What Are We Afraid Of?

  So, I know I've already covered the topic of horror in video games, but I've decided, in the interest of Halloween, to dig a little deeper into the subject. In this blog I will not only cover horror in video games, but horror in general. So, get ready for part 1 of Bleeping Sickness' Halloween special.

  Anyone who knows me knows that I am a huge horror nerd. I have seen more horror movies than most people have seen movies, my favorite author is H. P. Lovecraft (the godfather of weird fiction), and I celebrate Halloween like most people celebrate Christmas. So, you could say I know a thing, or two about the genre. It is something that I was fascinated by as a child, and something I continue to be fascinated by as an adult. So, what makes it so fascinating?

Horror Protagonist 

  
   The protagonist of any horror tale is always the most important part. That is the role that we as the reader, viewer, player, etc identifies with. The protagonist's job in any genre is to vicariously place us into the situation. To truly pull this off is to make the protagonist as relatable as possible. If your lead role is that of a machine gun wielding, super bad-ass then...where's the horror? 

  As an example, I'll use Ellen Ripley, from Alien, and Laurie Strode from Halloween. Both of these characters are just normal, everyday people. Ellen Ripley is pretty much the equivalent of a trucker (in outer space). She's just a blue collar worker that was thrown into a horrible situation. Laurie Strode was a teenage, high school girl. She had no super powers, or special abilities. She wasn't that different from me or you, aside from having a mentally unstable, nearly invincible serial killer in her family tree. The reason these people were effective as protagonist was because they were ordinary people thrown into an extraordinary situation.

 Not exactly the pillar of gun toting bad-assery.   

  The video game equivalent of this is probably Harry Mason from Silent Hill.  Harry Mason is just your normal, everyday guy who stumbles upon a town that apparently is run by every nightmare anyone has ever had. After waking from a car wreck on the outskirts of town Harry must venture into the town to find his daughter, who went missing after the crash. Hell, the only person of any combat training Harry finds is Officer Cybil Bennet, and her training doesn't account for much in Silent Hill. Which brings me to another point... 

  If the protagonist of a horror title is a combat trained bad-ass then the threat should be considerably greater than their ability. For example; let's take a look at Resident Evil. In Resident Evil the player takes the roles of either Chris Redfield, or Jill Valentine, two members of a special forces team known as S.T.A.R.S. who must battle through undead monsters to find any survivors of the T-Virus outbreak. While Jill can hold more items, and ammo than Chris, Chris is able to endure more damage than Jill. This is where the horror comes from. Regardless of the character the player assumes the role of they still have major flaws that could prove fatal. If the protagonist is on a level playing field with the threat then the piece segways from horror to action.  

Horror Antagonist 

  The antagonist of a horror title is a bit tricky to pull off since horror can come from many directions. In my experience there are three effective ways to make a convincing horror antagonist. 

• External- The source of terror is something that is tangible, and can be harmed to some degree. This type is the most commonly used; whether it be zombies, demons, aliens, etc. The external antagonist is usually symbolic of mankind's deepest fear; the fear of death. The Xenomorphs, from the Alien saga, and zombies represent forces of nature that mankind cannot fully control. Demons typically represent a sort of negative afterlife from various religions, and superstitions in which a person is eternally punished for misdeeds in this current life. 
•  Internal- Internal horror represents the darkest, and most cruel abilities of man. Whether the antagonist be a serial killer, or, in a plot twist, is the protagonist all along, the internal horror plot gives the person participating a look into what they, very well, could be capable of. Internal horror reminds us that, for all our civility and social guidance, we are all just a push away from being blood thirsty barbarians. 
• Unknown- In the picture at the beginning of this article is a quote from the author H.P. Lovecraft in which he wrote in a series of essays about horror in literature. I think that quote best describes using the unknown as a plot device. Fear of the unknown is something instinctual in almost all intelligent life forms. It's something that has been passed down as a survival mechanism. It's better to be afraid of, and avoid or destroy something, and be proven wrong than to assume it is peaceful and wind up...well...dead. Take the first Alien film, for example. The viewer rarely even catches a glimpse of the actual alien. We don't know what it is, but we do know it means harm. The fact that we can't see it leaves our imaginations to fill in the gaps. Nothing will fuck with you more than your imagination. Ask anyone that has ever taken LSD. 

 

 Atmosphere 

 

  Atmosphere is probably the most important part of horror. Atmosphere sets the entire mood, and in horror the overall mood of the audience, player, etc is paramount. The atmosphere of horror can comprise of setting, music, tension between characters, and other subtle queues that make the participant uncomfortable. The entire point of horror is to take people out of their comfort zone. No one is comfortable, and frightened at the same time. 

 

  Going back to Silent Hill, that game had a nearly flawless atmosphere (mostly due to technological limitations that I've mentioned before). The absence of nearly all colors aside from gray, brown, and black is very unsettling as they are not familiar. The unsettling atmosphere built up the anxiety in the player for when the monsters finally appeared. 

 

  Another example of atmosphere is juxtaposition. There's a little known Italian horror film called Zombie (or Zombi 2 for those in Italy...it's a long story). The bulk of Zombie took place on a beautiful, tropical island. The serene, gorgeous landscape of zombie made the brutality, and violence that much more impacting. Also, a zombie eats a shark. That was pretty cool, too.   

 

In Closing  

 

  Fear is an emotion almost all creatures. Human beings have the strange tendency to seek it out. Be it fans of horror, or adrenaline junkies, most people have the desire to be frightened at some point in their life. Maybe it's because we, as a species, have grown to the point that natural fear is not as prevalent as it may have once been. Maybe it's because fear reminds us that we aren't infallible. Maybe some people just enjoy getting the piss scared out of them. There are many answers, and theories as to why some people enjoy being scared. For me, it's just a barrel of fun.

 

 As always, thanks for listening.    

Genre Specific

  So, my vacation was over last Friday. That would explain my lack of posts between then, and now. It was fun while it lasted, but I do have bills to pay, and I do enjoy eating every once in a while. So, unfortunately, I had to go back to work. However, that did give me time to think of a new topic to discuss. This comes from a particularly heated debate over the upcoming Super Smash Bros. title. Now, as most of you reading this are aware, I am a huge Super Smash Bros. fan. Completely unrelated to the point of this blog, but I thought I'd make it known.

  The argument that I was reading basically stated that Super Smash Bros. should not be considered a fighting game. I saw similar statements to The Last of Us, stating that it shouldn't be considered a horror survival game. This actually made me curious about the genres of video games as a whole.

What Determines a Video Game Genre? 

  Video game genres are different from most other genres of entertainment in that they describe the mechanics of the title rather than the overall feeling it should give the audience. If a movie is funny it's labeled comedy, if it's scary it's labeled horror, and so on. Let's take a look at some video game genres. If the game consists of jumping to different platforms, and meticulously collecting items it's called a platformer, if it consists of shooting enemies from a first person perspective it's considered a first person shooter, and so on.

  Why is that? Well, there are many plausible reasons, but I will focus on two of the major ones for this post. The first being that back in the early days of gaming video games had little to no story lines. If they did they were either printed on the arcade cabinet, or revealed if you beat the game. Games like Asteroids, and 1942 were considered shooters where as games like Donkey Kong, and SonSon were considered platformers. It made sense to label game genres back then based simply on mechanics. 

  When consoles came to market the story elements in video games were still pretty ambiguous. Most people who played Super Mario Bros. only knew that a princess was kidnapped, and the title character, Mario, had to save her. The explanation for her kidnapping was printed in the game's manual, which most people didn't read anyway. 

This was pretty much the bulk of the story.

 

  Another reason is that this system is convenient. It pretty much lets the player know what experience they're in for. If a game is labeled first person shooter the player can assume there will be a lot of shooting, and if it's labeled platformer the player can assume they will be jumping across platforms a lot. 

 

Why This System Needs to be Improved  

  

  With the mechanics of games growing more and more with each generation it really does them no justice to classify a game as one genre specifically as the lines between them are becoming more blurred, and more arguments are started between fans as to what genre the game should actually be. More first person shooter games are adopting RPG elements such as leveling, and upgrading. More platforming games are starting to implement mechanics from adventure games such as quick time events. The more video games experiment with mixing elements from different genres the more specifically labeling a video game with today's genre listing becomes obsolete. 

 

  Also, a storyline in a video game is almost essential with today's gaming market. Story, and plot elements in a game could effect the experience a player has playing the game on par with the game's mechanics. The Call of Duty series could fit comfortably with the Halo series and the Doom series in the first person shooter genre, yet I enjoy all three of them for completely different reasons. The same could be said for most genre games today. 

  Thus far, the best game genre, as far as name, I could find is horror survival. The name of this genre not only implies the atmosphere of the game, but the mechanics as well. Also, since "survival" is a pretty ambiguous description elements from adventure, first person shooter, and RPGs could be added seamlessly, and not detour from the overall presentation of the game. 

 

In Closing  

 

  I, personally, don't really pay much attention to video game genres. I care more about the experience of actually playing the game rather than what I should describe it as. I don't care if Super Smash Bros. should be considered a fighting game, or not. I still play the shit out of it, and enjoy every minute. It doesn't matter to me whether The Last of Us should be considered a horror survival game, or not. It had me on the edge of my seat when I played it, and that's good enough for me. I understand the need for a simple, yet descriptive system of video games, but I'd have no idea where to begin with it. So, I leave that to people who know more about it than me, and just enjoy my games. As always, thanks for listening.  

 

What Happened to Horror in Video Games?

  This is a topic I've been wanting to cover for quite some time now. Horror games have pretty much always been there, or at least horror elements in games. It's actually not that unique of a concept. If horror novels, and movies scare people imagine if they could interact with the horror themselves. That would be truly terrifying. It's a mechanic of video games that is as old as platforming. So, what happened?

  The common complaint I hear about horror games is that...well...there aren't any. At least not within the big budget, AAA titles that come out on the current console generation.  Where as Resident Evil once dominated the survival horror genre, the latest titles of the series have been geared more towards action/adventure than horror. Why is this? Well, let's just dissect a few of the concerns involving this genre.

Horror Games Just Don't Have The Same Charm Anymore

  This is probably one of the least common complaints about horror in video games, but it's still something that deserves some attention. What happened to effect of horror in games? Why is it that previous console generations seem to have more of an impact on players than those of the current console generation?

  Well, this is in part on the fact that developers are capable of doing a lot more in video games than in previous console generations. Just take a look at the original Silent Hill. Remember the creepy fog that covered the whole town? Well, that wasn't just for atmosphere. See, the PlayStation wasn't capable of rendering more than a few hundred polygons at a time. The fog was placed there to hide buildings, and other objects in the distance that hadn't been rendered yet. Another great example would be one of my personal favorite horror survival games of all time, Fatal Frame. 

One of the few ghost stories I'll forgive for adding "based on a true story" to their marketing pitch. 

  First, lets look at the ghosts in Fatal Frame. Why were they so scary? Well, because they were so vague. Even when you could make out what the ghost was they were so far off the uncanny valley that they barely resembled anything human. This wasn't, for the most part, intentional. This was due to the low processing power of the PlayStation 2. The effect of this, however, was leaving the player's imagination to fill in the gaps. Nothing will terrify you more than your own imagination. 

  Also, another common mechanic that attributed to the effectiveness in horror games in previous console generations were the controls. Controls weren't intentionally clunky, and awkward in these games. Truth is, horror games of the time weren't really sure how to utilize the player controls, and mostly relied on games before them. Resident Evil, and Fatal Frame both used almost mirror identical controls/camera angles as Alone in the Dark. The fact that these controls and camera angles were so awkward, and clumsy helped add anxiety to the players. 

  I'm not saying that big budget, AAA titles can't make a decent horror game using the improved capabilities of current, and future console generations. I just don't think they've found an effective alternative to the conventions of yesteryear. The closest I've seen is Dead Space, but even that game relies heavily on being so dark that most of the area is hidden. Maybe as developers toy with more mechanics we'll see something, but, as of now, the indie scene seems to hold the grasp on horror titles (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). 

Horror Games Rely Too Heavily on Jump Scares

  This is probably one of the most common complaints about horror games. Every time I look up a video about any horror game (be it a big budget title, or an indie title) one of the major complaints I see are about the game's reliance on jump scares, or questions regarding whether or not there are jump scares. This isn't new, either. I remember people complaining about jump scares back in the PlayStation/Nintendo 64 days.

Dead Space in a nutshell.

  To be honest, in my opinion, jump scares are a more effective tool in video games than any other medium. For an example, let's take another look at Dead Space. This game comes under constant fire for using jump scares pretty much throughout the game. Many people view them as cheap attempts at simulating horror, but I'd like to present an argument to that statement. Dead Space is effective because it primarily uses jump scares, but it uses them responsibly. If the game was nothing but a series of jump scares the novelty would wear off pretty quickly. Instead they programmed the game so that the scares happened pretty infrequently, and let the player's anxiety of anticipating them finally do the job of frightening them. 

  If one thing can fuck us over more than our imagination it's anticipation. Waiting, knowing something horrible is going to happen. Just not knowing when. It's the very reason that police usually leave a suspect in an interrogation room by themselves for a while before interrogating them. The anxiety that builds within them, if they are guilty, will chip away at their cool, calm demeanor. This can work with horror games far better than any other medium for horror entertainment. Leaving the player alone with only a vague understanding of the events happening throughout the game will lead their minds to process all sorts of possibilities (none that are pleasant), and catch them off guard when it finally happens. 

  The problem with jump scares is that they're usually implemented wrong. Most developers seem to understand that they are effective, but don't understand how or why they're effective. The how and why here are very important. If the player feels the jump scare more than what caused it then it's probably being done wrong. Just making the player afraid of being startled isn't really the purpose of the tool. It's to reinforce the overall horror of the situation unfolding. As with any other tool in gaming, jump scares can be used wisely, or poorly. That's really all up to the developer. 

Horror Games are Becoming More About Action/Adventure than Horror

  This is probably the most commonly placed complaint about horror games, and the most reasonable. It seems that most horror games are going the way of making action/adventure games with some horror themes. A couple of great examples are Resident Evil 5, and Alan Wake which are pretty much action games with zombies. Why is that? 

I would've included this one, but I feel I've made fun of it enough. 

  Well, there are a couple reasons why. The main being for the sake of sequels, and franchises. One of the core benefiting factor in all of horror, not just video games, is the mystery. That single element of the unknown that drives out curiosity to find out more. Once the mystery, and horror is know the only logical next step would be to run in, guns blazing, and kill the shit out of it. With franchises like Resident Evil, and Silent Hill, everyone pretty well knows what's going on. Umbrella Corps does more harm than good, and the citizens of Silent Hill are just fuck nuts crazy ghost things. There is no reason to keep going back, and trudging through the horror when we know what the horror is. 

  The second reason has to do with sales figures. Truth is, horror titles don't sell as well as action/adventure. This leads publishers, and developers to rehash popular horror games on former consoles as action games, while trying to maintain the horror theme. Cult classics don't mean a whole lot to major publishers. They're mostly concerned with the bottom line. That is why you see far more horror titles from indie developers. For the most part, indie developers don't have corporate executives constantly barraging them with sales figures, and statistics. They can make whatever game they want without much interference. 

In Closing

  Will horror titles ever get back to the prominent niche they once held? Truth be told, I don't think they ever lost it. Sure, they're not as publicly displayed as they once were, but they're still out there. Also, it's not like the market was flooded with horror titles before. At most, you'd probably see three or four release a year. The only difference now is that video games are becoming more and more a focus of mainstream culture. Just so happens, that culture isn't as big on horror titles as they are on action/adventure, and shooter games. They're still out there. We just have to look a little harder for them now. 

  As always, thanks for listening.

Gaming Addiction

  Something that pops up in the media, though not as much lately, is the harmful effects of video game addiction on gamers, and those around them. While we all seem to passively dismiss this is more media sensationalism (for the most part it is), this is a topic that deserves some attention. By attention I mean more than a story on Dateline, or a topic for a day time talk show. As much as this is brought up in the media, very few actually try to analyse the situation at hand. I bring this up after watching a great series of videos on the Extra Credits channel over on YouTube, which I will include after this paragraph.

  For me, this issue is a fairly personal one. So, part of this post will be my opinions on the subject, and part on my experience with video game addiction. As many of you who know me probably know that I started gaming fairly young; around age 5, or so. My parents introduced me to gaming when they bought me my first gaming console (NES). Since then they have been very supportive, and, at times, patient with my passion/past-time. No matter what phases I went through in my adolescence (and there were a lot), video games have been one of the few that have lasted. 

  Something else people know about me is that I am very much an introvert. Even the one period of my life when I would go out "partying", and was heavily social I needed alcohol just to tolerate it all. I'd much rather just hang out with a small group of friends, or spend a nice, quiet day alone than to be in heavily crowded placed. Why is any of this relevant to the topic at hand? I'm getting there. 

  Video games help to fill a crucial void in my life. This may come as a shock to some of you reading, but I have a fairly large ego. I sometimes question whether I may actually be a narcissist, or not. With my inflated ego (which I'm working on) comes with an overwhelming sense of atychiphobia, or a fear of failure. Most people that fear failure simply never attempt anything they may feel they would fail at. This is where video games step in. 

  See, there are many differences between video games, and the real world. For this post I will only focus on two. As many reading this are aware, people are pretty shitty by nature. It's nothing new, really. For a species so dependent on validation, we seem to crush it whenever, and wherever we can. From the day most children start school, all the way into adulthood we constantly have someone reminding us that our best could always be better. Be it grades, job evaluations, social standings, etc. Video games, however, offer a means to fulfill this validation that most people seek. No video game ever intends on making the player feel utterly worthless (though a few seem to). They offer us a sense of accomplishment, worth, and meaning. 

  Another serious difference between video games, and the real world is guidance. Life does not come with instructions. It's pretty much just a series of trial and error up until the day you die. Trust me, no one has ever completely figured out this whole living business. If they claim to they are either lying, or extremely delusional. Video games, however, offer a clear means of guidance through instructions, objectives, quests, etc. Want to save the world? Well here's what you have to do. That's pretty much been the successful video game formula thus far. Even the Civilization games follow this primary mechanic. 

The only game who's instruction manual rivals that of  War and Peace in complexity. 

  As I stated before, video game addiction, or compulsion, is something I've dealt with personally. It wasn't really a problem for me until about middle school. There wasn't a single video game that spurred it, but could mostly be contributed to outside forces. See, I wasn't what you could call a popular kid in school. I was short, fat, really into video games comics, and DnD, and I had as much grace with talking to girls as a goldfish has survival skills outside of a fish bowl. I was what you could call a nerd. The few friends I had were all into the same shit I was. So, I rarely ever ventured from that group. The time I was supposed to spend in school on school work, or studying was dedicated to video games. Thinking about them, strategizing how I would beat a certain level/quest/dungeon, drawing my favorite characters, etc. My grades began to reflect this as well. 

  After me, and my parents moved to another state I decided to put my comics, video games, and the such on the back burner. Not abandon them completely, but I decided to give this real world thing a try. Come to find out it wasn't as bad as I thought. People, for the most part, actually liked me. I was considered one of the funny kids in school which is always a good thing. My grades started improving as well. Hell, I even got a really for real girlfriend. One that actually liked me, and didn't just turn her nose up to me when I stumbled on my words like a doofus. 

  By the time I made it to high school I was fairly popular. I learned that no matter what you look like, or what your into, everyone loves to laugh. Making people laugh is something I'm fairly good at. It was also in high school that I met a very good friend of mine, Michael. Through Michael, I discovered there was a whole group of people who loved video games just as much as I did. The only difference is they didn't let them rule their lives. Rather, we integrated our love for not only video games, but other nerdy shit into our lives, and managed to balance them in a mesh of nerd feng shui that worked out well for us all. 

  Today I am still very much an introvert, but mostly because I'm just more comfortable living that way. I also have a stable job (more or less), that, by most standards, pays decent. I have a stable relationship (again, more or less). I have my small group of friends. To be honest, as much as I do like to bitch about my current situation, I do have it pretty good. See, I was lucky, and broke out of this cycle pretty early. 

  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who never did. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live. Trust me, no one should take life advice from me. However, shutting yourself off in a fictional world, though satisfying as it may be, is unhealthy in more ways than one. Not only are you alienating people that actually care about you, but your missing out on so much the real world has to offer. I know life is shitty. Believe me. But the world does have some genuine good to it, and when you cut yourself off completely you miss out on all the good aspects of life there are to have. I'm not guaranteeing that everything is sunshine and rainbows in the real world, but it is real. You can see it. You can touch it. Most importantly, it is all yours. All you have to do is look for it. 

  As always, thanks for listening.  

Gaming Mysteries: Hell Valley Sky Trees

   I was taking a gander at the statistics for my blogs, and noticed that my blog with the most views was the one about my top ten gaming urban legends. You folks seemed to like that one. Like...a lot. It stands out as the most popular by leaps and bounds over my other posts. So, given that I'm now on vacation from work, I decided to do what I said I would long ago, and do some investigation into some of these urban legends. I had typed out an entire post about Bezerk, but it was lost when my computer crashed. So, I'm doing something different with this one.

  Before I start let me first state that I do not know if this will become a part of my regular blogs. This is only something I'm testing. Keep in mind that I also have a job outside of this. So, my schedule is pretty hectic outside of my blogging life. Also, I will not investigate any creepypastas such as BEN DROWNED, Sonic.EXE, or anything else that is out-rightly fictional. I may talk about them at later dates, but I'd rather look into urban myths, and the like that are grounded in some actuality. With that out of the way, let us begin.

  Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a game of some significance. To date it stands as the first, and only actual sequel to any of the canon Super Mario games. The game follows pretty much the same formula as nearly every other Super Mario game. Bowser Kidnaps Princess Peach, blah, blah, space, blah, blah. Honestly, if anyone played Super Mario games for the story, they'd have given up the ghost a long time ago. No, we all play Mario pretty much for the fun gameplay, and what's more fun than stomping shit in outer-goddamned-space? Nothing. The answer is, emphatically, NO-FUCKING-THING! However, maybe we should all pay a little more attention to Super Mario Galaxy 2. Never know what you'll find.

  Space herpes? I'm going with space herpes.

  The above picture is something found in the level Shiverburn Galaxy. When you get to the level switch to first person view, and look to your right. On the cliff you'll see these three mysterious creatures staring down at you. One user on the GoNintendo forums actually hacked the game, and found out that the sky model for the level was labeled "BeyondHellValley", and the creepy things on the cliff were labeled "HellValleySkyTrees". Since they are part of the sky model for the level they never move; giving the illusion that they're always following, and watching you. So, what are they? No one really knows. The folks over at Nintendo are being pretty hush-hush about the whole thing. 

  Nintendo's been known for hiding creepy easter eggs in their games. For example, the same creature seems to appear in Super Mario 3D Land, as well. Looking for answers to the Hell Valley Sky Trees, given how credible anonymous sources of the internet can be, is enough to give one migraines. However, some of the sources on the interwebs have went out of their way to actually find some useful information on the subject. 

  The above video is of the YouTube web series Creepy Gaming hosted by xMulletMikex. I suggest you watch part 1 to the video, but something Mike mentioned in this video is what I want to focus on. That would be the kodama. 

  For those that didn't click the hyper-link, kodama are spirits from Japanese folklore that are said to inhabit trees. It is believed that cutting down a tree with a shimenawa rope, the marking of a tree housing one or more kodama, will bring bad luck. The Hell Valley Sky Trees do possess an uncanny resemblance to kodama; especially their depictions in anime, such as Princess Mononoke. It also isn't uncommon for Japanese folklore to pop up in Mario games. The addition of kodama in a Mario game wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. 

  The one thing I love about the little hidden mysteries in video games is...well...the mystery. Getting to slap on my detective hat, and scour the internet for clues. In the end, more often than naught, I've found I learn much more than I had planned on. In one blog I have not only shown a creepy little easter egg in a video game, but have learned about, and shed some light on a little know aspect of a culture far far away from me, and probably most of my reader base. That, my friends, is called tangential learning, or the act of learning without the intent of learning. 

  Video games have always been, and will always be capable of doing this. Take Final Fantasy VII, for example. I wonder how many people researched any possible inspiration for the character Sephiroth, and learned of the Sephirot of the Jewish Kabbalah. Video games are capable of not only this, but many other amazing things. It all depends on us, as the players, to discover them. As always, thank you all for listening.

Addressing Complaints About Modern Gaming

  Before we start I need to make a couple things clear. First being that I am, in no way, saying that most complaints about the modern means of playing video games are illegitimate. I have many complaints myself. However, I am one to point out flaws in arguments, no matter which side I'm on. So, I'd like to take this time to address some common complaints many have with the current, and next generation of console/PC gaming.

  Also, my computer is currently down. I am currently typing this all on another laptop. Hopefully I'll have my own computer up, and running soon. Just addressing this minor inconvenience while I can.

Today's Videogames Focus Too Much On Online Multiplayer 

  I have made this complaint, myself, quite a bit. I find myself wanting a nice, single player campaign only to find that it has been stripped down to focus more on the online multiplayer features. It's infuriating. If a publisher wanted it's players to only play the multiplayer then why even feature a single player campaign? Some days I just want to sit, alone, on my couch (probably at least partially naked), and enjoy a game with only peace, and quiet as my partners. Sometimes I don't like being reminded of the numerous teenagers my mother has had affairs with.

  With that said, online multiplayer isn't all bad. I remember back when I was in middle school, and playing an online match of Unreal Tournament at a friend's house. I was blown away. Up to that point, getting a multiplayer match of...well...anything was a hassle. I had to invite friends, they had to get permission from their mothers, etc. There was a lot of leg work involved. Now there's this magical thing called "online multiplayer", and I could connect with people all over the world, and we could play video games. This was a utopia I had only previously fantasized about. Also, there was no split screen. So, no one could cheat by looking at my screen. 

  I still don't get why online multiplayer is the primary focus of most modern games is online multiplayer, but that's mostly because I'm older now. I have a job. I don't have as much time to waste playing video games as I used to. Plus, getting older naturally makes some people more cynical. However, the teenage me loved the idea of online multiplayer, and, to some degree, I still do. I do miss having split screen multiplayer, but that's something I frequently look at through rose tinted glasses. Most of my friends have families, and/or jobs. Getting a group together when we were teenagers, and our only concern in the world at the time was the due date of a school project was a hassle enough. It'd be near impossible now. 

DLC is ruining games 

  I look at a game like Batman: Arkham City, see the Catwoman missions (something that is part of the actual game) are part of a DLC bundle, and become infuriated. Why in Satan's fiery dick should I pay extra for something that is part of the fucking game?? Why not...oh, I don't know, leave it in the game that I shelled out 60 bones for to begin with? In that respect, DLC is a leech in the form of code. 

There's a special place reserved at the deepest bowels of Hell for EA. 

  To counter my own argument, allow me to tell you all another story from my childhood. It's about the time I discovered these magical things known as expansion packs. See, I was completely in love with this one game, Diablo II. I spent the time in school that should have been dedicated to studying going over strategies in my head on how to clear the dungeon I had been stuck on. So, naturally when the expansion pack came out, Lord of Destruction, I had to have it. I wanted it mostly for the new quests, but was pleasantly surprised to find out that two new playable classes had been added. That was like the same level of excitement as if I had found out my parents were splitting up, and I'd get two Christmases, and birthdays. 

  DLCs, for the most part, serve the same function as expansion packs. They're put there to gives us a little more of the experience we enjoyed with the original game (and to make money, of course). And, since DLC is digital, you don't have to get off your ass, and leave the house to get them. Just pay the fee, and download the product. My teenage head would've exploded if I found out that option was available. 

Games focus too much on graphics nowadays

  I hate it when someone is describing a game, and the first words out of their mouth praises the graphics. I don't care if Super Skullcrusher 3 runs in 1080p, is it fun? A game's mechanics should not become second to it's graphics. A good example of this is Sonic '06 (brace for the flood of Sonic fans). That game was pretty damn gorgeous for it's time, but was bugged so badly that it was nearly unplayable. Also, a lot of people confuse graphics with aesthetics, thus causing developers to mostly focus on graphics. Graphics are, for the most part, shading, polygon count, etc. Aesthetic has more to do with how the game looks. Color pallets, and so on.

   Now, let's look at a good example. Take a look at Naughty Dog's most recent IP, The Last of Us. The Last of Us not only looked good, but had solid gameplay to back the graphics up. Also, the look of the game helped to covey the overall message of the story. This is where graphics, and aesthetics shine. Better visuals could lead to better stories. In today's video game market a story line is just as important as everything else. Visuals help to convey the story better. 

  That's not to say that a game needs good graphics, and aesthetics to tell a good story. Take Limbo, for example. This game is completely in black and white, with only the silhouettes of the main characters, and what few NPCs shown. Yet Limbo manages to suck the player right in, and have them sympathizing with the main character who is only wanting to find out if his sister is at peace in the after-life.

Modern games aren't as challenging as older games

  I remember when I first played the game Ghosts 'n Goblins. To date, that game is still considered one of the most difficult games ever made. Ghosts 'n Goblins ruined more childhoods than the bike shop episode of Different Strokes (watch at your own discretion). I screamed at that game until my voice went out. Which made it all the more satisfying when I beat a level. I miss that in video games.

  The truth is, I mainly miss that element of games because it resembles something familiar from my childhood. I'm older now, and with aging comes bitterness, and becoming jaded to nearly everything you love. The only reasons games were that difficult back then was because they were either in arcades, and that's how the cabinets made their money, or because the console limitations of the time made making games difficult essential to stretching out the gameplay, and life span of the game. 

  With the capabilities of today's consoles, and PCs, making a game ludicrously difficult to make the player feel like they get every penny's worth they paid for it isn't necessary. Just take a look at The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. There are so many side quests, and optional objectives that the game can last far longer than just the main story line. This isn't only capable in open-world games either. Going back to The Last of Us, that game lasted me about thirteen hours of combined gameplay, and I didn't even grab all the collectibles, or see all the easter eggs. Also, if multiplayer is your thing, the online multiplayer has it's own separate story line. 

 Microtransactions are evil 

  A few months ago, Square Enix released a Final Fantasy game on mobile devices called Final Fantasy: All the Bravest. This installment of the series promised to let players play as key characters from the Final Fantasy universes. What they didn't tell you is that the game was made impossibly difficult so that players were left with two options; wait until your characters revive, or purchase more characters (selected at random), or golden hour glasses to revive instantly. This was considered to be the most greedy move ever made by Square Enix. 

 Also know as "money vacuum" to everyone that has ever played it. 

  Now, let's look at a good example. Around 2010 an indie game known as Path of Exile was being developed. Now in open beta, Path of Exile is completely free to play, getting their funding from donations, and "ethical microtransactions". The in game purchases of Path of Exile change only aesthetic features (clothing, accessories, etc), and has no bearing on gameplay whatsoever. 

  Microtransactions, like many other features that are starting to be put in games, are really like a double edged sword. On one hand they can completely vilify a company that implements them solely to make more money. On the flip side, they can be used to fund great games that would otherwise have little to no funding. 

In closing 

  Many of the problems most of us have with modern games are legitimate problems, but there is good along with bad in most of these instances. If all we mention are the bad then that is all developers, and/or publishers are seeing, and could scrap the ideas altogether; even the good parts. The good needs to be focused on just as much as the bad so that the powers that be behind our video games could see that feed back, and, hopefully, focus more on the good aspects. Video games, as much as they are an art form, is a business. No business person in their right mind would do something that the customers don't want to happen. They're far more interested in making money. Just look at the Xbox One's policy reversal. 

  I want to thank what few readers I have for checking out my blogs, and listening to me rant, and rave about video games, and other nerdy shit. It means a lot to have an outlet for my opinions, and to have people to listen to me. So, thanks for putting up with me.   

Horror in Film and Games

    A while back I came across a post in Reddit's /r/truegaming that asked "Do you find horror games scarier than horror films?", and made me think on the subject a bit more than I may have in the past. As the capabilities of video games, and interactive mediums in general constantly rise the borders of film, and game are becoming more fine. Now, there are still very clear differences between the two, but they are becoming more and more a like with the passing of each generation.

  So, which is scarier? Well, horror, like any other genre or art form, is completely subjective. Different things scare different people. There is no definite answer here I can give, but I can elaborate on the effectiveness of both mediums, and give my opinion on them.

Survival Horror

  I know I have spoken to great lengths about my disdain for modern survival horror games (something I will delve further into in the near future), but to speak on that would be counterproductive to the purpose of this blog. Instead, I will use good examples of horror survival games.  I feel that tactic would be best in demonstrating the effectiveness of horror in games.

 

  Most people who know me know that one of my all time favorite horror survival games (and one of my all time favorite games period) is Fatal Frame. The creepy atmosphere, eerie soundtrack, and skewed camera angles effectively kept me on the edge of my seat throughout the entirety of that game. I recently purchased the game on the PSN market, and found that it is still just as effective at keeping my nerves on end, and my pants soiled. Why is that? 

  Well, survival horror remains one of the only video game genres where the genre name not only implies the mechanics of the game, but the overall feelings it evokes in the player. When you play a survival horror game you're not screaming commands to a character on the screen. You are that character. You realize those obvious decisions you screamed at actors to make in horror films aren't all that obvious, or easy to make when you're under stress. If something goes wrong it isn't the character's fault; it's your fault. This is the advantage survival horror games have over horror movies. 

  Also, jump scares work better in survival horror games than they do in a horror film. In a horror film, when a jump scare occurs it may startle you, but that's pretty much it. In a survival horror game not only are you startled, but now you have to face whatever unholy abomination just popped out. This effectively keeps the player on their toes. Also, since most enemies in games can be randomly generated, this keeps the mechanic fresh.  

Horror Films 

 

   

  

   Horror in film is something as old as...well...film itself. Since before the 1900's horror films were being made, and improved. Horror filmmakers have been honing their skills for generations, and picking up techniques passed down the line from great filmmakers before them. Like any other entertainment medium, it's a lot of hit and miss, but horror films have been frightening audiences for over a century now, and show no signs of stopping. 

 

  So, how do they compare to video games? Well, they really don't. Horror films implore different mechanics than horror games. Whereas a horror survival game thrives on putting the player in a frightening situation, horror films place the audience spectating the events as they unfold. This is where horror films work. The audience has no control over the situation. They are completely helpless in determining whether the main protagonist of the film survives through to the end, or not. 

 

  Another great attribute of horror in film, when executed correctly, is causing a connection between the audience, and the characters on screen. You can see this in horror survival games also, but it really shines in film. Each person of the audience can find, and identify with a certain character of the film. This makes it all the more satisfactory when they survive the horrors of the film, or all the more terrible when they meet their demise. This is something video games are rapidly improving on, but, in my opinion, is still done best in film. 

 

 

In Closing 

 

  Survival horror games, and horror movies have been growing, and improving over the years. Neither show any signs of going away any time soon, and I'm honestly glad for it. I'm the kind of man who wants to have his cake, and eat it too. I love horror films as much as I love survival horror games, and would hate if either of them went away for any reason. So, what are some of your opinions on the subject?