Ah, it was a good week! I mean, not much of value actually happened, but the few oddities out there are at least worth mentioning.
For example, you may have heard by now that fans of Mass Effect are majorly pissed off over the ending of the third and -supposedly- final installment of the series. I did my best to avoid spoilers as I'm only now going through the first game, but I did read at least one article condemning it because for a series that relies on player feedback and a "choice" system, the ending isn't affected by either. I can't verify it, but I'd hold off on all the screaming and condemning; As i said, I'm only now going through the first game, but the so-called player choices only seem to slightly affect details in the overall arc.
Actually, one fan went as far as petitioning against the game by complaining to the feds that the company falsely advertised the product, as he and his cohorts did not receive the epic ending the game had promised them. If this argument makes sense to you, you are insane. You don't get input in a fundamentally creative process and you don't get to motion a petition against it, just because you're not satisfied with it. I can petition against the local diner if my steak didn't come with the sauce it was advertised with on the menu (in theory, anyway), but not because I didn't like the damned sauce.
See, you can cry about "choices" in videogames until the cows come home, but if you expect good writing and a celebrated opus (like Mass Effect is in the Industry today), you can't expect your feedback to matter all that much.
Which ties nicely into my argument the other day about how video-games cannot, in their current form, be art because not only do they rely on, but they systematically try to increase player input in real-time. You may argue that they don't need to be (a position I share, mind you) or that they are a different type of art.
This argument I can sort of get behind-- or rather I could, if your beloved Smithsonian Museum didn't decide over the weekend that videogames are, indeed, art. Ironically, I found this info from a Tweet by Roger Ebert.
The problem with any established 'expert' making this declaration is that they are judging with the current, established standards of what is and isn't art. What is art, currently, is a creator's chance to convey a message and/or emotion via their work and communicate that message to their audience. If the week-long outrage over the ending of Mass Effect 3, as well as the series' fame based on its choice system, proved something is that not only aren't games true art, but the games most players want are the ones that are as far removed from the traditional definition of art as possible.
Players want to matter and an interactive medium can convey that in a new and exciting way. I share the sentiment, but until we redefine art (possible, but distant) or we just stop giving a rat's ass, I'd suggest holding off on the celebrations.
Player choices about what should define videogames are so diverse, in fact, that maybe we should drop the subject altogether. Earlier last week, Kotaku's Stephen Totilo made a post in the site, in which he berated (with intention to amuse and inform) players for their play-choices in Bioware's space epic. In particular, his problem was that too few people were playing as female Shepard (the protagonist of the series), despite Jennifer Hale's celebrated performance in the role and moreover that even when they did, they all played as a soldier instead of another class.
I find the whole post funny, assuming just for the sake of argument, that it was meant as serious criticism (which it wasn't). I'm rarely one to rush to defend the mindless masses of morons that call themselves "gamers" these days. Hell, for all the game's critical acclaims and awards, I'd still put Mass Effect fans in that category. It's not that great a game series, it's just several steps above the overall blandness of this shooter generation (in that, this generation is all about shooters, not that ME is really a shooter).
But as long as it passes itself off as an RPG, it's open to be played however each player desires. Seeing how RPG still means "ROLE-PLAYING game" and traditionally players want to see themselves in the position of the super-hero with the big guns, yeah, most people are going to play as the male Shepard. At least in their first play-through.
Which is also why they can choose to play the game as a shooter in the soldier class and after the aforementioned "hissy-fit" (again, not being serious), you can't really berate anyone over that.
Do you berate people when they play Warrior Class in any other RPG? Do you think they should be playing the Mage/Controller class (which is the rough equivalent of the Engineer class from ME), because they are not hack 'n' slash games?
Or maybe it's because even in good RPGs, such as Dragon Age (Origins, that is), combat still relies on the rolling dice and the huge-ass sword you're carrying around isn't a guarantee about the outcome of the battle. Hmm, I wonder why many people play Mass Effect as a shooter, even though it's not. Could it be, because Bioware MADE THE DAMNED THING INTO ONE?
Which is what it comes back to. Developer choices trump player choices, but are still pretty reliant on each other. A mediocre game can well-damn decide how it will play-out and you can only have an impact on the aesthetic details that improve your own sense of immersion into its world. That's how you may redefine art; step one would be growing the fuck up. Step two we'll find somewhere down the road.
In other news, of lesser importance, on July 1st ISPs all over the US will start monitoring your activity and report to the authorities any cases of piracy. It has happened before, usually under direction of RIAA and MPAA (a.k.a. the people who lose no money from your downloading their stuff for personal use, but would like to take your home, car and unborn kids anyway) and not just in the United States. This sets a precedent that WILL quickly spread (the USA were not the only ones with a strict anti-piracy law in the works) and it's nothing less than the zombie children of SOPA and PIPA chasing after ACTA to fuck up your Internet.
At this point, any anti-piracy law seems to heavily rely on somebody (government or private companies) spying on you and if that doesn't scare you, your lungs deprive the rest of us of valuable oxygen. You know what to do.
Sources: The Internet, random forum posts, Twitter, blah blah.
For example, you may have heard by now that fans of Mass Effect are majorly pissed off over the ending of the third and -supposedly- final installment of the series. I did my best to avoid spoilers as I'm only now going through the first game, but I did read at least one article condemning it because for a series that relies on player feedback and a "choice" system, the ending isn't affected by either. I can't verify it, but I'd hold off on all the screaming and condemning; As i said, I'm only now going through the first game, but the so-called player choices only seem to slightly affect details in the overall arc.
 |
| I always liked how Ashley's suit made her look like a Star Sheriff. |
Actually, one fan went as far as petitioning against the game by complaining to the feds that the company falsely advertised the product, as he and his cohorts did not receive the epic ending the game had promised them. If this argument makes sense to you, you are insane. You don't get input in a fundamentally creative process and you don't get to motion a petition against it, just because you're not satisfied with it. I can petition against the local diner if my steak didn't come with the sauce it was advertised with on the menu (in theory, anyway), but not because I didn't like the damned sauce.
See, you can cry about "choices" in videogames until the cows come home, but if you expect good writing and a celebrated opus (like Mass Effect is in the Industry today), you can't expect your feedback to matter all that much.
Which ties nicely into my argument the other day about how video-games cannot, in their current form, be art because not only do they rely on, but they systematically try to increase player input in real-time. You may argue that they don't need to be (a position I share, mind you) or that they are a different type of art.
This argument I can sort of get behind-- or rather I could, if your beloved Smithsonian Museum didn't decide over the weekend that videogames are, indeed, art. Ironically, I found this info from a Tweet by Roger Ebert.
 |
| The Smithsonian American Art Museum. |
The problem with any established 'expert' making this declaration is that they are judging with the current, established standards of what is and isn't art. What is art, currently, is a creator's chance to convey a message and/or emotion via their work and communicate that message to their audience. If the week-long outrage over the ending of Mass Effect 3, as well as the series' fame based on its choice system, proved something is that not only aren't games true art, but the games most players want are the ones that are as far removed from the traditional definition of art as possible.
 |
| The Starfleet's best vessel "The Ark", out to beat those nasty Cylons. |
Players want to matter and an interactive medium can convey that in a new and exciting way. I share the sentiment, but until we redefine art (possible, but distant) or we just stop giving a rat's ass, I'd suggest holding off on the celebrations.
Player choices about what should define videogames are so diverse, in fact, that maybe we should drop the subject altogether. Earlier last week, Kotaku's Stephen Totilo made a post in the site, in which he berated (with intention to amuse and inform) players for their play-choices in Bioware's space epic. In particular, his problem was that too few people were playing as female Shepard (the protagonist of the series), despite Jennifer Hale's celebrated performance in the role and moreover that even when they did, they all played as a soldier instead of another class.
I find the whole post funny, assuming just for the sake of argument, that it was meant as serious criticism (which it wasn't). I'm rarely one to rush to defend the mindless masses of morons that call themselves "gamers" these days. Hell, for all the game's critical acclaims and awards, I'd still put Mass Effect fans in that category. It's not that great a game series, it's just several steps above the overall blandness of this shooter generation (in that, this generation is all about shooters, not that ME is really a shooter).
But as long as it passes itself off as an RPG, it's open to be played however each player desires. Seeing how RPG still means "ROLE-PLAYING game" and traditionally players want to see themselves in the position of the super-hero with the big guns, yeah, most people are going to play as the male Shepard. At least in their first play-through.
 |
| WHY SO SERIOUS?!? |
Which is also why they can choose to play the game as a shooter in the soldier class and after the aforementioned "hissy-fit" (again, not being serious), you can't really berate anyone over that.
Do you berate people when they play Warrior Class in any other RPG? Do you think they should be playing the Mage/Controller class (which is the rough equivalent of the Engineer class from ME), because they are not hack 'n' slash games?
Or maybe it's because even in good RPGs, such as Dragon Age (Origins, that is), combat still relies on the rolling dice and the huge-ass sword you're carrying around isn't a guarantee about the outcome of the battle. Hmm, I wonder why many people play Mass Effect as a shooter, even though it's not. Could it be, because Bioware MADE THE DAMNED THING INTO ONE?
Which is what it comes back to. Developer choices trump player choices, but are still pretty reliant on each other. A mediocre game can well-damn decide how it will play-out and you can only have an impact on the aesthetic details that improve your own sense of immersion into its world. That's how you may redefine art; step one would be growing the fuck up. Step two we'll find somewhere down the road.
In other news, of lesser importance, on July 1st ISPs all over the US will start monitoring your activity and report to the authorities any cases of piracy. It has happened before, usually under direction of RIAA and MPAA (a.k.a. the people who lose no money from your downloading their stuff for personal use, but would like to take your home, car and unborn kids anyway) and not just in the United States. This sets a precedent that WILL quickly spread (the USA were not the only ones with a strict anti-piracy law in the works) and it's nothing less than the zombie children of SOPA and PIPA chasing after ACTA to fuck up your Internet.
At this point, any anti-piracy law seems to heavily rely on somebody (government or private companies) spying on you and if that doesn't scare you, your lungs deprive the rest of us of valuable oxygen. You know what to do.
Sources: The Internet, random forum posts, Twitter, blah blah.
No comments:
Post a Comment