Tigger the Highlander

This has nothing to do with video games. But in a podcast Kyle and I did once we made reference to Tigger being a Highlander of sorts, below is the fruit of our random banter.

What is a Video Game?

A while back I defended the notion that video games are indeed art. However, I have noticed that in my posts I often poke fun at and even coined a term "Cagms" to video games that I do not classify as video games. What makes these games less than what I perceive are actual video games? And am I right or wrong in my assessment?

What a video game is:

A video game as defined by webster "an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action." Ok, so by that definition anything played on a screen with a user interface must be a video game. But what about emphasizing fast action? Chess and Solitare can be played on a computer are they video games? Does their board game origin nullify any chance of them ever being called a video game? And does their lack of "fast action" dictate they can never be video games? Personally I would consider Chess more of a video game than Solitare or even the "Cagms" I make mention of. Simply because it defines the idea of strategy in a 1 vs 1 competition. Because it can be played in real life or on screen is irrelevant to me, the game itself has tiers of skill involved and isn't mindless repetition. So I guess my definition would have to include that "lack of mindless repetition," clause.

I don't care for the definition as defined by webster, but who am I to define something? At its core that is what a video game is defined as, right down to those lazy flash games that are programmed as a lame college project. Even those horrible item finding games old women buy for their computer to pass the time would be called a "video game."

What video games should be:

I believe there should be a classification for "Cagms" which are video games created for the casual video game player. It would separate at least to some degree what video games are and what they should be. They shouldn't be "Cagms" and it's unfortunate the industry has come to rely on these.

Here is where it gets interesting however. I consider a "Cagm" to be Bejeweled, however I do not consider Tetris or Dr. Mario to be cagms. Why is this? Both are puzzle games, both are meant for the player to seek a high score, both employ pretty colors with bright lights and sounds, so on and so on. Let's take Tetris for example. In Tetris the goal is to get as many lines at the bottom of the screen as you can with the pieces you are given. In this game you are given many choices and chances to plan ahead. You always get to see the piece you'll get next and in some cases you get to see many pieces ahead. Will you plan to stack your walls tall in hopes of achieving a Tetris or is the speed too high and you need to just make quick choices? These are the levels of thought Tetris allows. Bejeweled on the other hand is completely random. The pieces do not come down in any specified order, you cannot plan ahead in any way, there are no levels of thought to it whatsoever. You seek out pairs of 3 colored gems or more for a minute and see what your score is at the end.

This is probably best compared to a real video game by the name of Yoshi's Cookie. In Yoshi's Cookie you have to pair up 3 or more of the same cookie. You are given a static board and only get a certain number of moves. You have to carefully utilize all of your moves to clear the board. THIS is a puzzle game, this is a real video game, it makes you think!

What a game should be and what it shouldn't are what I describe above as one example. While that describes basically all casual games wherein none of them offer any levels of thought, planning, or strategy there are other games that I do not even consider video games.

World of Warcraft:

To me, World of Warcraft is not a video game. It is a fully interactive social network like Facebook. That's all it is. Nothing about World of Warcraft makes the user think about anything, you stay within the confines of your group, run around and play your role as Barbarian, Paladin, or whatever you may be. You grind constantly, and endlessly. Grant you there are worse players of this "game" and better players, but what it boils down to is ultimately who wastes more time on it. The more time you put in the game the better equipment, spells, and money you will get. But you cannot play this alone. You cannot conquer the toughest bosses without a large group of people. It cannot stand on its own and if the servers ever die it can never be experienced again.

But ultimately, what makes this a non video game to me is that this game is the epitome of mindlessness. Never before have I seen something that can shut off brains quite as well as this. I thought Diablo 2 was bad but apparently this is far worse. I do not have much to say on the matter as I have never touched it myself. I have only seen friends of mine and their friends fall victim to this plague. You may wonder why my opinion matters at all if I've never played it. Well, I'll tell you just why I've never played it.

#1. It's not a video game
#2. Endless fetch quests is not fun
#3. Grinding for levels/gear is not fun
#4. Douchebags inherit the "world" of warcraft
#5. It's a fleeting thing. It will die off eventually.
#6. Absurdly high monthly payments
#7. Battle system has no depth and you basically watch it play out
#8. Again the people on this game are nuts, ever see them at comic con or a Blizzard event?
#9. Playing this usually means you have no time for actual video games
#10. It's not a video game

Arguably one could point out that I spend way more money on multiple games than if I just played World of Warcraft. But that's just it, why would I ever want to just play World of Warcraft? It's a terrible game that I don't even classify as one. Of all the reviews I've written on seemingly fine video games with many inherent flaws, this one takes the cake as not only does it contain every flaw I abhor about today's western development of video games, people love it. Yes, I hate that 13 million people actually give Blizzard money for this tripe.

2 or 3 million people might agree that Mass Effect was fantastic and while I'd argue that they are wrong with valid points I could at the very least understand where they are coming from, and they would have valid points on why it wasn't a bad game. World of Warcraft doesn't have this ability. It's bad through and through. It excels at nothing other than forcing the user to grind away hours of their life. The only reason people play this is because of the mindless constant rewards and social aspect of it.

Conclusion:

This wasn't an article meant to ridicule World of Warcraft. There are plenty of casual games like this that hide themselves under the guise of being a real video game. That is the most notable one however. And some people who play it will actually consider themselves a "hardcore" gamer for playing it. All those people are, are addicts and not in the fun way.

Video games shouldn't be mindless. They should encourage new ideas, new methods of interactivity, fun challenges based on some fundamental game design. It is a shame a large portion of the industry relies on popular opinion for the sake of making a quick buck but I can't blame them in the end.

World of Warcraft and Bejeweled are just the beginning of a wave we're seeing now in western game science that understands how the human mind functions to get people to keep playing. The human mind doesn't like dying over and over again in real video games like Ninja Gaiden or Castlevania. I would much rather die 100 times in a row on Ninja Gaiden just for that one moment where I succeed. Those moments will always be with me, and nothing in World of Warcraft can replicate those feelings of excitement and triumph. No, these challenges are discouraging for the average person. Instead they prefer to see the ever constant rewards of World of Warcraft and Bejeweled where you're never EVER reprimanded for a bad choice or wrong click. They are the equivalent of hiring a cheap prostitute. She'll reward you as long as you pay for her, but at the end of the day what did you get out of it, where's the sense of accomplishment or fulfillment?

Definition:

With this rant I believe I can come up with some semblance of how I feel a video game should be defined. It goes as follows: Video Game: "A game that is played on a video screen offering challenges for the user to accomplish with a degree of strategy/skill and choice implementation employed ultimately fulfilling the user with a sense of accomplishment. Also, the game shouldn't suck ass!"

*Video games: They shouldn't suck ass*

DMC - Dante Must Cry

Last week or so Capcom announced they are rebooting the famed Devil May Cry series. Without even looking at pictures or videos I was immediately disappointed. I also immediately laughed my ass off. For those unfamiliar Capcom has seemingly been trying to steer away from the events that occurred in Devil May Cry 2 where at the end Dante rides into hell. Every DMC game since has been a prequel, and even focused on a different character entirely. It's just very amusing that Capcom has found a brand new way to avoid DMC2 (the most hated in the series) and where the character Dante went from there. But a reboot? That is going way too far.

Why Capcom NEVER should have done this:

#1. Devil May Cry is a wildly popular series, and while it isn't their #1 seller it still holds its own water pretty well. DMC4 sold extremely well, better than most of the DMC games. It was released on the Xbox for the very first time as well. Firstly, why would they introduce a new audience to Dante and his antics and then just wreck him outright for a reboot? It doesn't make any sense to do this. Now for Xbox fans anyway, all they will know of the Dante of old is what they saw in DMC4 and now this new DMC game. If they weren't already confused about what is going on, they SURE will be now.

#2. The story of DMC was never finished, period. For the most part, Devil May Cry has revolved around Dante and his dysfunctional family for story purposes. We learned of his mother in the first and third game, and see him confront his brother in all three. Throughout most of the first game he's upset with his father Sparda whom he never really got to know. Players of the series eagerly anticipated Dante finally confronting Sparda in the Demon World where Dante presumably goes at the end of the second game. It was assumed that we would then finally get to play DMC in the Demon World in the next game and possibly seeing Sparda. However, Capcom apparently wanted nothing to do with what happened after DMC2 as 3 and 4 were both prequels. And now any hope of ever having a Sparda boss battle is completely gone.

**Edit** Ok there is some conflicting reports that Sparda died and was locked away in the sword of the first game. Makes sense, I didn't pay attention all that well. However, what is conflicting is whether he actually died or not and knowing these stories of Demons and mythological figures it's easy to bring Sparda back whenever they want even if he was confirmed dead. The point is the DMC story was pretty interesting albeit lacking much like Capcom's other series's. I would have liked to see some conclusion to it. **

#3. The look. View any game forum about this subject right now and you will see essentially no one praising the new look of Dante. The consensus is he looks like a crack head, or some sort of junkie. He doesn't appear to retain any of his snarky wise-cracking ways either. While it's way too early to tell for sure, the fact is the look was altered for the worse, and for the wrong reasons. According to the lead director of the game, Dante was altered to appeal to a younger audience and was meant to look like a pop star. Note he also claims they designed the new Dante model after himself (the director)...ugh. In any event, that is just plain stupid to do. Why appeal to a "younger" audience when you have nearly 3 to 4 million current devout followers of the main series? Don't you change something up when shit quits working? I guess not if you're Capcom...

#4. There's no gameplay footage yet, however from the trailer I am already disappointed in the action. It appears slow and lethargic. In a cutscene with Dante I expect to see stupidly over the top action. With this, he shoots his pistols very slowly, there's no ninja like flipping, and his snarkyness is replaced with putting his cigarette out in an enemy...Again it's too early to tell, but I do not like what I'm seeing...and I think I know why.

#5. Ninja Theory, that's why. Ninja Theory is the developer of this reboot, and they suck. Flat out, from history, they suck. Heavenly Sword blew chunks, that's who is making this game. The makers of Heavenly Sword. There's a reason Bayonetta was as flat out amazing as it was and that's because it was behind the guys who did DMC3, the very best DMC game. Knowing who is behind this new game I am astutely aware that it has a very high chance of being terrible.

Conclusion:

I just don't get it. I understood when Capcom rebooted Mega Man in Mega Man X. The main series was losing steam with each new release, so it made sense. This doesn't make sense at all. Capcom is only doing one thing, which is losing the support of people who followed this series. Will they gain that "younger" audience on what is essentially an adult rated game? I somehow doubt it very much. Luckily I know enough about the game industry and who makes what to know that Bayonetta is the new Dante, and I greatly look forward to Bayonetta 2.

*Dante wears high heels now and kills things with his sexy long hair*