God when was the last time I posted something...

You know, I set this thing up to discuss things and well...I haven't really had much to discuss. I think it's time I started using it again soon.

Since I just got Tales of the Abyss 3D and I have Skyward Sword (not that I want to play it :() I think there shall be more content...

Which would you pick: The Great Rewind, or Moving On?

So I recently finished the game Bastion, created by Supergiant Games. It's their first outing into the gaming world and it's already critically acclaimed. I could go on about how it tells its story in a truly unique fashion, or about how the gameplay works, but that's not really the purpose of this blog. This blog is meant to look at the deeper aspects of games, something I believe I've sort of been lacking in. So, without further ado, the first big question.

To get the nature of this question, there are naturally spoilers. If you aren't interested in that sort of thing, then I suggest you turn back now. If they don't bother you, here's the deal: at the end of Bastion, the game gives you two separate instances in which you must make a difficult decision. We will be focusing on the second: whether to restore the world to its original form by rewinding time, or to simply move on and continue with the life you've got.

The game poses this question in a gutwrenching fashion. On the one hand, if you reverse the damage you've done, the world will be restored. But all the friends you've made, the love you've had, and the adventures you've gone on will disappear. If you move on, you can never restore the world, but you can keep everything you've earned.

This is obviously not an easy decision to make. I was stuck, paralyzed if you would, for several moments. I didn't honestly know which route to take. But after some thought, I was reminded of something one of the Kid's friends said:

"Nothing good in my life ever happened before the Calamity. Everything that's good about it happened after."

So I decided to move on with my life.

What are your thoughts? What would you pick in this circumstance? Would a destroyed world be worth living in as long as it had everything you held dear? Would you be willing to give up everything to save possibly horrible people in a horrible world? What's worth it to you?

Why would you choose to move on, like I did? Or would you want to try and make everything better? Just remember though...even though you've rewound time, there's nothing stopping that Calamity from happening again.

The Horrors of Gaming (or MTG Sets)

So as some of you may have guessed by now (but probably haven't), I love Magic: The Gathering. I've been playing off and on since 4th grade, with my love for the game having flourished thanks to its most recent sets. With the newest block of cards coming out on September 30th, I find myself about to bounce around my room in glee. Why, you ask?

Because Innistrad, as it's called, is a set all about gothic horror.

For those of you who are unaware, this means that Innistrad will be filled with monsters from classic monster movies and books, such as zombies, werewolves and real, non-glittering vampires (please don't get me started). Gothic horror is something I've always loved; for at least seven consecutive years, my holloween costume was that of a Vampire. With the way modern "horror" flicks are, it's hard to find people interested in the way the horror genre used to run. So, Wizards of the Coast gets props from me for bringing a set to life that focuses on everything from the Wolfman to Frankenstein.

But this brought me to ask a question: why? Why do I and so many others love gothic horror so much? Why do we love to see human beings battle against the living dead and things from beyond the realm of the living. Mark Rosewater, one of the lead designers for MTG at Wizards of the Coast, agreed that perhaps the number one reason people like horror is death. Death is an inevitability, and often the end of a story. In horror however, death is usually the beginning, middle and end. Horror fascinates us because it is the opposite of what we are: it is a world filled with death. We love to see people fight against the darkness, because it gives us hope that we could do the same.

It also serves as a great reminder that no matter how crappy your life is, at least you don't have to form up torch mobs every night just so you can live to see another day. Hopefully.

Why make a game like Portal 2?

So after having finished Portal 2 yet again (this time for my Youtube account), I asked myself a question: why did Valve put so much effort into making Portal 2 what it is?

Apart from the obvious answer (which is "to make money"), the amount of work Valve put into this masterpiece is nothing short of mind-boggling. There is an eccentric amount of detail in almost every scene, most of which goes completely unnoticed by the player. The narrative devices in play during the story are strangely complex for the medium. There is honest, deep effort put into this game to make it what it is. The only question is: how is it that a game with this much effort put into it is not perfect, while the original Portal is placed in many peoples' hearts as "the perfect game"?

The answer to this question is multifaceted, but what it comes down to is this: Portal was simple in it's nature. It didn't overstep its bounds or try to become something grander than what it was. It was simple and we loved it for it. Does this mean Portal 2 is bad for trying to be bigger and better? No...but it does lose some of that charm. What it gains for losing that charm is arguably for the better however. Portal was a game that was perfect...but Portal 2 is a game that can make you laugh, cry and feel scared. Portal was simple fun, Portal 2 was an experience.

Why it is popular to hate Duke Nukem Forever

Have you been hearing all the reviews for Duke Nukem Forever? I have. Everyone's giving it mediocre to bad reviews. In some senses, this isn't a bad thing: they're not praising it unduly just because it's the Duke. But by the same token, some of the explanations for why people are disgusted with Duke Nukem Forever truly flabbergast me. Its as if some people forgot what it was that made us love Duke Nukem in the first place...and as if many others expected them to change Duke for when he reappeared.

To get back to the title's point, it is very popular to hate Duke Nukem Forever right now. Is this undeserved? I'm going to go with yes and no. For the most part, Duke Nukem Forever is a mediocre shooter at best. There are some parts that make the game extremely fun, and others that just try your patience. It looks fantastic, but there are points in the game where this fantasticness fades to bad textures and pop-in. It has all the signs of a rushed game, but for what it is it's good in that regard. The problem comes with the fact that the game suffers from some truly bad and mind-boggling design decisions. The one that gets brought up the most is the fact that Duke can only carry two weapons, instead of his previous arsenal of something akin to ten. This isn't even a console limitation: this is a design limitation, and while I personally didn't mind it too much, it is a sticking point for a lot of people.

The major "problem" of the game is the one that draws the most hate: Duke himself. I've seen the comments on youtube or Blip.TV: "this isn't a true Duke game!" Well, I have to disagree. Everything about Duke Nukem is done right. Jon St. John returns to be the Duke himself, and still gets right into the roll. Every line is delivered as convincingly as possible, while still maintaining that "I could care less" attitude. But people complain and scream with rage against things like the alien-infested naked women, or the cheap toilet humor, lame gags and sex jokes. My question is: what's wrong with these people? These are the same people claiming it's not a Duke Nukem game, yet they're screaming and raging about all the things that make the game a Duke Nukem game.

I could go on for a million years about all the points in favor and against Duke Nukem Forever, but I feel it necessary to limit it to this: it is popular to hate Duke Nukem Forever because of what Duke Nukem Forever is. It is "the game that would never be". 15 years of development time meant that DNF could never hope to be what everyone expected. We got what we got: a game that tried to be a new Duke Nukem 3D. For people like me, that's enough: I wouldn't recommend spending $50 on it, but I still think it's a game you should check out if Duke Nukem 3D made you happy inside. Everyone will hate this game whether it is exactly what you wanted out of a Duke game or not. They will hate it because it's not Duke Nukem 3D, they will hate it because it's not a perfect follow-up to 3D. They will hate it because that's all they know how to do. They hate it because it let them down.

But it's still a Duke game. If you don't believe me, just check out the wall-tits.

Tales of a Gamer

It's funny how the world works. I'm currently on vacation with my girlfriend, a woman who despite all her many amazing qualities, is not the gamer that I am. In fact, most of the games I love she finds atrociously complicated and does not enjoy playing, even if she's playing them with me.

Except for Tales of the Abyss.

I find the fact that I'm talking about Tales of the Abyss to be somewhat amusing. For starters, it is one of those games that my girlfriend admits to not liking, except that she loves it. Secondly, I started this blog by talking about a game that made me cry, which is something that Tales of the Abyss managed to make me do. However, unlike Portal, I really suggest you play Tales of the Abyss for yourself rather than looking to me for reasons. It's a game I believe everyone should experience. To me, it's the best game I've ever played.

Tales of the Abyss, released for the Playstation 2 in 2006 and soon to be released on the Nintendo 3DS, is an incredibly mature game. While it has a lot of silly Japanese anime tropes in it that make it comedic, it is at its heart a philosophic masterpiece. It makes it even more astounding that the game comes from Namco-Bandai, a company that doesn't quite have the same financial backing as Square-Enix or other big names, but always manages to put out something of quality (we will not speak of Tales of Legendia).

Tales of the Abyss is known in Japan as "the RPG about the meaning of one's birth." Another way to look at is as the "RPG of the meaning of life." That's a mighty moniker for a game to bear, but Tales of the Abyss manages to take that title and honor it. Tales of the Abyss (I'm really just gonna start shortening it to TotA right now) is one of, if not the most mature game I've played on a console, and it doesn't need swearing or boobs to make it happen. It is mature in an entirely different sense: it takes you and your thoughts seriously, while posing some very serious questions. The most important of these questions is, unsurprisingly, "what is the meaning in being alive?" Does the game answer that question? In its own way, but telling you what the game's answer is would be meaningless without you having experienced it yourself.

The thing I enjoy most about Tales of the Abyss is that the majority of its characters are startlingly mature and logical. They think things through, takes responsibility for their actions and come up with some incredibly startling insights. This is not a game for your average teenage anime fan: they'd probably find it disgusting how there is almost no angst or brooding throughout the game. That isn't to say the characters aren't without faults; each character has a plethora of them. The thing that makes TotA unique is that these faults don't bog down the characters or the game: they are dealt with in due time, but never to the point where they overtake the more important aspects of the game. Each character is wonderfully fleshed out and appeals to a certain kind of person. That being said, if you leave TotA and don't love Jade Curtiss, there's something wrong with you.

As I said before, you owe it to yourself to play Tales of the Abyss. I might even make a few more posts on it, but those will require massive spoiler tags! So do yourself a favor and GO PLAY IT RIGHT NOW!

Portal 2 - The Courtesy Call

So the people that follow my Youtube Channel, UmbreonMessiah, know that I've started a Portal 2 Let's Play. I believe one person voiced a little disappointment that I jumped on the bus to LP Portal 2, but I still think it was the right decision. I've played through the game so much by this point that it won't take overly long, which gives me a chance to voice my thoughts over everything.

I suppose an overview of what's going on is in order though, isn't it? Well, the story of Portal 2 is not necessarily simple, but it definitely is not complicated: Chell, our hero from the original Portal, was dragged and forced into cryogenic storage after her victory over GLaDOS in the first game. Thanks to the sacrifices of Doug Rattman, Chell was able to survive her stay in stasis while all the other test subjects died. She survived for several centuries, until the reserve power finally ran out and she was forced awake. Mysteriously aided by a personality core on a rail, Chell must try to escape the facility once more. Unfortunately, her efforts to escape are dashed when she and Wheatley accidentally reactive GLaDOS, the murderous, insane AI that runs Aperture Science in the absence of any human scientists.

Chell's partner for the beginning of the game is Wheatley, an adorably ineffective personality core that tries to make himself sound smart and amazing, when in reality he isn't. Wheatley is voiced by Stephen Merchant, who gives little Wheatley a lot of added life and character, which make him possibly the funniest character in the game. He's sort of a breath of fresh air: GLaDOS is hilarious, but relying solely on her dialogue all game would get repetitive. Wheatley offers his own brand of humour that plays off GLaDOS from earlier. It also helps that he's about as smart as a melting ice cube.

I find myself wondering what it must be like for Chell to wake up centuries after her last cognitive memory. Part of what makes the Portal universe so incredible is that so much of it's story is not told to us, but left for us to figure out on our own. It's an interesting choice for telling the game's story, seeing as how we already know it has something to do with the Half-Life universe, but Valve is very careful with its foreshadowing and dropping hints. It makes understanding Portal and Portal 2 just as much fun as playing the games, which is a feat in and of itself.

Getting back to the point, imagine you were to wake up after 2 or 4 centuries. What would you think of the world around you if that were the case? Chell only appears calm because she is mute and does not offer a vocal or physical reaction. This is done for one of two reasons: either it's the Gordon Freeman style of trying to immerse us in the game, or it's a play on this style of game and they're really making fun of the poor mute girl. Either way, Chell is forced to relive memories of her last testing experience at GLaDOS's hands, albeit in a rundown facility that is being slowly reclaimed by nature. I personally think more of it should have been taken over by now, but what are you going to do?

Wheatley says the appropriate reaction to hearing you have brain damage is alarm. I would imagine Chell would be a bit more alarmed about being woken up in Aperture Science yet again. I personally think all of Chell's reactions are up to the player: it's up to you whether Chell is terrified, angry, or eager. Whether she plans on charging through Aperture Science Laboratories with gusto or with care. She's the greatest test subject out there: rejected because she never gives up.

Makes me wonder if I'd have that kind of fortitude, given the situation.