Sim City 5 and The Future of Video Games

The following rule is one you will never be taught in business school, but it stands: franchises should sometimes be allowed to die. Krispy Kreme, American Idol, Star Wars, and now Sim City. Say what you want about any of these IPs/businesses, they've fallen on hard times and their only relevance seems to come from apathy. Krispy Kreme for example built a highly profitable business empire on sweet and fatty doughnuts, but even the ignorant serfs who regularly eat such things as doughnuts are beginning to understand that healthy food can help improve quality of life as well as exercise little-known taste buds which are not related to grease or sugar. Unhealthy industries, eh? Well I've got one of the best under my microscope right now...

In the often boring, sexist, shallow world of video games and video game culture –"a fantasy realm where nerds rule!"– franchises are the only safe bets. Who wouldn't bankroll a new Mario game? Which executive wouldn't give the go-ahead to a new multiplayer FPS? Everyone can see the dollar signs when World of Warcraft comes up - so lets make everything an MMO from now on. Many franchises stem from much-beloved games from the comparative stone age of video gaming. No, not the 70s - my bad. To be clear: the copper age of video gaming, the 1990s. It is an era which is reviled by the current generation of gamers, and old gamers who enjoy modern games (AKA: stunted adults), as the era of 'rose-tinted glasses'.

Age of Empires, Call of Duty, Sim City, Diablo, Warcraft, Starcraft, Command & Conquer, Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Mario 64, TLoZ: Ocarina of Time, System Shock, Civilization, Aliens vs. Marines, Gran Turismo, Need for Speed, Mortal Kombat... the list goes on, but the point stands: the 90s produced an overwhelming amount of remarkable computer games which were part of or formed the basis for highly profitable franchises. Eventually all of these were bought up by a couple now-monolithic publishers and developers. To put this in perspective, imagine all the mortgages that were packaged into junk bonds in the Financial Crisis of 2008 were sound before they were bought, gutted, and packaged into toxic assets by the monolithic banks and sold to incredibly loyal and gullible customers. This is essentially what happened to most beloved video game franchises in the last ten or fifteen years.

The specifics are open to debate, the pillaging of each franchise is also arguable, but in the contemporary scene all you really get is cutting-edge graphics, a semblance of a story, and shallow treadmill mechanics that dare you to find a reason to play for more than a month. You get quality without substance. Games with the addictive potential of crack cocaine and with exactly the same intoxication profile, creating users and addicts that are indistinguishable from the real thing in their disgusting, annoying race to the bottom. World of Warcraft, it's your move.

All of this is old news, however. I want to focus on one game which was recently released to great fanfare after building up a considerable amount of hype. It is the newest entry in a venerable franchise which was begun in 1989 - Sim City 5. If you haven't heard of it you pay no attention to video games at all because it is the biggest story of the year. Unfortunately, it is a story that has become far too common. But enough words, allow a picture to do the talking:

Metacritic never lies, but as an aggregate it can blur the truth. Video game journalism is instrumental in the downfall of gaming. Even nixing all the outliers (too positive or  negative), critical response is completely away in fantasy land compared to user reviews (people who have paid to play the game and were not paid to review a potentially free copy). If you ever want to see what happened, simply compare a modern video game magazine (like PC Gamer for instance) to an issue from ten or more years ago. Not only is there less content than ever, but there are more ads, weaker reviews, and a typical lack of insight. All journalism falls down from time to time, but in a less critical market like Video Game Culture Magazines you can see how far it can fall.

Nintendo Power is over, though. This is the era of  Sim City 5000, by EA Interactive. The game that arrived amidst thunderous applause and then faced an immediate backlash over: always-online gameplay, resulting server overload, dumb simulation design, and bugs. Lots of bugs. The game looks really pretty and that's the nicest thing you can honestly say about it. I feel bad for the people who made this game. It seems like they didn't have enough time to finish making it. But it looks really good, and the marketing was top notch.

Sim City 5 lacks many features people took for granted in earlier games in the series, and the features it has substituted for them don't work well or don't work at all. Sim City 4 was doing the same thing but managed to work as a game that people liked. Sim City 3 even ditched some of Sim City 2000's best concepts - the series peaked in the mid 90's and almost twenty years later: here we are. Well, I don't know why games are getting worse and dumber every year, and I don't think it matters, so I'll leave that to the experts. Games were never smart, but god damn remember how Duke Nukem used to be fun? Remember the wide variety of games that used to exist? Remember how they took a long time to master? I don't hate casual gaming and I don't hate modern gaming (per-se) I just want to point out some other, more successful, notorious sequels:

Heroes 4: it was a great design decision to drop everything that made a Heroes game a Heroes game and borrow heavily from other turn based strategy games. It looks and plays like a shitty version of Age of Wonders 2, except it doesn't even have hexes, which makes it so unbearable that even longtime defenders of the series say 'It's an interesting take on the genre.' The series (5 and 6!) is now a graphical powerhouse with dumbed down everything and it holds your hand while you play, making cooing noises to sooth your mind.

Call of Duty 4?5?/Modern Warfare/Black Ops: It's always cool to play games online where you shoot other players while the world goes to shit around you. Single player games in this era should be expected to complete themselves and introduce core concepts so that gamers can move into multiplayer.

Battlefield: The good ol' days of 1942 are gone, and in its place are dozens of futuristic mechanics lifted from the Call of Duty series! It's really cool to play with 12 year olds and shoot guns, guys! It's still cool! Adults do it, so don't feel bad about yourself! Graphics are really good. Sound is good. Talk about smoking weed while shooting people on the internet!

Diablo 3: The mother of all hack 'n slash gets overdeveloped. Plays smooth, looks really good, professional and it works. Gameplay and story that hold your hand and never let you go, like helicopter parents, except worse. Story literally gets in the way of gameplay. Takes away player agency and control with 'fear' mobs - multi-million dollar design at work. Revolutionary skill system is boring, advantageous skills are patched into the ground, play for 30 hours to get to the endgame, which is doing the same thing over and over. Campy, dumb bosses from hell. Always online. Play with friends (but no more than three at a time with no significant interaction). Good equipment has to be bought and sold for maximum profit on an auction house that should but doesn't form a community. Drop rates are worse than Vegas. Items are boring: required level 52 for a ring that has a socket in it and nothing else. Stats and crits and nothing else. There is nothing else. Soulless, hackneyed, cliched cash-in that manages to make its hackneyed cash-in older brothers look like cool adults. People who defend this game are the same people who have ruined gaming - they are responsible for Sim City 5. Real Money Auction House! Brilliant! 'Blizzard, O Blizzard, what has become of ye? I remember ye best in 2001, after nearly a decade of fun.'

Skyrim/Oblivion: Super-duper graphics, uninspiring story that holds you by the hand, bland gameplay. Hack, slash, loot for unexciting items. Monsters level with you. No learning curve. Typos, bad writing. Less skills, less uncertainty, less quests, less fun - more scripted events, more voice actors, more polygons, more limits. Doing less with more. Inventory systems so terrible that playing is never not a chore. No reason to follow series after Morrowind: which was a chore to play but somehow a worthy chore. Rest in boring, complacent success The Elder Scrolls.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword: A game that is relentless about never letting the player think or reason a solution. Holds your hands to the Nth degree. Emblematic of modern video games: no player agency, nothing is open: products for children that assume a level of stupidity that manages even to annoy children. Hold my hand, railroad design, pop up messages every minute.

Duke Nukem Forever: Boring, plastic, lifeless... there's a joke in there somewhere - and that's just the game! Emblematic of what happens to every franchise in this brave new world.

There are many more senile series out there. I don't know if developers are getting lazy, or if they actually think they're doing anything more than sober, diligent, professional work. Probably they don't care: get your paycheque, do your work, keep your head down, follow the money. Creativity is being starved out of the industry, and indie games are not going to save the day. Well, whatever, I suppose it was time for me to grow up anyway, and put away such childish, M-rated things.

User Comment Rodeo: Generation Text; Its Detractors and Malcontents

A recent CBC article claims a few things so startlingly obvious that the sound of a gong ought to be looped over it. The findings demonstrated, and you might want to sit down for this one, that people who texted more (don't sweat, the breakpoint is 200 + texts) often tended to be less thoughtful than those who didn't. Also among the findings was the gem that the 200+ text club was (30%) more likely to be fixated on "wealth and image than an ethical life". Now, as unsurprising as this study's conclusions are, they are of limited truth.

Firstly, only teenagers or immature adults can actually muster up the energy to text more than 100 times a day. Yet I can be surprised by texting culture. At 15 seconds per text, 100 texts would only require a time investment of 25 minutes. Scale that any way you want, and remember that serial texters are quick, and it's easy to conclude that a serial texter can text 400+ times a day and still have lots of time left over to socialize 'face to face' (oh shit, that term is going to get worn out in the next few years). This 'texting' business, which is correctly SMSing business, has for many years now been a cultural crisis in the making. We all stepped in it with full confidence, so now we get to suffer it. Suffer the outrageous extremes of an increasingly dim and unfunny era.

You can already see what kind of User Comment Rodeo it's going to be. The best kind. Because you know the ageists, the trolls, the dickweeds, the self-described experts, the geniuses – in short the whole, illiterate, unwashed, entitled, self-satisfied mass of the public – is going to unable to prevent themselves from puking their word nonsense onto this story like tainted cocktail shrimp at a bad house party. Listen up, I know that serial texters are often total wankers. I understood years ago that they lacked the self-reflection expected of a great ape, dolphin, or crow. Don't forget that this study is biased: note that it focused on first year students. Don't buy into the hype without thinking critically about it first. First year students are so rarely aware of themselves that the study is unfair and biased. It stooped for low-hanging fruit when there are plenty of studies that can judge the adult narcissist sociopaths in business, finance, and politics.

But enough of my ado about nothing; let's have others' ado about nothing:

The cream of the crop, my friends. These posts were not only so good that some people voted for them, but upwards of 200 votes were cast per comment. Can you spot the deafening irony? Should I even bother? Instead, bring your attention to the post by the user named 'bootselectric'. Oh, how the point is missed. The biggest cop-out, btw, is getting fired by text message. That shit actually happens. Oh and nobody 'embraces their lives' around anything. Anyways, all of these posts (worthless activities on a worthless medium - yes I understand the height of irony that is my acknowledging this) were voted for more than 200 times. Irony.

The Walking Dread

I've seen and heard a lot of shit talking about the recent Season 3 finale by a lot of self-satisfied idiots and I've got to say a few things in defense of the show AMC's The Walking Dead really is. I remember when a metal kid tried to sell his collection of Walking Dead comics to me after I mentioned to him I'd seen the first episode. I remember the person who introduced me to the show saying "It's fantastic" and showing me the first three minutes before his wife told him to shut it off so we could watch Secret American Boss or something decadent and ridiculous. Spoilers upcoming.

Whenever zombie media is brought up, I have to mention Night of the Living Dead. It's the de-facto best zombie movie. The only one worth watching twice (except maybe Shawn of the Dead which is worth a second viewing to catch references and if you're really stoned maybe a third viewing). Now, that night didn't spawn the end of the world, the movie resolved in fatalistic horror beyond anything, and before established tropes made 70's and 80's zombie movies predictable and half-satisfying (aside: media consumers are zombies and require FRESH ENTERTAINMENT TO CONSUME - cold corpses just won't satisfy bottomless appetites and stunted taste).

The old irony, which used to be a joke and is now itself a shambling corpse of a joke, is that the zombie outbreak scenario has itself become zombie-like. Except it can't be killed at all. It's been shot in the head (lost cultural relevance and profitability) and it's gone right on (until culturally profitable) without changing too much. Movie after movie, book after book, comic book after comic book, concept album after concept album, and finally TV show. AMC's The Walking Dead really debuted at the exact cultural moment (zombies were trending, yo), and had a sense of grit and human drama that pulled in millions of dedicated viewers, some of which told me how good it was every time I'd see them.

Anyways, after months of not watching the show I got tired of hearing about how good it was. Anyone worth a damn knows about Night of the Living Dead is the only zombie thing that will ever be a timeless classic. I am just putting that out there so that tasteless hacks shut up about the #YOLO of zombie entertainment. However, I am willing to concede certain things about AMC's The Walking Dead.

Firstly, the production values are readily apparent. The presentation is not half-assed, and outright better than most movies. The gore is fantastic and the zombies look downright good. There are no cut corners. It's a fantastic effort on the visual front. Abandoned city scenes in a TV show, shot in an actual city? People listed the production values a lot, 'most expensive show ever' etc... and I can't say how true it is but it seems right. This got people thinking that the show could only go up, as if an insanely talented and well-supported group of people could carry the show just by making it look good.

Second, regarding plot. The show stems from a comic book series but isn't an entirely faithful adaptation. This annoyed some people. Well one of the first things I noticed as I watched the first season was how torturously stretched every episode was. It helped for tension, and undeniably hooked an audience, and was admittedly a smart way to set up a 6 episode season. But let me spoil the show for you: it doesn't stop stretching the plot out. That much never changes, and lots of people who bitch about it now are idiots who never saw this habit for what it was. Entire episodes go by (even in season 1) in which some minor thing becomes a huge deal and everyone talks about their feelings for twenty minutes, then there is some shooting and another surprise. It works fine for season 1, annoyingly enough, but the show was new and there was nothing else quite like it. Gritty.

The characters are alright. In the first season especially you'll find that a lot of time is spent exploring how humans and society would deal with the changes of a zombie outbreak. It's pretty cool, and the characters have depth, so what flashbacks there are are not entirely annoying. Cringeworthy moments happen anyways, but for the most part it's eminently watchable zombie television. I won't say the writing is outstanding but it's better than average. Let me spoil the show for you: the writing never gets good enough to justify the stretching. Some characters get tiresome - most do. There is lots of agonizing and less action as time goes on. Entire episodes go by where maybe three zombies are killed. It takes creeping minutes for people to die, say what they mean, or act on their impulses (hah). Hope you like dialogue exploring the sometimes complicated nature of human interaction in a post-apocalypse.

In seasons 2 and 3 the show has settled as the cast has found safety and settled. This slowed the pace and justified all kinds of stretching and lollygagging. Writers had to keep tensions high and inevitably things got a bit less lively and a bit more sentimental. The most tense moments resolve themselves in multi-episode character arcs that tend to end messily. Well. What are you going to do, write the show out of a corner yourself?

Third: commercials. People bitched about this, especially for the recent finale. Nobody likes commercials, alright already: just cool it. Let me be perfectly clear: you're a stupid fuck if you don't think your outrageously popular and successful show with huge ratings is going to be used as a goldmine by its broadcaster. Got that? A stupid fuck. Success has a price (or rather a value) that is non-negotiable.

Fourth: plausibility. This isn't a can of worms worth opening, even if you were using them to catch the largest, tastiest fish in the lake. But between the inconsistencies, the unrealistic portrayals of gunfights, the loose ends, the implausible locations nobody in their right mind would try to shack up in, the outrageous conflicts... not worth it. This is a show about zombies based on a comic book. I know it looks super real but you honestly can't expect any team of TV writers to actually make it an impenetrably realistic depiction, right? Just use your imagination, don't worry about filling in all the blanks – this isn't highschool, nobody is grading you for being sharper than the total colossal dimwit idiots who write for a multi-million dollar TV series.

Let's fast-forward a bunch. The third season has concluded and anyone who has read a book or watched a TV show could tell you what was likely to happen. The whole season varied wildly from tense and exciting to bloated and mawkish. There were some good moments and the whole thing was building up to a huge bastard of a shootout, despite a determined pacifist angle. This more or less got stretched out over multiple episodes, some unrelated, in which everyone was getting guns and soldiers and preparing for a fight. It was annoying but shouldn't have surprised anyone with the attention span sufficient to remember what the first, or second (holy stretches) seasons were like.

AMC's The Walking Dead season 3 finale wasn't super-duper great by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of things were stretched out and painful, there was a weird bit of genocide, and it didn't really resolve to anyone's satisfaction. It left a lot open for the next season, which makes sense because the show is still zombie-popular. There was some heartfelt stuff, and even if it wasn't satisfying, it tied up a few loose ends. Idiot viewerships missed the point, which is funny but kind of sad, as the show isn't really that complex. In general the show delivered what it was going to deliver, based on past seasons, and it was exactly what the viewership deserved. Comic book readers still look down their noses at it.

The writing isn't total shit and the show isn't a piece of shit. People got really into this, just like with any successful TV show, and it didn't deliver perfection. It didn't quite manage to exceed the hype. Entropy, maaaan. Nothing's going to get better. Your biased memories and hopes are generating expectations that cannot be met by a human production. It can't be easy to maintain a juggernaut of a show like that, either. I'm sure the challenge of getting it done on time and keeping the production team together cost a bunch of really good episodes and a better show entirely. Whatever, though, it's TV. It's TV's only zombie show, so with your utter lack of alternatives you will watch anyway.

There it is. It's good television gone slightly wrong, but it's not a big enough deal and not enough has really changed to the point where you can say it's like old/new Simpsons. Don't make the mistake of looking around to see what people think. You'll know when you watch this imperfect bit of zombie television, guilt-free. Just do yourself a favor and watch the real stuff. Then you'll see that getting upset over the show is hardly anything. The theme hasn't progressed much, if at all, because it is undead. Then go out and watch World War Z, and moan about that too. You'll either ignore it or consume it, but as a consumer either way; and as part of the problem, you're not owed a damn thing.

Killing Minutes: Tower Defense Redux

Probably you have many ways to kill time on the internet. Too many, but Flash-based tower defense games are always good for a few compulsive hours if that's your bag. A while ago I wrote about Cursed Treasure and essentially gave it GOTY status among its overpopulated field. Luckily enough, the sequel was recently released, and it's great. How great? So great. I'd say it's a fitting sequel in terms of quality and entertainment value. It's free, after all, so it's absolutely a great value. Allow me review it, so you don't have to formulate an opinion yourself...

Presentation: Top quality. You can tell that a great amount of work went into everything: the UI is reworked and very appealing, the enemies look top notch, and the spell effects are 'cool fantasy game' level or better. Essentially it is a flat, 2D kind of thing, but it has depth and obvious artistry. The story is a humorous version of barely-there, but all you need to know is that you got to keep all the dudes away from your gems by any means necessary. The sounds are well-done, though too many Orc bunkers will short out attack sounds and the music is repetitive as you'd expect.

The spells and skills have been reworked and so have the towers you will use to destroy the gem-seekers - mostly predictable but with good variety. The design is all-round excellent, but the power-ups that randomly drop can quickly become a large pile of clutter in your culling zones, which can make it hard to pick up that coin you need or cast the right scroll. Mostly you can spare yourself this effect by tower-placement and actually picking things up.

Difficulty: The difficulty curve is a bit steeper than in the first Cursed Treasure, and levels off a bit more quickly when your skill investments start to pay off. If you've beaten the first game (and I'd recommend starting with it and the level pack, because they are great) this game will not present too much of a challenge, but there are a few devious levels. There's no need to get overconfident unless you are a TD-mastermind, but on the other hand a few old maps (see above) are reused – the difficulty in beating them the first time is obviously high, but if you 100%ed the old game they'll be relatively easy this time around. Well, to those I would say: enjoy the tricks this game has up its sleeve – there are a couple of truly fiendish levels that will test you. Ultimately I would hazard the opinion that this game is a little easier, overall, than the first. Not that it matters greatly, as you'll be well into the game by the time you outwit or overpower it.

Entertainment Value: Even if you hate badges, the game has replayability built in in the form of night-time maps which provide extra challenge and more XP, because you've got to be and XP addict by now. Sweet, sweet, honey-sweet EXP. Some maps will take a few replays to ace, and you'll want to ace all of them for XP. If you sign up for an Armor Games account there are 'quests' you can do which are like bonus achievements with real-world numbers attached – great if you want to 1% this game and prove to yourself how hardcore and elite you are.

Conclusion: It's great, it's free, it's well-made (maybe a little system intensive) and it's an absolute time-killer. If you doubt me, just go and see for yourself. It's early in the year to award this game GOTY (Flash, free, internet) status, but the challengers will really have to step up their game to compete. It's the best challenger for the title thus far. Iriysoft has outdone themselves in many ways on this title, and deserve a round of accolades (or drinks).