The Gamers vs The Critics

I had the pleasure of spending my winter vacation playing a really awesome game. This past weekend, one of my online friends and I got into a heated argument about the game I played. I personally think that it's silly to argue about games, because we all have different tastes, but because he's a guy, and I'm not, he insists that he's right about it being a crappy game and I'm wrong, because the majority thinks the story on the campaign mode sucks balls. Just because the majority might think that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sucks, it does not really mean it does. Infact, it won game of the year by several critics and received higher markings than the first Modern Warfare game. When it comes to games, I don't believe the cynical gamers who complain about sequels when there are so many damn games out there to try. When one looks at the history of videogames, we can see that there are patterns of sagas, sequels, series and franchises. I like to compare it to a Twilight fan talking about how bad Anne Rice's books are, when this fan only read about two or three chapters of the books. I noticed this alot, especially with the people who are fans of the Halo series or anyother series.

I'm a huge fan of the Halo series, but I acknowlegde that Halo: ODST was killed by Modern Warfare 2. Two different genres...I know, but if you're a Halo fan and you're defending ODST, just because you don't like one or two part of the Modern Warfare 2 storyline or level design, then you need your head examined. The game critics found it to be a good game for a reason. They know what a good game is. They also know what poorly designed videogames look like. I would go as far as if you want to know what game you should buy, read the reviews with caution, some may end up saying "well, the reviewers are paid by the designers to promote their games". Yeah, that's a possibility, which is why I say also to see the game for yourself. If you want to do so without buying a game, there is always Blockbuster, Gamefly or your friend next door. Rent or borrow the game to determine if you think it's a good game. If you want to read reviews, I know that GameSpot and GameFaqs are good, they are reviewed by fans. Just make sure you find a review that is not biased. When I review games, I have my favorites, but I try not to judge a game just because the developers changed something that I liked in the original game, unless it does work in the new game.

I would honestly say that I liked the second Modern Warfare game more. It "feels" better than the first game. When I played MW2 it does not feel like Call of Duty. I was glad it didn't feel that way, because I was getting pretty tired of a worn down series. I noticed that when it comes to videogames, gamers are "jaded" but they tend to hate change so much. I was reading an Amazon.com review on Splinter Cell: Conviction by a customer, and one of the commenters complained that the game "turned into a third person shooter". Well, yeah, Sam is not part of the agency anymore, what do you expect him to do? Go by all the Echelon rules? It would not have made sense if Sam Fisher went rogue, and still going through the game as though it 's first installment.

I think it's pointless to argue with those who turn out to be cynical about everything, and not take into consideration that the gamers are the ones who determine the industry, not so much the designers. When I played Halo: ODST, I knew that it wasn't going to be as great of a game as the three previously. When I played it, I was seriously disappointed, because expected more from Bungie. It seemed like an expansion pack instead of a new prequel between the second and third games. But then again, it's the pressure by the fans and the industry. I think it's more important to turn up an excellent game that was 5 yrs on the making than turn up a crappy game that was made in a year.

Videogame Journalism (Brief About Life: Why I Would Never Call Myself a Journalist)

This summer we have alot of games being previewed for the annual game convention E3. I hear different things about E3 such as "No Fans Allowed" (press badge required) and "We now allow fans". Although I won't be in LA this year for E3 or even ComiCon (due to school), those are still conventions that I would want to put on my wishlist for next year. I do plan on going PAX, but it depends, again, on school (I can't wait to graduate from college. I hope to make it ASAP).

Although I review games and talk about them extensively on this blog, I, however, AM NOT A GAMING JOURNALIST! I see it as a possible career someday, but it's pretty male-oriented and male-dominated. The videogame industry can be difficult to break into and be taken seriously if you are a young woman. It's the same way with the art world, the comicbook industry, the music industry, or any industry that does not require women to either sit and look pretty, or take care of others. I don't want to scare my male readers, but there is some truth to what I'm saying.

My English instructor when I first came to the university that I attend currently told me that instead of protesting, picketting, boycotting, complaining or even criticizing the videogame industry, be a catalyst of change by being a part of it. It's really difficult to bring about change when there are so few other women who share your hobbies.

I find that when I lived on campus there were other who did game, but they were male. This is off tangent but if I thought of it before, I would have blogged about living in my hall for 2009-2010 school year. It was the most turbulent school year I've ever been through. I don't recommend living on campus for some people. It can stunt social growth.

I found some of the gamers on campus to be arrogant bastards. If someone from a major company showed them a good game, they wouldn't know what to think of it. I'd say the same for the online community of gamers that I once belonged to. Fanboyism kills everything at best.

When I first went to my current school, I entered as a pre-journalism major, and I wanted to minor in computer science. I had to take a reporting class because it was required before going into public relations or magazine writing, which were fields I wanted a career in. My instructor was and still is an editor of the city paper. She insisted that I go into newspaper and write for the school paper. I would have done that if I wanted to go into a field that is dimishing as I'm speaking, due to online news sources (Why pay for the cow if you can get the milk for free/) and if there were still dignity and integrity in the field of journalism. The school paper lacked those things, and so did the school magazine. If I could change anything about the world of art or the field of journalism or even the entertainment industry in all media, I would make it where it is required to have passion and honesty in what works get exposed.

At the end of my journalism class, I told my teacher that I'm switching to art, earlier in that semester I told my TA in my computer science class that I wanted to go into art instead of journalism, and he told me to add computer science to major so I can be a shader for the gaming industry. I told him that's a pretty good idea. Computer science overall requires alot of dedication and precision. By those damned guy gamers, I was told that I need to be a computer engineer to be in the gaming field. I'm like "Not everyone in the videogame industry are programmers!" I know that I berrated my mom about age not meaning anything, but she does have a point. People have told her things that kept her from her dream, and I do not want to be like that. I plan on asking an instructor who teaches the gaming classes about game design and what degrees I need.

I don't necessarily think that game design will be my passion. I was told by a friend (don't speak to him any more, because he wasn't a good friend in the first place) that I needed to be in a more social field. I don't consider myself to be a social person. I try to be, which failed last semester (fall09/spring10), I just want a career or a niche that I can call my own. Hence the reason why I don't call myself a journalist in videogames.

Why not a Journalist?

First of all, I do not call myself a journalist, because unlike being an artist (that I am), journalism is a professional career, even though current journalists do not treat it as such. If I learned anything from my journalism classes here and at home, I learned that inorder to be a reputable journalist, you must register as one. I forgot what it is called, but it's similar to getting a license to practice real estate, or law or even medicine. It's so they can distinguish a real journalist from a not-so-real one and hold you accountable for your work. It's basically a press badge. I don't have a journalism degree, so I don't get one. My friend was a journalism major here, and she said that it's hard as hell, because I have to know every single thing about the field along with some classes aside. One of the requirements of a magazine journalist or newspaper journalist is interviewing. I hate to talk to people about their work. I hated that in my Digital Media class, I had to write questions to the artist about their work. What I love about art and writing is the broadness of these passions. I can do whatever I want in art, whether or not it sells, I'm sure someone would buy it. In writing, I can write whatever I want, there will be disagreements, but people will read it. Not so much in a group oriented career. There is less freedom and lesss room for journalism than in creating art, reviewing books, music, movies and videogames and so forth.

What Will I be Writing, Then?

I have a subscription on Youtube who talks in his videos about politics in videogames. I came up with the idea of writing about the poltical, social and cultural relevence of the games that we play today and the games that we've played yesterday. I will use literature to talk about these, along with reviewing the games that I play and discuss other forms of entertainment such as music, movies and books (scifi). I will also write about random sites I find interesting, or stupid. I am not sure if my idea is new, but if it's never been done before, I found a niche in writing. I don't know too many people who are willing to sit and watch interviews with dead people, and read their work and write about whether or not the gamer designers got it right. I hope for whoever reads my blogs that I make them as creative, entertaining and insightful as possible. I do not think that any magazine or any website will cover what I'm about to...

BioShock vs BioShock 2

I thought that Bio Shock and Bio Shock 2 are overall great games. I understand the relevence of the first story, but I did not understand the need for a sequel. Overall I think they are both amazing games.

Gameplay: I find that the game play in the second installment to be more refined than in the first. There are more gene tonics, more stages for plasmids and there newer uses for gene upgrades. Being a Big Daddy has its advantages over playing Jack, a tool for the Fontain Corporation. Delta gets to carry more more money and more Adam than Jack in Bio Shock. The gameplay is slightly more cohesive, and the player has more to do. However, in the second game, I did experience some audio skipping, some clipping and some freezing. These issues seemed more addressed in the first installment than the second. I don't know if I can really blame it on the developers for being so crunched for time when they are about to release these games.

Storyline: The storyline in the first installment makes more sense than in the second game. At the end of the first game, the develeopers gave us gamers the impression that the Rapture story has ended. I'm not going to discredit the second game. BioShock 2 picks up where the first games leaves off. If you're a gamer who is more concerned about story than gameplay, like I am, then you will understand that you want questions from the first game answered like "Who rules Rapture now?", "What will happen to the Little Sisters and Big Daddies?" and "What kind of government will take control of Rapture now that Andrew Ryan is dead?" The second game pretty much answers those questions with a story now told by an old-generation Big Daddy and a more aggressive, and more tyranical villain (Sophia Lamb), who is after him.

As I played both games, I noticed that there is a sense of duality with both of them. In the first game, the leader of Rapture (Andrew Ryan) pushed for a society based solely on rationalism and self-preservation. The second installment, the people of Rapture are lost and they are search for the opposite which is a sense of belief and collectivism through a new leader (Sophia Lamb). So, pretty much, the story went from being an Ayn Rand-esque libertarian based story to a socialistic dream of citizens being members of a family. As someone who will be minoring in philosophy, I find that both philosophical concepts to be relevent to the cohesiveness of the storyline. When a well worshipped leader dies and his ideologies leave with him, people need something to turn to. The storyline of BioShock 2 reminds me of what happened to Soviet Russia after its communist collapse, except it's the complete opposite. In the game, Sophia Lamb pretty much tells the citizens of Rapture that altruism trumps the self. In the first Bio Shock game, Andrew Ryan tells the people that the self is so important. As someone who is currently in school, I completely grasp this, but anyother gamer may not fully comprehend the storyline. They may only understand the ethical choices that have to be made such has whether the Little Sisters should be rescued or harvested. For a story, Bio Shock has a sophisticated storyline for a target audience that is typically between sixteen and thirty- five years old.

(In another entry I'll discuss the cultural and philosophical relevence to these games and how they related to Ayn Rand's works.)

Graphics/Environment: As for the environment, both games are complete artistry. I'm not saying this because I'm a huge fan of both games. I am saying this because the only people who know how art in videogames should be done are people who know the gamers and what they are looking for. The levels in both games are carefully rendered. I love how the developers combine art deco with sealife and urban decay. These types of games should be called art games. The main characters in the game are well detailed and carefully rendered, especially the Big Sisters and the splicers in the second game. Both games run neck to neck when it comes to environments and graphics.

Music: I really admire how there is a mixture of old jazz and bullets in the game. I believe that there should be better voice acting on the splicers' part. Instead of repeated phrases throughout the game, they should say more. I would also say the same about the little sisters' voices. The voices in the first game are slightly better than in the second. I do think that the 1940's proper accent goes well with the game.

Who Wins This Versus: I would say that the Bio Shock is the best between the two games, mainly because the storyline in the first game is more complete. Although the second game is well made, there should be a better reason why there is even a second game besides adding multiplayer. The fact that the developers added multiplayer to a single player game in the first play does not really win me over. Just because every other game made has multiplay it doesn't mean that Bio Shock 2 also needs it. It is still a great game with it, but I think it would be as good as the first game without it.