Bioshock Infinite- Can “Fragmenting Reality” Innovate the Series?

Posted on January 13, 2012 by JohnnyWayne_

242

Let’s get something out of the way- the original Bioshock game was incredible.

The game released at a time when FPS games were becoming run of the mill “go here and blow this up” shooters. Bioshock set itself apart by taking the most exciting elements of FPS gameplay and refocusing the format into an immense, masterfully created universe- while simultaneously creating what has been argued to be one of the best story lines in modern video-gaming history.

Irrational Games has an uncanny ability to produce their Bioshock series with a fluid connection between art, gameplay, and character creation. Because of this, many gamers are incredibly excited about the upcoming third installment in the series- Bioshock Infinite. Even more, however, are questioning whether or not the innovations of the gameplay, specifically the ability to “fragment reality” will be an improvement to the game, or its downfall.

First, a bit of background for newcomers (feel free to skip a few paragraphs if you've played previous titles):

Moving away from the confines of Rapture's dystopia, Infinite takes place in the expansive city of Columbia; a city built in the sky. The city started as a place of wealth and prosperity, but has become one of anarchy after an attack by the citizens on a group of bystanders down below. After this attack the city was exiled, leaving the citizens (and the city itself) isolated, floating around the upper reaches of the atmosphere. This, of course, leads to civil unrest and a city at war.

Infinite's story begins with your character being tasked by mysterious individuals to infiltrate this lost city and rescue a girl named Elizabeth. This girl, in particular her abilities, have become the source of much attention by the two opposing forces in Columbia (those who have become engaged in this civil war).

Elizabeth has the ability to control fragments of an alternate reality- she can use those fragments to fabricate materials and conjure various entities which are incredibly helpful to both herself and your in-game character. She can for instance, create makeshift cover in front of your character, saving you from a barrage of bullets or conjure a storm of electricity to dispose of enemies blocking your path.

According to what has been released about the game so far, Elizabeth is not directly controlled, but rather reacts naturally to the environment and provides gamers with the choice to use her abilities in times of need. However, as with all things Irrational Games related, there is a twist- using these powers come at a cost.

Fragmenting reality will hurt and damage Elizabeth when you choose to use her abilities.

Thus, utilizing Elizabeth’s abilities becomes a matter of morality- do you make your journey through the game easier at her expense, or trudge through without her help, albeit with a feeling of heroism and good-will?

Bioshock Infinite is a very interesting concept. The game will obviously retain a lot of the natural Bioshock charm, but at this stage of pre-release does cause long-time fans to pause and speculate as to whether or not this “fragmenting of reality” will be a benefit or hindrance to the series. In a game that has proven itself to be solid on all previous occasions, some are calling this mechanic an unnecessary element of change, while others praise Irrational Games for their creativity.

Hopefully the option to use this ability will be just that- an option. I sincerely expect Irrational Games to put the choice in the hands of the gamer; and, if this is the case it shouldn’t change any of the elements which have made the series such a success. If, however, there are moments in the gameplay where using this ability is not optional, but rather forced, I can see this being a very large problem for long-time fans of the game.

As always, thanks for reading and feel free to comment with your own thoughts and opinions.

Cheers!

JohnnyWayne_

Chat with me on Twitter via @JohnnyWayne_ and our podcast via @GRPodcast

Survival Horror: The Roots and Evolution of a Genre

Posted on June 12, 2011 by JohnnyWayne_

343

In 1996 Bill Clinton began his second term as President, MSN revealed Hotmail as a free email client, the 26th Olympic games were held in Atlanta Ga., and MTV started a second television channel which promised to be “more about the music.” However, if you were a gamer fiddling with a PS1 controller in 1996, you may have missed a great portion of these events because you were trying to guide Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine through an inventive maze of puzzles and an unrelenting hoard of undead created by the now infamous Umbrella Corporation.

As gamers we all have that one title we look back to and say: “that was the one; the game that made me realize I wanted to devote hours on end to holding a controller.” Final Fantasy VII, Doom, Zelda, Tomb Raider, GTA...any of these might be your poison. For me the game-changer was Resident Evil, hands down. There was something about this game when it released in 1996 that made me realize gaming had shifted for the better. Come to find out, RE not only changed gaming, it became a catalyst for the genre we now readily call “Survival Horror;” a category that would become one of the most heavily followed varieties in the video game landscape.

So, having already taken a demented tour through the Sprawl in Dead Space 2 earlier this year, and with Fear 3, Dead Island, and a list of other possibilities just released or still to come, I decided to take a look back at the complex, inventive, and awesome history of the survival horror genre. *Please note: there is no way for me to cover every game in this expansive genre...I know, I know, you’re pissed your favorite title isn’t included and I’m certain you have a strong argument for its inclusion... but unless you want to throw some money my way for me to write a book on the topic, I don’t see how everything could realistically be included. Thanks for understanding!

Survival Horror in gaming can trace its roots back to archetypes found in early horror fiction: journeys into darkened depths, narratives filled with investigations, and protagonists with a strong mental dexterity being forced into confrontations with antagonists of physical prowess. The interesting thing about this genre, however, lies in its inventiveness. Since games in the PS1/Sega/N64 generation were mostly developed in Japan, but dually marketed toward American audiences, the games in that generation had to draw themes from both sources. Therefore, Survival Horror games never became dominated by the Western (American) approach of primeval, action-oriented, slasher horror, or the Eastern (Japanese) use of psychological themes which sought to disturb the audience at an emotional level. Instead, gamers got the best of both worlds: a happy little marriage of gore and mental disturbance that kept our sweaty palms wrapped around a controller for hours at a time.

As previously mentioned, many video game junkies look to Resident Evil as the catalyst for defining this genre, but that’s not to say there were no other SH games before this title. In fact, games such as Haunted House (1982), and Sweet Home (1989), the game that is looked to as the inspiration for Resident Evil, both had characteristics which we now ascribe to games in the Survival Horror realm. However, with RE we also had a new third-person style of gameplay which presented developers with an ability to present thrilling moments in an incredibly creepy fashion. Because the player controlled the in-game character from a mixture of 3rd person and fixed camera points of view the game developers could place unseen monstrosities around corners, allowing us to hear them scratching the walls, knowing they were there, but now knowing where. Correspondingly, the game dev’s were also known to use these camera angles (something that could never be accomplished in a top-down point of view game) to intensify the gameplay with elements of surprise (just like directors would do in horror film). For anyone wanting to take a 10 min walk down memory lane, or for those who never played the game (shame on you), take a peek at the video below and have a good laugh at what used to keep us up at night.

httpv://youtu.be/bdrbLeTx-xM

Obviously, the gameplay mechanics of Survival Horror games are key. Officially deemed a sub-genre of the Action-Adventure genre, a type of game obviously focused on fast-paced gameplay, Survival Horror places gamers in the midst of events and environments for which the characters are almost always inadequately prepared. Yes, there are knives, guns, and all varieties of weapons. But the focus of SH gaming is not to shoot everything in sight. This is one of the most defining attributes in the genre: players must use their intellect to get out alive. Correspondingly, non-combat challenges make up a great portion of the game’s experience...solving puzzles and remembering clues from earlier in the game became an essential skill set for surviving the horror. Case in point: Techmo’s 2001 title Fatal Frame.

Seriously, all I have is a camera? $#!T

Fatal Frame received a great deal of acclaim and, in fact, has come to have a reputation as one of the most distinctive and best-written survival horror games ever made. Why? Because you were stuck in a mansion full of ghosts looking for your brother and the only weapon you had was the friggin’ “Camera Obscura.” Oh yeah, that’s right, your only way to see and/or get rid of ghosts was by snapping pictures of them. The game played on everyone’s childhood fear of the scary dark basement...except the “basement” here was a hell of a lot bigger and a hell of a lot scarier…

All in all, this game could make you honestly debate wearing Depends while playing. I know guys who watch horror movies like it’s their job (some of them it is their job) and they repot having moments when they had to stop playing and walk away.
Here’s a bit of humor: watch this montage of folks playing the game...

httpv://youtu.be/C3kCoPvpxEU

Now, obviously no Survival Horror gaming article would be complete without mentions of Alone in the Dark, Left 4 Dead, Amnesia, Bioshock, Dead Rising, or any of the games included in the Silent Hill series, the Condemned series, the Fear series, and the Clock Tower series. However, for the sake of time and attention span, let’s watch a top 5 video and shift our attention to a trend in the genre that has seemed to take a firm hold upon Survival Horror in the past few years.

httpv://youtu.be/TY1WPuGETAk

As of late, many Survival Horror game releases have been criticized for not staying true to the genre. Many recent games released within this genre have eased the controls, shifted the spooky third person camera angle to an over-the-shoulder perspective, and placed a greater emphasis on action elements of gameplay. Some believe that this shift has effectively eliminated the “horror” from survival horror.

In fact, the aforementioned Resident Evil series, a title which we have already discussed as being a namesake for the entire genre itself, has been focused on as a landmark in this debate. With the release of Resident Evil 4, many critics and gamers alike felt that the formula for survival horror had been changed. Many argued that the game was no longer about horror, instead describing the game as fitting into a generic “action game” category with some horror overtones. Sadly, Resident Evil 5 would only further fortify this feeling of ill will amongst a large population of folks as well.

Too much gun play… too little horror?

So, is action bad for the survival horror gaming experience? I would argue not. The horror elements of the genre are what keep us, as gamers who enjoy that type of thing, on the edge of our proverbial seat... it’s what makes us shell out cash for the game. However, the action elements offer a welcome break from our constant lack of agency in the game’s situation. These moments, the times when we get to grab a shotgun and pump a few rounds into a zombie’s face (and what could be more satisfying than that!?) ultimately give us a sense of control and catharsis amongst a seemingly un-survivable situation.

What is important in this relatively new-formed debate is balance. Both elements (horror and action) have a necessary place in the Survival Horror realm, but neither can be out of balance if a game is to stay true to the genre. Subsequently, let’s glance at a game which received a great deal of acclaim (along with a bit of criticism) for seeking to achieve a merry balance of horror and action: Visceral Games’ Dead Space.

Of course, there's always one more lurking behind you….

For those of you who have been on a safari for the past couple of years, I’ll cover a bit of background...Within Dead Space you play as the one and only Issac Clark, an engineer who is armed with improvised mining tools as weapons and forced to fight his way through a mining starship infested with hostile, “reanimated human corpses” called Necromorphs in an attempt to save his love, Nichole. This craft, which just so happened to have discovered an object called the Marker (a center piece for a new human religion) while illegally mining a distant planet is the setting for quite an interesting and horrific adventure (see how I used the two terms together there? I told you Dead Space merged things together well...) Anyway, this series retains a balance between psychological strife and gore as well. Players are forced to deal with Issac’s worsening dementia while simultaneously dismembering Necromorphs, which you must do in order to completely kill them.

All this makes the Dead Space series a pretty good representation of what the modern survival horror title has evolved into: the inclusion of action and combat, an emphasis on puzzle-solving for survival, and the preservation a horrific atmosphere which has always defined the genre.

httpv://youtu.be/svZyKaY2mDk

All the same, it seems as if we have found ourselves in a debate of definition for what Survival Horror was, is, and is yet to be. So, let’s pose a few questions:

1) Where does all this action vs. horror rhetoric land us as gamers who love the genre of survival horror?

2) Can we have action in our horror without tearing apart the definition of a genre that was set roughly 20-22 years ago?

3) Is there a strong argument to be had, that the genre of survival horror is simply being reinvented alongside innovations on the platforms for which the games are created?

All in all...who the hell knows? What I do know is that I am excited to see where this little “sub-genre” of Action-Adventure gaming will take us in the years to come. We still have several games such as Dead Island, Fear 3, Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, and Asylum releasing this year that I'm sure will shed light for us all. Undoubtedly, there will be issues and debates surrounding these releases about how the games are directing and defining the genre. But, nothing is ever for certain, everything ebbs and flows, and I’m sure Survival Horror will be around for a long time to come.

What we all know that fear is a natural human emotion, although one which most people tend to try and keep out of their lives. However, for those of us who deliberately invite fear into our lives, let’s hope game developers stay the course and continue to feed our hunger for horror.

Cheers,
JohnnyWayne_

Twitter: @JohnnyWayne_
PSN: JohnnyWayne-

The Collector’s Edition Curse – Paying More for Less

Posted on May 27, 2011 by Nelly

411

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 37:04 — 33.9MB) | Embed

Face it. Gamers love crap. Trinkets. Knickknacks. Crap. It's not our fault. We were conditioned in our younger years, to collect stuff. Action figures, trading cards, comics. You name it, we wanted it. Hell, we still love that stuff. Case in point, the little dude rockin' on my desk right now.

He gives me strength

Now more than ever before, the video game industry is tapping into those childhood urges, by way of "collector's editions." It's become standard practice for developers to bundle their hot new games with added DLC, artbooks, toys, and other gimmicky kitch. In theory, it's a neat idea, especially if you're a die hard fan of a particular game. The only problem is, more and more collector's edition releases are ripping you off. Hard.

It wasn't always that way, though. If you look back earlier in this console generation, you'll find some collector's edition deals that absolutely ruled. Here are a couple examples.

Bioshock - Xbox 360 ($70)

For just dollars more than the full retail price, the Bioshock Collector's edition came stuffed with decent sized Big Daddy statue and a bonus dvd, highlighting the making of the game. Now that's value, son.

The same year, Fallout fans were blown away by this collector's edition offering...

Fallout 3 ($80)

The entire package came in a collectible tin lunch box. Included was the game, a "making of" dvd, a thin art book, and a "Vault Boy" bobble head. Hot damn!

Those were great deals! The "collector's editions" just mentioned were well priced and actually included things that were *worth* collecting. Oh, but times have changed. The success of earlier special edition releases have given way to a flood of immitators, bent on getting more of your cash and giving you less content. I've noticed there are some running themes here. For instance, one dirty move developers pull is to hype you up for a cool collectible statue or desk piece, only to shatter your hopes with some crappy plastic... thing. Let's take a look.

Tron - Evolution ($129)

This is one of the worst deals I could find. For the low, low price of ... one hundred and thirty frickin' dollars, you got the game, a coupon to see the movie in theaters and.... a plastic light cycle that goes in a plastic display. Really?!? I went on Amazon.com just for funzies and checked out how much a toy Tron lightcycle would run me. The answer? $10 - $19. All included, the package is probably worth 90 bucks, but some suckers out there shelled out an extra $40. Really lame.

This next one breaks my heart...

Batman - Arkham Asylum ($100)

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!! Not Arkham Asylum! It's *the* game to end all Batman games. It's got such awesome street cred! Don't tell me they screwed us on the collector's edition!!! Oh, but they did. To be fair, it comes with a neat little Arkham diary, but the real selling point was the batarang replica. That's right. A batarang replica. The dark knight's *defining* piece of gear, barring the batmobile. And guess what? It was plastic!

Blarg. It didn't even have any real weight to it. I'm sure plenty of gamers felt pissed about dropping that benjamin.

One more!

Dead Space 2 ($80)

Comes with a soundtrack (do you really care?) and... a genuine, certified plasma cutter. One thing, though....

Yeah, it's the size of your palm. It made for the ultimate "womp womp" moment.

The parade of suck continues. Saints Row II wanted an extra $20 for a money clip and 2 gig flash drive. Forza Motorsport 3's package comes with another 2 gig flash drive and a keychain. Seriously, how many 2 gig flash drives do I need? And what the hell do they have to do with racing cars and gang bangin'?

Can someone explain to me what the hell the dudes who made Mortal Kombat were thinking when they decided to include *bookends* in their "Kollector's" edition?

I mean, they're detailed, but it just feels like they were thrown in there for lack of a better idea. Oh, by the way, nothing impresses a lady more than a rich library of mentally stimulating novels neatly tucked between a depiction of Scorpion spearing Sub-Zero through the chest.

It's difficult to notice when you're in the store, but the prices have gone way up over the years. When Assassin's Creed : Brotherhood released, the special edition was a cool hundred clams. The real selling point was this weird jack-in-the-box. Yeah, you know, the lame toy you would have never wanted as a kid. But now, that it's packaged with a game... it's "awesome."

Yeah, seems like a great get. I nearly wet myself when I read an article by Kotaku's Mike Fahey detailing the release. He wrote,"I need an Assassin's Creed jack-in-the-box like I've never needed anything else, and $100 seems like a fair price to pay to secure one."

Really?!? You really really ***need*** that crap more than anything else? Fair? Someone should let Mikey know your average kid's crappy jack-in-the-box runs $15 - $20. Let me ask you. Have you been on toys-r-us.com lately looking for the best deals on jack-in-the-boxes? No? You mean to tell me you haven't been thinking on and off about pulling the trigger, throwing caution to the wind, and just splurging on that cute Curious George pop up doll stuffed in the tin box? I'm shocked. Snarkiness aside, those who spent $100 bucks on AssCreed Broho's "box" really got snookered.

Here's the kicker. Thus far, collector's edtion packages haven't increased in value. They've decreased. A lot. Sure, maybe 50 years from now, someone will want to pay you thousands of dollars for that mini statue of all the dudes from Halo Reach, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Take a look at this...

Halo Reach Legedary Edition - Was $150, Now $99

Alan Wake - Was $80, Now $50

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (with the AWESOME jack-in-the-box) - Was $100, Now $64

Street Fighter 4 - Was $80, Now $30

Resident Evil 5 - Was $90, Now $60

Follow me?

In all fairness, there are still some deals out there that give you the right bang for your buck. While researching for this story, I found games like Starcraft and The Witcher II really pack a lot of interesting stuff in their collector's editions for a fair price. But those deals are few and far between.

The bottom line is this. A good deal is really in the mind of the buyer. If you absolutely love a game, then spend some more. But don't be surprised when you don't get what you bargained for.