The Aug... September Madness... sorry guys.

Alright, haven't posted anything on here for a whole month. That sucks. I was busy with the first few weeks of university and with a good whole week of being sick like a dog. But now I got rid of a few things (mainly my sickness) and I can write again! Well, to be fair, I have to write a weekly post (on Myspace of all places) about one of my class. It's pretty interesting, even if Myspace is clunky, and I get to talk on about games and internet culture in french for notes. Could be worse.

In the meantime, I wrote a bitmob article about Minecraft (because everyone did) and I am probably going to write another iPhone game review soonish.

See ya later peeps!

Babycastles and the Indie Arcades: Getting Social

Something is afoot in Manhattan. A bunch of indie game designers and game enthusiasts are creating an indie arcade named Babycastles. Let’s not imagine that it is an arcade in the traditional sense of the word. It’s not rows of quarter munching machines where you can play your favorite fighting game or SHMUPS with a roaring crowd behind you. Well, not that there is any crowds in most arcades nowadays.

If their Kickstarter page and the articles game journalist and Babycastles promoter Leigh Alexander wrote are to be believed, this indie arcade will be closer to an art-house cinema or an indie music show than the arcades of the old days. Babycastles seams to be about two things really: creating an ambiance and bringing the indie games out of your home computer and into the streets.

I’m not really into the New York indie music scene (probably because I’m neither in NY or an indie music fan) but from what I know, once again through Alexander, Babycastles is pretty much growing out from this particular world. While they are raising money to move in a new location near Time Square, the arcade is currently located at Silent Barn, “a hub within Brooklyn's DIY music scene”. If anything, this is a pretty good indication that they are aiming to create an indie arcade with the similar ambiance of an indie music jam.

Just like indie music or indie cinema, indie games main channel of distribution is not through any of the big guys, but through the web. The Internet is a great way to get known, but the social aspect, that special touch you can have when you are playing in front of a live audience or showing your movie for the first time in an half-full theater is something that cannot be emulated. It’s also something most games and gamers lost over time.

Arcades died when consoles and PCs gained in popularity. Still, people would go to each other’s basement to play a friendly match of Goldeneye, or bring their computers and play Starcraft over LAN. The growth of online gaming killed that too. Seriously, how many games nowadays come with a split-screen multiplayer mode? Not many. Gaming used to be something social; you played games with other people, other gamers, in the same room. I think gamers are longing for the real life presence. This is why there is a growing movement for the return and survival of arcades.

Babycastles and other indie arcades like it (Is there even any?) are doing something new. They are bringing a type of game that rarely leaves the comfort of your computer to the social scene. It’s also about cutting the middleman that is the Internet. You play the game and you get to talk about it around a good beer with other people who just played the game. Some games can create interesting discussions about a variety of subjects, while others are all about the bragging rights of beating the high score. Just like the old days.

I wish a long life to those arcades, the future amazing hangouts for the social gamer; the gamer that wants to hang out with his gamers and non-gamers friend, grab a drink and listen to music, and then kick some ass at this new amazing bullets hell game some dude in Europe just made in a day. Hopefully Manhattan is just the beginning.

The August Madness

August was pretty crazy for me. Parents went on vacation for two weeks and came back with a bad flu, I worked like crazy at the Tim Hortons because a few other bakers were on vacation and I barely had time to write anything. So I basically took two weeks off. Not like there was anything interesting anyway...

I wrote a very quick news post today on Bitmob about Jane McGonigal and co.'s new project, GAMEFUL. Check it out, it sounds pretty awesome. 

As far as my own writing goes, I'll also try to get back into reviewing indie games and iPod Touch games. Hopefully I'll be able to keep up a good writing rhythm with university starting in a week.

Looking At Limbo, Facing Your Fears

A young boy wakes up in the middle of a dark forest. You only know it is a forest because you can make up the vague shapes of trees around you. The young boy is as vague as the forest that surrounds him. He is only, to you, a black shadow with blinking white eyes.

You heard that the boy is looking for his sister in this forest, but the game never really tells you that. It's just a throwaway statement from outside the game. You know this is some kind of platformer. Your physical memory takes over and you proceed to the left -- because salvation in video games is almost always to the left of the world.

You quickly realize that making your way through this forest won't be so easy. You come across some water and try to make your way to the other side. The young boy drowns before you. Damn, you died. This game will kill the young boy a lot too. Each death brings the player two things: information about the world and something new to fear. For now, you learn to fear water.

Not long after, you also learn to fear the giant spider that is stalking you and the "Others", young boys, just like your own avatar you guess, that are stuck in this world, this limbo. But the game makes you fear them, for they will try to kill you. Why do they want to kill you? Is it because you are different -- you have eyes, they don't -- or maybe because they went insane in this grey forest? It does not matter. Each time you will see their black silhouette, fear shall grip you.

Limbo does a great job installing those fears in your head, but it also goes beyond and asks you to face them. Slowly but surely, you will learn how to navigate your environment with your little avatar and how to use those traps you fear so much against your enemies. You will methodically take down all of the spider's legs and use her corpse as a platform (gross), you will kill those lost child with their own devious traps, and you will flood rooms in order to proceed in your journey.

It becomes less of a terrifying walk through a dark world and more of a rite of passage, an initiatory journey through the unknown. The young boy must face his fears and weaknesses to become a man. He must learn how to use what he fears to his own advantage. The boy becomes a man as he learns how to use and master his surrounding. The bear trap isn't a danger anymore; it's a spider-killing weapon.

It is no coincidence then that the young boy makes his way from a forest to a city, or some kind of giant factory. On a mechanical level, this new environment introduces new challenges: electricity, guns, saws and gravity switches for example. Like those in the forest, you will slowly learn how to manipulate them.

On a more abstract level, the passage from the forest to the factory makes a lot of sense if you look at this game as a story about the trials of growing up. The young boy goes from the forest -- playground for the children -- to the factory -- workplace for the adult. Both can be filled with adventures and dangers.

After making his way through the gauntlet, the young boy -- who is now a man -- finds himself back in the wood of his childhood. There, he sees his sister crying. The game then abruptly cuts to black. The young boy never gets to his sister, as if the game was telling us this old morale all over again; the journey is more important than the destination. This old saying is very true in the context of this game. We are never given a reason to care about that sister. The game in itself never even tells us that there is a sister to be found.

The young boy, and the player, is pushed forward to make it through the trials laid down by the game because he feels that the journey is going to be worth it, that there is something on the other side of this monochrome rainbow. Once you are there, you figure out that this sister could as well be an illusion, an oasis of hope for that young boy and for you.

Even if there is nothing on the other side of the rainbow, the boy became and man, and the player held his hand through the journey.

I did a Top 10, How Crazy is That.

So yeah, I did a Top 10 over at Bitmob for a monthly writing challenge. Pretty nice. It was also the first time I did a Top 10 -- I honestly don't really love those things but it was a nice exercise. Had to use 50 words or less for each entries. Makes you get to the point a lot faster.

Didn't want to post the Top 10 here before I had the Go from Micheal Rousseau to put it up on Bitmob. Still not gonna put it up here, just click the link the see it. I'm also gonna write about XBox Live Arcade Summer of Arcade's first born Limbo early this week. There's a generally positive buzz about that game around twitter and the blogoshpere.

Oh and Starcraft 2 comes out on the 27th. Don't expect anything from me till the month of August. My soul will be busy being eaten by this game.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly about Blizzard's RealID

A lot of people out there must feel like they just dodged a bullet. Blizzard, under the pressure of its angry and disapproving fans, decided to back up on its plan for RealID. The system is optional in games but would have been mandatory when posting on the forum, exposing your real identity to other forum users. As of right now, RealID is entirely optional.

Maybe it’s the social scientist in me that is talking, but I'm kind of sad to see Blizzard back up on this one. Could have been a nice social experiment to see if lifting the veil on anonymity that is currently covering every Blizzard forums posters would have changed the posting environment.

Nonetheless, this whole debate surrounding the discussion, and its retraction some days later, at least brought to light some problems that are plaguing not only Blizzard's forums, but any big gaming forums (or any big non-gaming forums for that matter). Let's take a look at the pros and cons of RealID's use and what this debacle taught us.


*The Good*

I believe this came with the best of intention: toning down the awful trolling taking place on the Blizzard forums. I’m pretty nobody, except trolls, would disagree that this issue needs to be looked after. RealID as a whole would also puts Blizzard on the same level as Facebook. By using their real names, player can integrate all of their social networking needs under one roof, and Blizzard sure hopes it’s theirs you’ll choose as a gamer.

*The Bad*

 The loss of anonymity on the Internet is something a lot of Internet goers are sensible about and I can understand that, especially on a gaming forum. If you are anything else than a white teenage male, the loss of anonymity will leave you open to potential harassment from, let’s say it simply, douchebags. They’ll laugh at you if your name is slightly different from the norm or sound foreign (ironic when you think it’s the World Wide Web) like it’s some kind of high school courtyard. If you are a girl, get prepared to receive a mailbox full of “show me you tits”. That and apparently people will come to your house and punch you.

*The Ugly*

Call me innocent, foolish, or just plain ignorant, but are gaming forums that bad? Why is gaming culture so attracting to unbalanced individuals? It’s pretty scary to think that you cannot have a discussion about a game on a forum without fearing for your life if you dare disagree with xXX_Blazer645_XXx on the best sword because he might use your real name to find your house and kick your ass. At this point, whether he is xXX_Blazer645_XXx or Jim Johnson, you don’t really care. So I’m throwing this almost philosophical question to the world: what would it take to make gaming forums friendlier and safer environments? One where you could say what you want to say, be accountable for what you say, but not fear for your privacy or safety.

Elephant In the Room: Violence and Games

When you look at what was announced during this year’s E3, you can see how much each developers and publishers try to push their next big franchise. Good portions of those new, or returning, franchises are first-person shooters. Halo: Reach, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 are making their way toward our consoles and personal computers with their big guns, big (space) boots and their big wars. Those damn commies/aliens/Talibans/ better watch out!

Cool right?

Not always.

 

Look, there is nothing wrong with violence for entertainment, but can we start to wonder why it is the only kind of violence our industry is capable of tackling? Could a video game shock me with its violence not by its amount or gruesomeness (see: Manhunt 2), but by its impact on the characters and the world? Let’s look at an other medium for inspiration.

Gus Van Sant’s movie Elephant is shocking not because the violence is plentiful, quite the opposite. The violence is short and brutal. One second you're alive and enjoying life (or not) and the next you are bleeding to death in a corridor.

Van Sant lets his characters live their life on screen for a short period of time. He gives the viewer time to get to know these people: their dreams, hopes, strength and weaknesses. He does not discriminate between the victims and killers. They both get time to live before they are pulled out of their world in a brutal way. Each death is affecting because Van Sant never lets you forget that the people being killed are not anonymous members of a mass, they are individuals.

What about games?

You kill so many people and get killed so many times in first-person shooters that violence and death start to loose their meaning. Your enemies are plentiful and anonymous; you are often a one-man army blessed by the power of spawning. Violence is the currency and death (yours or theirs) is what’s being traded. You never feel like something is taken out of the game. At worse, death is about as annoying in game as traffic is in real life.

One effective way video games made death matter is by making it permanent. Sadly, there are quite few examples of such uses of death and they are often removed from gameplay and placed within the embedded narrative. The game will kill someone permanently for you but won’t let you kill or get killed in the same fashion. Aeris died not because you didn’t have any potions left, she died because the game decided to remove her from the game to create dramatic tension. Still, games have been getting better at creating permanent deaths that matter because you caused them or are affected by them.

A good example of a first-person shooter that made death and violence matter more than your average war simulator is Far Cry 2. Not so much because of the unlimited number of mercenaries waiting to be shot, set on fire or rolled over but because of your “buddies”. You meet them, do some small talk, and even though they could have been developed a bit more as characters, learn about them. At the exception of one or two sequences in the game, their life or death relies entirely in your hands. Play with fire by accepting their little offer and you will put their life in danger. If you fail to save them, they will die in your arms, and sometimes by your hands. Once they are dead, they’re not coming back.

Another good look at permanent death in this game was the self-imposed “permadeath” challenge Ben Abraham took last December. The constant threat of death makes you appreciate the little details of the world and makes you question the use of violence as an effective approach to every given situation.

What do I want? I’m not even sure. It's not about "banning violent games" like some over-reacting hormones-fuelled gamer might say. It's just about having a balance between entertaining violence and affecting violence. Maybe I just want more developers to think about violence in other terms than number of enemies on screen or cooler explosions. Maybe I just don't want 14 first-person shooters with 14 different ways of showing us how cool their fictional (or non-fictional) war is. Maybe I just want people to be able to talk about violence, games and what is between them without being called an alarmist or worse, being told it’s “just a game”.

It won't cause gamers to go into the streets and shoot people up, but maybe it causes them to be strangely apathetic to such stories. Violence, war and death is not only about sick graphics and kill streaks, it’s about the Human experience.