Welcome to my profile page! Do kindly check out my About Me page, which summarizes my intentions for this Internet endeavour of mine at GameSpot.

If you are here because of my profile images or any images that I may have used to adorn my forum posts with, then do please look at this blog post:
http://www.gamespot.com/users/Gelugon_baat/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25805917

If you are here because of my user reviews, then I suggest looking at this one:
http://www.gamespot.com/users/Gelugon_baat/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25851807

If you are here because of milk-related reasons, then do look at this blog post:
http://www.gamespot.com/users/Gelugon_baat/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25902825

• 4Nov 12

  Chalk-Talk: Some Things on Modern Combat Shooters

  

  Cover Shot

  MODERN COMBAT SHOOTERS WILL NEVER BE "REAL"

  I suppose that this would be a continuation of a previous blog post of mine, and I confidently say that I have a very strong fact that backs the above statement: whatever is in video games will never be tangibly real, and this extends to modern combat shooters.

  (For those of you who are pedantic, yes, I am aware that whatever that is in a video game is technically real, i.e. they are the results of programming and software design, both of which are undeniably very real. The content and gameplay will never be tangible though - nothing can change this.)

  The likes of Greg Goodrich (who is the lead producer for the rebooted Medal of Honor games) do seem to realize this, but their solution to address this is only semantic: they switched from using the phrase that is "realistic" over to "authentic", and focused more on the themes of the game instead of the gameplay (which has many, many designs that would remind a more conscious player that they are playing a video game, and one in a subgenre of shooters that is stagnating in design).

  Perhaps the game-makers can highlight plenty of interviews with identity-obscured consultants to present themselves as being serious in making their modern combat shooters, and I have no reason to doubt this, nor the beliefs of their consultants. I am not one to pour so much scorn readily.

  However, I am one to take things at just face value - and the face value of these consultations is that whoever the game-makers' consultants are, their identities are not publicly identifiable. This will never allay suspicions - or rather, conspiracy theories - that these consultants are made up. Consequently, it will never allay presumptions that hyped-up modern combat shooters are not designed with heart and sincerity.

  To cut the likes of Greg Goodrich and other modern combat shooter producers some slack, they do appear to believe in their products - this is very important for any product-makers trying to sell their products.

  On the other side of the spectrum, there are people like Tom McShea who couldn't take most modern combat shooters at face value: that he has no less than two articles on Medal of Honor strongly suggests that he does not merely stop at considering modern combat shooters as yet more entertainment products that exploit themes of real-life conflict.

  Some of you would like to think that Greg Goodrich has the upper hand in this back-and-forth, but the wiser of us know that neither does. Both are stubborn, and there is no bridge of compromise between them.

  Unfortunately, as vehement as he is, Tom McShea has yet to utter that word frequently: "boycott". He has mentioned phrases like "putting money where my mouth is" (which would make him poorly suited to review most modern combat shooters), but he has yet to adopt that word.

  (I am aware that uttering that word is a very, very strong suggestion of bias on a part of a journalist - far more than just writing ranting editorials.)

  As a side note, the likes of Tom McShea do appear to appreciate modern combat shooters like Spec Ops: The Line that provides darker views on modern conflict fiction. (Yes, I used that word - "fiction". As gritty and nasty as that game's plot development is, it is still fiction.)

  Summary of the above: There would be more peace of mind all-around if everyone can accept that modern combat shooters, being a subset of video games, are not "real" and never will be, and don't go beyond thinking this.

  THEY HAVE PRICE TAGS
  

  Modern combat shooter titles, with the exception of America's Army, have asking prices. This is a fact, and nothing can change the reality that game-makers generally ask for money in return for playing their games.

  

  Not to mention the collaborative deals that game-makers make with other product-makers.

  Of course, without a breakdown of where the proceeds from a unit sale would go to, no one but the game-makers themselves would know whether they are driven by profits or that they are really sincere in making their games for people to play and only want to cover costs, or anything in between.

  However, as long as the price tags are there, and the utilization of the proceeds from sales remain opaque to consumers, the suspicions and presumptions of greed will always be there.

  Take-away: If game-makers are actually conscious about the complaints, flaming, rants and criticisms about them being driven by greed, they can well address this matter by divulging more details on where each cent from a unit sale would be going to.

  (That is not to say that free modern combat shooters are free from bashing of course; America's Army has its share of cold water).

  

  The cynical would say, with a mix of scorn and amusement, that America's Army is the only "sincere" modern combat shooter.

  GAMEPLAY LIMITED BY THEMES

  I will tell you about one of my peeves about modern combat shooters, which also happen to be the main reason that I have not had significant interest in modern combat shooters since Half-Life: Counterstrike.

  The biggest obstacle that this subgenre of shooters faces now is the limitations on gameplay brought about by their themes. The need for believable facsimiles of modern combat made the gameplay of these games difficult to discern from each other, and also renders their designs very predictable.

  

  There's ALWAYS at least one Kalashnikov in every modern combat shooter.

  There had been attempts to shake up the gameplay, such as the transition from merciless one-way-trip-to-zero health system seen in Counterstrike to the very forgiving regenerative health system in present-day modern combat shooters (neither of which I personally find believable), but game-makers can only do so much before the more observant of critics (and cynics) point out that they are losing "authenticity".

  I am not certain how this subgenre could ever evolve, though I am sure that sooner or later, even the most ardent modern combat shooter fans would notice that the gameplay in them has not changed by much. It could take a direction similar to that of Spec Ops: The Line, but this is a thematically-oriented game design, and how easy it is to sell is uncertain, not to mention that it could not be woven into competitive multiplayer gameplay, which appears to be the main selling point of the AAA modern combat shooters.

  

  ***SPOILER***

  Having a game tell you that your dude is a very messed-up bloke is not exactly money-making material.

  On the other hand, there had been game-makers that are trying to move into near-future combat themes, which offer more flexibility in gameplay designs, though the aforementioned criticisms of loss of "authencity" remain.

  Of course, such games would not be modern-combat shooters anymore; they already have sci-fi elements, as some of the technology shown in them have yet to go beyond prototype or even conceptual stage, or are actually extrapolations of existing near-future technology.

  

  The Warhound being one of the latter.

  In other words: Modern combat shooters are more than likely doomed to stagnation in gameplay designs because of their need to adhere to their themes.

  --------------------------------------

  That's what I would write for this blog post. The matters mentioned above may seem obvious to some of you, but any down-to-earth reminders about modern combat shooters should do you some good.

  Also, do keep this in mind: If you like modern combat shooters and don't mind paying to play them, then don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you don't like modern combat shooters and despise them, you may want to keep your despise to just these games and not extend it to people who like them; it's their money and time - not yours.

  ***SPOILER***

  P.S. Shameless plug and wish-you-had-a-happy-Halloween greetings!

  

  • Posted Nov 4, 2012 7:37 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 23Oct 12

  Chalk Talk: THAT Part of Gaming Culture - Game-related Memes!

  

  Cover Shot

  Firstly, I have to mention the reasons for my picking of the subject matter of memes for this Chalk Talk assignment.

  I am aware that gaming culture has flourished a lot since, say, a decade ago. General society has come to recognize that gaming is now part of modern life and that the games industry is a viable money-making and job-creating industry (and that's being very positive about it - I am aware of people that would rather pour cold water on this statement, thank you very much).

  However, I have little interest in gaming culture and the gaming industry beyond being a consumer of entertainment. Therefore, it is for this reason that I pick memes as the subject matter, as they amuse me, and because it is hard to deny that memes are an aspect of gaming culture, albeit not a very serious one.

  -----------------------------

  GAME MEMES GO WAY BACK

  Yes, I know that some of you are going to cringe when I remind you of an infamous meme that you would rather see buried as the short-lived, grammar-destroying fad that it was way back in 1998.

  

  ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

  Now, as painfully silly as it is, this meme was remarkable for its (dubious) achievement of having been able to penetrate into circles of society beyond just the gaming one. The earliest known and verifiable recognition of it was Fox News' coverage of it back in 2006 (though Fox News did pour some cold water on it, as is typical of Fox News).

  The rest are supposedly actions by a bunch of anarchists, which are difficult to verify.

  In other words, long before gaming culture was (somewhat) accepted as the norm, the foundations for this change in general society's perception of gaming culture may have already been laid by the likes of memes such as "All Your Base Are Belong to Us".

  Of course, fads like this do not put gaming culture in a good light, but they still highlight it anyway and get non-gaming people interested, and more importantly, offer the opportunity to have these people looking at the bright side of gaming culture. After all, people can't see the "good" in things if they are not even looking at them.

  -----------------------------

  GAME MEMES, LIKE ALL MEMES, ARE FADS AND THEY NEED HYPE TO PERSIST
  

  I will make use of the "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" meme again for this section.

  It should be obvious that the main draw of this fad was the contrast between the silliness of the bad grammar of Zero Wing's intro-cutscene and the very serious occurrences in it. It is for similar "reasons" that some later game-related memes/fads would become popular, such as "A Winner is You".

  However, this reason alone is not enough to make it popular, because as with all fads, it needs hype to become one.

  In the case of "All Your Base Are Belong to Us", it was the efforts of heavily frequented sites like Newsgrounds that provided the hype for it. These efforts typically emphasize the main appeal of the fad to hilarious heights, such as Newsgrounds' use of vocalizers and remixing of music, and, of course, Fox News' highlighting of it.

  (Some people do watch Fox News for purposes of entertainment, by the way - not that Fox News would care as long as it's bringing in views. )

  Of course, ultimately, fads die over time, as are to be expected of anything hype-driven. They will become stale over prolonged use, are forgotten and are eventually replaced by something else. (Incidentally, the Fox News coverage also hinted at this.)

  

  However, there is one mistake that people who want fads to die tend to make; they unwittingly remind others of it.

  -----------------------------

  GAME MEMES ARE NOT NECESSARILY BORNE FROM DESIGN MISHAPS

  But they still originate from dubious design decisions. A particular noteworthy example is the "I am Error" meme, which was caused by peculiar decisions by Nintendo's designers on the writing for Zelda II: Adventures of Link.

  They are a lot of speculation over how this writing came to be; one of them is that some of the programmers may have been exasperated over problems that were encountered during the game's development, and that this frustration influenced the writer.

  

  The "I am Error" silliness may have been intentional.

  (A more recent and somewhat better documented occurrence of this is the writer for Holy Invasion of Privacy, Badman! supposedly becoming increasingly inane as the development of the game wore on.)

  Of course, this will get noticed by players and made fun of.

  -----------------------------

  IN-GAME JOKES ARE NOT NECESSARILY MEMES

  It has to be cautioned here that some game-related fads are not Internet memes, or have yet to be so. This is mainly because the main appeal of these fads are only immediately obvious to followers of the associated games. These are, at best, in-game jokes. Thus far, the most polite word to describe the proliferation of these in-game jokes is "subculture"; those who are less kind would use unsavory epithets to describe the infatuation of the fans of these games.

  As an example, Team Fortress 2 are full of these in-game jokes. Granted, some of them have managed to go beyond the Team Fortress 2 community, but many remain only recognizable to Team Fortress 2 fans.

  

  Jokes about the Heavy's sometimes-creepy love for sandwiches
  are jokes that still remain only funny to fans of Team Fortress 2.

  Of course, all it takes to upgrade an in-game joke to an Internet meme is one particularly witty string of images or video that makes use of the in-game joke to describe something else entirely.

  This is what happened to the "Gentlemen" in-game joke, of which the main appeal is (fictional) characters stuffing their mouths full of things that are not necessarily edible. However, when it is used to parody things other than Team Fortress 2 characters, the significance of the joke may not be immediately apparent to anyone who is not already familiar with the in-game jokes of Team Fortress 2.

  

  I find it doubtful that Touhou fans who do not know about Team Fortress 2 would understand the joke behind this image.

  In other words, an in-game joke is not a meme if its gist is not immediately apparent to everyone. Uttering it may well mark one out as inane, or worse.

  -----------------------------

  That is all that I can write for now. If you know of some super-silly video or image (that are not NSFW, of course) that concerns a game meme, do tell me of it!

  • Posted Oct 23, 2012 8:02 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 18Oct 12

  October Tribute, and Some More Things about Doom 3

  Firstly, I have to mention here that this blog post is a revisiting of a previous one of mine, which was rather long-winded and had more than a few subject matters. This time, I am citing just one, and deliberately because of the launch of a certain remake of a notable id Software game and the coming Halloween holiday.

  That said, here's the title of the subject matter, which I hope is more succinct than its predecessor.

  "A SCARY GAME IS NOT SCARY WHEN YOU CAN WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG GUN."
  

  The quote above is of course a spin on a well-known quote. People who have experience with Warhammer 40K products may well remember this too, though it has to be mentioned here that the phrase "walk softly and carry a big gun" may have originated in the Space Hulk spin-off of Warhammer 40K, which had its first video game incarnation in March 1993.

  

  Doom (released in December 1993) wasn't the first game to feature marines fighting inhuman things in tight corridors.

  This brings me to shooter titles with themes of horror, i.e. games that have the player shooting away at horrible enemies that are hell-bent (pun not intended) on killing the player character.

  In the past, these games resorted to giving enemies strength of numbers to dishevel the player, whose player character is almost always all alone against the hordes. Either that, or giving enemies the advantage of constant respawns to grind the player characters down in a battle of attrition (namely Space Hulk).

  Otherwise, the player would not find it hard to defeat the typically stupid enemies that are coming his/her way. On the other hand, this artificially introduced difficulty (especially respawning enemies) does contribute to a sense of urgency, which is one of the factors needed to instill horror in the player.

  Nowadays, with better graphics technology, such games resort to horrible imageries and happenings, otherwise known as "scare tactics". Of course, I have to admit that some of them are effective enough to have the player suddenly shifting his/her seat (if hes/she is seated) and perhaps uttering an expletive or two.

  However, here's the caveat: scare tactics tend to only work once - and especially so for shooters, which give the player the means to eliminate whatever had scared him/her.

  The most convenient example that I would cite is of course Doom 3, which depends a lot on seat-shifting scares. I doubt that the BFG remake would do anything different.

  

  There are a lot of images of ugly creatures for Doom 3, but I believe that this one is the most iconic of that game. Horrific-looking and definitely dangerous - but only if you let it be so.
  

  Doom 3 and its predecessors use the well-worn premise of an otherworldly invasion by inhuman things that corrupt the mortal realm and its inhabitants, though Doom 3 wisely made better use of this theme to include enemies that are convincingly formerly human, especially the player character's former colleagues who retain their military training (somewhat).

  To give Doom 3 some credit, I remember Doom 3 for its surprisingly foreboding and ominous environment designs that can elicit dread. On the other hand, Doom 3 resorted to many, many scare tactics, which may eventually get old, especially on further playthroughs after the first.

  In fact, after a while, hearing some loud ghastly noise becomes a cue for the player to whip his/her character around and look at where he was not looking earlier, as enemies tend to spawn where the player isn't looking - very so often that this becomes predictable.

  More importantly, the player may realize sooner or later that as ugly and murderous as the inhuman things coming at the player characters are, they can be shot to bits with his big, effective guns. That the otherworldly creatures appear to be vulnerable to human-made weaponry would also not be lost on the player.

  

  High-caliber rotary autocannons solve demonic problems quite handily.

  BUT... IT'S NOT ALL UNREMARKABLE

  In my previous blog post, I had not noted what id Software had done well, at least in my eyes. Some of the designs in Doom 3's story mode do go a long way to encourage a sense of aversion to harm in the player, and aversion to harm is one of the most crucial factors in instilling horror in a player.

  One of these designs has the player character being smacked around upon getting hurt, making it harder to fend off enemies and thus discouraging the player from getting hurt in the first place. Fortunately, getting hurt does not impair the player character permanently until he gets some medical attention (unlike a certain other, very punishing horror shooter).

  

  And then there are all those bright, blinding lights from enemies' projectiles.
  

  id Software also included some scripting that randomizes the spawn locations of enemies. They may not come out of the same floor panel, vent on the ceiling or hatch in the wall every time, though all of them can still be shot to bits all the same (and they are not invulnerable when performing their entry animations either). This somewhat reduces the predictability of enemies in the game.

  However, it is still not enough to eliminate the predictability of enemies and thus not enough to foment the sense that things are not within the control of the player, which is yet another factor that is needed to instill horror.

  On the other hand, Doom 3 had done one thing very well, which is hide enemies from the player's sight. There are light sources in the game, but they are not bright enough to illuminate everything and enemies are often only partially lit up, making them appear a lot more sinister and harder to shoot at.

  

  It's very dark.

  It may seem like cheap difficulty, but the game makes it fairer by having enemies that shoot crap at the player character illuminate themselves when they attack, or enemies that had gotten too close making a lot of noise when they attack, so the player would have plenty of warning.

  However, I am not so certain that the BFG edition may be able to retain this design. The lighting and shadowing are sharper, but the BFG edition may have looked less gloomy as a result. There is this, and some other technical issues that the BFG edition has.

  Personally, I would wait for others to play it so I may not have to.

  -----------------

  As in my previous blog post last year, I would like to end this blog post with some fictional inhuman lady eating something, as my own way of honoring the upcoming Halloween holiday.

  

  Cake is better than pie - if there's more cake than pie around.

  • Posted Oct 18, 2012 8:53 pm GMT
  • Category: Games
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »