Borderlands is a computer game series that is in many ways symptomatic of the 'malaise of modern gaming' (which is not 100% true and therefore a theory) especially considering how style has trumped substance (which is a problem modern gaming shares with many other modern things). The gist of a Borderlands game is:
It is a first person shooter set on a richy detailed, busted cyberpunk/post-apocalyptic wasteland/junkyard alien planet with cool monsters and villainous humans and it's also a bit of an RPG (because those are hot right now) in that you have experience points, skills, and criticals (and also a vast, grim, and forboding numerical grind). All weapons and equipment are randomly generated with varying stats, there are multiple protagonists with different powers, persistent account wide bonuses, and a variety of challenges and accomplishments. Also the series likes to use hit songs in advertising as well as in-game!
All of this, and it's arguably less fun than even Doom 1 or 2, which are a million times less complex or intricate. To my mind the Borderlands series is a perfect example of the pretty, lifeless, grindy, downright boring and chore-like video games proliferating in 'serious' gaming. I finished the first game a couple of times (to my eternal discredit) and only played around 8 hours of Borderlands 2 (so far I haven't gotten a single interesting weapon and the fights haven't been fun). So the most important things in FPS games, the guns, are randomized. Generally the randomized guns are excessively useless. The inventory system is yet another terrible console/PC crossover abortion, so good luck selling the random loot guns the game is stingy about dropping.
Showing posts with label nonsense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonsense. Show all posts
10/5/14
The Interstitial Garbage Dump
Download the album automatically and don't listen to it at all and chuckle at the ensuing media firestorm sinking an irrelevant brand.
Pick a new role for yourself online, let the psychosis of the internet really get to you, really inhabit its odd corners, muttering constantly about incredible things with an awesome potential to alienate others while also alienating you. Get really huffy about something like everyone else is doing!
The newest sensation is a good way to get views and followers. Yet there is a way to do it properly and it may only be to create some bot account twitter, where you are the bot, retweeting an oblivious feed via buzzy logic and reimagining news stories in the naive or Socratic mode.
You ramble about the newest sensation. There is the Rob Ford Saga, pt. 6, and many others. Or work on the themes: What the Hell, vol. 1; Wild Internet XXI; My Fat Twitter Diary; Fail-o-sphere 2.5; LOLNET... the internet possibilities are endless. If you want success, stick to the sensations and try and become as media literate as you can in the broadest sense. Make a vid or two. Don't use memes stupidly and try not to play irrelevant or annoying ones unless you're really good, memewise.
No it doesn't need to make sense. It only needs to make sense interstitially and occasionally. The savvy user reads between the lines anyway.
Whatever happened to Nerd Culture? It got really quiet and samey, growing like a benign tumor on the cultural wasteland of 2014, a cyst overfull of information and inflated by its handlers. The newest game is all design and art, game be damned. The digital grindstone. "Only moonlighting in reality these days."
The dramatic currency wars. Fading economies. The thriving era of Cannibal Orphan Globalism. Violence signalling like flares in the dark that something is still terribly wrong and broken, help is needed, and the constant fear that everything else will get dragged in again leading to some monstrous cataclysm. Orphans of the species make further orbits for a couple of hardscrabble years, looking hungrily at a succession of pure nights.
We have a responsibility to do what we can and not let it get to us, try though it might. Is it our responsibility to look into things, risking mental corrosion and flights of fancy? Who can say? This blogger certainly can't. Casual self-reflection is probably a good habit unless it leads one too far inside. Introspection is only half the story at best. What seems impossible is always categorical: do all questions lead somewhere?
The internet provides a constant potential to feel extremely negative and anxious about everything, a literal bottomless pit that only exists insofar as what exactly? Personalized algorithmic experience, digital rat maze, the netscape, first and last frontier; possibly the end is in sight.
What the wreck of news journalism reveals is a world still running amok. Things are in some ways better, but things are worse at least existentially for all and are really not that great for most in any case. In the best case a global society awakens, ignores its differences, and forces the start of a new era divorced from as many of the ignorant sins of the past as possible. But realistically a continuation and intensification of the recent past is most likely, for at least a few more decades, by which time it may truly be too late.
The net decline of genetic diversity correlates to a net decline in the value of Earth, beyond merely a pruning of the tree of life as some non-alarmists would argue. If people were as carefree about their dollars everyone would be a millionaire, economists would be philosopher kings, and there would be no world hunger. Funny how more or less pure capitalism, either way, could solve a few problems. The law of mediocrity is by definition only fair to a small percentage. If we made it, could it rule us? What does it matter when the toxic cloud is already here, and has been for dozens of years?
The realist perspective is not individualistic, but there will always be the allure of a heroic self-narrative and/or other fantasies. There is not enough realism left, as if the horrors of the 20th century exhausted our ability or willingness to see things as they are. How will we advance beyond being troops of apes? Will we? Is the criticism even valid? We cannot truly say things are purely otherwise yet. The symbolists can prove it.
It is best to ramble about things awhile. Puzzle them over over a beer or so with a friend or friends who are looking to ruin your line of thought by thrusting their own into a collision with it. Whatever, anyways, right? Whatever...
Pick a new role for yourself online, let the psychosis of the internet really get to you, really inhabit its odd corners, muttering constantly about incredible things with an awesome potential to alienate others while also alienating you. Get really huffy about something like everyone else is doing!
The newest sensation is a good way to get views and followers. Yet there is a way to do it properly and it may only be to create some bot account twitter, where you are the bot, retweeting an oblivious feed via buzzy logic and reimagining news stories in the naive or Socratic mode.
You ramble about the newest sensation. There is the Rob Ford Saga, pt. 6, and many others. Or work on the themes: What the Hell, vol. 1; Wild Internet XXI; My Fat Twitter Diary; Fail-o-sphere 2.5; LOLNET... the internet possibilities are endless. If you want success, stick to the sensations and try and become as media literate as you can in the broadest sense. Make a vid or two. Don't use memes stupidly and try not to play irrelevant or annoying ones unless you're really good, memewise.
No it doesn't need to make sense. It only needs to make sense interstitially and occasionally. The savvy user reads between the lines anyway.
Whatever happened to Nerd Culture? It got really quiet and samey, growing like a benign tumor on the cultural wasteland of 2014, a cyst overfull of information and inflated by its handlers. The newest game is all design and art, game be damned. The digital grindstone. "Only moonlighting in reality these days."
The dramatic currency wars. Fading economies. The thriving era of Cannibal Orphan Globalism. Violence signalling like flares in the dark that something is still terribly wrong and broken, help is needed, and the constant fear that everything else will get dragged in again leading to some monstrous cataclysm. Orphans of the species make further orbits for a couple of hardscrabble years, looking hungrily at a succession of pure nights.
We have a responsibility to do what we can and not let it get to us, try though it might. Is it our responsibility to look into things, risking mental corrosion and flights of fancy? Who can say? This blogger certainly can't. Casual self-reflection is probably a good habit unless it leads one too far inside. Introspection is only half the story at best. What seems impossible is always categorical: do all questions lead somewhere?
The internet provides a constant potential to feel extremely negative and anxious about everything, a literal bottomless pit that only exists insofar as what exactly? Personalized algorithmic experience, digital rat maze, the netscape, first and last frontier; possibly the end is in sight.
What the wreck of news journalism reveals is a world still running amok. Things are in some ways better, but things are worse at least existentially for all and are really not that great for most in any case. In the best case a global society awakens, ignores its differences, and forces the start of a new era divorced from as many of the ignorant sins of the past as possible. But realistically a continuation and intensification of the recent past is most likely, for at least a few more decades, by which time it may truly be too late.
The net decline of genetic diversity correlates to a net decline in the value of Earth, beyond merely a pruning of the tree of life as some non-alarmists would argue. If people were as carefree about their dollars everyone would be a millionaire, economists would be philosopher kings, and there would be no world hunger. Funny how more or less pure capitalism, either way, could solve a few problems. The law of mediocrity is by definition only fair to a small percentage. If we made it, could it rule us? What does it matter when the toxic cloud is already here, and has been for dozens of years?
The realist perspective is not individualistic, but there will always be the allure of a heroic self-narrative and/or other fantasies. There is not enough realism left, as if the horrors of the 20th century exhausted our ability or willingness to see things as they are. How will we advance beyond being troops of apes? Will we? Is the criticism even valid? We cannot truly say things are purely otherwise yet. The symbolists can prove it.
It is best to ramble about things awhile. Puzzle them over over a beer or so with a friend or friends who are looking to ruin your line of thought by thrusting their own into a collision with it. Whatever, anyways, right? Whatever...
11/19/13
Rob Ford is Not a Damn Thing Like Chris Farley
Yes it's pretty tempting if you're trying to hack out a monologue or are a pretty half-assed funny-person, but Chris Farley wasn't a Canadian and also was much cooler than Rob Ford. Moreover it is suggested by his death that Farley partied a damn sight harder than Rob Ford. People who remember their history or know something about drug abuse will agree. Crack use seems pretty bad but it's more or less just a variety of cocaine use, mixing cocaine and heroin (the notorious speedball) is next-level shit by comparison, a gift from twisted space angels that wish nothing but death on celebrities (and probably thousands of 'normal people' that you never heard of). I heard a few of these supposedly humorous comparisons and I have to say, I'm about as unimpressed as a Toronto homeowner or businessman.
Rob Ford obviously parties harder than the majority of people ever do, but it is... come on... it's a bit of a smaller league than Chris Farley. Crack cocaine has a certain wow factor that just makes the entire story that much more crazy and appealing to most people.
Anecdotally, in 2009 a Canadian conservative MP, Rahim Jaffer, was caught with powder cocaine and I swear to you now that it was not mentioned on probably all international media. [Is there an international CPAC that isn't also moonlighting as a propaganda front for the U.N.? Maybe they would carry it.] Even in Canada it was a small potatoes story that was quickly hushed away and forgotten. Most Canadians, if you asked them about Rahim Jaffer, would give you a blank stare. Meanwhile, around the world you can bring up Rob Ford for a quick talking point or laugh. The point is that crack is just a much bigger story than cocaine, despite being the same drug. Yeah, there's other factors which influence the size and longevity of this story, but...
There are better stories at this point, and the usual suspects are having a field day with Rob Ford when they could be doing more original or funnier jokes. Back in May it was a hoot, and we can't forget the absolute hilarity of everything since the crack use was proven, but the joke's probably run its course. It will fade from late night TV and remain as a sordid specter in Toronto, maybe drunk, maybe not, but still haunting the city.
I know lots of people who are tired about this. It's the sorry state of Canadian politics: the only mentions they seem to get are when wacky mayors get called out by Gawker for doing drugs, prompting a police investigation and media firestorm. It is a well known fact that Rob Ford was not well liked prior to the conviction, which makes the whole thing very satisfying for a lot of people, and now the damn thing should play quietly with less free press for Ford. It should be resolved by the city council...
Of course, now that the story is getting interesting (Rob Ford is attempting to clean up his image, and will continue to battle with opponents) the outside interest will dissipate like the smell of a fart, or the type of low-yield scandal that somehow seems to be dealt with very lightly. Then again, maybe the people who wrote the charter for Toronto mayoralty weren't expecting a seasoned crack smoker and drunkard. Very funny, because the public official in the story is a rather prominent man who uses drugs liberally, despises the downtown types, and sweats a bunch.
Meanwhile in Canada there are corruption problems, the question of who will lead the country out of an era of pseudo-stupor (currently it looks like a job nobody can accomplish, and I personally doubt Stephen Harper ever bothered himself for a minute about it), the oft-ignored First Nations issues, and best of all a highly resource-and-construction-based economy that could shatter at the whim of the markets, and which in any case is a carefully controlled game of gouging and despoiling Canada to try and fit in with the world economy clique.
Rob Ford obviously parties harder than the majority of people ever do, but it is... come on... it's a bit of a smaller league than Chris Farley. Crack cocaine has a certain wow factor that just makes the entire story that much more crazy and appealing to most people.
Anecdotally, in 2009 a Canadian conservative MP, Rahim Jaffer, was caught with powder cocaine and I swear to you now that it was not mentioned on probably all international media. [Is there an international CPAC that isn't also moonlighting as a propaganda front for the U.N.? Maybe they would carry it.] Even in Canada it was a small potatoes story that was quickly hushed away and forgotten. Most Canadians, if you asked them about Rahim Jaffer, would give you a blank stare. Meanwhile, around the world you can bring up Rob Ford for a quick talking point or laugh. The point is that crack is just a much bigger story than cocaine, despite being the same drug. Yeah, there's other factors which influence the size and longevity of this story, but...
There are better stories at this point, and the usual suspects are having a field day with Rob Ford when they could be doing more original or funnier jokes. Back in May it was a hoot, and we can't forget the absolute hilarity of everything since the crack use was proven, but the joke's probably run its course. It will fade from late night TV and remain as a sordid specter in Toronto, maybe drunk, maybe not, but still haunting the city.
I know lots of people who are tired about this. It's the sorry state of Canadian politics: the only mentions they seem to get are when wacky mayors get called out by Gawker for doing drugs, prompting a police investigation and media firestorm. It is a well known fact that Rob Ford was not well liked prior to the conviction, which makes the whole thing very satisfying for a lot of people, and now the damn thing should play quietly with less free press for Ford. It should be resolved by the city council...
Of course, now that the story is getting interesting (Rob Ford is attempting to clean up his image, and will continue to battle with opponents) the outside interest will dissipate like the smell of a fart, or the type of low-yield scandal that somehow seems to be dealt with very lightly. Then again, maybe the people who wrote the charter for Toronto mayoralty weren't expecting a seasoned crack smoker and drunkard. Very funny, because the public official in the story is a rather prominent man who uses drugs liberally, despises the downtown types, and sweats a bunch.
Meanwhile in Canada there are corruption problems, the question of who will lead the country out of an era of pseudo-stupor (currently it looks like a job nobody can accomplish, and I personally doubt Stephen Harper ever bothered himself for a minute about it), the oft-ignored First Nations issues, and best of all a highly resource-and-construction-based economy that could shatter at the whim of the markets, and which in any case is a carefully controlled game of gouging and despoiling Canada to try and fit in with the world economy clique.
7/12/13
Thanks Internet: Wierd Groups You Fixate On
They were somehow innocent, immune to
shame, and their positivity was as naive as it was indestructible.
The world was laughing at them. I was a jaded
person, I had wasted my innocence, and the part of my life where I
would see them as acceptable was over. In other ways, perhaps, but
for me there would be no great passion in a harmless,
consumer-oriented fandom. If I had ever been close, it had been just
before the Star Wars reboot, but that fizzled out for me. So I
considered the modern scene amusing at first, and then detestable, and then settled
into an indifferent apathy. It was the hands-in-pockets crowd and
their best friends from the internet, how could it ever pay off?
The whole internet was like a moth to
flame regarding these people: they were like furries and
straight-edge kids combined, not such a 'thing' yet that people over 35 had
any idea about their existence. Hot property. It was a movement for people who didn't want
to grow up. They had managed to get a lot of attention from the
indulgent denizens of the internet, who loved to mock and worry about them. It was a
movement beyond mockery, in many ways, because it was earnest (if twisted in 50%+ of cases) and simple. It was a worst case
scenario for New Sincerity, which is where the blame squarely lay. Some participants were actual children, not just mentally child-like; it was
bizarre, and impossible not to get bad vibes from. It was
cringe-worthy.
In the course of their mockery I was
introduced and re-introduced to the movement. The base users of the
internet were enthralled, I think, with the possibility of a group
more pathetic than themselves. It was hilarity potentiated by an odd
sense of pathos. Lots of good laughs were had at the expense of these
stupidly earnest, mentally-ill, immature individuals, but also good
money was being made on them. Not that I was a capitalist, and if
anything it was their collective identity as consumers that made them
beneath scorn. They were, in a word, jokes. Unnervingly awkward,
questionable jokes.
Everyone wanted identity and belonging,
though. That was the less funny part. The existence of this group was
evidence of pathological issues in modern society. It was a symptom of a
sick world. Even so, they were having fun, believed in something or everything, and they cared – all of which was drily amusing of course. They were not the ones
engaging and propagating the sick society which was eating away human
potential and leaving us with manic-depressives, borderlines, and
headcases of all sorts. They were harmless eccentrics, 'nice guys', outcasts, and all truly bizarre. To me it was borderline unacceptable, but I didn't want to throw stones and laugh spitefully: that's too close to caring.
Some of them were undoubtedly sick. There was no other explanation. It was bizarre: a
combination of tweens, teenagers, twenty-somethings, all the way up
to the usual extreme cases: sad and lonely men in their forties and fifties. Not that they were exceptional among modern movements and identity groups, or even particularly embarrassing in that field. The internet was full enough of shit to ruin anyone's mind, victims were plentiful. Their position was defensible in that way and many others,
even though it was tone-deaf and ignorant and, essentially, very
creepy in a way which does not misuse the word.
They preached fun, acceptance, peace,
caring. They were clad in various baggy ill-fitting garments, liked
gaudy colours, and especially products which broadcast their love of
the entertainment product which they consumed in togetherness. They
could be any group of youth, really. I suppose I hated them most for
their consumerism, because their cry for identity was not
particularly remarkable, nor their lack of critical perspective. In
the modern era of disposable society vs. unbending self-righteous fundamentalism there wasn't a single place to stand. It made one
nihilistic, which made funny groups attractive to mockers and
adherents alike. The rise of the dubstep generation. Heh.
It was all insane. It was best to just
laugh and not question any of it, but not questioning it seemed
wrong. Same as it ever was, too. Maybe they were historically unique
for record levels of meek nebbishism, little else. They would grow,
was the problem, and create and kinds of morbid counter-mentalities.
Shit like that was going to ruin everything, contribute to ongoing
lost generations, influence the future... which made it less funny to
watch a mawkish convention mentality spastically going
its way in an oblivious, unforgiving world. Less funny; deeper humor, and darker. So if you want to know if there are worse things: of course there are worse things – the rest are all warning signs.
6/26/13
Existential Crisis Zone: I Used to be a Better Blogger
A couple of years ago I was in top form. Everything I wrote was going to get ignored by pretty much the whole internet and I still made it count. I look at myself recently and, dear reader, it is painfully apparent that I've lost the patience to craft outstanding prose and to keep a non-partisan balance. Yes, I've committed the cardinal sin of becoming political. I might've been the same a few years ago, but what is important is that I was doing it with grace, if at all. That's not everything I've been doing wrong, but it's a good portion.
So I apologize. I'm not going to put up another piece about Edward Snowden, how Bradley Manning is still ignored (and his connection to the repealing of Don't Ask/Don't Tell - a very interesting hypothesis), or how the two men are very similar even though Edward Snowden is a civilian. I won't post about the odds of Snowden getting nabbed, disappeared, or simply imprisoned for the rest of his life. I won't opine about what would be fair, or if what he did was right. Though I will say that it speaks volumes about society that even 'the good life' wasn't enough to silence him, and that he is being denounced as rotten traitor, and that a decade+ ago the things he recently brought to light would have be mocked as patently paranoid. And I will also say he is lucky that McCarthyism has worn off somewhat in the 'States, even though it lives on in spirit, as so many things do.
I really wanted to, of course. Why else have a blog if not to write about issues that one considers important? Well, the world doesn't seem to care very much what Snowden did. I haven't met a single person since the story broke out who gave a shit. I don't know if they're unsurprised at the totalitarian security state slowly caging them in, or if they are just anesthetized to it. Maybe the oversharing internet attention junkies have won, the concept of identity is permanently deformed and bureaucracized, and the privileged are smirking, and anyone who thinks differently is already a fool in the eyes of the world. Yes: the state looking inward is nothing new, but the implications have never been this clinical or far-reaching.
You can tell how tempted I am to write about it. I would continue to approach the topic as if it mystified me. I would slowly bring in the revelations that this, ironically, takes the modern world another step towards the supposedly obsolete and abandoned precepts of Stalinism. I would use the word totalitarian a bunch of times and I would put in a few choice burns at facebook's expense. I would not mention Orwell, because I'm not an idiot, but I could. I would point out that collusion between government and industry is never a good sign. Damn, it could've been a fine piece for the world to ignore. Another feather in my cap, but I don't want feathers in my cap and I don't want to say too much. Suffice it to say that the modern world has been making me more and more uncomfortable and uneasy.
[Oh, and I could go on...]
So I apologize. I'm not going to put up another piece about Edward Snowden, how Bradley Manning is still ignored (and his connection to the repealing of Don't Ask/Don't Tell - a very interesting hypothesis), or how the two men are very similar even though Edward Snowden is a civilian. I won't post about the odds of Snowden getting nabbed, disappeared, or simply imprisoned for the rest of his life. I won't opine about what would be fair, or if what he did was right. Though I will say that it speaks volumes about society that even 'the good life' wasn't enough to silence him, and that he is being denounced as rotten traitor, and that a decade+ ago the things he recently brought to light would have be mocked as patently paranoid. And I will also say he is lucky that McCarthyism has worn off somewhat in the 'States, even though it lives on in spirit, as so many things do.
I really wanted to, of course. Why else have a blog if not to write about issues that one considers important? Well, the world doesn't seem to care very much what Snowden did. I haven't met a single person since the story broke out who gave a shit. I don't know if they're unsurprised at the totalitarian security state slowly caging them in, or if they are just anesthetized to it. Maybe the oversharing internet attention junkies have won, the concept of identity is permanently deformed and bureaucracized, and the privileged are smirking, and anyone who thinks differently is already a fool in the eyes of the world. Yes: the state looking inward is nothing new, but the implications have never been this clinical or far-reaching.
You can tell how tempted I am to write about it. I would continue to approach the topic as if it mystified me. I would slowly bring in the revelations that this, ironically, takes the modern world another step towards the supposedly obsolete and abandoned precepts of Stalinism. I would use the word totalitarian a bunch of times and I would put in a few choice burns at facebook's expense. I would not mention Orwell, because I'm not an idiot, but I could. I would point out that collusion between government and industry is never a good sign. Damn, it could've been a fine piece for the world to ignore. Another feather in my cap, but I don't want feathers in my cap and I don't want to say too much. Suffice it to say that the modern world has been making me more and more uncomfortable and uneasy.
[Oh, and I could go on...]
4/25/13
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.
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.
5/3/12
Does the Internet Make You Sick?
Well I think anybody who has thought about it already knows the answer, and there's no point in spoiling a surprise, so...
What Hasn't Made Us Sick?
Someone knowledgeable should write a book about that. I'm deeply allergic to knowing anything about health or myself, so I would probably not buy it, but I would pay someone to do the work. I would pay at utmost 5.00 in whatever currency 5.00 still means something. If there is some sort of hypervaluation crisis (and it would be one, don't even fool yourself) I would pay .5, .05, down to .000005 depending on circumstances. The project of discerning whether or not the internet can make you sick could be completed (or at least started definitively), with global co-operation and collaboration (via the internet), in a as little as 12 hours. For free, I'm sure.
If the internet has taught me anything it is to always rush noobs, pick the noobiest weapon/build, the following acronyms (too many; mainly 'afaik'), there is no such thing as too many clicks, don't ever get involved in anything, avoid chat in general unless to friends – and most importantly: to not be a total dick when you start beating the shit out of other players, in any game except online chess. Also doubt everything, and avoid anyone who has anything to say as they're most likely charlatans or shills.
So the prognosis isn't great.The suppression of it is variable. The internet is still more a force for freedom, except it, like any other media, can be just as detrimental to it. Oh and dangerous, possibly catastrophic. But that's just about anything, and the laws of mediocrity will hopefully minimize the odds of anything extraordinary happening.
What Hasn't Made Us Sick?
Someone knowledgeable should write a book about that. I'm deeply allergic to knowing anything about health or myself, so I would probably not buy it, but I would pay someone to do the work. I would pay at utmost 5.00 in whatever currency 5.00 still means something. If there is some sort of hypervaluation crisis (and it would be one, don't even fool yourself) I would pay .5, .05, down to .000005 depending on circumstances. The project of discerning whether or not the internet can make you sick could be completed (or at least started definitively), with global co-operation and collaboration (via the internet), in a as little as 12 hours. For free, I'm sure.
If the internet has taught me anything it is to always rush noobs, pick the noobiest weapon/build, the following acronyms (too many; mainly 'afaik'), there is no such thing as too many clicks, don't ever get involved in anything, avoid chat in general unless to friends – and most importantly: to not be a total dick when you start beating the shit out of other players, in any game except online chess. Also doubt everything, and avoid anyone who has anything to say as they're most likely charlatans or shills.
So the prognosis isn't great.The suppression of it is variable. The internet is still more a force for freedom, except it, like any other media, can be just as detrimental to it. Oh and dangerous, possibly catastrophic. But that's just about anything, and the laws of mediocrity will hopefully minimize the odds of anything extraordinary happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)