wasn't just a materialistic person. Ezio struck me as someone in need of an internal purpose – someone unfulfilled on the inside because he lacked a strong belief system. Ezio seemed like someone more materialistic, more motivated by external events and less of an internally fulfilled person.

Connor's story Arc was more satisfying

Lastly, Connor was less of a loser than Ezio. This last point might not be entirely fair. In Assassin’s Creed 2, Ezio let a large part of his family die at the very beginning of the game, failing hard. Connor does eventually “lose” as an aboriginal person in the United States, but it is not really his fault and is part of the overall historical changes in America. Connor eventually succeeded in killing his archnemesis and  even grew to be respected by his enemies.  Ezio, at least at the end of Assassin’s Creed 2, never really got to kill Rodrigo and generally seemed to be outsmarted brain cell for brain cell by his enemies.

Both Ezio and Connor’s story arcs matched the traditional trajectory of boy to man. Some would call this the hero to warrior archetype transformation, as read about in books such as King Warrior Magician Lover by Robert Moore. Basically the boyhood archetype of the hero is brave but feels the need to prove himself. The warrior male archetype is achieved in adulthood and involves cold, deliberate skill without a need to prove oneself. The Adult Warrior unlike the Boyhood Herohas a correct appraisal of his limitations and the dangers of the outside world but through mastery of tools and himself is able to overcome obstacles. Ezio does eventually go through a kind of grizzled transformation when he reaches Rome, but most of his initiation into adulthood seems to happen offscreen. Connor, on the other hand, consistently tests his beliefs against: his mentor Achilles, his former friend in his Band, and also against his father and enemies. I felt Connor’s transformation then into a more fulfilled adult character was more gradual and believable than Ezio’s and resulted in a better story about a boy’s movement into adulthood.

In Conclusion.... Connor was Better

I’m not denying Connor had his flaws as an Assassin's Creed protagonist. The guy was moody, somewhat of a loner, rarely joked, and so provided less obvious camera-ready spark than showboat Ezio had. Nevertheless, if you can appreciate what Connor brings to the show, you’ll realize why Connor was a better, Assassin's Creed protagonist AND overall videogame character.

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Final Fantasy 13 pretending to be like Dark Souls and a look back at one of the biggest Game-Failures of all time

Apparently producer  Yoshinori Kitase claims that Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy 13 will be similar in some ways to Dark Souls. Now this probably made some of you laugh and others just angry. Dark Souls was a relatively engrossing, critically claimed, challenging game. Final Fantasy 13 was one of the most overrated, awful messes of a game of all time. Final Fantasy 13 had basically no towns, no real choices, a fairly lame wannabe-action turnish-based combat system, and brutally linear maps. The slight opening up of the world happened at the end of the game and was frankly outclassed by basically every RPG in existence since the original Super Nintendo. I didn’t mind “Lightning” as the main character, but nothing was ever done with the plot or gameplay. It was mostly just some emotional up-and-down, soap-operatic, touchy-feely non-plot as we moved characters down one line after another. I would have easily given it a 4 or 5 out of 10 and was surprised that mainstream game reviewers had to give it higher ratings partly to not be contrarian in a world of Final Fantasy sheep.  Now Square has run out of a lot of its street cred it built up with games like FF6. Even the FF sheep need to be BSed a bit into thinking there is some serious gameplay design behind Square’s products.

After pumping out raw sewage these last few outings, Square has to try to ride the coat-tails of far better products such as Dark Souls. No one believes Yoshinori when he claims Final Fantasy will be anything like Dark Souls or any game with any quality, design or challenge. I fully expect the next Final Fantasy will be another 4-5/10 outing as nothing more than a shameless cash grab by the soulless corporate hacks at Square. Drawing well animated grass does not eclipse a product with thoughtful gameplay.

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Player-Controlled bosses and why it might be time to stop reading Dark Souls Previews

Those of you who played Demon Souls and Dark Souls know that these games are about personal exploration, overcoming challenges and trial and error. Each new setting, enemy, boss or weapon gives you insight into a mysterious world shrouded in mystery. The game never holds your hand or even feeds you proper directions of what to do or how best to defeat your opponents. In fact Dark Souls II is probably one of the games I am most looking forward to playing next year. I can’t wait to be surprised by weird bosses and have to try out various tactics to finally find that aha moment where I suddenly start understanding my environment and start making well earned progress.

E3 has released a short demo including a confrontation with a “Mirror Knight” boss who frankly looks absurdly difficult. What comes across as absurd is the rumor that an enemy pops out of this boss’s mirror and that this special enemy is player-controlled.  Look, I played Demon Souls. When I invaded a world as a black phantom I got the option to play as the Old Monk. The Old Monk was one of the final world bosses in Demon Souls, where players were confronted with another human player more or less playing as themselves. The thing is – I NEVER lost as the Old Monk unless I really wanted to let the other player “win” after some minor fun horseplay. Ie the player couldn’t win unless I was a good sport. I could heal, use my own spells and weapons and pretty much dominate a tired adventurer coming into my little dungeon. Honestly, I think a lot of players are going to be in for a beat-down if they have to overcome another human controlled mini-boss while simultaneously fighting a larger “Mirror Knight”.

E3 aside, I think now might be the time to stop watching previews. As too much of the game is revealed, the surprise and wonder starts to fade from one’s first playthrough of the game. Also the puzzling out starts to happen through previews and other people’s playthroughs and the magic fades from my first playthrough. Since I want to be shocked, amazed and challenged, I’m going to have to start sitting out of Dark Souls Previews. 

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Why I Won't be buying the Xbox One and other Videogame Ripoffs

Videogame Ripoffs Decrease Trust and Consumer Loyalty

Trust. It’s the ultimate commodity in business. Trust once lost has to be earned. Consumers place some trust in businesses when buying products. Gamers trust that developers will make good games in exchange for long-term earnings through customers purchasing repeatedly. But what happens when developers get greedy and water down their product, cut costs or repeatedly overcharge through multiple DLC? Well consumers start to look elsewhere for more cost-effective products that are less disrespectful to them. Consumers stop coming back for the next product after being ripped off the first time. When you kill the cow, you can’t keep on milking it. That’s the reason I refuse to buy DLC even for games I like, such as Dark Souls or Assassin’s Creed.

How Bioware went down the RPG Ripoff route

Let’s take a look at a few of the once innovative companies that now seem to churn out garbage, like Bioware. Bioware started as an innovative computer RPG company producing hits like the enormous Baldur’s Gate II. Now it churns out turds like Dragon Age II where I don’t get to choose my race, whether I have a family or even my last name. Despite all these roleplaying limitations I get put on the rails of a sleep-inducing story (with one exceptional part dealing with the Qunari) often playing through the exact same maps reused. Then I find out more pay-to-play DLC is being offered. I won’t be buying the next Bioware Game unless it comes out on clearance and reviews show Bioware has done a 180 degree turn.

How Blizzard went down the RTS Ripoff Route

Next, onto Blizzard. I’ve followed Blizzard since Warcraft I, a real time computer strategy game. I liked the gritty realism, voice acting, improved cinematics and increasingly competitive multiplayer as Blizzard moved from Warcraft II to Starcraft I. I was impressed with the transition to multi-player, the use of multiple races and attempts at balancing in Starcraft. Now Blizzard just treats consumers like garbage. I refused to buy Diablo III after the dry and grossly imbalanced (did anyone use the Necromancer?) Diablo II. I wasn’t impressed with World of Moneycraft and its endless expansions and kill-x-many-wolves quests. What really angers me though is the lack of innovation in Starcraft 2. After ten years in development, Blizzard knows it can have a cheap singleplayer and churn out THREE games at full price rather than just one. That takes chutzpah. That is some serious Microsoft-level ripping off right there.

Microsoft's XboxOne Takes Videogame Rippingoff to a Whole New Level

Which brings me to the Grand-Mufta of sleazy overcharging and consumer ripping off – Microsoft. This is the same company that wants to license your word processing software instead of just letting you own the software product. Now they’ve taken their slit-your-mother’s-throat-for-a-nickel ways to console gaming. Xbox One’s initial specs involved play-only-when-connected-to-the-internet and limits on buying and trading used games. Essentially they wanted to limit property rights consumers had in their products while still having to pay full price. Now Microsoft backed down but only after risking annihilation by their main competitor – the PS4. However it would be a mistake to buy the Xbox One anyways. I’d be supporting a company that sees nothing wrong with savagely raping consumers except when it can’t get away with it. I’d be passing up hard earned cash so teams of lawyers and accountants could figure out new ways to screw over gamers and extract as much cash as possible. Oh but Sony does the same thing you say? Yes every company has to make a profit, but only some companies push beyond the lines of decency and end up in the land of crookery, haberdashery, nay villainy. And that is why I won’t be buying the Xbox One, because I just don’t trust Microsoft not to screw me over ten times a day if I use their products. 

Click Here to go back to the main page.