Gaming Tradition

I don't know how other people feel on this topic but I am quite saddened by the new generation of RPGs. I'm a huge traditional RPG fan who still finds enjoyment in playing/replaying older RPGs on the original Playstation. Stuff like, Legend of Dragoon, Legend of Legaia, Final Fantasy 7-9 (10 I suppose as well), "Tales" games (Symphonia and the like). The question I find myself asking is where on earth have those kinds of games gone? Have we just transitioned out of the structure that all those games revolved around?

It's not that people wouldn't play them, I mean we've been seeing large amounts of people expressing interest in a FFVII remake and that's a game we've already experienced as a gaming community. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way but I find that we've shortchanged the story in favor of "better" gameplay. We've effectively reduced our idea of an "epic" game to things like Mass Effect or Dragon Age, games that only require around 30 hours to thoroughly complete. Don't get me wrong, I love Mass Effect but it's a completely different type of RPG and we're getting the third installment of the franchise shortly but honestly, I'm somewhat certain that I put more time into a single Final Fantasy game than both ME1 and 2. That saddens me greatly, especially since we haven't seen a good Final Fantasy game since 9/10 (My Opinion). I feel like we're losing touch with a genre of games that put out some of the most influential titles of their times.

The gaming industry is very preoccupied with innovation and I often find myself enjoying their new and fancy additions to their games but I'd trade every nuance in the book in exchange for a story that really floored me. I'm not attracted to games by all their bells and whistles or their super awesome gameplay (sometimes), I just want a lengthy game that doesn't try to be anything but itself. The Elder Scrolls games are a great example of an "epic" that continued to evolve over the years and is now widely regarded as one of, if not the best, game of 2011. Why have no other games come through in such a big way? Nobody wants turn based combat anymore, I kinda get that but at the same time it was a model that worked for people for a very long time and honestly, it wasn't a big part of the game, the story was the main focus.

I suppose if I were to summarize this I would say that my wish would be for a game to come out that, while it may not have the best gameplay, has a phenomenal story and allowed me to really dig into it for much longer than most current generation games allow. I've logged over 100 hours into several games, Skyrim being the newest addition to that list. Things like Legaia, Dragoon, FFVII, Persona 3/4. They all have their flaws but there was something that kept me coming back.

Read More

Darksiders II

Holy crap. I cannot wait for this game to come out and am replaying the original just to get back into the universe that Darksiders takes place in. I had the opportunity to meet a lot of the guys who worked on the original Darksiders as well as the sequel, they are a great bunch of guys who really want to push the limits of what you can expect out of a gaming experience. In truth, Darksiders was a mashup of elements from various other games woven into a post apocalyptic world filled with secrets and a very free combat system. You find aspects of Zelda strewn throughout the game, they are tried and true concepts that helped build one of the most well loved franchises in gaming history and are brought to a new stage with Darksiders. From what I've seen so far with Darksiders II, Vigil is taking their idea and building upon it in a way that will hopefully define the Darksiders series like never before.

The first thing that caught my eye was the combat. Comparing it to the original Darksiders is like night and day. The combat is fluid, fast paced, intense, responsive, and much more than I'll be able to do justice here. I did love the original Darksiders' combat simply because it worked well for what they were trying to do but honestly whats really winning me over here is that they didn't cop out on the work like so many sequels seem to. The game is evolving. Vigil is able to do so much more than ever before with their idea and I think that is just fantastic. When you put a game like Darksiders with a studio like Vigil the sky is the limit. Maybe I'm biased because Vigil is the only studio I've had the opportunity to personally see but I'm glad these are the guys working on Darksiders, it has fantastic potential as an RPG and it would be a shame to see it amount to anything less than amazing.

Next is the movement. War is a big dude, no question there. His movements were a bit slow and heavy which had adverse effects throughout the game. Death is significantly smaller and more agile than War is and, just from the tiny bits of gameplay that have been shown thus far, the new movement mechanics reflect this agility. Quickly chaining skills together, rolling out of the way of oncoming attacks, and dashing around your enemies seem to be easy for Death. Just these two simple aspects of the game make a world of difference when it comes down to making a successful game. So in my book, that's two steps in the right direction for Darksiders II

Can't wait to see more on this game, so excited!

Read More

Batman: Arkham City

Alright so I finished Arkham City the other day and the ending kind of took me by surprise, which then generated a need for me to talk about why this ending works for me. WARNING: SPOILERS APPROACHING!

Arkham City was a fantastic game and you don't need me to tell you that, there are plenty of sites and magazines ranting and raving about how amazing it is. I agree with them completely, I enjoyed the crap out of the game. Its not just limited to the game though, I loved the s tory that was told through the diverse cast of heroes and villains. Batman as a whole has always been grounded in the importance of life and the preservation of it in a severely broken world. Arkham City was no exception to this theme but it also served as the final story (I think?) in this specific Batman universe. The transition from the Asylum to the City was significant because it also represented the spreading chaos that simply could not be contained in such a small area anymore.

The cast of villains you encounter are all extremely brutal and the plot is filled with death and destruction despite Batman's efforts to prevent it (mostly by hoping that several broken bones is enough of a deterrent for most people). In the wake of this brutality lies death and oh boy is death a recurring theme throughout the story here. You'll see almost the entire cast from the Asylum make appearances here or at least get mentioned with the exception of Scarecrow (Killer Croc food) which is strange to me considering we go from a little death in Asylum to a whole bunch in City.

Kicking off the death train is Rah's Al Ghul or however his name is spelled with his whole life and death mean jack shit to me kind of attitude. This character is a major villain in the Batman universe and essentially is trying to annihilate everything from the world, starting with Arkham City. As it turns out he is behind the entire operation to wipe out every prisoner in the city and he even kills Strange and then himself as a result of his failure, thinking he can be revived in the Lazarus pit like usual, then Batman kicks Clayface into the pit and wrecks it....ha. So, Rha's ends up dead, potentially for good.

Next up is Talia, Rha's daughter and Batman's lover. Talia typically takes care of her father but after he tries to kill her she ends up kind of siding with Batman and even saves him from Joker by offering him immortality in exchange for Batman's life. Despite Batman's efforts to save her she still ends up getting shot by Joker and dying.

Hugo Strange is another villain that meets his well deserved demise in Arkham city at the hands of his ally, Rha's. He spent the entire game seeking wholesale murder and he ended up dead before he could realize that ambition.

Lastly we have the most important death. Joker. Throughout the game Joker engages Batman in a game of mutual destruction or benefit which culminates in a final showdown resulting in the death of Joker. Batman has a bit of a crisis when he sees Joker dying in front of him while he holds the cure to what is killing him. During this period of thought Joker takes the opportunity to stab Batman in the shoulder with a knife, making him drop the cure on the floor. Batman expresses his regret and tells Joker that even though he shouldn't he still would have saved him. The game concludes with Batman carrying the Joker's corpse out of Arkham City and walking off, conflicted. In the end, evil didn't need any help eliminating itself.

So why does this ending work? Well for me at least, I find that most Batman stories are constantly doing this dance with death leading up to a climactic end but it is fairly uncommon to see death on such a large scale. However, seeing death that much allows you to contrast it to the value of life expressed in most Batman series. Bruce Wayne's entire motivation to become what he is was fueled by death and in turn, the value of human life. Arkham Asylum/City was no exception to this, it is death that spurs Batman onward in order to protect life and while most of the time the bad guys just end up in full body casts for a while, they remain alive. Why did Arkham City kill off a good portion of the villains? It was symbolic of this series' end. Just like any story you are free to interpret it however you'd like but Arkham Asylum/City boasted some of the most depth in multiple areas such as character design, story-line, plot, and even the world's they crafted were incredibly complex and intricate. Upon seeing the undoing of the various villains I found myself feeling bad for them, victims of their own machinations.

Thanks for reading, there will be a more gameplay centered post later on!

Read More