News And Bits

The good news is that the Brain Junkfoods are coming. I'm doing the What's Wrong With series, skipping "Sunnyville Yard Sale" for now. The reason is that I'm going to start doing Brain Junkfood videos soon, as well as Let's Plays. What's Wrong With series is going to be a little late.

That's part of the bad news, the lateness. I should have What's Wrong With Dead Space 2 done my April. The reason I'm missing my monthly target is because I'm moving to a townhouse next week. I'll elaborate later, but suffice it to say, I'm excited.

Also, I'm working on trying to get some more Horrid Horror Movie Reviews done, possible one a month. I'm hoping The Human Centipede 2 comes to Netflix soon for it, but I have a few on back log. Those may be done in video soon, too, which I'm the most excited about. I have ideas for a lot of the HHMR's and Brain Junkfoods that, to be honest, kind of stuck with me. These include a slide whistle!

Anyway, I'll keep some updates periodically. Stay tuned!

Brain Junkfood: What's Wrong With This? Part One: Dead Space 2

There is no quicker way to earn my seething hatred than to take a good concept for a horror movie, game, book, etc, then put a dumbass twist in the end. Well, normally, that is true. Dead Space 2 jumped on the challenge wagon with the infamous "Your Mom Hates Dead Space" ad campaign. For those of you who don't know, the campaign was a "focus group" of mothers watching Dead Space 2, and commenting on how disgusting it, and people who play it, are. This was shortly after the ad debacle with Dante's Inferno, and after Visceral Studios and EA Games claimed that they would never advertise to children below the rating age. So, some genius decided to advertise in a way that would attract children. Having gone to school for graphic design and advertising, this tainted me from reviewing the game, ethically. Unlike IGN, I have ethics! Luckily, this isn't a review, nor completely serious. Without further ado, what's wrong with Dead Space 2?

Continuing from the first game, where Isaac Clarke managed to single handedly destroy a metric shit load of "aliens" and free himself from an overrun mining station in space, Isaac is now in a mental institution on Titan, the moon of Saturn. In a mental institution, no less. Funny. I seem to remember Isaac getting mauled by a Necromorph in the end of the first game, but maybe, I'm looking at this with Rose Colored glasses.

The first section of the game has you escaping from the mental institution with the help of a woman named Daina. So far, every woman in Isaac's life has either A: Died B: Betrayed him or C: Given birth to him (and probably died shortly afterwards, betraying him by never taking care of him). Figuring Daina isn't his momma, chances are, she's going to betray him. But first, she has to remind us several times that the Marker is man-made. Just about every other line: "It's man made! It's man made! It's man made! It's alien technology! It's--" Wait a dog-fucking, honey badger licking minute. Did she just say it's alien technology, after saying that it's man made? And, to make it even better, she says that it's man made a minute later.

Sweet Mother of Continuity Fucking Space Chimps... I cannot believe just how many people missed this point. I couldn't even find it in "Dead Space Wikia." I've played this part three times, and every time, I immediately catch "It's powerful alien technology." So, she just did what I never expected: She betrayed the plot. I'm honestly surprised Isaac didn't lose his mind upon hearing this. No, the mind fuck is yet to come.

She does in fact betray him. She is a Scientologist-- UNITOLOGIST! I mean, the difference is about as major as confusing IGN with Yellow Journalism, or Jessica Chobot with awful role model for gamer girls everywhere. Yeah... that's another topic for another type of article. Lo and behold, she dies when the real villain, Hans Tiedmann, no really, that's his name, shoots the window, sucking her through it into deep space. Isaac crawls in a vent and eventually meets the rest of our sad sack cast of characters. The first is Stross, a fellow mental case who keeps going through "the steps" to destroy the marker. We'll get back to those in a second. The second is Ellie, a pilot who initially hates Isaac for... reasons.

Actually, this is understandable. She doesn't really hate him so much as distrusts him at first. This is quickly changed when she meets Stross, and asks Isaac if she can kill him. Isaac tells her not to, because he can come in handy. Saying that the violent psychotic will be helpful is about as smart as saying a rabid dog would make a great pet. Or that being in a game also means that you can cover it in journalistic stories. Dammit, I did it again! Sorry!

Well, of course the inevitable happens, and Stross tries to kill Ellie. Twice. The second time, he pulls out her eye. This is foreshadowing for later. Yeah, remember those steps that I mentioned Stross ranting about? Well, after you send Ellie off of the Sprawl, you come to grips with your dead girlfriend's death. She leads you to a machine that can be used to destroy the Marker. Step 1: Crawl in to the machine. Step 2:The screws go tight all around. Step 3: Cross my heart hope to die. Stick a needle in my eye. If you screw this up, Isaac dies by getting his eye stabbed. This somehow manages to dislocate his entire jaw, too.

After the machine, Isaac goes to the final battle. Teidmann tries to kill him with a harpoon gun. Isaac shrugs two of them off as if he's fucking Superman. He then shoots Teidmann with his own harpoon. Nicole touches him, and he has to fight her and the marker. If he loses, Isaac shoots himself with the harpoon gun, which somehow dislocates his entire jaw. For the love of God, people, physics! Jaws don't just fly off when an area remotely close is hit. Especially when you shoot the bottom of your face through the top of the crown. Your jaw is not going to hula hoop around the harpoon!

If you win, however, Isaac mopes until Ellie saves him. Isaac is a defeatist who won't do anything to save himself, yet he can save a woman with one eye, kill several monsters stronger and bigger than him, and destroy a horrible artifact that he made, despite the fact that it's supposed to be thousands of years old, and alien technology. He can't save himself, though!

But, that's all not the biggest issue I have with Dead Space 2. Enemy AI comes close. Slashers will die if you shoot their arms off. So, what do they do? Guard their heads with their fucking arms! The developers seemed to have decided that the best way to remedy the lack of intelligence by filling the room with more monsters than the room has square feet. If Dead Space 2 were a drink, it'd be really, really bad Powerthirst: "More monsters than this room has room for!!!"

But, the biggest issue is the shitty level design. One area is repeated no less than five times before anything happens. I go from a freezer to another freezer... until finally... a monster screams at me. Then another freezer. Then another. Then finally a fight. In another freezer. With a hallway so full of monsters that they can't even move.

The biggest offender is the school level. I played it more than three times. Mainly because I played F.E.A.R. 2. It's pretty much the exact same level, but in reverse. The only thing missing was, "The ass, he's behind the ass!" Of course, that means she'd have to be in this game, and review it. Okay, that one was reaching a little... Not by much though.

I have to give Dead Space 2 credit; it does have some creepy moments. They're just overshadowed by its sheer stupidity, and lack of original level design ideas. I mean, lets face it, the few new scenes that weren't from the first game were so short lived, that they're barely memorable. The only one I can remember is flying from a train car to another train car, and that's because it was done in two different ways, in two different places in the game. Is it a bad game? Mechanically, not really. Everywhere else, it falls flatter than Jessica Chobot's acting. And you wonder why I refused to review Mass Effect 3...

Coming up, we have the bane of my gaming existence, and killer Smurfs. But, can they compare to the most off the wall bad games that is actually completely awesome? Let me ask my friend, Zack, after we delve into Singularity and Silent Hill 2 next.

When It Rains, It Pours: Thoughts on Silent Hill: Downpour

While I will fully admit to enjoying most of the Silent Hill series (Silent Hill 2 being the exception of the main canon), I will have to admit that the series was long over due for a massive reboot, or an overhaul to say the least. Homecoming strayed far, focusing on combat over running, and Shattered Memories focused on changing the entire story. The less mentioned about that one, for me, the better, but that's a subject for another time. After Akira Yamaoka left Konami, and Vatra took over the development, I was, to say the least, anxious to see if Silent Hill: Downpour would even be up to par as a game, much less a Silent Hill title. And, I have to admit: I'm pleasantly surprised.

The weakest aspect of Downpour is the combat, and not because of the flailing attacks Murphy does. It's mainly because you can block only one attack, and cannot dodge. This leads to some aggravating moments later on in the game where you almost have to fight to survive. At the same time, the purpose is to run away from. There are also some technical issues, such as loading in certain areas that makes the game skip. While annoying at times, it's minor compared to what it could be.

The story follows prison inmate Murphy Pendleton after he murders a man in a prison shower. As he's being transferred, his bus crashes in Silent Hill, where he must escape. Among the monsters pursuing him is a police officer who seems to have a vendetta, and a mailman whose motives seem unclear. Murphy's journey through the city is expanded to a more open world, giving the player side quests with stories of their own. Much to the developer's credit, these side quests do not detract from the game's intricate story, and add to the city's rich atmosphere.

The side quests are part of the most interesting sections of the game, revolving around environmental puzzles. One such has the player rebuilding a gramophone, and using it to solve a murder in a unique and clever way.

The story itself is told both in present and in flashbacks, that, at first, are confusing, but become clear about halfway through. The player will never get all of the answers until the ending of the game, as the city shows the player constantly who is in control. The monsters, while few in variety, reinforce this, chasing you, and becoming more aggressive when it rains. You can go inside, but that doesn't mean you're actually safe. Certain monsters will never go outside, lingering in the shadows, lying in wait.

There are only a few monster varieties in the game, most of them anthropomorphic, which seems counter intuitive of Silent Hill's "faceless horror" premise. But, considering both that this is an unexplored part of town, and Murphy being a convict who has possibly depersonalized people to faceless beings, it still fits. The new monsters, relentless and cruel, often times take pleasure not only in the chase, but in hiding just out of view so you can't see them while you're being attacked.

The feeling in Silent Hill this time isn't one of dread, but of sorrow. This makes sense considering why Murphy was in prison in the first place. Without saying too much, there is a recurring theme in the city's issues. The game plays off the players emotions very well, especially in one area that left me needing to put the control down to keep from being overwhelmed. The game is truly disturbing, sorrowful, but downright good at letting you make Murphy as human as you want him to be with moral choices and the side quests.

All in all, I went in not thinking of this as a Silent Hill game, but as its own. While I'm glad I did, I can fully accept this as canon with the rest of the series. The roads are broken and blocked, but don't let that deter you from taking this much needed trip.

I'm Commander Shepard, and This... Nevermind

Here at HyperPixel (where I'm working), we write articles for developers and fans alike, ranging from reviews to full articles. These include the one I just did about video games being art. Some of our upcoming reviews as a magazine will be SSX, Silent Hill: Downpour (which I'm writing), and Syndicate. Mass Effect 3 may not be on that list. The reason is a very bizarre one; we can't find a writer who isn't calling for BioWare's collective heads to be paraded before us on pikes.

I'm not going to lie, emotions do play a large part in this. The emotions that Bioware have forged between player and characters are amazing, and seeing them die is heart wrenching. At least, it's supposed to be. The story in Mass Effect 3 is filled to the brim with moments that make me scratch my head and wonder, "They thought that was a good idea? X-Men: Destiny had more choices implemented than this! Hell, Call of Juarez: The Cartel was at least fun to make fun of!"

A slight warning: *ahem*

THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD! AND HOW THEY BLEED

Joke fell flat, didn't it? Damn, no Clive Barker fans in the crowd.

Anyway, admittedly, I didn't play much of Mass Effect 3, because, at first, I hadn't had much of a chance. I played the game for three hours, or, what honestly equates to half an hour of gameplay and two and a half hours of movie. What I played of the game was very dull, and bared little resemblance to the previous games. It was more shooter based (I was playing on Role Playing Mode, and I felt like I was playing Gears of War with an occasional moral choice). As I didn't have my save from Mass Effect 2 on my PS3, I could not import my character, and much of the choices were made for me.

Then, my girlfriend started to play. She loved the second, and was hesitant to pick up on this one. Even with the rave reviews that it has been getting, we were both hesitant. Especially when half of those reviews are connected to Jessica Chobot, who works for IGN and G4, and is married to one of the hosts for XPlay. If you don't see the problem with that, think about it this way; those news outlets are now connected to the development of the game. If Gene Siskel was in a movie in the '80's, and Roger Ebert gave it a nigh perfect review, would anyone take him seriously? It doesn't help matters when her employers knew that she was in the game, but said nothing until the cast announcement. The one redeeming factor is that she didn't review the game. No, she just previewed it, which can be seen as her not being an entertainer, but a journalist. Even then, it's borderline review. It's hard to not look biased when you pressure the people you work for by being in the game. Give the game a bad review, it looks bad for her. Obviously, we can't have that, now, can we?

Let's cut that rant short, and talk about the game proper. The main squad has been narrowed down to only a few: Garrus, Tali, Ashley/Kaiden, James "Jersey Shore" Vega, and EDI in a robot body. You also get a Prothean if you buy the DLC, or got it for free with the game. You have to spend $10 on DLC that is "story essential" for the game... yet it doesn't make sense. The Protheans are all dead, yet Cerberus knows of the last living Prothean. We played without him, obviously. We were stunned by what we saw.

Here comes the spoiler train:

Pretty much everyone dies. Jacob becomes a merc, you know, those things he hates. Mordin has an honorable death, curing the genophage, and allowing the Krogan to bolster their numbers. Thane either dies saving the counsel and Shepard, or dies a faceless death if you wait to do that mission. One of the most interesting characters dies off screen if you take a side quest.

Let me put it this way: Thane was my girlfriend's love interest in the second game. She saw his heroic death first, but restarted after a death that utterly pisses me off, that we'll get to in a moment. She wanted to save that character, but found out that Thane could die off screen, without the player having a chance to say goodbye. That's lazy writing, plain and simple. They build up the character to kill him off, either in a way that is respectable, or in a way that is a cheap shot at the player that negates all of the work they put into him.

This also goes for Jack. If you do not take the mission to the Grissom Academy right away, you never see her. Why? They all get kidnapped by Cerberus. Jack, the most powerful Biotic in the universe, who punched through a ship's hull, gets kidnapped by Cerberus. In other news, Superman is foiled by a feather. It's as if they forgot who exactly these characters even are. As far as I'm concerned, they aren't the worst offenders.

Tali's character is, though.If you do not have a high enough paragon score, or choose to side with the Quarians instead of the Geth, who are trying to make peace, Tali watches as the entire Quarian fleet dies. She then commits suicide, no matter if you tried to save her or not. Let me repeat that: She dies, even if you try to save her! The game gives you a choice, then turns around and tells you that it didn't matter. If you didn't try to make peace, or you chose to make the Geth peaceful, she dies. For no reason.

As a writer, I find this to be absolutely lazy. Having a character die off screen is extremely lazy, for starters. If you spend the time writing a character for the player to get to know, you had to care enough about the character to give them a meaningful death. Giving the player an option to miss that death, and killing the character off screen is punishing the player for something that they didn't even know. How can you say the player has a choice, when obviously one was wrong?

Which brings me back to the first two games. Udina will be counsel no matter who you chose in the first game. You have to free the Rachni again. If you didn't have a save from the first two games, you miss out on dialogue from characters that you were supposed to know before this game. Finally, any choice you make actually makes no difference. The endings are all pretty much the same, Shepard becomes a messiah (I wish I was joking), and your crew is stranded on a planet after the Mass Relays are destroyed. No matter what you do, you cannot win.

But, Bioware tells us to wait for DLC. So, once again, we got the incomplete story, and we have to pay more to see how it actually ends. Would you buy a blender one week, and then buy the missing blade a month later? Would you be happy if you saw a movie, only to have the soundtrack missing, but the theater tells you to keep the ticket for next week when they play the audio?

DLC is being abused. It's meant to add to a complete story. For example, Enslaved's DLC added a new story entirely to the game. Adding elements that are necessary for the story to even be complete reeks of lazy writing.

And that's when we hit the issue. Bioware's laziness doesn't stop at the writing. They used a stock image for Tali's face, seen in a photo in your room. That Photoshop had to take at most fifteen minutes. This image took four hours, and it still isn't perfect. The clouds aren't blended the way I wanted them to be, but it was a school project. I took the pictures used in this image, and made it. You mean to tell me that Bioware couldn't have done that?

The game probably cannot be reviewed, because the elements in the game's design make us biased against the game, to the point where we can't review it. And, no, making me the next Shepard will not help. I want nothing to do with Bioware unless they take the time to write a complete story. For all the characters involved, too, not just the audience.

Entertainment for Art’s Sake; or Countless Tears Shed for Aeris’ Sake

The Commander was sent on a mission to destroy a sentient computer, only for the technology in her suit to get taken over. She fought through the hallucinations, destroyed the computer’s avatar, and watched as reality came flooding back. She saw an autistic man, David, hooked up to a machine, and his brother, a scientist, walk in. “It all seemed so harmless,” he started. He describes using his brother to communicate to with machines. The Commander called for her crew to pick David up, but the scientist protests. She punched him in the face, telling him that she’s taking his savant brother where he will be safe from experiments. As the Commander went to release David from the machine, he did his favorite mind-clearing activity: complex square roots. “The square root of 912.04 is 30.2.” He paused, though, adding, “It all seemed so harmless.” He repeated this over and over, tears flowing, until the screen went black (Bioware).

This was taken from Science-Fiction, but it was neither from a book, nor a movie. It was from the video game Mass Effect 2 from Bioware and Electronic Arts. If you asked anyone 40 years ago if this type of story-telling in video games would be possible, chances are that they would say that it would not. There are still people who deny that video games can be more than just a method of telling stories, as well as entertainment. The stigma of having the title “video game” does more than just hinder the true objective of what the designers, writers, and concept artists behind the scenes are achieving. But, what of the emotional responses the players have from forming a bond with their character? What of the philosophy and psychology involved in making a game that, for better or for worse, stands out in the minds of both player and audience? What of the art work and scripts that go into making the game? All of these gather to form only one simple conclusion: Video games are an art form, and do contain a meaning.

As of late especially, comparisons of video game stories to those of films have been drawn heavily. Roger Ebert has gone on the record to state that giving the player the power to make a main character’s decisions harms any artistic aspect of a game (Ebert). Game reviewer and writer Anthony Burch agrees with him, using the game Heavy Rain as a reference. In Heavy Rain, the player controls four characters, all of which are chasing a serial killer (Burch). The player can make several choices that change the story of the game. According to both Mr. Ebert and Mr. Burch, the fact that the player can make these choices change the characters entirely too much for the game to be art (Ebert, Burch). Mr. Ebert also adds that the interactivity of games diminishes them as an art form, as well as the fact that more than one person creates a game, therefore creating a mixed vision based on a group analysis.

How well does this line of thinking work for the players? There are people who play games solely for entertainment, but the same could be said about people going to the movies and books. Yet, movies and books are considered art. What’s more is that a group of people work on movies, to create the director’s vision. That does not render the work of the actors, writers, grips, and countless other behind the scenes workers invalid. They are the artists that bring the movie to existence as the director is the artist who brings them together. In terms of video games, you have the publisher that publishes and releases the game that a developer makes. The developer contains the core pieces of the game: the writer(s), concept artists, designers, texture artists, actors, musicians, etc. Most of these positions are found in the credits reel for movies as well. Individually, they would be thought of as artists. Why should it be different because they are in a group?

The advancements in cinema technology go hand in hand with those of game creation. Rockstar Games’ L.A. Noire was released in 2011, with a ground breaking technology that allowed players to actively judge whether a character was telling the truth or lying. The developers, Team Bondi, took this one step further by having certain characters act in an unusual manner. One such character, who is implied to be clinically insane, only tells the truth once when questioned, but acts the opposite way one would. He poses like a superhero, overly proud that he told the truth. Similar advancements are seen in movies to this day, including Pixar Entertainment’s (Bondi).

What of the choices though? In L.A. Noire, you have the choice to accuse the right or wrong person, be it intentionally or not. Those do not change the outcome of the entire game. The choices in Heavy Rain, on the other hand, do. The player can choose to have the father cut off his finger in order to get the clue to save his son, or walk out of the room (Quantic Dream). This can lead to the player getting a different ending in the game. Mr. Burch states that having the father walk out of the room is uncharacteristic of what he has done so far to save his son (Burch). From what little we know of him, he lost one son due to an accident, his second is kidnapped, and he is willing to jump through hoops to save him. But, how do we know for sure that he would cut off his finger instead of finding a different way? Ultimately, the player has known him for a small amount of time, and has been seen through the player’s eyes as more than just a person, but an extension to the player.

Even with the choices changing the ending of the game, as well as certain aspects, the core story stays the same. The same person will always be the killer, and the same scenes will play out in their order, only done differently depending on the player or play through. The character is still written to respond to these in a character specific manner, i.e. the father will see his inability to do what he can to save his son as failure, sinking him into a deep depression (Quantic Dream). In this sense, the game does not loose artistic merit as a whole, but each play through gains a different meaning.

To say that adding story changing choices to video games makes it not artistic means that the game would have to be devoid of those choices. In the case of Bioshcok, there are no blatant moral choices. The player character is guided by a voice over a radio, politely asked to grab a radio, help find his wife, and kill the creator of the underwater city of Rapture. Once the player reaches him, it is revealed that the choice was false all along, and the player was a toll to someone else’s means (2K). But, the game has another choice for the player to make that isn’t seen as changing the character.

Throughout the game, the player encounters “Little Sisters,” mutated children who are protected by monsters in wetsuits called “Big Daddies.” The player can choose to “harvest” the chemicals from the Little Sisters, leading to their deaths, or save them, at the sacrifice of the chemical (2K). These choices are to aid the player while still offering a slight moral choice. This choice changes the ending of the game, but nothing else. The difference is that in Bioshock, the character is a blank slate, whereas in Heavy Rain, they are established from the beginning. But, again, we only know what the game has shown us, not the true nature of the whole character. Ultimately, despite how established a character is in a game, the player molds them.

Bioshock as whole stands out as a philosophical argument of both politics and video games as an art form. The game is in a similar style to an Ayn Rand novel, speaking against government and religion in the form of Andrew Ryan’s utopia of Rapture (Tavinor, 91). It was meant to be a utopia for those who wish to be free of the government taking the fruit of their labor, as well as religion. Ultimately, it fell due to both the people’s need for control, and Ryan becoming what he despised the most: a dictator. These parts of the story are told within the game, via audio logs collected. In the case of Bioshock, the game is art in and of itself, not art placed into a game, because the story is told as the game.

L.A. Noire takes a different approach by having the player control Detective Cole Phelps on his cases, and showing in cut scenes why he is the over achiever that he is. Players see his cowardice in World War II, turning sympathy to betrayal (Bondi). Yet, the manipulation that is forced upon him still makes the player sympathize with him, thus making the ending even more tragic than it would be if he was just a straight shooter stereotype of a police officer. Again, the player has no choice in who the character is, nor the choices he makes, but they still form an emotional response to him.

But, what about a game where the character is a blank slate for the player to mold? In Mass Effect 2, the player can create their own individual character, or import the one they created in the first game. While certain sections of the story are prewritten, they player ultimately has choices to make throughout the game to alter the universe as well as the player-character. The player can have a romantic relationship with a team member, gain their loyalty, or have them die on the final mission. The player-character can even die in the final mission, and still win the game (Bioware). This creates not just a story that is a piece of art for an audience, but one that has an individual meaning for the player. That meaning can be one of selfless service, or one of martyrdom, or even one of betrayal. In that case, Mass Effect 2 creates a piece of storytelling not just on par with modern cinema, but a story that holds a potential individual meaning for the player that can change from player to player.

This obviously does not apply for all games, as the writers often times are telling a story in the way they want it to be told. “Winning” the game used to be a completely different concept, meaning an end to a game with a blurb that tells the player what happened to finish a story. At this time, the story was made only to motivate the player to play, i.e. save the princess. In our current generation of gaming, the story is much more than that. Characters have the essence of real people, allowing the player to form an emotional bond, not just with the main character, but with a non-playable character. Many a story has been written about the tragic death of Aerith Gainsborough in Final Fantasy VII, where players have admitted to crying at her death. Aerith’s character is both non-playable, and only in a small portion of the game, yet that much of an emotional response is now expected (Gale).

While seen as one of the most tragic deaths in gaming, Aerith’s is only skimming the surface of a larger, emotional vision in games. Games have reached a period where they can make statements on our world of the past, present, and possible future. But, they have also reached a point where they contain characters who elicit emotions, both by visually having them, and being voiced with emotions. The choices within the games create an individual meaning for the player, as well as on overall meaning for the mass audience.

A final example to point out is one an audience must see for themselves. A website contains an “experimental” game entitled Today I Die. Instead of manipulating the character per se, the player manipulates objects in the world to make words to replace the “dark” words with until the sentence changes to a positive sentence. The world changes with each word that is swapped. There are no choices, no modern graphics, and no voices to manipulate the player’s emotions; only the game and the computer. Yet, changing a sentence from a dead character to a free, living character can cause an emotional response, and leave a meaning with the player. To top it off, only one person made the game. If people are hesitant to deny that as art, why should mainstream games be any different?

Benmergui, Daniel “Today I Die” http://www.ludomancy.com/games/today.php?lang=en

Bioshock v 1.1 2K Games 2007

Burch, Anthony. “Why Heavy Rain Proves Ebert Right” http://www.destructoid.com/why-heavy-rain-proves-ebert-right-165034.phtml. February 26, 2010

Ebert, Roger. “Video Games Can Never Be Art” http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html. April 16, 2010

Gale, Paul. “Aerith’s Death is Still the Most Significant Death in Gaming” http://paulgalenetwork.com/home/2010/12/23/aeriths-death-from-final-fantasy-vii-is-still-the-most-significant-death-in-gaming/. December 23, 2010

L.A. Noire v1.1.2406.1 Team Bondi: Rockstar Games, 2011

Mass Effect 2 V 1.02 Bioware: EA Games 2010

Tavinor, Grant. “Bioshock and the Art of Rapture” Philosophy and Literature April 2009, Vol. 33 Issue 1. p91-106 16p

Brain Junkfood: Painkiller Blowout Part Three: Dreamkiller

It was once said that George Washington had holes drilled in his skull to relieve the pressure in his head. I never used to believe that. Then I played Dreamkiller. Let me put this in perspective: I just compared the stress of the first American President to playing a video game, and I'm completely serious. After playing this game, I feel like I need wooden teeth, and a shotgun while riding a cheeseburger eating robot wolverine. Only something that epic can redeem this mess of a shitty game.

I don't know where to begin talking about it. I could say that the developers tried, but I can't make that statement without cowering in a corner. The one seemingly redeeming factor is the mental asylum that shows that maybe, just maybe, Mindware can do their own game. You start on Scrabble tiles and end up fighting patients in bear traps. The walls have eyes that follow you, but don't, cats eating children, and little boys ready to stab puppies. You then end up in a castle, and the level goes to shit.

The big problem that Dreamkiller has is simple: It's Painkiller with a female character who can only carry two weapons, and makes "witty" remarks. By witty remarks, I mean obvious shit that would be found in only the dumbest horror movies. After killer hundreds of spiders, giant ones, no less, she starts fighting a giant-giant spider, and says, "Something's not right." Really? Tell me more! I mean, seriously, what the fuck was your first clue? It couldn't possibly be the giant spiders, could it? Or the fact that you're living in Someone Else's Dream? Hell, for that matter, someone else's game?

Even the weapons are the same. Freezing shotguns, miniguns with rocket launchers... all the same weapons from Painkiller. They even use the damned dogs. In speaking of enemies, why am I fighting the same giant spiders from the arachnophobia dream in the frigiophobia dream? are spider's Alice's biggest annoyance? I might as well address right now that spiders and "monkey-dogs" will follow you throughout the game.

As for the story, you play as a Suicide Girl turned psychologist named Alice Drake, who has the power to go into people's dreams, and rid them of their phobias. She finds that the Dream Killers are making the phobia's stronger, which means she has to face her past. She was a government experiment as a child.

She was... a government... experiment...

Are you FUCKING kidding me?!

That's the big twist? I went from rip-off to cliche in less than one game. Do you realize the talent it takes to do that? That amount of jackassery and kniveling fuckery is more impressive than the bullshit that most game developers who release the same title every year with different characters (if that) and manage keep their fanbase, if not increase it pull. The only way that's possible is if they actually put effort into the game, and that can't be true! That really can't!

What you don't understand is how bad this game is. I couldn't finish it because the game ramps up the nonsense physics to the point where you can't move. Enemies blast through walls like the fucking Kool-Aid man, and about as destructive. I got stuck under a filing cabinet. A doctor pushed it on top of me, and I couldn't push it off. Not even with a rocket launcher could move it, but a fat-ass doctor could by meandering into it.

If I talk about this anymore, I may explode. This is the one game that numbs my brain faster than eating a bucket of ice cream at breakneck speed. I need something that will make me feel a little more sane. I think I need to check out some Yard Sales.

Why am I in a circus tent...? Oh, God! Sodomizing clown!

Non-Linear Path: Sequelitis

I know that was going to talk about bad games from hell, but I decided to do something different, while still talking about Call of Juarez: The Cartel and Saw II: Flesh and Blood. I'm sure that I'm going to be stirring up a hornet's nest with this topic figuring that some of the games I'm going to mention are getting good reviews, and honestly, I don't know why. For simplicity, let's start with the worst offender.

Call of Juarez was never an overwhelmingly popular game like Halo, but it was well received, spawning a sequel that explored the past of Reverend Ray. The theme of the Wild West was surprisingly unexplored for the first person genre, with a few exceptions which I may touch upon in a later article. Ray was well written character, one who was an outlaw set on a path to redemption through faith in God, to eventually being drawn back into killing for justice. I love that clip. While all of the characters are criminals you couldn't help but like them, even a little bit.

Then, The Cartel came, and ruined all of our fun. For starters, they ditched the western theme, and made a modern times shooter. You played as one of three cops, all of them not only dirty, but without any redeeming qualities. They also made it co-op first, single player second. This is an issue when you consider this: games created for single player primarily generally suffer from lackluster campaigns once multiplayer is added. Take a look Bioshock 2, a game that made multiplayer-centric, and changed the feeling of the game series by taking away all that was intriguing from the first game making the sequel nothing but a standard shooter, complete with boss battles.

The Cartel had a separate issue. We'll call it the "Dark as Cow's Guts" issue. The subtitles for the game suggest that it was written to be a Western, but was changed to keep up with other shooters, i.e. Call of Duty. This cost The Cartel more than just the series identity, it cost it the series' fan base. People saw just another modern shooter, and, let's face it, a terrible one at that. The rush showed everywhere from writing to AI to graphics. I really wish I had a picture of the rock that only had three textured sides to it. The game was loaded with glitches, as well.

Another issue I've seen is games that are attempts to improve on the last by trying something new. This isn't a bad thing, normally, but in one case, it killed the series. Yes, I'm talking about Saw II: Flesh and Blood. Zombie Studios attempted to fix the laggy combat controls by making combat a minigame. The issue with this is that the minigame's controls were unresponsive as well, namely due to a separate issue involved in programming. Needless to say, the fix didn't work, and served to draw the player away from the game.

There were also several issues with planning, including a puzzle that was supposed to have its solution located in a different room, but it wasn't. Again, the game was rushed to meet a deadline, namely to hit around the same time as the last movie. While that doesn't help matters, sometimes, it just isn't an excuse. They could've actually examined the combat system from the first game, and fixed it while keeping a combat system. This would've been easier than programming a completely different segment all together.

Despite these games, I have one that disappoints more than either of them. Save the flames for when I'm done, because I'm giving this game credit for improving its combat. Unfortunately, the rest of it isn't that good.

The Darkness II does a few things very wrong in comparison to the first game. I had a difficult time pinning down what exactly rubbed me the wrong way the most. Was it the fact that the free roaming and side missions were taken out of the game? They weren't that important to the first game in the first place, but you were rewarded by collectables and funny phone calls. Not to mention that you felt both like a mafia hitman and a good guy, instead of just being a killer.

Was it the controls that moved slowly when you tried to aim quickly? Sure it hurts the game, but does it hurt it enough to make it worth selling back less than a week later? How about the short single player campaign (I beat it in five hours), meant to make room for the multiplayer, which is only a hair more enjoyable than the actual game? Or the enemies with cheap tactics blinding you, stealing your weapons, and then moving just as you hit the trigger?

It hit me in the last hour of the game what left that bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't just all of the above, it was the story. The first game set itself away from the comic by making a more down to earth story, without supernatural enemies. You were the monster, but you had a heart. You were what people were afraid of, but there was a reason. You wanted them to fear you, especially after what the bad guys did. By the end, you're in control of the mob, and no one knows how other than you killed your uncle.

Somehow, though, your powers are no longer a secret. The mob knows you have them, and even comments about them. To make matters worse, a cult with your powers is trying to kill you. You have to rebuild your powers from scratch, no less, meaning you're vastly weaker than your enemies. This is an absolute contrast to the purpose of the Darkness. You're overwhelmed until the last hour of the game, changing what the meaning was.

The Darkness was about power corrupting and how to overcome it. Jackie was able to overcome the corruption and control it, while still being powerful. Yes, he had the Angelus trying to kill him, but she suffered much of the same issues. Jackie had to use his abilities to keep from being overthrown, and defend himself. Very few people lived if he was attacked, and even fewer if his friends were. But, most of all, he kept his technique secret.

All of a sudden, in the game, you're weaker than your enemies, and the world know about the Darkness. What's more is that more people than you have it, which doesn't make sense. Even in the first game, they mention only one person can have the Darkness at one time. Why does this cult have the powers, if I'm the host? I understand the need for balance, but the lack of it makes the game nearly unapproachable, even to watch it, if you know the source or played the first game.

This is a big issue with sequels. Often times, no one is aware of what the story is supposed to lead up to, its themes, or even its characters. Even good sequels have this issue. Silent Hill is a good example. After the development went from Japan to America, the psychological themes were less focused on than the combat. This could be a cultural change, as well as a change between an individual's vision of the series. It doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other, normally. This changes when the game is based on something that is established, it may be a different story.

That's all the time I have right now. Stay tuned for next time when I talk about Guilty Pleasures in gaming.