Trying to understand GlitchHikers....

Before I continue consider a warning that this will spoil some of the value in a game called GlitchHikers. Its a free game that takes about 20 minutes and probably runs across most computers and I'd recommend looking into it before pushing on in this discussion. If you don't care though, I'll explain it and you can still get in on some interesting thoughts if your ok with simply passing up the game.

I'm going to risk sound a bit pretentious here but I don't really care. Honestly you should not only be aloud to pull deeper meanings from unique or artsy games, but you SHOULD do so... because otherwise some are borderline pointless and dumb... and not gamey enough to be worth your time. If you go in with an open mind and curiosity, and the willingness to learn or be taken by surprise with something, you're truly participating with the art form or medium in question and it serves a point beyond simple entertainment (which these games don't specialize so much in) and distraction. Contrary to what some say that doesn't suddenly mean the game isn't anti-fun, its just that the fun comes with the philosophy, surprise, and adventure (even though its a far more mundane 'adventure" unlike say Okami or Tomb Raider). Don't take my word for it though, take it also from a game called GlitchHikers that builds itself up around themes of the unknown, surreal, and the search for meaning. I found this to be a surprising sort of meta-like experience about gaming.

Quick disclaimer: Now as I said long ago about the non-game debate, I think its fine that until these grow into another medium we can call these short lived interactive art trips "games". If that drives you nuts and you don't want to go with that, fair enough but for the sake of convenience I'm putting this disclaimer out there that GlitchHikers is a "game". It certainly ain't a comic, song, or movie, and it was downloaded and played as a game, with people recommending or asking me to play it from the gaming community. So I have nothing better to call it even if it is outside a traditional game experience.

So I heard about this game first through Totalbiscuit in the recent Polaris podcast where he demands answers for it. He wants to understand the point, the draw, and whether or not is he missing anything. Well of course it isn't something for everyone and that's the best I can say to answer that last one, but the draw and the point is actually what is felt when he's recommending to try this and solve the puzzle of this game's point. The answer is curiosity. At least that's what it is to me. One of the best things about our society interacting with each other is the art we produce and consume, and each new piece is somewhat different from the last. When a new game-like experience is put out there for free and leaving people a little stunned in good or bad ways, it becomes an interesting case to check out and investigate. See what its goals were, and how it holds up, or what it can give back to you for the time you choose to spend with it. Why does this process repeat though? For the same reason life goes on in a similar way. We continue to explore it and experience it to see what new stuff awaits and what new things we can take. That's not to say a new artsy game experience is life changing, so few really will be, but it will be something that likely stimulates and provokes thoughts that you may go deeper into because of that game or experience. Meanwhile GlitchHikers actually felt like sort of a meta experience to reflect on this exact subject.

In GlitchHiker you're simply put onto a road late at night, barely awake, and just drive. Actually you can't even truly do that, the controls are bare down to shifting lanes, making small speed differences, and temporary looking from either left to right. You drive through some slightly randomized pieces and a hitchhiker will appear in your car and start conversations with you. For the most part they're the ones doing the talking, though you have moments of choice that may hold influence over the conversation. This is sort of the game as far as mechanics go, but getting to the point of the game would require further discussion. The entire game is surrounded by a surreal sense of the unknown and hunting for answers. Whether its the fact that your just thrown into driving and forced to pick up talkative strangers, or simply the mystery of where the game itself will end. Even the people you meet will further push for questions, be it deranged and horribly scrambled looking models of people, or outright aliens with a giant eyeball on a green face. This stuff doesn't ever get addressed well, you mostly see the people and just accept they're now part of this experience alongside you, and you work with it. An odd man on the radio consistently keeps you company in between the few people you'll pick up, and he talks exclusively to late night drivers like yourself discussing the stars and loneliness. The HitchHikers that pop up will chat about similar things alongside odd experiences and metaphors. A woman comes popped in at the start of my playthroughs smoking and asks about why you drive before discussing old childhood memories of naming the stars and imagining them going to war for her. In her own words, she was like a god to them. She admits a weird event where a man walked up to her one day, claimed he was from the stars, and begged for her to stop the destruction. You can then tell her what you think about that with several choices that each get some sort of vague response. Either way you have to wonder what kind of imagination, universe, or idea was with that odd conversation and how you choose to accept it (other than the obvious "its just a game"). Moments like these happen again. You may get an alien that discusses life, you may get a woman eager to talk about wales beaching themselves and how it may relate to suicide and the question of whether or not loss and depression hurts. You may get a little girl abandoned (or escaping) her parents resenting them and trying to tell you about how pointless life is. Or instead maybe you'll get a man recalling his college years and how fantastic his life's jounrney has been. On all playthroughs though the last guy seems to repeat one of the first question on why you're where you are driving, even though you're not quite sure yourself. The answer options are just perfect though.

The game is still just plain weird on many things and I don't just say that to reinforce the surreal tone before. I couldn't help but feel like it was a bit hippy-like throughout the trip, and it had a pretty heavy handed "So cosmic!" sort of feeling to it. It felt weird not just as a surreal game but weird because of the tone of its direction. The smoking, the cosmic tone, the "its ok stranger" voice of the radio man, the guy recalling love in a weird manner... its just felt so out of place for me in addition to the surreal. If that didn't do it though, the odd dialogue certainly didn't help. I couldn't help but laugh as the radio man at one point talks of how "You're never alone. Millions of distinct bacteria share your body. You are.... NEVER alone." I felt reminded of the hippy off 70's show talking about how he met jesus on a bus, got a pretzel, and learned the meaning of life... and forgot everything except that the pretzel was good. It just felt like that kind of game at some point. However it all felt pretty good at the end of the day. I came in to see something happen, to find the expression and value of the game, I was searching for something.... and it delivered on that note even if it had to be a little weird about it. It actually kind of dilvered and shined on that exact message. This was further demonstrated at the ending where you're left with two choices that are each pretty harmless but tend to be based on some nature of how your mind responds to this situation. You have an exit left lane only warning and watch as a city comes up before your two lanes divide. You don't know what this exit really is or anything about your character, you simply know that its a matter of ending or continuing an experience for that character. Will you end your journey or is it the journey that you want to continue? Either way the game ends and it doesn't change anything, but its a pretty powerful moment if you take from it the same message as I did. To recap, that's the fact that the journey isn't over. You're always searching for something new, for new stories, for new mysteries, for new experiences, etc. That's part of the reason I took up this game in the first place, and even though it oddly enough sort of puts a mirror on the subject I feel like I still got something neat out of it. Of course though, its not quite as fun or as fulfilling as a normal game so its time for me to take the driving to a different level like say... cel damage.

Now playing.... Minecraft?

I'm in it now?

Well this feels a little weird. Quick little update feels good about it though. I've never really had much to say on this game. Its a classic from last gen and a major indie game blown up into huge mainstream proportions, but outside of that description I have so little to say for it. Just.... "eh.". I rented it and checked it out, but didn't do too much with it. It just didn't hook me or feel like it had anything to truly worth sinking my time into. Maybe the PC version with mods (I want that fox skin as pictured above!), but as weird as this sounds it isn't intel friendly even with the settings toned back. Meanwhile we've got people running Crysis 3 in really low settings on the same machine.... funny how this stuff works. So my intel 3000 laptop is out of that chance of me running minecraft. So... I'm left with the vanilla "eh" experience. Similarly that's how I've felt towards the argument of its popularity... I hate hearing people complain or call it crap, but I also hate to bump into those who pretend its everything and dedicate their entire youtube or community time to it. Both just rub me the wrong way, even though I usually love passionate dedicated communities working for something cool, and I can sympathize with those who see its flaws or feel its shoved in their faces. But yet... I feel like this is just an oddball that doesn't catch any extreme and isn't worth much of my energy in discussion most of the time, and those trying to push me into it just get on my nerves. However.... right now I'm actually playing it. It showed up in my downloads menu mysteriously (no joke. very weird, but I'm not complaining). So eventually after I spent some good time with R&C I decided to boot this up as a bit of down time from the bigger games, put on a podcast, and just got to work in a new map... well I had to because the digital copy doesn't work with physical data for some weird reason. I then booted it up today, no podcast, and it just felt so good for some reason to return and complete a house on the cliffs I made. Its safe to say I'm probably returning.

Its not going to become my favorite game anytime soon... at least not that I'm aware of in the short time. The combat, controls, building, and interface all feel clunky within a game that is already at odds with me for being a wide open sandbox experience. Of course none of these things are detrimental, it just goes against a bit of my typical experience.... except the clunky controls bit, I'm used to that I suppose. Still the game shines to me as a peaceful distraction. Its exactly as I noted above. You have been playing adventure games or shooters for the past week or two, feel maybe a little presured in life, and one day remember you have minecraft, load up a podcast on youtube, and then jump into a world and go to work on something. Once you've started you need less of a hook and just return until you're bored later, and the cycle may repeat and different rates. Its just perfect for that sort of odd niche routine of a distracting fun little game I'd recommend to anyone either introverted or with a decent size library of "normal" games. So while I'm no serious minecraft fan, I'm really thankful to have.... err... stumbled(?) across this game again. Oddly enough it was right before the news of Microsoft buying Minecraft as well as the talk of it coming to PSV and PS4 in the future. It'd be fantastic if cross-buy kicked in for the vita, though I'm not so sure that's the case as it certainly wasn't with PS4. Who knows though, I may pay the lesser toll of $5 and upgrade just to get access to some nice share features. Well anyways I've got to get to bed, and then work on minecraft as well as a couple other things. Speaking of which, the weird doesn't end here. I know what I'm writing next... I had an interesting meta experience with the "non-game" game called Glitchhiker and I'll be replaying and discussing that for the next topic. Of course, that'll happen after I put the finishing touches on my basement in minecraft. I may turn on monsters and throw back in that sense of fear and unpredictability as well.

Well one thing I don't miss so much from a favorite genre.....

So I've been meaning to get around to writing a "Now playing" article for the current, but keep getting sidetracked by making other articles and the actual act of playing. That wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that at some point or another I keep feeling a tad too frustrated with what I'm playing to feel certain I'll stick with it. I've been doing some digging through great old 3D platformers and I'm always at some point hammered with a stupid mini-game I don't feel like bothering with. I've got to say, I'm almost sorry about how I treated Sly Cooper because it went crazy with this by making an entire boss a mini-game. Now I still hold that criticism to it, and it strikes hard again on the last boss to, but its competition wasn't quite as harmless as I remembered it.

For starters I confess I never legitimately finished the original Ratchet and Clank. I found it a bit clunky and underwhelming playing it in a reverse order, and eventually used a cheat disc to see all the level ideas and weapons it had, then quit. I went back to it recently with a better perspective and considered it a nice dose of simplicity over the franchise because the rest really went a bit removed from being a 3D platformer. I needed that break from Going Commando which insisted on sending me to planet after planet filled with mini-games of some type, and then on top of that money-bag style guys holding vital bits for expensive ransoms that detracted from the game's point of saving that money for the weapons and fun. Well R&C1 was going good for a while, and I had even seen a review complimenting its pacing and lack of forced mini-games citing a hoverboard race as an example. It was almost right, with a couple minor exceptions. The minor exceptions were a giant clank brawl which was simple and easy to complete as well as thematically pleasing, and then there were two starship fights which was just awesome and didn't overstay their welcome. Then I went to the gadgetron facility where the worst happened. It wasn't the first hoverboard race that forces you to win, its the 2nd harder alternative that does require winning though. Oh but get this, to stand a chance in that race you need to win the first one to make the 2nd possible because without it you can't get boosters, and you can't get a certain shortcut without boosters, and you need the shortcut because the bots are magically superior and ahead of you on the whole thing and in order to beat them you must be as close to perfect using all the power-ups as possible. This is not the 3D platform you came for, its a tiny racing distraction that happens twice and never more, but without it you're missing out on around the last 3rd of the game. To add insult to injury it doesn't ever make logical sense. They showed up because it was advertised as a product of the biggest corporation in their universe. In a game where you're constantly earning cash to spend on devices from said company why do you all of a sudden get one "free" at the cost of a stupid hoverboard race. Why!? ...and now I just feel silly for demanding logic and change out of a game over a decade old and far since improved. Still its something I've been needing to vent for a while and also bring beyond just a Sly 1 gripe.

I adore 3D platformers but this was one trend in them I cannot stand. It mostly happened in the PS2 era to from the looks of it. The mario 64 style era was a bit more focused and left the bonus stuff to extra collectibles, and a certain set of those collectibles were mandatory. In Spyro 3 if you didn't want to play all the side character helper levels you didn't have to, but you had to get the dragon eggs somewhere else. If you didn't want to go down some super slide or race the koopa turtle in Mario 64 you didn't have to, but somewhere down the line you had to make up for this with more straight forward stars. The mini-games were still present and added something new and different in your big adventure, and you were rewarded for mastering it all, but if you stunk at it or just hated it you could continue the core adventure and enjoy yourself. The upcoming era started removing these liberties and suddenly you could wind up with a rhythm button boss fight, forced bike and hoverboard races for gadgets that magically hindered your progress because of some inconveniently locked door, Jak and Daxter had its share of mini-games with bikes, racing, turret pieces, and more, and heck I think I even recall the declining Spyro requiring me to go through turret sections not for extras but to pass a level properly. Also while its a different genre, maybe you could even throw in Okami and the log and fishing parts.... but honestly that is a whole lot better than hoverboard races and turret pieces. Those were actually simple and more consistent. With the others... I guess they couldn't have players simply enjoying the game, they had to force you to see everything they could come up with as a distraction to make the character look more special because he could simultaneously play sports in the middle of saving the world. Its almost like the problem that moved onto FPS games where instead of just making the gameplay fun they have to take the control out of your hands constantly to show you their blockbuster set pieces, or for the novelty of controlling a vehicle or gadget for 5 minutes and never bringing it up again. I feel like my intelligence is just insulted when that happens. This is why I think A Crack in Time became such a bigger deal than the past R&C games, and out of the old ones it was R&C3 remembered the best. This was not only because they hit the mark so well with their core gameplay and improved it above and beyond the past, but also because they mostly kept things around the main character and core gameplay... though sure I'll admit R&C3 did still have those quark sidescrollers, but its far closer to the core idea and makes more sense than hoverboarding for a random device that should be at the very least buy-able.

Well I guess the elephant in the room is this: Sly 4 had mini-games, but yet I praised it to the high heavens and claim it to be the best in the series. What gives? Well Honestly it has the 2nd best fix save for the M64 style.... it wasn't so far fetched or difficult that it destroys your progress. That's also why I'm more lenient on R&C3's sidescrolling, or the clank levels in just about any of them, or the forced first encounter with your buddies in Spyro 3. You need to help the extra characters at least once in Spyro 3, but the forced one is their 1st level, the easiest, and gives you the controls and makes it a quick and pain-less process. The more difficult or far fetched mini-games like a rail shooter ninja show-down that had me ready to throw my controller out the window... that's optional and just for the completionists. Similarly I'll bring up Okami again, those little side projects were mostly easy and straight forward, not to mention they did tie-in well to the logic of the world. I'd say that also heavily applies to Sly Cooper. It changed from a random mini-game fest in the original to a format where the gang was all working together and used their abilities interestingly. This means that you'll be hacking as Bentley, and how would you really simulate that without a mini-game? Its possible, but not so easy. Hacking would either be a matter of a puzzle, a mini-game, a context menu you just press and leave. A puzzle would be hit or miss with folks, a context push would just be dull and make the character feel less different or the events insignificant, but a mini-game that isn't too complicated could get the job done just right. Now the RC car and the belly dance rhythm game might be more pointless, but oh well... its not so bad and they don't reoccur too much. Point is if you've got to have the mini-games make some sense out of it and make it simple and easy to bypass. If you want to get carried away and pander to puzzle fans, or have some super special weird mini-game idea save it for an extra or bonus section. At the very least, give in some kind of skip option. Some idiots will whine that makes it too easy, but last I checked my skill in hoverboarding has nothing to do with 90% of Racthet and Clank, and a rhythm game isn't on the agenda of being a sneaky platforming racoon. Its shouldn't effect the core game. I still love 3D platformers or those on similar tracks and wish they would make a bigger come back, but this was one major gripe I have with about half of them and I don't miss this frustration of going so far only to slam head first into a junk part of the game that has nothing to do with the all the fun and progress I've made. Again I'm pretty pissed off at just stopping and being so frustrated with R&C over this incident... they're really amazing games outside of these early stumbling moments. Thankfully at least the movie of the original R&C wont make me stop and roller-skate in the theater in order to proceed to the climax.

Let the game be at peace with itself

Is "hardcore" gaming still legitimate?

Not too long ago there was the rather depressing discussion of gamers being slandered by the very people whose paycheck relies on gamers. A situation with some potential corruption turned into a big mess. However while I was defending the word "gamer" I remembered some similar discussions I've taken up before, though that discussion was both less important and yet also more foggy and unclear. It was about the difference between casual, hardcore, and maybe even a core or mainstream gamer. People have tried announcing that dead alongside the usage of "gamer" before, and while I still think gamer is a strong word that rolls off everyone's tongue when discussing the majority of those active players, I have to ask myself what it means to be a hardcore gamer. There isn't one answer to it. I have not for the past 5 years been able to bring up that word in my mind and instantly apply it to that one definition I fought for. That's because countless people online assert or suggest something else, and it seems to be a case by case basis of something different changing to that term with many contradicting each other. Does a word really mean anything if its so scattered and broken? No its not even a word, its a label used to help categorize something. It really loses all use and credit when nobody agrees on how to organize it. A label is used to help idintify something specific, but if that cannot be accomplished because the label is broken then it ceases to be useful or strong.

Here's some of the things I've recently seen with "hardcore": Its anti-casual. In the context of Killzone veterans its a competitive skillful multiplayer label for some, and other just a matter of a game requiring skill. The "Hardcore" modes on most shooters just rip out the HUD and take health even lower than it already is, thus making it a lot more blind luck and easier to kill. Similarly some have used it to mean low health and fast death in a CS inspired game, but COD has some of the lowest health by default yet gets insulted all the time as casual. Hardcore in some RPGs and rogue-likes just use it to mean a loss of progress, but what does that have anything to do with any of the other definitions and how is it at all consistent with the type of person that would play it? Its not a challenge, or a selling factor to any real demographic, its just a choice of survival and luck. Some mean for the label to be a game and gamer that just gravitates to high difficulty things, even things that aren't skill based but just hard. Some including the developer Capcom view hardcore as a game that just is stuffed with content (COD as an example despite how "casual" it is within certain comment sections) and hardcore gamers as people following those games, but wouldn't that just mean MMO's dominate the hardcore market? Its also used sometimes in the context of slander, with the presumption that hardcore gamers only play gritty violent games, though funnily enough we never see these self-proclaimed guys around for the insults to stick to. Finally we have the basic and most blunt two definitions, Hardcore as in seriously passionate, and Hardcore as in nerdy 80's stereotype. See nearly none of these really follow on any consistent message, but they have all come up from people when discussing something with the topics of "hardcore" and "gaming". There's absolutely nothing consistent though. At best it can combined and broken down as a game with serious challenge and allows for online competition, lots of depth, and lots of grinding, and people who follow those type of games would be "hardcore gamers". However how often do we see something like that in gaming anymore? Dark Souls was the last and one of the only major examples in recent years. Maybe some other RPGs I may have missed or an MMOFPS. You would have to go beyond that call or put down gaming for long breaks of time while waiting for a new one. So it sounds like a hardcore gamer then excludes most of every genre except some RPGs (so I hope you love numbers), countless triple A titles, or Nintendo. Does that sound quite right? Is that what really comes to your mind as a hardcore gamer? Of course not, because its a duct tape combination of a confused label.

Recovered gaming, raised generations of gamers, and has 100+ Classics. Still not "hardcore"

To be honest though casual isn't in so much of a better position. Its confused for an insult half the time, or used to describe mobile gamers, or gamers drawn to so called gimmicks. However it is slightly more grounded. You can easily get that tone to change by bringing up either PC point and click games (instead of being mobile exclusive), or pop cap games (for when "casuals" don't play anything of quality), or just suggest Casual at its basic, being "isn't it just for people who want to relax and play an easy game for escapism occasionally?". Almost anyone level-headed will be able to agree with you. In the end though both terms have lost quite some ground. Even though gamer is easy to define as someone who loves playing video games, its harder to hold down what is "casual" and what is "hardcore" forms of a gamer. Honestly I don't think we even really need the distinction. Its much easier to talk to your fellow gamers by their genre of choice, or their favorite franchise, or their attitude or interests. What do they look for in gaming? If I look at the "casual" Wii audience that suddenly got excited over wii sports, I see people who are fascinated with diverse levels of interactions and a form of television that gets you moving. I had a gaming friend in school that I could describe better as someone who was into video game stories, lore, and JRPGs. I can't get that clear message across by just calling him "hardcore", and if I have to keep things short and simple without necessary description all I need is "He's a gamer". I can easily describe my dad as a "casual" gamer but he hates the wii and motion controls, and insists on playing COD and sniper elite 2 90% of the time. I could better describe him as a casual FPS player than a casual gamer. Meanwhile on the Killzone forums its pretty well agreed that Killzone 2 and killzone in general is pretty hardcore for a current FPS, but at least two guys have noted before that they just don't enjoy many other games and have even said Killzone is "the only shooter they truly get into". So... doesn't that contradict itself a bit? Who cares! Its just not so meaningful of a discussion, and its not how we usually talk or describe people or our hobbies. We call someone who's a reader exactly that, a reader or maybe even a bookworm, or a fan of a certain series. We don't say "he's a hardcore reader" or have debates over how many pages a book needs to be considered "for the hardcore bookworms out there". Same with movies. Art is good at doing exactly what I proposed earlier, its more about the individual's taste and style that gets brought up. Someone may be interesting in "minimalist drawings" or "abstract" or "pencil sketches", or they may be about the subject matter and be known for animals or high fantasy art. Music is the only thing I can even come close to seeing a similar problem, but even then that's more about genre battles rather than someone being a "hardcore music fan!". That would be just dumb. Instead we hear battles over what "real metal" or "good rap" is.

So... hardcore is becoming a dead term to me. I'll still hang on to what I used to know it as, but it holds practically no meaning in today's time. You can't communicate the term clearly to anyone, the games industry doesn't support many games I find suiting to my old definition, and honestly there were already conflicts with using it to begin with. My old defining term was this: Hardcore is a passionate gamer that plays games of all kinds but prefers to play games with depth to it. Depth means more features, mechanics, and or content and it takes some sense of skill or adaptation to pick up on. So something like Killzone 2 roughly follows it compared to the normal COD-like experience because it had a different aim system to learn, better stat and clan system, more features that allowed and trusted user freedom and player communication, and the classes and objective system made you learn to cooperate to prevail better. It also had enough features to spawn its own set of memes, get. However Killzone 2 and Dark Souls are exceptions rather than the rule. While games like this kind of quality, or better, could exist in quite large numbers now its down to mostly a few games on the PC market, indie, and nothing else. Most of triple A has abandoned this fundamental idea of depth, exploration, and adaptation because it wants to play things safe and follow trends all the time, and this mainstream trend setting mentality is far more detrimental to the idea of hardcore gaming and gamers more so than the harmless casual stuff. When things like matchmaking prevails over user servers, and a super vision or omnipotent navigational tools are mandatory in every game, and gimmicks like skinner boxes or awards are praised over core mechanics and power struggles between competitive players things die down and place everybody on a near equal level on day 1 and so few things are learned or worth discussing between people. The hardcore game by my definition is borderline MIA in today's expensive budget market. So if the lack of a clear definition isn't the problem, the industry is, and in both cases "Hardcore" gaming means a lot less than what it should.

exploits, and jokes within the loyal fan cult community. The multiplayer was a pretty hardcore experience compared to the usual shooters found within the same market. However going even further many RPGs, and strategy games are even bigger examples of this. The very best example of hardcore though would be Dark Souls. It not only has a steep learning curve based on learning and fixing mistakes, but it has tons of weapons, different attack combinations, an intentionally cryptic explanation requiring a dedicated community to learn and pass on knowledge to conquer the game, and a deep story encouraging analyzing, collecting the games many objects for study, and again passing around information. All that and a competitive online scene and higher difficulty level makes for an experience that only a hardcore gamer would totally

Is this bad though? Well... it depends. I mean on one side I do think the industry is in a terrible state, and on that side of the coin I will say things are terrible because there isn't enough of what I'd consider "hardcore games". However I'm talking more about the subject matter itself; Is it bad that Hardcore is a dead term? Well honestly it stings a little because it was a fun old classification to use to help feel more accurate, but honestly there's no harm in retiring it. Hardcore gaming in the sense of a big time fan of gaming is actually stronger than ever, but at the same time that's because there's so many broad genres, tastes, and ways to publish or play a game. Even though the major market is trading its soul and heart for trends and a one size fits all style of each genre there are still alternatives and a lot of diversity to go around. So there's a lot of different types of people playing games, and there tastes aren't really unified enough to say that some game type or those who play it are more hardcore. Regardless of the term the thing that matters is gaming and gamers are still going strong. I guess both hardcore and casual will always be alive as a way to discuss extremes, like someone who participates a lot less will be "casual" while someone who is stuck in deep with it is "hardcore". However for the most part its just gamers, and the games they like. I will still sometimes use the label to mean my definition on this blog, but outside where its held more accountable I just can't see myself using if at all effectively. Its quite a dead term compared to better vocabulary and clarity. However gaming is still present and strong.

Haze review

I'm a bit behind on publishing this because I never got around to making the score card, and by now honestly I just wont bother too much. This will just be a more simple blog exclusive review unless I one day repolish and publish it better. Regardless it gets the job done just as well, it just doesn't come with an image and special bold "overall" label.

wow! I just don't know where to start with this game. I'm genuinely fascinated by its mix of gameplay and story, its release date, the reception, the stain it left, and the development that brought it all into place. The $3 cost may have been worth this fascination alone, though I might have gotten the same thing from a youtube walkthrough. Anyways who cares, right? You read the title as a review, and that's what you're getting.

Haze was the last game made by Free Radical (some of Rare's old FPS talent and team behind Timesplitters) and honestly it wasn't recieved well. Published by ubisoft and worked with to become a big FPS that was supposed to be "The shooter the PS3 is remembered for" it ended up flopping with tech problems and a rushed date even after delays. Its plot is based around a future invasion of South America in which you play as a member of Mantel, a powerful PMC with enhanced field soldiers. You are Shane Carpenter, a Mantel grunt who is pretty basic at first but is destined to uncover a great conspiracy that sets in motion the core plot of the game. You open the game with some strange allies that talk more like hyper frat boys than soldiers. They aren't actually so stupid though, its more of that their minds are just corrupt with a substance called "Nectar". Nectar is hardwired into their suits, distributes large doses on command, and plays out  some interesting effects on the battlefield. Faster reflexes, enhances your senses making lifeforms glow, improves durability and healing, and acts as an anti-depressant as well thus shielding you from anything unhappy... even in a warzone. As you'd imagine though, that last thing is what really drives a part of the plot. It turns out this nectar doesn't just make you super soldiers, it makes you super dumb puppets to use as weapons and trick with propaganda. However you had a slight advantage given to your character when someone accidentally tones your nectar dose back leaving you vulnerable to shortages and disruptions that slowly break the illusion and start to show you what's right from wrong. One thing leads to the next, and eventually you find yourself with a broken suit and no drug supply, a kill order placed on your head, and you're now working with your former enemies to right the true wrongs that are going on.

Some messed up stuff being hidden with Nectar

This premise that drives the story is one of the best parts of the game. At first, it seems like a really cheesy story made by some tin foil hat anti-military conspiracy theorist, but its not really pushing the morals down as much as just being an interesting plot that was a bit ahead of its time. This was in 2008, before we got a wave of self-critical "serious" games trying be edgy, and an internet full of stupid accusations about mainstream shooters being propaganda machines. We still had space marine cheesy-ness floating around, and that sticks in with this game. So with Haze, we got a demonstration of a edgy plot without the shoehorned drama and the contradicting player guilt moments. Haze still knows its a game, and the campy dialogue, the science fiction themed drug plot, and the lengthy amounts of gameplay all fit in together in a way that doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows to let you have fun, and I would say even has subtle stuff in it that plays on the video game nature better. For example, at the start when you're on Mantel bodies fade away like early 3D shooters, and combined with the sub-par graphics and lack of blood its as if the engine on this game is just pathetic. However its turns out body fading was a part of the Nectar enhancement, covering up the ugly mess the war is causing. Once you're off Nectar, bodies stick around, emit blood, and you can even exploit this visual issue by faking death and getting back up when they don't suspect it. Differences like this, the even the way you aim your weapon or notice the lack of HUD, makes it that much more interesting. I'd also like to add, this is a game where your character even talks, and responds surprisingly humane towards everything. He asks questions about his objectives, questions or has remarks about orders, and even has a weak voice that hints about how Mantel soldiers don't exactly go through strong training. He's not a big deal of a character by any long shot, but he helps make you appreciate the story a little more, and it presents more fluid story telling. The world isn't just something fed to you by NPCs, your guy actually communicates points to them, argues with them pushing some details, and even mentions why he joined to fight a war. It makes a cheesy traitor story that much more interesting.

However this is also where things begin to look a little sloppy. I could nitpick some moments of the story, or just the general pacing. However the worst part is certainly the switch & bait nectar mechanic and the inconsistency it has with switching sides. This is a good point to bring out how the gameplay isn't always on par. You're told to use this mechanic at first like its the central and best gimmick of the game. There's like 5 or so tutorial prompts pushing you to make the most out of nectar. By the time you're starting to feel good about it and understand all its ins and outs, its removed from you after your 2nd level. Yes, 2 levels to build upon a massive game mechanic and story element, then you've lost it. At least one lengthy filler level in between the two would have done a great service to this, but its rushed, and once that part is rushed so is the thrill of the mystery behind this plot. After you switch teams, and uncover the conspiracy, the story's suspense takes a break as you just turn your focus to a dull corridor shooter that commands you to just walk and kill, it'll throw you a bone for Carpenter's story maybe a couple hours later. For the record as well, I'll add that corridor shooters are my favorite kind so its not because of it being one that makes it "dull". Its just that it doesn't have anything special beyond the premise and cheesy style. You have regenerating health, arcadey light military weapons that aren't interesting at all, two weapon slot with no thought out balance or variety to keep you really using it (about 80% of the game is practically forcing you to stick with an ordinary assault rifle and an ordinary shotgun as your best combo), and there isn't any differences between the faction weapons. There's absolutely no reason to explore, nor room to experiment with tactics, and AI that is either dull or even flat out unresponsive. Once the Nectar mechanic is thrown out the window, its replaced with lamer rebel gimmicks that you just wont be capable of using much and the whole game doesn't do anything to stand out anymore. Even the enemy Mantel soldiers become just grunts you can kill in a couple shots, they don't feel like powerful drugged super soldiers like it was aimed at in the start, instead its actually a weakness. There are a handful of ways to trigger an "overdose" that messes up the enemy, but its not a huge contribution to the way you'll be playing. Its also worth mentioning in addition to the medicore gameplay there isn't a sprint button and the melee is practically broken unless you have a knife which takes up one of your two weapon slots.

On the bright side, multiplayer manages to extend your time with Nectar but also lets you wreak havoc on those with it based on what side you go on. Honestly the multiplayer feels a lot like Killzone 1 if it traded pick-ups for asymmetrical gimmicks. The promise hand rebels play exactly as they do in campaign with fake death abilities, grenade traps, rolling, etc. Meanwhile the Mantel soldiers have most Nectar abilities, though I would say armor got toned back and with the monster health increase on everyone you may not want the blury rebel vision as it throws off your aim for headshots. I actually found myself preferring the rebel side because its so much fun to sneak up on a Mantel guy and slice him with a Nectar coated knife and overloading their systems. Meanwhile actually using the Nectar felt like it screwed with my aim, and the Nectar just didn't feel all that tough up against bots. I also prefer aiming down sights over the weird scope zoom they have to use with their visor. On the bright side the Nectar almost presents its own challenge to keep it boosted with kills to see if you can get by with one dose. Its almost like a natural killstreak reward. There are still pick-ups despite what I implied earlier, but as stated before the weapon variety is so ridiculously dull and boring that there's next to nothing encouraging you to actually memorize the placements and figure it out. While an arena-lite MP (like Killzone, timesplitters, and that Starwars FPS) usually has awesome guns and health kits and maybe even power-ups to keep you going, here its only a couple of dull weapons that just aren't worth wasting your time over. On a similar note I'll add that regenerating health just doesn't make much sense here. It works, but if this were actually online I'd be pissed to sink a dozen bullets into some guy who's just going to run behind a corner and get it all back. I love big health, but in this kind of game where the gunplay is floaty, pick-ups exist, lots of cover bits around, and then you add big regenerating health to all that and its simply a confused mess. The game is kind of an outdated attempt to follow two trends at once, and it doesn't do well on either side. Without the team gimmicks, and that simple joy of throwing a nectar knife, the experience is ridiculously barebones and left down to bots with deathmatch modes and basic score rules. Maps

Watch out for the overdoesed

haven't stuck out at all either, and I either choose the land carrier or random for my matches. The landcarrier only stands out to me because its an interesting climax piece in the campaign that oddly felt like the closest I'll ever get to riding on the leveler from the movie Ferngully in a video game form. The bot multiplayer is still fun, but its so easy to find better if you put out just a bit more money with games like Killzone HD, Unreal Tournament '99 or 04, or if you've still got a grip on the older consoles get Free Radical's better shooters with Timesplitters instead. That's just speaking around older school shooters to, you probably know where to look if you want something entirely different from this game. As it is I enjoyed goofing off with the team differences, but unless this is one of your only shooters you've probably got better. Now on the other hand I hear this game is amazing as a co-op campaign game, but I can't speak for that.

How about the tech side? Well this is a huge part of what fascinated me, but I think I also got answers. The game looks passable, but very sub-par. Kind of like the gameplay I mentioned. Physics are implemented, but fall short of anything fun. The environments are medium-ish in size and tease bigger things, but never go anywhere except straight into a dead-end or through the objective point like you're supposed to. The visuals themselves are really underwhelming, especially considering Killzone 2 was less than a year away, and Bioshock and Doom 3 did so much more with their atmosphere, and COD4/5 were running with far better performance as well as more extras like particles, emitters (and in W@W's case gibs). Heck even Alpha Prime, a budget indie FPS released before Haze, looked incredible by comparison running on my Intel HD 3000 laptop. I can't figure out how Haze possibly looked as bad as it did while being praised as a massive triple A PlayStation 3 exclusive published under Ubisoft. The mechanics and visuals show something far less triple A. I'd compare this more to a PSN downloadable game. Again its all passable, it kind of looks like Far Cry if it traded details and layered effects for smoother models, but to think this had the same budget tier for its time as Battlefield 3, or an open world game is for ours now just baffles me. It turns out a lot of the funding in this game could have been dumped into a combination of marketing (they even got Korn to write a song for it) and issues attempting to run this on a console they were still having lots of difficulties with programming. On the bright side the level based transitions are absolutely seamless, with every level truly leading into the next even if it uses the excuse of a dropship a lot for this. Sadly when you die you'll be met with a lengthy load, but I still consider the lack of loading an area is a big accomplishment for a game that is so outdated in everything else

Now you're all probably wondering where the redeeming factor is outside the premise, but honestly despite my disappointments its not all that bad. It never crossed my mind that this was a terrible game, especially not as bad as many will try to tell you. Its just not very good either. There's nothing innovative, or well refined within it. Its basically the bottom of the barrel right before things go into "bad" territory. For every unique idea it has, it has a glitch or some poor lack of balance to keep it back from going anywhere, but it has enough ideas and momentum alongside a cool premise that it never felt terrible and I continued to the end and wound up writing this review for it. Its cheesy tone with a cool premise and bright tropical setting also give it that feeling of the perfect type of game I usually play in the summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself wanting to return in the future (probably next summer).

A much needed break

It feels like I may have said this before, but at the risk of redundancy here we go: Don't get too wrapped up in gaming culture as much as you should the games themselves. Actually that goes for just about anything you really love. If this were sports, I'd rather spend time getting some friends together rather than arguing about teams and quarter backs. If this were film I'd rather be watching my favorite movie than writing an essay on why the cast of marvel's next movie is weird. Hell if this were about park conservation I'd even try my best to balance between activism/protests and actually enjoying a stroll through it while I can. Still for some odd reason there's an allure to go further with our hobbies, and that's understandable but really we've got to find some sense of balance and its one easily lost. I feel that's what's happened to me and judging by some others describing similar game ADD then I'd say its a shared feeling across some hardcore gamers. We start off by combining the internet and games to get more out of our games. Guides, behind the scenes info, experiences from others, reviews, and at one time cheat codes. Its great. Then somewhere down the line some of us get sucked into youtube video binges, comments hosting usually pointless debates and arguments, and somehow it can even boil down to the sad mess that started with the Quinn controversy. Being an opinionated guy that loves to write I especially get absorbed into some of the response stuff and thoughts that go into this. I'm willing to admit I've spent over an hour before on not just these articles, but simple comments before. I try to brush it off but honestly whenever I stop and realize that I have to question if it was worth it, and honestly.... the answer should be no 90% of the time. Ethnics, politics, business logic, and celebrity-like reputation all come into play with what once was just about the fun you had in booting up and playing a game. Its a bit absurd, and while I can see it needs to happen on a professional side it doesn't need to be that way for people like me and probably for those that read this (if anybody ever does read this).

I think the Quinn situation was a good reminder to me that the internet can be a mess but no matter what happens to the industry, the games that have been created will remain and will probably be damn fun. So I tried going on the web a little less and just sticking to playing the old Sly games on its HD collection. It felt pretty good but the test of time was yet to come. Well around the same time I also had an upcoming surgery situation and I knew that by force I'd see this tested longer. For the first couple days after surgery I couldn't even play my console (was able to play sly cooper 4 on the vita though :D) and I certainly couldn't sit right in my desk chair to go on the computer properly. Eventually I got better and I upgraded from just lying around 80% of the day to playing ratchet and clank on PlayStation 3 most of that day. I still had lingering crap in my head from the net, and was thinking of reviews and things from the series but over time my mind really bonded more with the game and without any online junk to interrupt me I just felt more whole. It was almost like a weekend when I was young again, I used to sit down and go at an old ratchet and clank game for hours and hours. I would truly experience and interact with the word and enjoy the characters and cut scenes again and again. No big internet distractions, no 3rd party analysis, nobody disputing stuff, etc. Don't get me wrong I love a good debate and exchanging views is part of learning and growing as individuals, but that's better left to things that matter more rather than just our escapist hobbies. When the two melt together gaming becomes less of escapism and more of... well something else. Not really a chore or politics, but something that sort of incorporates those alongside something you love. Its probably why the professionals are bummed out or less excited around gaming than the consumer is. That's not me, nor the path I really wish to be on. So I'm glad to be back into this moment of pushing out all the publicity, news, hype, and drama of the internet so I can focus on re-enjoying the world of ratchet and clank. Actually to be more specific I'm redoing the adventure and completing everything save for the skillpoints, and it feels damn good to be one gold bolt away from the platinum trophy anticipating that final capture.

R&C >>> this picture ^

I logged on for just a bit when I was able to stand better. I checked youtube a bit for any major videos, I quickly hopped on PS lifestyle, and I briefly looked for any special steam deals. Pretty much 80% of the news was over Destiny of course but I wasn't too sick of it at that point and so I just skipped over that junk and got around to what few good bits appealed to me and stayed away from comments and everything else. I was back into R&C fast and was enjoying myself again. Yeah Destiny is over-hyped and is hogging way too much attention, but honestly I don't care because I'm too busy enjoying games I think are better. I still hold the belief that journalism needs an overhaul especially in the hype and coverage sharing department (and I still really want to get around to going into details with that, but maybe another day), but regardless I'm using it less and playing more, and that's really all that could possibly count there. Still I'm not giving up the internet or anything like that. Heck part of gaming ADD is simply games themselves, not every game has the hook and amazement of R&C or Sly, but honestly there are still countless amazing games I'm simply not trying hard enough to stick with and that should have stopped. I'm glad I got a few days without it and I'm going to work harder for that rightful balance, and to drop some of the crap with web browsing. I'll still show up with a new article here, and I do love writing these. So that will continue, heck maybe even substitute the wasted time with comments. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go relax with an ice pack (still working on recovery) and grab that last gold bolt I need.

Well P.T. is the craziest thing I've done in a while.

I'm late to the party with this game. Still what better way than to end a bunch of lousy drama than a good kind of emotional ride that plays off one of the most genius acts in recent gaming? That being said its one of the stupidest things I've probably done recently, but its the most genius marketing ploy I think I've seen in gaming. I can't imagine what it would have been like if I hadn't spoiled a chunk of it ahead of time, but as it was it was surprising enough to hit me with a punch. I went in knowing it was a horror game and seeing some snippets, but little else and was still genuinely terrified but impressed. I love the fact that my favorite movie direct/producer is in on it to and I can't wait to see what this looks like in the end. Still I was also reminded why horror games were out of my comfort zone, and as much as I love Guillermo Del Toro's work in the movie industry not even he will probably change my mind on it. I may just wind up sitting out and watching youtube playthrough, but I dunno... maybe I'll cave in when this goes cheap and talk about how much I regret it later.

P.T. (or silent hills teaser) was really well crafted though, and I mean REALLY well crafted. Like possibly one of the best good marketing stunts in gaming. We really needed something like this instead of something like say another Aliens Colonial Marines incident. I can see how Kojima was in on this of all people. This is the same crazy guy that created Psycho Mantis, a boss that attacked you through your television and game console, and the trick to beating him was plugging the controller into another slot. Now suddenly he pulls a marketing stunt that makes some serious noise for a series that hasn't been taken seriously in a while. Secret teaser, a dead genre being brought back and done right with new tech, gameplay with triggers that are complex to understand despite such a small game space, and a puzzle that forces gamers to talk about this game in order to even finish it. Well done guys, well done.

I especially love how the small things even in trigger events kind of add up to a unique experience for most players even in such a small space. The entire game is made up of like an L shaped hallway that just loops, but I managed to go pretty off-track of the common walkthrough. I did things pretty well, passed through most loops, and then got stuck at one of the first real puzzles. I got attacked by a ghost during one point. I was trying to open the door to move on, and figure things out. I knew something had to be up with the 2nd table but whenever I stayed around there I thought I heard whispers that spooked me. I originally was told by a small review that "you don't die" so I braved up and looked around there anyways only to have the whispers come back... and then I took one step and was introduced to the ghost named Lisa with a horrible close-up scare. My legs and arms froze, my hair on my face stood up, and I was in just paralyzed horror one brief second and met with a sort of game over scene. The game reloaded itself and this time the door that I was struggling with was open, so I assumed it was a scripted event that was supposed to happen with that "you can't die" bit. So I considered that bit of unrivaled horror a success in the end as I went through the looped door and got things to change. Later I got stuck on the "Hello" to "hell" puzzle. Oddly enough I nearly got it right on my own but because of confusing sound cues I proceeded too early (off by one L) and messed up my progress with that one. This was before I knew the so called sound cue was actually what people call "The Haunting" where Lisa appears somewhere on the map and threatens you, but I'm getting a bit ahead of myself with that.

this part

So I looked up the walkthrough to figure this out only to find I was doing it well to begin with, but not before being a little thrown off. It talked previously about collecting papers (which I didn't do), hearing radios a bit earlier than I remember, and saying you can get lisa to not attack you by collecting the papers, how a bag could talk to you if you zoomed in on it (I just passed it and missed this whole thing), and then something about audio through a hole right after the marker wall bit. Yeah well, nice but I just had to get the markers and move on, I managed to get past the game without the papers and in an order that felt a bit different. Sadly I skipped the word about audio and got stuck yet again because of it. Instead of finding a whole to listen to the audio, I actually got a bit freaked out in the next loop by all the static and then I noticed the door was open making me think the audio was not necessary to locate. Yeah big mistake because then I was tossed into a totally warped form where you ran, things blurred, and the creepy was amped up without the ghost needing to step in. No single walkthrough I have found mentioned this, and in fact I had to read through forum posts before someone addressed this part of the game in which case there was still a way to catch the audio within the hole, it was just even harder to see because of the blurred running. So I found it, accomplished that, then moved on to the insanity. I recall mostly just moving forward, and the haunting music was something I just got used to and ignored. Eventually I accepted I made it to the end piece even though I wasn't quite done.

I looked back on the walkthrough to collect all the pieces of paper since I found they could be picked up at any time. I did this with the last piece being collected at the very last bit of the hallway. I was now "safe" by the walkthrough's definition of Lisa, though I thought that to be the case anyways because I had already been attacked once in a supposed script. Well as soon as I got that last paper I heard a clear voice call from way back at the other end of the hallway, it sounded like the radio or some dude on the phone but the chatter was too short and muffled to hear out of surprise. So I decided... hey, if its the phone I don't want to miss the call and any lore or proper "end" piece. I walked up to the phone, nothing. I then walk all the way back to the hallway and holy crap my hair stood up. I was met with Lisa blocking right at the freakin' door way, but I was so paralyzed that my brain didn't tell me to stop, so I literally rushed right through her in this surreal moment of horror and made it through the door. Apparently (at least I think this is what happened) the haunting music must have been going on, because as I looked back through the walkthrough desperate to look for this moment in the game that nobody else talked about, and apparently you can find Lisa lurking on the map anytime the creepy music plays. So.... yeah she still goes around the map even with paper in hand, screw your instructions walkthroughs. I then mustered up whatever courage was left in me and decided to follow the walkthrough on triggering the baby laugh ending. I tried it... twice. Each time I waited for the chimes, took my 10 steps, and the only thing that triggered each time was the Haunting music. 3rd time this happened I said "fuck this" and quit. I wasn't going to face Lisa one more time, I just couldn't.

NO MORE!!!!

The events I witnessed though and the way I had trouble piecing certain key events and orders together and have a seperate experience from many other guys leaves me astounded in how well created this small one room free teaser was. I was on the web for hours looking up details and other's experiences when I should have been playing Diablo 3 that I rented. It absorbed that time and I didn't get far, instead P.T. blew my mind and left me with picking up the pieces. To horror fans or those curious everywhere, PLAY THIS GAME. What an awesome move this team made. I hope the game turns out well, though also leaves out the super crazy puzzles. You pulled your PR stunt, now let gamers progress normally whenever the real thing comes out.

Game Over? Well I'm still pressing Start to continue.

I don't think I've ever seen or expected this within a fun hobby. Things have been stressful lately. Some family drama is happening and I've been forced to play mediator in a situation where I can't agree completely with either side, I have an upcoming medical procedure I'm concerned about, and while gaming is supposed to be something fun to lay back on and relax with to help these situations it instead has became its own habitat for drama and frustration. I want to say first off that with this frustration and these odd events, its been difficult to discuss. I've re-written my response to the cause about 4 times (and then went back and edited it a bit more), I've sunk some hours into this issue, but I'm not 100% sure I'm content with it all. So if I say anything confusing, screw up on the keyboard with some typos, or come off as hypocritical or angry then I'm sorry. Still I feel pressured to document my thoughts, and I'm trying it in the most reasonable way I can do right now while under stress on multiple cases. The past week or two have been among the darkest I've known for gaming culture, and oddly enough its slightly difficult for some to even see. You know what, for those still ignorant to it, I think they've been blessed. Think back to when you started gaming. Whether you played brawlers, shooters, RPGs, platformers, strategy games, or something else there was something special about it to hook you in. The interaction, the immersion, the tactics, the sportsmanship, something. Something got you into gaming and it became fun. I got truly invested with Spyro and similar platformers, becoming immersed in a colorful fun world I could play around with in its own space totally suspended from time and reality of the mundane. Then I got into shooters, and it became a slightly similar feeling of freedom but this time it was more about the mechanics, the silly plots and dark creatures, and insane set pieces alongside fragile digital buddies you felt like observing their virtual fate with. I later on also became fascinated with strategy games, specifically the highly customizable ones that were so open I could create my own stories, adventures, and campaigns with those options and little bit of my imagination. It was great, and then I discovered how to combine this hobby with the internet. For a while that seemed great to as it was a source to cheat codes, tips, fascinating insights from other gamers and even the designers, and there was a big industry growing around this very thing with reporters, and reviewers, and comedy on it, and more. It was great.... and then we had to get "serious" about it.

Fine I get it, it happens, and really it was never perfect to begin with. With or without these super serious insights, politics, and financial garbage getting involved, we still had to deal with the fact that interests and fads change and the times move on. The Mario 64 era platformer got pushed aside for more western RPGs and open world games, shooters changed their format, horror died and got reborn into a ton of interesting experimental indie projects, and MOBAs became a fad strategy game that is confusing everyone but not before becoming a big deal for the competetive scene. These changes happen, and I can accept that. What upsets me horribly though is when politics get stuck in and people replace fun with bigotry or false attempts at slaying said bigotry because some think that by shaming others they get some special righteous crusader of the month award. Then you have rebuttals against it that doesn't help out so well. The way the vocal gaming industry is ripping itself apart in the past couple of weeks is a prime example of this, and as of a few days ago a few sides of the press are literally attempting to change the term gamer into one big slander word over night. Good luck with that you hypocrites. One moment they say that "gaming is rapidly accepted and enjoy now!" and "Oh look at how far we've come! Billions of people love playing games, and we've got it recognized as 'art' because that was somehow so important" then suddenly its "Everyone knows a gamer is the most disgusting hate mongering bigot on this planet." I'm about fed up with the attitude. It brings me around to what I was saying at the start, those who are out of the loop are blessed. Those who sit there ignoring these sides of the internet because they're busy enjoying LittleBigPlanet, Call of Duty, Tomb Raider, PayDay 2, DMC, Dota 2, or older classics, etc are enjoying themselves and basking in what gaming and being a gamer is all about. They aren't aware that they're being called Nazis from their fellow enthusiasts and hate is flying around when discussing this hobby.

This article comes as somewhat of a response to this article that's becoming quite popular among the gaming media. It claims that gamers are over and then begins to talk like the term has always meant the lower ends of the social ladder. Gamer to this article (or according to the world in their view) somehow has come to mean bigots, keyboard warriors, racists, sexists, and people who demand that any decent demographics stay out. Its over, because gaming has reached beyond their demographics Funny though, Gamer has never been a "demographic", instead there are demographics within gaming. As far as I've known the term Gamer is the same to games as movie goer or film fanatic is to movies, Bookworm or big reader is to describe a fan of novels or ebooks, etc. It basically boils down to this: you love video games and have taken it up as a heart-felt hobby. Instead of accepting that like many have, this article wants to pretend gamer means what it did in the late 80's except with more bigotry included. If you want a TL;DR version of this, check out boogie's video on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEDRh9UaxA He doesn't represent my opinions necessarily, but he sends the basic message I want to, and in probably a lighter easier to digest tone than I can do here.

This isn't only about this article though. The Gamasutra article comes itself as a response to events surrounding gamers (by which I mean game enthusiasts, not the hateful Nazi context from the article). To sum things up, basically a developer was supposedly caught in some affairs tied to game journalists and other developers, people lash out against the people with some resorting to threats while others want an answer on the topic of Journalistic integrity. Unfortunately because the developer was a female, some of those threats were flavored in a pretty foul manor and others used this as an excuse to ignore the subject matter entirely and instead frame gaming as anti-female (again). Oh and something about phil fish getting hacked but it was a fraud or maybe not (the conspiracy thickens, yay!). The sad thing though is that people on the professional side are staying absurdly tight lipped, which is horrible in a time where we need to them to come forth on transparency. Meanwhile the opposite is true for the informal side of things, where anyone with a blog (hi!) or twitter account has basically fanned the fires. As a result we have respected people whether it be Youtube guys like JonTron, or popular developers like Tim Schafer taking sides and either shaming gamers or getting distracted by arguing with them. Actually those precise two names got into a twitter fight with each other, lovely. Because we have a loud crowd, loud outrages, and no one of value to the original problem is answering, we actually are seeing the community kind of rip itself apart trying to make its own answers. Then it comes down to this where we have a couple articles like above pretending like we're all guilty of being horrible people for being a part of gaming. Yeah nice, insult the whole industry that gave you your job.

Wait, what happened to just enjoying this?

Lets take a break from this subject matter to make one thing clear. We live in a crazy but awesome world. Both the best and worst come from our differing view points and diverse cultures and experiences that bring us to our mindsets and where we are today. Sadly some choose to go to extremists where we have forms of violence, threats, abuse, harassment, and lies. We've had football stadiums threatened with bombs over a television broadcast mistake made during a big event. There are stalkers for hollywood celebrities and tabloid news being parasites on their lives feeding off their every drama. There have been death threats and actual white supremacist groups setting off a fuss over the casting of super heroes in movie adaptations. What about the other mediums, and how they portrays or panders to groups? There are still to this day films and comics that market themselves by pandering to horny teenage boys, or even women with lazy chic flicks. To this very day I cannot go to a big book store, or heck even wal-mart's book section, without seeing some romance or fantasy novel that use their cover art space to show some super bulky male muscle or some female figure showing off a bit too much skin. Do their writers, critics, and so called "professionals" also insult and guilt trip all of their reading enthusiasts over such stuff? I sure hope not, though I have seen traces of parallel debates happening. I recall a web comic artist doing a comic strip raising awareness on female cos-play harassment at conventions and then the comment sections being full of arguments that look quite familiar. Funny how this "Gamer" tone seems to be in all the other hobbies as well. Its almost as if hated, bigotry, social justice debates, and journalistic integrity aren't questions exclusive to this hobby.

Alright one more example this time with a link.

"The negative fan reactions went on for hours, and led to a wave of online jokes about the casting from more mainstream folks and media, with Twitter leading the way. By morning, the entertainment press were focused as much on the negative online reaction and portrayed it as if it was some kind of widespread mainstream public opposition to the casting rather than a typical online situation where the loudest voices just get more attention. But that’s the new narrative, and so it’s time we address it head on I guess.

The voices of the Internet — or rather the tens of thousands of people (out of hundreds of millions who watch movies around the world) who went nuts and are convinced that this casting is the worst thing that ever happened in their lives — are wrong. They are wrong about the casting being bad, they are wrong about Affleck being bad, and they are wrong about how the casting will affect the movie. And I’m here to tell you the six biggest reasons they are so wrong."

"Fanboys and fangirls have an uncanny knack for being the most angry over casting where the anger turns out to be least justified. And when it comes to crazy over-the-top fan reactions that turn out to be glaringly wrong in hindsight, the stand-out examples are in fact from the history of the Batman franchise. Remember back in the late-1980′s when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman? I remember it vividly. Fans went absolutely nuts, threatening mass boycotts and starting petitions to reverse the casting, and the mainstream public laughed and assumed it was going to be a satire or a complete disaster. It was called the worst casting of all time. The Mr. Mom jokes went on and on right up until opening day, and then everyone shut up really fast."

That's two snippets off of this article trying to fight off (or fan) the flames of batman's casting controversy that big movie goers and batman fans were taking part in. This has 100% nothing to do with gaming, gamers, or the progress of gaming. It simply has to do with the fact that it was an event that brought out some of the worst people that just so happen to be speaking around a hobby.

sorry I just had to also remind you of this

What am I getting at here? Well to be blunt, the threats, horrible screaming, etc.... its not exclusive to us gamers. It instead happens at a trigger. Something pushes our buttons in a hobby we love and feel passionate about, and some manage their stress and differences better than others. Other medias have similar problems to us, and its not something worth fighting about. I'm not defending the death threats and saying its ok, but its certainly not a defining factor of "gamer" like some want to believe and discussing these death threats only is ignoring what caused them. Its not any different than other industries. What is different to the best of my knowledge is that gaming is evolving and becoming significant in the same age as the internet, and people of all kinds don't quite know how to handle both maturely. The progress of this hobby in the mainstream eye is confused because of the mixed messages being sent across the web. Instead of only letting it naturally develop, open up, and have generations grow up with it and accept it (like comics, movies, music, etc) its stunted a bit by such easy access to random anonymous opinions coloring things. We also have guys trying to hammer it in as "We've got to do everything to be noticed as heroes guys!". So when someone acts up in a common way that the internet has sadly allowed its been made into a mountain of problems because it apparently "reflects" us as gamers when that's just not true. Some people send some angry threats, some people pull a publicity stunt, and then the media demonizes the entire hobby for it. Some of our own developers, writers, our supposed gamer friends across websites like reddit and tumblr try to tear the hobby apart and put the whole as equal with the extremists. I could try calling them out for being dumb white knight SJWs, but that would be just putting me on the other end of the problem and doesn't solve anything. That's what this has turned into. One hate feeds the other, and then an outlash goes to another outlash. Well I didn't write this to say that, or to contribute to that. Labels like SJW, White knights, MRA, feminists, dudebro, and more are floating around in places they don't belong. They're being used to bundle a whole group of people together, shape it into someone's cheap shot argument, and then blast them. However that doesn't ever work because that's all it is, a cheap shot used to make someone feel like they won the argument, and it just gets the same rebuttal back until you've got a mundane ugly internet fight with strawmen groups propped up. I'm guilty of similar in the past, and I may find myself making that mistake again where I abuse a term like SJW. I try to give it proper context and use it under terminology that makes sense (like what labels are for), but it sometimes does the opposite. Right now though I can see clearly its not the time for that. Its not time to start misusing the label "Gamer" like that either. Instead we need to seek reasoning, we need to express our concerns, and we need to fix the source of the problem (Journalistic integrity). We can start by stopping the argument over pandering, feminism, death threats, and stop fighting slinging terms like SJW around. We can stop by tweeting our messages because there's not enough room to reason in that space.

However addressing the outrage at its very base, was it really worth that either? I think its quite silly looking back on it. Yes Journalistic integrity is important, and this was a pretty foul move. However now we know some names not to trust, and the message has been spread. Transparency, professionals setting reasonable standards, and not doing shady shit would all be great things we should hold them accountable to. There should be a bit of anger over corruption. However are you really also going to be this shocked that a journalist was questionable? Have you just started learning for the first time that you should take what they say with a grain of salt and that they may have some biased slant? Have you never fathomed the idea that these influential writers may have been tampered with for money or publicity? Yeah its bad that they're open to such corruption, but its not the end of the world. If you haven't learned the lesson by now, get it through your head now that you can't depend on others to tell you where your money should be spent. They aren't in charge of this hobby and we can do just fine without their advice. Look at all the youtubers, and events that do their jobs a lot better. We don't need the old journalists, and if they want to be dishonest cowards using politics to scapegoat issues then fine, they'll kill their-selves over time with that crap. Good riddance, I sure didn't need them when I got into this hobby in the first place. That's precisely what I say as well to articles like the one from Gamasutra, if your not willing to respect the hobby and think straight then quite frankly gamers never needed you to. That's all that needed to be said, its done now. We didn't need the mudslinging, twitter threats, political agendas, etc.

Okay lets go back to this "Gamer" term. What have you taken away from this discussion so far? Well sadly its become like the term SJW where it just became a name someone wanted to lump a broad audience up in and twist its meaning into a cheap shot. At least that's what the article did, but honestly the good thing is that like SJW its going to find another meaning out in the real world. If you sit out and call someone a Social Justice Warrior in real life they wont think of pandering ploys, or extremist activisits. They'll just scratch their heads or laugh at you because the term doesn't have much meaning out in the public and is separate from what you see people throwing around online in emotional upsets. If you call someone a gamer they'll think not of the Gamasutra article, not of some twitter trolls, not of journalistic ethics, but of playing video games. They'll think of people playing games together, wearing hats with references to goombas and 1-Up mushrooms, they may even one day think of that cool Dota 2 match they saw on a sports channel. I don't know where Gamasutra pulled its "public view" from, because its not the same place I live in. I can say gamer, video games, and gaming without association of bigots or basement dwellers. There will still be exceptions of course, much like how if you look around you can find someone that still thinks rock music is still just "noise" or even outright demonic stuff like the controversy from decades ago. However gaming is evolving with or without those people, and it'll do just the same no matter who is framing the word into a cheap shot slander statement. "Gamer" isn't over. It doesn't end because some guy takes the term, rebrands it to fit a lecture, and then shames anyone that has ever called themselves a gamer because of their favorite hobby. I think not. We have kids growing up playing Bioshock Infinite in wonder. We have a rising sports-like scene within the MOBA genre, and we have over billions of people around the world enjoying Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. We have families cracking smiles as they race each other in Mario Kart 8. We have people studying back on classics like Ratchet and Clank, Mario, Pac-man, or Metal Gear Solid, and some studying on just the progress of the industry like how Nintendo helped out with the big crash or how they created their own competition with Sony. I noticed a guy on a ROM site talking about how great the 90's gaming must have been with classics like Donkey Kong Country even though they missed it by being born into the 2000's. We have new people fascinated with horror games after watching the emotions of lets players, and we have people sharing their love of old nostalgic games they grew up with and inspiring a new generation or those who simply missed games of the time to go fetch them and catch up on some awesome stuff. These people are keeping gaming alive, and the passionate ones are Gamers in every sense of the word. They're simply people who are brought together by the interest of all the good and fun video games represent. The bigotry and hate we see can be found elsewhere, but the fun of games are unique to games. That's where "Gamer" comes from and what it means, its in the name.

You don't have to believe me or any of the stuff I spew out on this blog. However what you should be able to believe this is part of being a gamer, this has gamer appeal, this comes from a gamer, this person is here to stand for gaming culture, this has to do with being a gamer, and finally this guy know what it means to be a part of gaming culture. This and more along similar lines is what "gamer" means to a lot of people, and all the silly twitter rage or slanted labeling in the world aren't going to change that. These things, and the one video at the beginning with Boogie2988, mean and stand for more than this entire blog could ever hope to accomplish. If actions speak louder than words, than there's your proof, and here is what you should believe in. They are working, living examples of what gaming has brought and what the term gamer means. Sure sometimes we still have a good laugh and come up with some silly photo that plays on cartoonish stereotypes, or have our oddball habits and associations. Much like ribs, BBQ, or beer goes with the culture of football season Gamers have energy drinks, crazy reactions to their televisions, and more internet memes than you can keep up with. Still gamer in the end has come with one certain association that few can deny, and that's a gaming enthusiast. Someone that plays, loves, and keeps up with gaming. Very soon I'm going to turn on my PS3 and go back to normal with being an example of a gamer myself. I'm tired of this drama, and its got nothing to do with the joy we all get out of gaming.

Growing up in the late 90's I never encountered any serious issues with the term Gamer. It wasn't a dated term, it wasn't something that was tied to hatred, it was what came with the fact that "he loves and plays games". By the time I heard of idiots on twitter, profanity in online games, heard of conspiracies and corruption, or saw bigotry set in motion I had seen it somewhere else before. In politics, within the television news media, within school, and within feuds between people. Video game culture has some of it within itself to, but its not the egg that hatched it, rather its just a part of being human. Its a part of taking note of the world and using some common sense to separate good from bad and right from wrong. I never thought though that these issues would circle gaming so strongly and with so much misinformation, rumors, or hate. Still its not everything. Honestly gaming is still what it is. It has come from pixels battling on a screen for pointless points powered by a single joystick, to angry birds and massive sci-fi space operas co-existing in a multi-billion dollar industry. It still remains fun, innocent in itself (its an inanimate object), and now entertains billions. Its made major progress and is growing up with multiple generations, and will over time become a standard thing in society if it hasn't already. Gaming has gone far, deep, and has an audience of countless people of all types. It should be clear that Gamer has come to mean this:

There should be no drama to this. I'm proud to call myself, and other passionate enthusiasts, gamers. It has nothing to do with someone signing up with superemacists or activist groups, it has nothing to do with whatever a "Social Justice Warrior" is. All you need is to leave your worries at the door, bring a controller and a mind willing to have fun. That's what it means to be a gamer, and I'm proud to be a part of that. Now check your settings, turn your friendly fire off, and press start to play. If nobody else wants to, and gaming culture rips itself apart in the end... well I've still got a lot of fun games and I've been content with playing solo.