KingSigy

Male
from Connecticut

  • Activity

    • Disappoint ? Bad

      1 year ago

      KingSigy

      Destiny is the greatest version of "Follow the Dot" I've ever played. You sure do a lot of looking at your radar, running straight towards the objective and forgetting exactly where you are. Don't get me wrong; the graphics are nice and all, but the level design doesn't matter.

      I can't recall half of the missions I've even done in Destiny. I do side missions in the same area and I don't even realize it. When I log on to help my friend, I can't even guide him through an area I've previously completed. I end up relying on the dot and everything else is blank.

      On the other end of the spectrum, I recently played through Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin. I wasn't enthralled with the original, but I honestly forgot how lackluster the level design is. It may not be "Follow the Dot," but the interconnectivity makes no sense.

      You'll go from a woodland setting, up an elevator and enter some lava pit. How is lava existing above a forest and not seeping down? For that matter, why is warping at bonfires such a prominent feature? I can't remember where I've been and what bosses I've finished, despite being level 240.

      Oh no...Not you two again...

      The pedigree that each developer had before making these games makes them all the more disappointing. How do you go from Demon's Souls and end up with Dark Souls 2? Where does the idea of Halo becoming an MMO go wrong?

      Is either game bad, though? Honestly, no. I've managed to beat Dark Souls 2 four times and I'm currently still playing Destiny. I didn't even want to give Destiny a shot, but my friend persuaded me into it. Logging around 24 hours is pretty good for being indifferent.

      Even if most of the package is lackluster, both Destiny and Dark Souls 2 get their core mechanics right. It's fun to pick up a gun and shoot in Destiny, while Dark Souls 2 makes the act of timing your attacks, item usage and defensive tactics engaging.

      Dark Souls 2 may lack the art direction, world design and enemy design of it's predecessors, but fighting is incredibly awesome. There are new moves, a slightly faster speed and an extensive amount of weapons (though some are basically copies of each other).

      Destiny has horrendous level design, a pretty garbage story and a lack of enemy diversity, but the speed, weight and feel of firing your weapon keeps you coming back for more. The loot system is captivating, the quests are quick and plentiful and the PvP harkens back to what Bungie did with Halo's multiplayer.

      YES! ACTUAL GAMEPLAY!

      The small hub areas are pretty pointless and all the "emotes" are regrettably locked behind a microtransaction system, but finding friends and embarking on a short quest is fun. It feels different to experience the typical MMO mold from a first-person viewpoint.

      I can't disagree with any of the haters of either game; they make a lot of valid points. Both titles feel like they are resting on the laurels of their creators. Even more, both games kind of reverse the mentality that was set up with their predecessors.

      Demon's Souls was all about making the world feel oppressive and deadly. You died quickly to make a point; death matters. In a world where dying throws you back around 5 seconds, Demon's Souls would cause you to lose your experience if you died. That heightened the tension as you now needed to really pay attention to everything.

      Halo was about adapting an old-school FPS design into a console format. Due to limited buttons, you were given two weapons. Since split-screen was such a big feature of consoles, co-op was added to the campaign in a way similar to Doom. Multiplayer was based more on skill than any kind of level system or perks.

      Dark Souls 2 feels like it is making concessions to get more people interested in the series. Hardcore fans will breeze through the game while newcomers won't understand what the fuss was about.

      Doesn't look all that appealing.

      Destiny is basically Bungie's take on Borderlands. It also reeks of forced online connectivity. There is no reason why the game could not be made offline and with split-screen. Those were core features of the Halo games that helped foster the community that exists today.

      What hurts the most is that both of these games could be better. I hate enjoying them as much as I do, but their foundations are so sound. If industry trends hadn't become so prevalent, I feel like Dark Souls 2 and Destiny could have been so much more.

      Either way, these two games prove that being disappointing doesn't necessarily mean that the game is bad. It could even be quite awesome.

    • Games As a Service

      1 year ago

      KingSigy

      Man, Street Fighter V is certainly great. It’s got ranked matches and player matches and…replays and…some short story bits and…um…not a whole lot else. I mean, comparatively speaking, this isn’t much different than Super Street Fighter II on SNES, but that also released in 1994.

      A lot of developers like to look at their games as “services”. When DLC is factored into the development cycle, one is constantly thinking about what is coming next. Does the base game end at going gold, or do you continue to release things steadily throughout the year?

      Most of us gamers grew up in an era where ceasing development was the end point of any changes to the game. There are always going to be last minute changes, but for the most part, calling a project finished meant just that.

      More recently, however, games have continued to grow and expand. Killer Instinct launched on Xbox One as a free-to-play game with multiple seasons. Hell, that game is prepping for a third season and PC release; it is far from being finished.

      Not finished? The hell, you say?

      For that matter, Sony has molded Driveclub into a pretty respectable racing sim. That game launched with a laundry list of issues, but those barely remain. The constant stream of extra campaigns and new courses has also kept the game from becoming stale.

      If you look at the history of Street Fighter, you almost see the same thing. Capcom had listened to fan feedback and kept tweaking the foundation that Street Fighter II was built on. When the game’s initial run was complete, we ended up having six official versions of it; if you want to count the HD Remix, that makes seven.

      For that matter, both Street Fighter Alpha and Street Fighter III saw three different versions (and Alpha had some console ports with different things). Capcom has never been one to release a fighter and call it a day. Their previous efforts without the internet lead them to creating multiple SKUs.

      Street Fighter V is just the natural progression of their developmental mindset. They are no longer shackled to brick and mortar releases or physical distribution. The internet has changed the way which they can tweak their titles.

      That doesn’t excuse the lack of features in the current version. For $60, it is insane to expect people to be okay with waiting for content that is available in other games. A story mode is coming, but what is included just seems insultingly bare.

      And this is insultingly not bare (in the final game).

      For that matter, why are most of the online features not present? You would think with all of the work done on Street Fighter IV that Capcom would have some grasp of what their community wants. Basic multiplayer lobbies and better replay features should be present.

      This is all putting aside the fact that Capcom rushed the game out for tournament players. The deadlines for making EVO qualification were at the end of February, so Capcom needed this released to allow hardcore players to get in the competition.

      That doesn’t do much for the more casual gamer. I’m of the mind that a company as big as Capcom could have spent more resources to finish all of the features for launch. There is no compelling reason that anything should be absent, apart from planned DLC.

      If EVO were such a big concern, why not release a cheaper, digital only release with an upgrade option? We do live in the age of the internet, which is something Capcom is clearly banking on. My main concern becomes when any kind of server support for Street Fighter V is ceased; people will have a game on disc that is basically nothing.

      Then again, we are in the year 2016 and there are still Street Fighter II tournaments being held. Capcom has created a legacy with this series that will not burn out. Even if the genre of games saw a hiatus between Street Fighter III and Street Fighter IV, the rise of social media and blogging has given niches a voice.

      I know, Ryu; it is really stupid.

      Those voices wanted a return to the glory days of 16-bit fighters. Since 2009, I can’t even recall the amount of fighting games that have appeared. BlazBlue, Mortal Kombat, Persona 4: Arena, Guilty Gear Xrd; I could be here for a while mentioning them all. There was always an audience for this genre, but developers just assumed no one wanted to play them.

      As it stands, though, Street Fighter V is a bit disappointing. The game may be solid and have legs, but the amount of content present is unjustifiable. Anyone whom drops $60 on that and is happy is either blinded with nostalgia or just plain easy-going.

      Hopefully Capcom doesn’t go back on their word. They stated that Street Fighter IV would be a service, yet we’ve seen four different retail releases of the game. For what is planned, I have hopes for Street Fighter V. I like that playing the game will earn me new characters, which just plain makes sense.

      It’s almost like an old-school game; almost.

    • Does Doom Still Matter?

      1 year ago

      KingSigy

      No name speaks more of a quintessential first-person shooter than Doom. Doom was the catalyst for a cacophony of violent games in the 90's that eventually led to the ESRB being founded to regulate game content. Not only that, it popularized a genre of gaming that had yet to break out into the mainstream.

      While the initial sequel, Doom II, was actually better than the first game, developer iD Software has yet to make a game that follows up on the legacy set forth by Doom. Maybe it's a mixture of nostalgia and genre evolution that keeps holding them back, but for some reason, Doom cannot be topped.

      In a few months, the confusingly titled Doom reboot will be launching. Taking inspiration from a mod for the original game, Doom looks to up the violence and make the game as fast paced as it's forefather. The big question on my mind is; Does Doom still matter?

      Obviously one cannot debate the importance of the original title. It was one of the first 3D games with an arsenal of weapons and motley crue of enemies that was unparalleled for the time. It had revolutionary online play and extensive modding tools that allowed fans to make their own creations.

      I have no idea what I'm looking at.

      It also had some incredible graphics, a rocking soundtrack and some genuinely outstanding level design (that still holds up). Make no mistake; Doom was the real deal. My first encounter with it was in 4th grade. An old friend introduced me to it on the playground with the instruction manual.

      I didn't have a Windows PC, so I actually had my parents run out and buy a Mac compatible Windows 95 launcher just so I could try this game. While I did eventually get it running, it was missing some features and would often crash.

      My fascination with the game didn't stop until we eventually did get a true Windows computer. That was my very first computer, actually; a Packard Bell with a 3 gb hard drive. Those were much simpler times.

      Regardless, Doom was almost a taboo for how it "corrupted" the innocence of gaming. Parents were sickened at the depiction of "violence" the game had and it's demonic villains. I guess killing hellspawn is evil, even if it saves the Earth.

      News outlets were shocked at how you could mangle police officers (I still, to this day, want to know what game they played). Activist groups wanted the game removed from store shelves. The world was coming to an end and it was all because of this little game.

      This is just the second level of the game.

      Needless to say, the controversy was overblown and gaming continued to evolve. We now have more grotesque displays of violence in games and sexuality is even becoming a common occurrence. Gaming is a pop-culture staple that is slowly becoming less niche by the day.

      So what can a new Doom game in 2016 bring to the table? Does Doom need to be more than a simple throwback? Are fans ever going to be impressed with what gets released? I'm not sure I can answer all of those questions.

      The easiest to tackle would be the intention of a new Doom. Not every piece of media needs to have a deeper message or mean something more to it's medium. On occasion, a good, mindless, violent trip through excess and escapism is precisely what a person needs.

      A rough day at work can be capped off with a good, meaty rocket launcher explosion of your best friend (in game form, of course...). The cathartic quality that Doom always exhibits can't be understated; to this day, I still fire explosives in games and expect splash damage.

      The original Doom wasn't made with the purpose of reinventing the wheel. The developers saw a thing they liked, a new way to do it and set off to make it the best product possible. The main reason Doom succeeded so much was because of it's business model; a freeware version of the first episode was available for free through mail order and the internet (if one was lucky enough to own a modem in 1994).

      That gaming had not seen anything like Doom was merely a coincidence. Most game makers, artists and musicians don't set out to specifically enhance their art form; they tend to fall on an idea they all love and furnish it into something unique.

      How could you not be in love with this?

      Will fans accept a new Doom? Well, initial reaction says yes. Fans reportedly cheered at the unveiling during Quakecon 2014. No one but those attendees got to see the footage of the game and everyone was claiming it was going "back to basics". I guess they were on board.

      Then a year went by without much information leaking. No one was talking about the game and people hadn't seen what the gameplay was going to be like. Eventually at E3, a trailer was released that showcased footage to the general public. Now fans were skeptical.

      The "official" box art actually typifies everything wrong with the industry in 2016. The colors are muted, limited and saturated. The main character is faceless, staring at the ground and "gruff". The font takes up more space than anything else and shows nothing of what the game is.

      It just reeks of a cash grab. That is completely disregarding the actual quality of the game, but it seems that Bethesda only commissioned a reboot of Doom because reboots are the new, hot thing. Movie franchises are increasingly doing reboots and even Tomb Raider, another gaming institution, had a successful reimagining.

      Look how many shits she gives.

      Fans never seem to be pleased with anything. Gunning for that crowd will usually end in disaster. Still, whom else are you going to market a reboot of Doom to in 2016? Falling back on the legacy of your series will do nothing for newer gamers.

      Which brings us to the final question; What can a new Doom bring to the table in 2016? As I mentioned above, the main source of inspiration seems to be a mod for the original Doom called Brutal Doom.

      One of the creators of the original game, John Romero, was quoted as saying, "The only thing I think about now is.. what if... when we released Doom, we actually released Brutal Doom?" (laughs). We would have destroyed the gaming industry, I think. Brutal Doom is hilarious."

      I'm guessing that was all Bethesda needed to hear to fast track progress on a Doom reboot. A lot of the animations for weapons look like they were taken from the mod. The gore factor seems to have been clearly inspired by the mod. Sadly, the mod seems to be faster paced.

      Without taking that into account, though, what else could Doom do? Shooters have become a stagnant genre in recent years. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare seemed to be the last big shakeup to the genre in terms of evolution. It's online, RPG-lite system of unlocks caused a plethora of copycats that still haven't gone away in nearly 10 years.

      Level design has also remained the same...

      Call of Duty is also responsible for popularizing the down sight aiming that basically every shooter uses today. Along with Resident Evil 4 redefining third person combat, action gaming hasn't truly changed since 2005. The industry is falling back on old ideas and past successes to keep their inflated budgets and massive paychecks going.

      While Doom may not have started out with the intent of reinventing gaming, it's launch was special. It was a fundamental shift from being marketed as a toy for children into becoming a hobby that anyone could enjoy. It expanded the horizons of what software could do.

      Doom in 2016 just looks like the same boring stuff we've seen for decades. I've never taken Doom as a serious, scary, horrific trek through a nightmare. Doom has always been a goofy, colorful, fun filled time for me. How can you look at the original graphics and not feel happy?

      Even the defining features of this reboot, it's gore filled executions, was done in Gears of War. You would be forgiven for mistaking Doom as a first-person sequel to that series; the art style is practically the same.

      So, does Doom still matter? For cultural reverence, I'd say yes. As far as being an exciting, landmark event; hell no. There is nothing that Doom can do to become interesting again, apart from a complete shift in tone and setting (which would then defeat the purpose).

      What film producers, game developers and artists need to realize is that certain things take off because of their time frame. Doom was a massive hit because nothing else was like it in 1994. In 2016, we've seen so many things emulate Doom that gamers just don't care.

      And no one cares about this.

      Naming your game Doom and expecting it to sell is just naive. You would be better set creating a new IP and shifting focus away from the nostalgia laden masses. It's fine to claim the game is a spiritual successor to Doom, but to drag the actual legacy into the dirt is shameful.

      Then again, come May, I may be eating these words. The game could be good. Whose to say?

    • Metal Gear and Me

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      Not many game franchises mean much to me. I blow through games quickly and tend to forget them. As I've grown older, my skill has gotten better and I just have a natural tendency to blitz through games.

      Some games buck that trend. Zelda, Mario, Souls, Yakuza; these games are so well made and intriguing that I actively look for each facet of them. I want to experience every minute detail they contain.

      Then, there is Metal Gear Solid. There hasn't been many other games that have echoed different areas of my life. My first taste of MGS was with a PS1 demo disc, but I didn't get into the games until the PS2 and MGS2.

      I do still remember playing the living hell out of the MGS demo with my sister. We thought it was so expansive and daunting. We were scared to proceed, but interested in what the game held. The graphics were gorgeous and the atmosphere was second to none.

      Still, I never did get MGS on PS1. I either was too disinterested in the PS1 (being raised a Nintendo kid) or just plain forgot about it. Whatever the case, when I entered middle school, I found myself without many a friend.

      I'm Otacon in this picture. Dave was in love with Snake's name being David.

      I met a kid named Dave would introduced me to a lot of great games. Unreal Tournament, Neverwinter Nights and Metal Gear Solid. The first time I hung out with him, he beat MGS in an hour. He knew every inch of Shadow Moses and was able to show me exactly what was so special about the game.

      It looked absolutely incredible. I didn't realize that action games could be so in-depth and cinematic. While I didn't actually catch any of the story (since he skipped every scene), I loved the way the bosses were set up and how the game focused on an espionage story.

      At that point, I did finally want the game. What prevented me from taking the plunge was the announcement of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. I was a bit of a graphics whore back in the day and that game was easily the best looking game on the market.

      I was determined to get it. I tried buffering as many videos as I could online (I had dial-up!!!), but I mostly fell in love with the sound effects. I remember finding a theme for Windows 98 that augmented the task bar to look like MGS font and included every codec sound effect.

      Anyway, this was around the time I started to get into reading reviews. I had found IGN64 when I was younger, but my internet access was so limited that I didn't really frequent the site. In 2001, things were picking up a bit, speed-wise.

      I favorited IGN and Gamespy and looked to them for coverage on every game. MGS 2 just happened to be the biggest damn thing in the world, so I was ingesting every bit of info I could. When it was announced that a demo would come with Zone of the Enders, I waited patiently to get that game.

      While it wasn't a bad game (not great, either), I spent more time with the MGS 2 demo then any human should. I had beaten every difficulty level and found every stupid little secret. I was so blown away by how detailed the "Tanker" was. I needed to know what came next.

      At that age, I wasn't ready for the bombshell Kojima would drop on us. I never had an issue with Raiden (seeing as how MGS 2 was my first Metal Gear), but I couldn't understand what the plotline was about. I thought the ending was anti-climactic (it was written in the IGN review!!!) and I was angered that the plotline was mostly mumbo jumbo.

      Still, I had enjoyed the gameplay enough to get interested in the series. While I still didn't end up grabbing MGS on PS1, I did catch wind of Nintendo doing a remake of the first game. Since I liked the improved AI and mechanics from MGS 2, I figured getting the first game on the same engine would be for me.

      You really didn't mind me? Huh...

      While it took a few years to come out, I had spent time online playing Unreal Tournament 2003 and meeting some nice people. The best of those were two younger girls named Mai and Kim. I grew attached to them, despite our distance, and I spent a lot of my time fantasizing about them.

      Flash to when Twin Snakes was released and I was now in high school. During my biology class, we began to learn about the human Genome project. Much to my surprised, a lot of the plotline in Metal Gear Solid tackles ideas about how the human Genome can be manipulated.

      There was also the curious case of a voice actress having the name Kim Mai Guest. I saw these things as fate giving me hints. There was no way this was purely coincidence. Metal Gear knew exactly who I was and what I was doing.

      Hyperbole aside, I really fell in love with the characterization of Snake and his struggles against FOXHOUND. I loved the cutscenes as a child and my growing fascination with Japanese culture and Eastern philosophy seemed to hit a fever pitch.

      After completing Twin Snakes, I was dedicated to the series. I didn't want to miss anything else that came out. I wanted more Solid Snake. Learning that Metal Gear Solid 3 was just around the corner, I was ecstatic. How lucky was I to have 2 Metal Gear games in one year?

      Oddly, though, that Winter didn't go like I had originally thought. I had been a pretty bad kid in high school. I was falling in with a bad crowd and doing really idiotic things. I had become a thief and was constantly getting suspended. I was treating my own family like shit and manipulating teachers into letting me escape class.

      So at the end of sophomore year (in 2004), I had changed schools. I had a growing depression that I was unaware of and ignored. I just felt miserable when I walked into this new school. I spent the first few months before winter break basically alone.

      People were interested as hell on my first day and then quickly brushed me under the rug. It was hard to me to come to terms with being an "outcast" and not bonding with anyone. So when Christmas came along, I was gifted two games; Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metroid Prime 2.

      Returning after New Years is where my life changed a bit. I had met my current best friend, Jim, at lunch. I'm not quite sure how we managed to get in touch, but our chance meeting was met with lots of discussion about games and music.

      Jim's favorite series of all time happened to be Metal Gear Solid. When I told him I had yet to play 3, despite owning it, he told me to immediately do it. He was so infatuated with the game that he didn't understand how I let it slide past me.

      Ch-chow!

      I still tell him to this day that if he were a Metroid fan, I would have been more inclined to play that series. I didn't want to let my new friend down, so I dove into MGS 3. At first, I hated the game damn. Kojima's decision to stick with the old camera style didn't mesh with how much more expanded the game was.

      After breaking a controller in rage and screaming a lot, I kept playing. I forced myself through those opening hours. I wanted to make sure I had something to bond with this kid over. Sure enough, after about an hour and a half, I was enjoying myself.

      I also found myself bonding immensely with Naked Snake. The story of the birth of Big Boss seemed to resonate more with me. While Solid Snake was cool, Big Boss had actual emotion. He had talent, skill and passion. He was also a bit of a klutz.

      Instead of following in the footsteps of Solid Snake, Kojima decided to flesh Big Boss out more as a human. I understand, now, that this was all deliberate, but at that point, I had never seen a protagonist like this.

      My own sadness and misery were paralleled by Big Boss. He had lost everything he ever loved in the world. Worse still, he was put in charge of ending it. The Boss was so brave in the face of absolute death; I wondered why I couldn't be the same way.

      After finishing MGS 3, I was in love. I loved the entire experience. It quickly became one of my favorite games ever. It also cemented a friendship that still exists. Metal Gear grew from being the cool, new, flashy series to something more personal for me.

      I could just cry right now...

      Ever since 2004, I began to take gaming more seriously. I was no longer playing solely for joy. Now I got into how reviewers processed information and what qualities of game design I enjoyed.

      I dug deeper into why I played so much and why I felt more attached to Japanese style narratives then American ones. This brought about a new found interest in Martial Arts cinema. This also brought me closer to Jim, who was a bring proponent of kung fu.

      While college would see us part for a few years, we stayed in touch and kept similar interested. Music, films and games were what we loved. Every time we hung out, we'd talk about one or all of those.

      College sort of mirrored my high school life. While I wasn't committing petty crimes, I was pretty alone. I had made some friends who seemed to bully me more then I liked, so after 2 years, I came back home.

      This was in 2008 around the release of Grand Theft Auto IV. If anyone knows the history of Metal Gear, you should know that Metal Gear Solid 4 was on the horizon. Since I was back home and could hang out with Jim, I got to finally get a taste of what the PS3 had offered.

      He obviously bought the game and invited me over to play it. Even though he had already finished it, he watched while I played. Under such close supervision, I made a bunch of mistakes, but I was floored with the quality that Kojima had on display.

      Quality like a guy taking a dump in a garbage can.

      Never had a game looked so damn realistic. The cutscenes were so flashy and over the top and the action was more manageable then previous entries; Metal Gear Solid 4 was everything a fan could have hoped for.

      While I don't really care for the game, presently, that experience of playing it with Jim and seeing this whole new world of PS3 opened my mind to the possibilities of the next generation. I figured things could only get better from there.

      In a lot of ways, they did. Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker was the next major installment in the series. When I learned it had co-op, I nearly cried. Jim and I could finally play the game together. We both loved Metal Gear and to be able to help each other made me overjoyed

      The only problem was that I didn't own a PSP. Jim has a big problem with spending, so he actually had ended up with multiple PSPs after his trip to Japan. He also really loves collector's edition consoles, so the unveiling of a camo-themed PSP piqued his interest.

      In addition to getting the collector's edition of the main game, Jim also got the camo-themed console. It came with Peace Walker, so we were set to play the game. I don't think I ever had as much fun playing co-op with him or anyone.

      You guys ready to limbo?

      I loved the increased emphasis on gameplay over story. I liked the neat comic panels that took the place of full motion cutscenes. I also loved the ridiculous extras and Monster Hunter missions. Peace Walker was a great game.

      When the HD version came out, we beat it a second time. We even made sure to S Rank every mission. Our love of Metal Gear needed to be reflected in that Platinum trophy. I didn't want to stop until every small bit was vanquished.

      Now we can skip ahead to the present. While Jim and I were super excited for Metal Gear Solid V, we didn't really play into the idea of Konami splitting the game up. When Ground Zeroes was released last year, we both took a pass on it. While we wanted to play it, we figured it would be better to just wait and get the entire experience.

      Neither of us owned a PS4, either. We weren't about to shell out to get a single game (even if Ground Zeroes was on PS3), so we played the waiting game. This paid off as Konami announced a PC port for MGS V.

      PC has always been our preferred platform, even if Metal Gear has had a terrible past on it. Seeing Ground Zeroes running on PC was incredibly tempting. We nearly plunged during the 2014 Steam Winter Sale, but the $20 price tag was still a bit high.

      Earlier this year, a random sale saw Ground Zeroes dropped to $10. Without thinking, both of us quickly bought the game. We were both amazed at how many touches Kojima thought to add.

      Games have had a huge problem escorting people and allowing you to shoot. MGS V not only lets you aim and crouch, but you can flat out sprint with hostages. You can lay on your back and fire any weapon you desire. There is a neat "reflex" mechanic that allows you to silence foes before an alarm goes off.

      The control scheme is just so smooth. The scale of the island is massive. Ground Zeroes may not be long, but it is incredibly dense. It opens up so many possibilities that I can't believe other developers didn't tackle first.

      In an industry going towards more linearity and scripted sequences, it's refreshing to see a game with near limitless freedom. You are basically put in a map, given a target and told to go. It's intimidating and exhilarating. It makes you feel like you are Big Boss.

      Or like Solid Snake being Big Boss; either one.

      Our memories or too fresh to really say if Ground Zeroes will stick with us, but we are both waiting with bated breath for Phantom Pain. Since this is going to be Kojima's last Metal Gear, both of us need to experience it.

      Jim has even gone overboard and purchased both the Japanese and English collector's editions along with the Japanese themed console and a CE of Ground Zeroes. He is making sure that he does not miss the monumental conclusion to the Metal Gear saga.

      And for me; I just want to know how the whole thing ends. What other facet of my current life will Metal Gear reflect? Each game has seen me create incredible friendships or strengthen my inner acceptance.

      Without Metal Gear in my life, I wouldn't be half as engaged with gaming as I am. I wouldn't have found my best friend and I definitely wouldn't be a better person. I have Kojima to thank for that.

      It will be sad to know that a true Metal Gear won't exist after V, but I'm ready to accept reality. All good things must come to an end and while I really hope MGS V doesn't echo the end of my life, I can guarantee it will be the end of a certain chapter of my life.

    • Meaningful Content

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      In the last generation, we saw games getting bigger and bigger and budgets ballooning out of control. As publishers were looking to get as much return as possible, games became bloated with side-quests that had little to no relevance to the main story mode.

      Just this year, we have been given three games that do away with such fluff. Bloodborne, The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid V. In each game, every bit of content feels just. You never waste your time in areas that plaster up invisible walls or grant absolutely no benefit; if you undertake a side-quest, the reward is readily apparent.

      Take MGS V for example. At the very beginning of the game, you are unable to understand the soldiers in Afghanistan. This pretty much makes getting information a pointless endeavor. After finishing the first mission, you are informed of translators in the area that can be rescued. Doing so grants you the ability to understand the language in that area.

      It's an immediate payoff that gives the player a sense of accomplishment. Instead of including an activity because it's cool, the developers thought to award some palpable sense of achievement within the game itself.

      The Witcher basically has stronger plot points in the side missions then the main quest itself. One very early side quest has you tackling the mystery of a man's wife who has gone disappearing. You get to be a detective and figure out what occurred and the impact this has had on the man's life.

      Did you take her?

      It is supremely rewarding to dig into such a rich story. Most side quests can be boiled down to a few simple points; the game needs to be longer and the player can skip these. Since developers don't want the player to "miss" any important content, one can reasonably skip the side stuff and still get the entire story.

      Even before Wild Hunt, The Witcher 2 had an entirely different second act based on some decisions you made at the end of the first. It was a radical departure from what mainstream, triple A gaming was doing. That is getting a bit side tracked from my point, though.

      With Bloodborne, while the world may not be entirely open as in Witcher and MGS, you can tackle most of the boss creatures in an order of your choosing. There are even a great few that you can entirely skip. A lot of the work in getting to them is shrouded in obscurity and requires one to think outside the box.

      This leads to optional areas that are just as thrilling, frightening and meticulously detailed as the main game. More so, with the narrative being ambiguous and vague, the game encourages you to seek out as much information as possible. Without being told to, you are actively pushed to see the full picture.

      This subtlety to approaching story in a game makes Bloodborne utterly captivating. Coupled with the brutal combat mechanics and steep difficulty and Bloodborne becomes a game that can consume your life for a good month or two.

      Ah, yes, a good month or two....where is my cranberry juice?

      I do remember games being like this in my heyday. Games on the NES, SNES and even PS1 were more about creating experiences that rewarded player skill and investment. Not every game was supremely long, but every bit of content was worthwhile.

      I can't think of a Mario game where I would want to skip levels (other then 8-3 in the original being a bitch). Shooters like Quake were so morbid, dark and terrifying that I was compelled to press on to see the corridors that lie ahead.

      Then you look back at the last few years of gaming and you see pointless padding. Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Tomb Raider; newer entries in these series had so much pointless content that gamers gave up caring. Why do I want to climb towers in every city just to spot "important" locations? What benefit does collecting feathers or journals or hidden packages have for me?

      I was amazed when playing Sleeping Dogs and found out that a lot of the side quests have a tangible benefit to the player. Finding the hidden shrines would increase your maximum health. Getting all of the statues in the story missions unlocked extra finishing moves for your combos. It was wild to think that side content could actually mean something in the modern era.

      Then you look at inFamous: Second Son and all of the side stuff does basically nothing. Sure, you can level up your skills, but the game is so easy that nothing else over your starting arsenal is really required.

      It seems that for as big as we can make game worlds, there is some nagging need to include as much stuff as possible. It's as if the game isn't engaging enough, so developers have a desire to distract you from how mediocre it is.

      "You're right! I don't even care!"

      There are some complaints that MGS V is devoid of life (something lobbied at Ocarina of Time as well), but that doesn't even hold water. When I actively want to explore the game world, I don't care if hundreds of things are crawling around. I like exploring landscapes and seeing nature in a natural state.

      Taking a hike through a forest doesn't bring you to a lost tribe or hidden tomb (unless you happen to be lucky); one takes a walk through nature to escape the fast paced nature of their lives. It's a form of escapism that brings you back to reality and the purity of nature.

      It's also not a waste of time. Even though you aren't technically accomplishing anything, you are freeing your mind of the bullshit from your daily life. Your problems disappear for a few hours in a safe, fun and refreshing manner.

      Where are all the damn side quests?

      When a video game so perfectly encapsulates that (such as MGS V), why am I going to complain about a lack of visible life? I don't want more stuff in my games, I want my games to feel more complete.

      I just wonder why it took so long for developers to finally get around to making completely worthwhile experiences. I think that, in the years coming up, we'll see more and more games that cut out all of the trappings and stick to gameplay and extra missions that actually matter.

      That, or we can just look at Super Mario Maker and make our own stuff. I wish Project Spark were as open-ended as Mario Maker, because I would love to get in on manipulating my childhood memories.

    • Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      For youth growing up in the 2000's, AOL Instant Messenger was basically a way of life. Not having a screen name meant you didn't talk to anyone, apart from meeting at school. Gone were the days of clogging up phone lines or leaving your baggage at school; now you could continue the conversation at any moment.

      It allowed kids to express themselves freely while also giving others the time to calculate their responses. Talking face to face can be intimidating and difficult, but an instant messenger gives you lots of free time to contemplate just what you will say.

      That doesn't mean everything you type will be perfect. Far from it, actually. Emily Is Away shows just how mixed any seemingly innocent response can be. When two people are not ready to express how they feel about each other, it doesn't matter what medium of communication they are using.

      While this game may not resonant so much for younger gamers, anyone who actually used AIM will get struck right to the core. We've all had that one person we wished we could be 100% honest with. We've all wanted to speak our minds completely, but fear that saying the wrong thing will ruin everything.



      It's hard to see that come rushing back, especially when the entire look and feel of AIM is recreated down to a tee. It's neat to be taken back to a desktop from my youth and have it function basically the same way. I've also come to hate that damn message noise, for all the awkward things I said in my past.

      What the game reveals, though, is that both parties are in the same situation. A lot of men like to believe that women are manipulative bitches, but that isn't the case. Emily does care for you (well, the you from this game), but she doesn't know how to say it. She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

      Life has no single answer and she is just trying to figure everything out. She was always a friend, but possibly could have been more. If both parties had just said what they wanted, then maybe this romance could work. The great thing about this game (much like Depression Quest) is that the correct response will come up, only your character will erase it.

      Sometimes it's easy to type things in a furry of rage and adrenaline, but then you begin to second guess yourself. I remember moments like that, even if I tended to just speak my mind without caring. Still, Emily Is Away definitely captures all those awkward transitional phases of life.

      You can replay chapters, but all of the choices in place do not allow you to game the system. The outcome is fixed, even if your personality can be manipulated. It doesn't allow you to have the happy ending you want, which is a bit of a bummer, but also partially realistic.

      Instant messengers were a very impersonal way to chat with friends. You had anonymity and never needed to look someone in the eye. You didn't even need them to be present; you could type up a literal dissertation and plant it at their virtual doorstep. It had all the convenience of the modern era with just enough of a margin of error to make mistakes.

      It just made things weird. I remember my last year of high school and constantly talking to the one girl I fell for. She would blurt out her exploits and I'd be filled with rage, but I internalized everything. Since she couldn't see my face, she never knew there was an issue.

      I also got into some sociopathic practices and made dummy accounts to try and catch her in lies. It was a really troubling part of my life that I've done everything to forget. While I will never be cleansed of the nightmare, at least I acknowledge how wrong it was and never practice it.

      Emily Is Away doesn't get that dark with it's narrative, but it does make one wonder about how things could be different. If you said something else or badgered Emily a little more, maybe your future could come true.

      While it's mostly just a different way to experience a story, Emily Is Away does end up being a really cool little game. Essentially a choose your own adventure style game, Emily Is Away can shed some real insight on how you live and love. It also allows you to not hurt anyone in the process.

    • Reviewing One's Experience

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      So Batman: Arkham Knight is a flaming pile of excrement, right? Well, only if you're playing the PC version. Otherwise, the game runs fine and looks great. Should those negative review scores be revised, then? When WB and Iron Galaxy squash all the bugs, should we demand critics re-evaluate the game?

      With this weeks latest controversy over a game release, I began thinking about an old idea of mine. When does objective criticism and personal experience become a factor in a game review? A game cannot cater to every specific customer at once, but we see fans demanding such a thing from writers.

      The constant stream of, "No way this game is a 5," and "Too much batmobile. 7/10," are just pathetic. At the same time, maybe we should be seeing more objective takes on current games.

      While I used to be all about leaving personal experience out of the equation, I've shifted my viewpoint in more recent times. Unless a game has actual game breaking bugs (Which Arkham Knight does on PC), you can't truly call it a bad game. If it makes even one person happy, then it has not failed.

      Even made me question humanity. I'd call that a win.

      I've enjoyed a lot of critically panned games. Binary Domain is a brilliant shooter, but most reviewers couldn't be assed with it. Long Live the Queen is a charming text-based adventure, but critics didn't find a lot to love. Goat Simulator is also quite shat on, but I love how hilariously stupid it can be.

      My friend is also quite fond of WWE 2k15 on PS4. We both agree the game is a horrible, broken mess, but the glitches produce some of the most outrageous moments we've had in a long time. There isn't another game out there where Sting can do a split in mid-air while Hogan gets stuck inside the ropes.

      I'm getting tired of seeing people complain about review scores, as well. If someone personally feels that a game should be rated a 5, you don't have any right to refute them. You don't have to agree, but to shout that they are wrong is ludicrous.

      The 10 point scale for reviewing has long been abused. Critics will give average games a 7 and that tilts the scale in a negative way. Now anything below a 7 isn't worth looking at, which means that 7 is actually 5 and 5 then becomes something like a 3.

      I believe that has more to do with how ingrained school grading has become in society, but it still leads to a misconception about the quality of a game. It also does nothing to inform a reader if the game is any fun.

      I remember when GamePro still existed. They used to grade games in 4 different fields; Graphics, Sound, Control and Fun Factor. A game could get low marks in the first three, but Fun Factor was ultimately what most people were curious about.

      Ah, memories.

      Even if you end up hating a game after grinding away at it, the fun you had when you first popped it in should be worth it. If you live your life regretting the decisions you make and looking to strangers online for confirmation, you're doing something wrong with your life.

      What truly tipped in into this line of thinking was the end of 2011. I was eagerly waiting for games like Uncharted 3, Saints Row: The Third and Duke Nukem Forever. Those all quickly became my least favorite from their respective franchises, but it also taught me a thing about believing in reviews online.

      At the end of the day, the only person who will know you best is yourself. You cannot rely on someone's opinion when making a purchase. You should obviously reference a review to gauge any glaring errors in playability, but some person who has never met you is not a good indicator of something you may like.

      Why should I care if some random jerk thinks my favorite game is trash? Unless he is threatening game developers or personally assaulting my family, I don't know why his thoughts should impact mine. I like the damn game and that is that.

      This may be a bit sidetracked, but I just wish people would learn to use reviews for what they are; opinionated viewpoints. They are one person's account of how they saw the game. If you typically agree with that person, then the review might just be for you.

      Yeah; this guy.

      So at the end of the day, I believe personal experience should weigh more in a review score. Instead of trying to remove any trace of humanity from a piece, inject more of your own belief into it.

      As indie game writer Rob Marrow told me, "Of course I'm bias. I don't like this specific type of game." You can't always get what you want. Learn to deal with that.

    • On Nintendo and "Artificial Scarcity"

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      When the Nintendo Wii launched in 2006, you were lucky if you got one. The system was one of the fastest selling consoles, at the time, and ended up being the biggest success Nintendo has had with a home console. For years after release, the Wii was barely seen at stores.

      Many a parent confronted this situation in 2006.

      Flash forward to the present and we're seeing a similar pattern. Amiibos are scarce and the "New" 3DS is basically a myth to most people. Along with that, Nintendo has produced a scant few copies of their "limited edition" releases that have enraged fans who were unable to be at a computer when they were announced.

      While I love Nintendo, I honestly cannot defend these types of situations. The fact that small plastic figures are selling on eBay for close to $100 is just ludicrous. Nintendo is sitting on a literal gold mine (as shown by the sales numbers) and is, essentially, throwing away the chance for extra profit.

      This seems to be a trend with the company. Certain items are available for a short time and then vanish. Four Swords for the DSi was given away in a free promotion and then left the DSi Shop (it did resurface for four days, but it happened three years later).

      There are even special events that Nintendo runs for PokeMon that end up with impossible to catch creatures being absent from the digital worlds. Unless you were lucky enough to know to visit the Tokyo PokeMon center (or if you were even alive), you basically  missed out on Celebi and Arceus.

      Nintendo of America seems to be the worst of the bunch. With both Mario Kart 8 and Hyrule Warriors, the only collector's editions in the entire United States were at Nintendo World in New York City. While I was able to get the Mario Kart 8 bundle, I missed out completely on Hyrule Warriors.

      Stupid Sigy; This doesn't actually exist.

      I got to New York City at 7 am. The store opens at 8 am. My friend and I waited for an entire hour in line, only to find out at precisely 8 that they had sold out around 4 am. Why this information wasn't posted on Twitter or Facebook or even mentioned to people lining up is beyond me.

      What else really stings is that Nintendo reportedly only made around 300-500 copies of the collector's edition. I suppose if I really want it, I could shell out the $1,400 that the item typically runs on eBay, but now we're talking stupidity.

      Factor in another Wii U title, Smash Bros, and you'll be surprised to know that the Gamecube controller adapter (which only works with Smash, mind you) is virtually impossible to find. You can get plenty of the newer Gamecube controllers, but good luck using them with anything Smash Bros 4 related.

      This brings me to the current Majora's Mask situation. With the re-release of the game on 3DS, Nintendo issued a collector's edition (thankfully away from their one US based store) and a limited "New" 3DS. Do you think anyone who has a day job was able to get these?

      I somehow got my hands on the console. In a fervor with me in the bathroom, I ended up rushing through my "business" and jumping on my computer in seconds. While I think it was insane what I did, the fact that Nintendo is playing these kinds of games with retailers is just beyond unreasonable.

      This is the only Triforce I need!

      Nintendo, listen to me: You have products that people want. Fans of your games and creations are willing to pay good money to get "special" editions and collectibles. Instead of allowing scalpers to make a killing, why not release a higher quantity that matches demand?

      Better yet, why not announce what your future plans are? Instead of saying things are going well on the sales front, how about you give your consumers a concrete idea for finding these supposed rare items. Don't give us an excuse based on trade limitations.

      While I can't get behind Nintendo's artificial scarcity, I will at least say that each item is pretty special. Maybe it is because of how exceptionally rare these items are, but I cherish my "New" 3DS and am proud to say that I was able to get that stupid blue shell from Mario Kart 8. I just wish a few more people had the chance to do so.

      You've got nothing on a double Link assault!

    • Older and Older

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      "But time makes you bolder; Even children get older; And I'm getting older too." - Fleetwood Mac

      Birthdays are an event that I've never had a strong connection to. As a small child, I obviously loved getting new toys and goofing around, but somewhere in my teen years I began to question the practice of celebrating my day of birth.

      Why was everything supposed to be dedicated to me? There are other people in the world who were born on the same day, yet I am supposed to throw that thought away and focus on myself? Even with my self-righteous teenage attitude, I felt that I shouldn't draw attention to an event that wasn't of my choosing.

      I never asked for April 12th to be my birthday. I didn't even have a say in when I would be born, let alone at all. This isn't to say that I'm not thankful for life (ask me two years prior and I would say otherwise); I just don't think a birthday is something one should take pride in.

      Yeah; quiet, Jensen!

      Everyone in the world has a birthday. Everyone in the world shares their birthday with someone else. For people to make such a commotion over what is a pretty common event just makes no sense to me.

      As I grow older, I begin to see how different I've become. While I still do not care for any celebrations, I'm not so afraid of revealing when I was born. If someone wants to know for any conceivable reason, then why not tell them? I don't have anything to hide.

      Most importantly, this makes me think of how little gaming has changed for Nintendo. Their games are firmly rooted in tradition and formula. When was the last time we saw a 100% original Mario or Zelda title?

      Even with the prospect of a new StarFox on the horizon, I'm wondering if it will end up being so similar to StarFox 64 that people won't care. Nintendo doesn't seem to mind. Even Metroid has gone into hibernation, despite being a big deal in the Gamecube era.

      While Nintendo has finally branched out into some new IPs, both Codename S.T.E.A.M. and Splatoon are based on ideas that already exist. Nintendo isn't so much breaking new ground as they are throwing their own flair into established formulas.

      At least "artistically" it's different.

      I suppose that could be said of most "new" games, but I'm just curious if Nintendo will ever change. As time slithers by and we all grow into half-way functional adults, will Nintendo manage to provide a better flair and vest for future generations?

      I don't mean to say that Nintendo should only focus their marketing and development on former children. Newer kids are growing up with a lot of conveniences that I never had. The internet is a prevalent entity in the modern era and instantaneous access is almost the norm.

      Nintendo doesn't seem to embrace that. Putting games on the eShop day and date with their retail release is a start, but their lack of connectivity in certain titles (Mario 3D World) just makes me wonder how much longer their fire will burn.

      For that matter, why are Sony and Microsoft practically indistinguishable from each other? While both of those companies have managed to change with the times, their game catalogs overlap in so many ways. Even exclusives for each platform are hard to differentiate.

      They've changed in ways that appeal less to me as an adult. I see fat-cat executives making calculated decisions on how to extract the most profit from a potential idea. Nothing seems to be made with bold artistic vision anymore.

      Now, this could mostly be cynicism from years of being depressed, but I just want a change. I want the industry I love and the hobby I can never put aside to do something different. Excite me with a concept that isn't a gimmick. Thrill me with a totally unique gametype.

      As we travel into the future, I just want gaming to travel with us. The past isn't the only thing that matters. We need to make time for the future.

    • Will Bankable Nostalgia Ruin Franchises?

      2 years ago

      KingSigy

      With the recent release of Puzzle and Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros Edition, I've come to a few realizations; Nintendo really isn't afraid to take risks and nostalgia seems to be their entire M.O. As a matter of fact, the media world, in general, seems obsessed with nostalgia.

      Mad Max: Fury Road recently came out. While the film is quite good, I can't help but feel that releasing 25 years later was the plan all along. I know that can't be 100% true, but it just seems way too convenient for this film to just now get made, especially after being in development hell for a decent chunk of time.

      It seems that we've come into an era of "bankable nostalgia":. Hollywood action films are milking our comic heritage for everything its worth; musicians that should have retired 20 years ago are bringing out new material; game developers (be it indie or triple A) are focusing their talents on re-creating the past.

      I'm not sure how long this type of cycle can sustain itself. This clearly isn't a new idea, but will nostalgia ever run out? For people in my age bracket (21-34), nostalgia is basically what keeps us ticking with tired ideas. Aren't we a bit young to be feeling such longing for our wonder years?

      When does that well run dry? Will we get to a point where a brand new, totally original Mario game will garner a collective shrug because Mario is old hat? How about when Captain America 4 comes out and we've just given up on the whole idea?

      I guess everything is fine if the creations are all quality. It can never hurt to have an abundance of things you enjoy. I just worry that our favorite hobbies will become insufferable after a litany of similar releases come out.

      Mario can only put up with Bowser's nonsense so many times before calling it quits. This is similar to how all the Resident Evil protagonists can be frightened of zombies for a few games before going guns-blazing at everyone.

      Eventually, you need to grow as a character. To mirror humanity, stagnation breeds complacency and complacency breeds contempt. Without creative flair, we may be doomed to walking away from this medium and never looking back.

      Then again, I know a few people who have never played a video game or watched a film and still manage to find joy in life. To them, there are other avenues of passion that capture their imaginations. There is even a man in Japan whose sole purpose in life is to make sushi.

      I may just be noticing this due to the recent surge of past ideas resurfacing, but I just don't want to see this wonderful medium turn to dust. I'd also really hate for music to become completely absent from my world. I want new things to happen and original voices to be heard.

      Hopefully this "bankable nostalgia" is simply a craze that will fade away. 3D Gaming seemed to die down, so I guess we just need to be patient.

  • About Me

    Super-Smash-Bros.-Wii-U-Toon-Link.jpg

    Welcome to a blog of infinite wisdom and magical fun...Just kidding. I'm a gamer with a huge taste for adventure. If you'd heard of a genre of gaming, chances are I've played it. Nothing is foreign to me.

    Some of my favorite games include anything Zelda or Mario related, Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Metal Gear Solid 3 and the Yakuza series. I'm an old school gamer at heart, but I do enjoy my PS3 and 360. Nintendo fanboy all the way, though.

    I have some pretty strong opinions about the things in my life. Be it my friends, family or any kind of media, I often let my personal feelings get in the way of fair judgement. If I ever offend you, please let me know so that we may both grow together.

    6_1280.jpg

  • Comments (1)

    • KingSigy

      8 months ago

      Something about this merger makes me sad.

  • KingSigy's Pictures

    Images

  • Questions

    No questions have been answered yet