Every now and then, a treasured developer will produce a game so dissimilar to their previous work that fans will begin to rage. They’ll lament the good old days and chat about how said developer has lost their way. What happened to the tight level design? Where are the classic monsters? Why does this game feel so different?

Id Software’s “Rage” is such a title. Playing almost nothing like their previous games, “Rage” feels very awkward to a longtime Id fan. Why would you even bother with this title, outside of the developer’s legacy? After playing through the game, I can’t answer that question.

Still, I can’t help but think I’m a part of the game industry’s biggest problem; creative stagnation. Id Software tried their damnedest to create a brand new IP and I hate the game. Hell, even when they took “Doom 3” in a different direction than the classic games, I was first in line to bitch and moan.

“Rage” definitely isn’t a shining example of game design, but it’s not poorly made. When the characters finally shut-up and you’re thrown into a dungeon, it plays like a better version of “Fallout 3.” The guns have great weight and the graphics completely sell the putrid creatures and their agility. It can be really tense.

In the same instance, though, nothing about the game is original and most of the ideas are half-baked. The upgrade system shouldn’t even exist with how few options are available, the car combat side missions feel like half of a game (or early PS1 era cash grabs) and the weapon crafting is entirely pointless when you can just buy everything.

“Rage” is mind blowing if you haven’t played a single game this generation. If you have, you’ll just keep thinking about “Borderlands,” “Fallout 3” and “Call of Duty.” It’s sad when even in a brand new game, I can’t escape thoughts of everything else.



I can't even tell which Call of Duty this is.....

At the same time, because I made those previous games successful, I’m partly responsible for “Rage” being an amalgamation of features from other shooters. I can’t imagine playing a classic style game in the modern era, even though I’d probably enjoy it to some degree.

Still, when new IPs are released, I’m the one responsible for sequels never happening. I’m the guy that craps all over “new” ideas and stops developers from taking chances. I dictate to them that Call of Duty and Battlefield are the only way shooters should be, so why even try something new?

To that degree, I also disliked “Sonic 4.” I’m not one of those people who abhor the physics, though. I was more in the camp that the level design wasn’t adequate and that the boss encounters lacked originality. Since I love classic Sonic, though, what else was Sega supposed to make? How do they make me happy?

I’m also the same person that is lambasting Square-Enix for “Final Fantasy XIII.” I can’t stand the auto-battle system or how streamlined combat is. The linear level paths for an RPG do nothing for me and the absurd story just brings my piss to a boil. How else is Square-Enix supposed to innovate, though?

If I could embrace “Rage” as an actual beacon of creativity, then maybe we’d be a better and more realized sequel. Maybe Id Software could expend more time in designing new mechanics or fleshing out the groundwork laid down with the first title.

If I treated “Final Fantasy XIII” with more respect, maybe Square-Enix would finally give us that “Final Fantasy VII” remake or another title in the classic, 16-bit style (excluding the FFIV pseudo-sequel).

Since I don’t allow developers to try anything new, I fear that the next generation of consoles will just keep producing the same garbage over and over. I keep buying awful sequels in hopes that some of the original joy will be contained; I almost never leave happy.



Even this looks like Call of Duty....

So my only conclusion is that I am a part of the problem. I’ll do my best to embrace the indie game scene, but I don’t see how I’ll be helping triple A title’s become more diverse in the future.

Developers and stupid comments seem to be going hand in hand these days. First we get Crystal Dynamics shooting themselves in the feet and now we have Gearbox making asshats of themselves. It’s insane to think how grown adults can’t figure out how to properly speak to journalists about their games.

Still, the most recent instance with Gearbox’s John Hemingway just does not make sense to me. Are the developers intentionally trying to not sell their product to women? When I first read the quick blip for Eurogamer’s article, I immediately thought of a mode where the female character would bond to one character and heal them.

Instead, the gaming world is now treated to something unintentionally sexist. To say that female gamers require additional assistance in their games is ludicrous. If the main idea was to appeal to significant others who are bad at video games, why not just label the mechanic as noob mode?

Still, I’m a white male and I’m getting outraged at something that doesn’t really impact me. I’ll never know what it’s like to be a woman and have people constantly harassing me, so I took to Twitter for some quick comments.

I asked my co-worker’s girlfriend and another co-worker of mine (the now infamous Jozie). Both play games and while they may not be experts or as hardcore as I am, they certainly can hold their own in terms of ability.





As you can clearly see, both aren’t too happy about Hemingway’s comment. While he may not be a ravenous sexist, he certainly is unfounded and ignorant. Just like the controversy over “Dead Island” and their “Feminist Whore” skill, developers need to realize that in-jokes aren’t funny to the masses and knocks against female stereotypes are unfounded and ridiculous.

To further drive the point home, an old friend of mine was quite the gamer. She couldn’t best me in Call of Duty or Gears of War, but she certainly wasn’t a slouch, either. Gaming with her on “Hard Mode” wasn’t some futile attempt to make myself look better. She honestly was up for the challenge and liked not having the game be a cakewalk.

I’ve also known quite a few female workers from local GameStop’s that are interested in some pretty awesome stuff. My best friend Jim’s old boss loved “Dark Souls,” a game that makes most grown men cry. This very lovely girl, Jen, was a huge fan of Fable and Call of Duty and she used to ask me pointers on how to get better, instead of cowering in fear of harder difficulties.

I also recall of two twins who were gigantic PokeMon fans. While that may not be the most daunting of titles to topple, just having the sheer dexterity to finish any of those titles is a pretty monumental accomplishment. I’ve only ever beaten 2 PokeMon games and I sink hundreds of hours into each.

My point is I don’t understand why developers are still treating women like unskilled peons. According to ESRB polls, around 40% of gamers are women. If you total up all sales of the previous “Borderlands” (as presented by VGChartz.com), you get about 4.55 million copies. Imagine if 40% did not buy the sequel. You’d sell close to 2 million copies less.

That is something that Gearbox probably doesn’t want to face. Sadly, they may see a pretty big decline come September. “Borderlands” didn’t have the easiest start of any new IP, but it did well on the charm of its gameplay and word of mouth from gamers.

If the new word of mouth is that Gearbox is a bunch of sexist idiots, maybe “Borderlands 2” won’t sell so well. While I can’t predict what will happen, I will say that developers need to start treating their potential customers a lot better.

Enough of the bullshit where women apparently suck or that being offended is solely your fault. Start thinking about what you say and maybe I’ll give a shit about your work. Until then, you’ve lost a prospective customer.



Cate Archer is not pleased.

Ever wanted to see my face? Well, now you can!

I’m not quite sure why gamers are so afraid of change. I recently watched GameTrailers “Top 10 Fallen Angels” segment and their comments about Splinter Cell confused me. While they are right in stating that the series is now becoming homogenized, they belittle “Splinter Cell: Conviction” for straying too far from the series’ roots.

Why is that a bad thing? Is it wrong to have reboots and reimagining with franchises? Looking at the upcoming “Metal Gear Rising,” the comments and threads are just ridiculous. People criticize Kojima for not doing anything different with MGS, but then yell at him for trying to make another game in the same universe. I don’t understand it.

I grew up with Mario and Zelda and you’d be hard pressed to find two games within the series that follow the same style of play. While more recent Mario titles are adopting a similar art style and there are a few direct sequels in Zelda, almost every game looks and plays differently. It’s great seeing seven interpretations of Link, all so bold, pronounced and true to the original.

Going back to Metal Gear, even those games follow entirely different setups. No controls or aesthetics change, but each title centers in on a different aspect of Snake’s training. The original PS1 classic is all about confrontation while remaining silent. 2 is about exploration. 3 is about avoiding enemies at all cost and survival. 4 is practically a run and gun shooter. No game is the same!

For as much flak as Capcom caught with “Street Fighter III: Third Strike,” the game has yet to be replicated. The previous Street Fighter games played with an emphasis on showmanship, where Third Strike catered to the more meticulous and cautious fighter. Hopping between the two is an exercise in frustration as new skill sets need to be learned.



The reason most series grow stagnant and boring is because of their unwillingness to change. I’m not saying you need to adapt to new standards and embrace things like iron-sight aiming or cover mechanics, but why would I want to play what is virtually the same game again when I have the original? Just look at the NES Mega Man titles; Everything is fun and challenging until you get to 4, then the series takes a nosedive.

Or better yet, anything that developer Neversoft gets their hands on. The Tony Hawk series, once a proud trailblazer of genuinely new mechanics, became so complacent with offering incremental changes that the series devolved into an autopilot mode. I could bust out the newest Tony Hawk with no practice and break a few million points.

Guitar Hero became so set on introducing the rhythm genre to new gamers that the later games actually got easier by design. Remember all those tricky hammer-on sections from “Jordan” in “Guitar Hero 2?” Well, now you can just tap the buttons and the guitar will auto-strum. No skill required.

Call of Duty, for all the legitimate things it does right, is so boring and stale now that the campaigns lack any enthusiasm and the multiplayer is simply a means to milk more money out of consumers. Why put actual effort into crafting new mechanics when people will just buy the same shit again and again?

Why do I bring this all up? Well, I recently dyed my hair another color. Over the course of my lifetime (24 years), I’ve flirted with different styles. I used to get mushroom haircuts in elementary school and I screwed around with hair-gel in high school. I’m now into ridiculous colors and I even have a Mohawk!

I’m not afraid of changing myself up. While I may lack the courage to actually speak with people, I’ll never lose that spark of impulse that shows my inner thoughts. I hope that my hair color shows people to expect the unexpected, because I certainly love to just do whatever I want.



Developers should, as well. Instead of treading the easy road of contention, why not mix things up within your franchises? Give me a first person game without guns or puzzles. Give me a platformer with an emphasis on stealth. Give me an adventure game with combat (and that isn’t as boring as Gemini Rue).

I want to see new things. I want to look into the faces of change and come out rewarded!

As gaming evolves and budgets become larger, there seems to be a trend going on: lavish cutscenes. You’d be hard pressed to find a modern, mainstream, triple A title that doesn’t feature cutscenes in some significant way. Be it “Metal Gear Solid” or “Alan Wake,” games just push their narratives onto us through the use of cinematic cuts.

I’ve seen this trend bemoaned as the death of gaming. I’ve heard critics lambaste titles that rely too much on scripted events and FMVs. I’ve read complaints from fans that most games are more movies now than they are game. Is this really a bad thing?

I just recently finished “Binary Domain.” The game was created by the producer of the Yakuza series by Sega. If anyone has played any entry in the Yakuza series, they will tell you that the cutscenes are long and plentiful. Still, the narrative set-up by those scenes is leaps and bounds ahead of most games in the modern climate.

Regardless, as gaming grows and matures as a medium, why is it so bad to include cutscenes in your game? Much like a musician who seeks to tell a story through the use of a concept album, can a video game not decide to display its narrative ideals through cutscene?

I suppose there is a point where enough is enough. The Atlus RPG Classic, “Persona 4” starts off with a 2 hour prologue that is text-based with limited interaction. Capcom’s brawler/adventure hybrid, “Asura’s Wrath,” is composed of 80% cutscenes. Hell, “Yakuza 4,” one of my favorites, includes over 5 hours of non-interactive FMVs. Isn’t that just too much?

I say no. Much like every movie isn’t about broken cops or drug lords and every book isn’t a fantasy novel in the vein of J.R.R. Tolkein, video games do not have a single mold with which they can convey their message. If a developer sees fit to include 6 hours of cinematics, why is anyone even complaining?



This is pretty damn close to Lord of the Rings...

Maybe the ability to skip said cinematics should be included in every title? Well, I just finished “Shadows of the Damned” three times for the Platinum trophy and I was able to deal with the cutscenes each and every time. They even took on new meanings during my third playthrough as I focused on other elements to the game design, namely Akira Yamaoka’s glorious soundtrack.

I suppose gaming just provides a radically dissimilar interaction than movies, which is why people are sick of seeing so many FMVs. Instead of having control ripped away, most gamers want to keep going. I like getting breaks from the action, though.

The Uncharted series, for as generic and unoriginal in gameplay as it may be, has some very well done cutscenes. Extraordinary motion capture and superb acting combine to make the cut aways something you seek out. While I enjoy popping soldiers in the head, I’m more eager to see Drake’s interactions with Sully and Elena. It gives me a nice chance to catch my breath.



“Max Payne 3” was an exceptional case for having more cutscenes in games. The transitions Rockstar employed to make game and cinematic blend are so ahead of the competition that I barely knew when to stop playing and hardly ever wanted to. I blitzed through the title because I was sucked in by fierce opposition and tight controls and compelled forward through wonderful acting and supreme direction.

After playing such a great game like that, I’m left pondering why I ever thought ridding games of cutscenes was a good idea. Still, I do understand that some people just cannot stomach their existence and want nothing to do with them. I appreciate that viewpoint.

But when did our medium ever conform to one idea? The amount of games I’ve played where there are no cinematics far outweighs the amount that do. You can fire up any number of indie games and get your old-school fix, but even titles like “Portal 2” and “Doom” do not feature any FMVs in sight.

So to any naysayers of cutscenes, all I have to say is just avoid the games that have them. I, on the other hand, am looking forward to the day where an entire game may just be one long cutscene (Hotel Dusk doesn’t count!). I’m all for a slightly interactive movie, as long as the plot isn’t as garbage as “Heavy Rain.”

Video games are a strange medium. Gameplay is paramount and story usually takes a backseat to fun. Sometimes, though, endings can bolster an otherwise lackluster experience into something worth venturing through.

That is the case with Suda51’s “Shadows of the Damned.” While not a bad game by any means, the gameplay is fairly conventional. Influenced by Shinji Mikami of “Resident Evil” fame, Shadows plays almost exactly like “Resident Evil 4,” with the improvements EA made with “Dead Space.” It’s fun, but it lacks creativity and originality.

What really sells the experience is the plotline and its ultimate ending. Not to spread too many spoilers, but when Garcia finally accepts his fate and the player is left powerless to change the outcome, the game comes full circle and you truly feel sad.

This contrasts with “The Dark Knight Rises,” the latest film I saw this weekend. I don’t have a lot of nice things to say about the movie, but suffice to say the ending is a complete disaster. Certain elements I was taking away from the film become null and void when the cop-out ending occurs.

I’m really not going to spoil that, but if you find yourself more intrigued by the Bruce/Alfred dynamic like I was, you’ll leave the film completely disappointed. Nolan throws a completely idiotic and ridiculous twist at the last second and it ruins all emotional build-up that could have saved the lackluster movie.

From everything I’ve read on “Mass Effect 3,” I can understand why people feel so angry about Bioware’s failure to capture a climatic and cathartic conclusion. Investing so much into the characters and their fates and seeing nothing come of it is just frustrating. I wish Nolan stuck to the red herring he planted instead of giving us the “Hollywood” ending.



One of my favorite series from last generation, “Splinter Cell,” did something very similar in its second outing, Pandora Tomorrow. During the climax in the airport, Fisher runs through a gauntlet of terrorists guarding a bomb that will decimate the airport. Once he finishes them off and confronts the bomb, he realizes that he cannot disarm it.

So what’s the only option left? Well, planting it in the middle of the airport and letting the police deal with it. In an unexpected turn of events, Fisher isn’t required for the ending and the player feels completely useless. Why did Fisher even go to the damn airport? Third Echelon should have just called the police and let them deal with the problem.

As for ending that improve the drab parts of the movie, Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds” is a shining example. I am not a fan of that film. The movie is typical Tarantino self-indulgence and most scenes linger on for 15 minutes longer than they should. Still, the movie is pretty much redeemed by the ending in the movie theater.

Seeing the Basterd’s plan come to fruition, even with failures from the group, is just thrilling. The unadulterated violence and cleansing feeling of seeing bad guys getting eviscerated is unparalleled. I’ll still argue with you that the film isn’t worth a watch, but bombastic endings like that really make it hard to stand by my own stance.

I’ve heard the counter-argument that the journey through something is better than the ultimate outcome. The only thing I’ve agreed with that on is the Bill Murray film “Broken Flowers.” Still, encapsulating everything that works with a film or game during the final minutes really sells a product for me.

So what if some of the set-pieces are dull or the game isn’t “innovative?” If your journey ends on the highest note possible, isn’t everything worth the struggle? Doesn’t that kind of reflect life, as well? My trips with shitty customer service at restaurants are sometimes worth it when the food is exceptional.



While this blog is pretty unfocused, I just wanted to share some of these thoughts. Endings, to me, are the alpha and omega of an experience. Maybe I shouldn’t put so much emphasis on conclusions, but I prefer having my media end in a grandiose fashion instead of fizzling out.

Recently, I’ve been reliving my past gaming habits in the likes of “Unreal Tournament” and “Quake 2.” Both titles have reminded what I used to love so much about shooters; pure skill. If you can’t point and shoot with quick reaction time or pinpoint accuracy, then you’re dead.

They’ve also reminded of how punishing shooters used to be. Without any regenerating health, scouring for health packs became a major part of the titles. The pure adrenaline that courses through your veins when you see your health flashing at 20 is just gone from the modern gaming landscape.

I also just finished “Max Payne 3,” a game that clearly remembers what games used to be. While it may get a bit repetitive towards the end game and the multiplayer is a total bust, that sense of high octane, white knuckle action is alive in well throughout the campaign mode.

Rockstar didn’t make a game in the vein of the classics, though. Instead of copying what Remedy started, Rockstar decided to develop a unique style to showcase the narrative. Quick cuts, fade-ins and expert transitions are the order of the day and it works so damn well. I was so engrossed at one point that I played for 5 hours straight!

The way the audio syncs with the visuals and how the electric and pulsing soundtrack gets your heart pumping is something I miss dearly in my games. While I really enjoy stuff like “Uncharted 2” or “Splinter Cell: Conviction,” both games are just too damn simple for me to truly fall for. I want my action titles to make me feel like a complete hero, overcoming desperate odds and looking like a bad-ass doing so.



I suppose the slick visuals are what truly sell me on “Max Payne 3.” If the game didn’t operate so smoothly or look so sharp, I might not have gotten so sucked into the gameplay. But even then, the controls are fluid and the difficulty so finely tuned that I was in my own little masochistic heaven during the story.

“Quake 2” certainly upped the difficulty in its subsequent expansion packs. Clearing out rooms filled with weird licker dogs and multiple grenade launching thugs is just incredibly tense. I fully understand why I’m such an expert player at Call of Duty after reliving those horrors.

I just wish more modern action games could evoke that old familiar feeling. “Halo 2,” as I recall, was one of the first titles to do away with health bars in favor of a regeneration system. I never liked it and despised how easy some of the fire fights became. The following year, “Call of Duty 2” employed the same tactic and I was still a bit put-off.

I won’t say that modern games don’t get me excited, but I usually like when they stick with past systems or mechanics and try to take different spins on the themes. “Borderlands” is one such title. It’s not original by sheer virtue of being a shooter, but it takes those clichés and creates an experience that doesn’t exist elsewhere.

The titles that I love from this generation (namely Yakuza and DJ Hero) are all just new spins on old ideas. “What’s Old is New Again” is the colloquialism that comes to mind when I think of how I enjoy my games. “Max Payne 3” is certainly such a game (even if it’s just a much better Uncharted).



So maybe I’m just too old-school for all these new games. Regardless of what might be the cause for my general lack of enthusiasm in the modern gaming scene, I have absolutely no beef with Max Payne. If Rockstar keeps making games as good as that, then I’ll be building quite the shooter collection in the coming years.