Gaming Holiday

Whoop! Its the Christmas holidays and that certainly means that I have a lot more time on my hands to do a lot more gaming :D.

Except I will be away from my beloved League of Legends for a whole week whilst I am visiting family and I'm sorry if I come across as all teenagery, but that sucks.

Nevermind, there will be other things to play. LoL season 4 doesn't start until January anyway; I am itching to get back stuck into soloqueue though.

So currently on my playlist is Lego: Marvel Superheroes on PS4. This is an old favourite and I'm sure you all know the format. Just that this time it is enormous! You have the whole of central New York to run around and I'm starting to think that it might actually be bigger than Fallout 3.

Contrary to my regular posts, I don't really have a problem with this game, and no philosophical issue to mull over. It's just good fun.

Flying can be a bit tricky, and sometimes it isn't 100% clear what you have to do to advance but for a quick pick-up-and-play it's definitely recommended.

This game was featured in Jon Snow's infamous interview with Charlie Brooker on the PS4.

(I'm sure you've seen this, but you could watch it again!)

In my previous post about Brooker's programme 'How Video Games Changed the World' I argued that video games didn't need this kind of history/beginner's guide documentary because there were plenty people out there who already knew that stuff and we are ready for a programme which will go beyond that and treat video games as more than just a novelty for kids and nerds.

A friend suggested that my argument was null and void because Jon Snow's hapless attempts at even understanding the cut scenes (let alone playing the game) illustrated how un-mainstream they were.

So during this holiday, I will carry out my own experiment and see how my Mum and Dad respond to Lego: Marvel Superheroes. Is everyone of that generation so far removed from video games that they genuinely seem frightened of them?

Or was Snow just trolling Brooker, and us?

Merry Christmas!

How Videogames Changed the World

So how did video games change the world? Charlie Brooker’s prime-time documentary was definitely highly anticipated, and after watching the Brooker vs Snow unterview on Friday, I thought that this would be his chance to speak to a willing audience who had no intention of interrupting him.

But did it answer the question it posed? Did we learn why video games are a really important cultural medium?

Here’s 7 reasons why I felt it unfortunately missed such a huge opportunity to really get to grips with why everyone should start to take games seriously.

1. The Countdown Format

Completely unnecessary and misleading. I would have much preferred it to be structured around theme, or (putting my teacher hat on) argument. What does 25 mean? What does 1 mean? Are we that dumb that we can’t understand something unless it is given a number? (And yes I understand the irony here, I have given a reason for my numbering though.)

2. The History of Videogames

When are we going to move on from Pong? Do we really have to start with that everytime? Whilst video games are still a relatively young medium, if we really want to discuss why they are so pertinent to 2013, then we need to discuss games now. The Pong section was very long in comparison with other more recent games, and I just don’t really feel it added much context.

3. Nostalgia

Why did this potentially groundbreaking documentary have to resort to talking heads telling us ‘how great’ a game was? It couldn’t help degenerating into an ‘I Heart’, full of remember whens and fuzzy memories. This is the kind of cheap television that Mr Brooker has previously slammed, and it is hard to take it seriously once it adopts this style.

This documentary could have been seminal itself, but it seemed to chicken out at the last minute and pander to the (supposed) audience. It was Saturday night, 9pm, on a terrestrial channel after all. I’m sure (and I hope) that this was because some commissioning editor didn’t quite get what it was Charlie Brooker was trying to do, and thought they knew best about the format; so I don’t completely blame Brooker, but was the prime-time slot really worth selling out for?

4. Labrinth’s Tekken contribution.

I loved his contribution to the section on video games music. The idea that his (very popular) songs have been influenced by videogames was an example of how they have changed the world, but it wasn’t really developed and taken seriously enough. However, I really don’t see why we needed the part about him using Tekken moves in a fist-fight. If we are going to say that video games do prompt and suffer from copycat behaviour, then don’t we need to address it a little more and no just laugh it off? Ah the memories...

5. Twitter at #1.

This was a brave move. It is a really interesting concept, and I can see Brooker’s point. But putting it at #1 feels like a gimmick. The gamification of RL is there to be seen, but there are better examples that won’t make the audience think that this isn’t just something that videogames fans have made up to flummox ‘outsiders’. Perhaps Brooker could have discussed something like Nike+ first, and then sashayed into his ‘ahah, blam!’ moment.

6. Contributors ‘fake memories’.

This is more a personal gripe, but I wasn’t too keen on contributors who are clearly not old enough to have played Space Invaders around the time it came out telling us what it was like. There’s no problem with them speaking in the present tense in this case. If we want to speak to people who aren’t already fans of videogames, then we shouldn't speak to them in a way that makes them feel like they aren’t welcome unless they were there in 1978.

7. The Title.

The programme gives itself a tricky job when posing such a grandiose question. Unfortunately it was too distracted to ever give a coherent answer. Too much factual information and memories,  and and not enough argument.

Now surprisingly enough, I still really enjoyed the programme, despite my gripes. That’s because I too am a person that enjoys going ‘oh yeah!’ about each game mentioned (except Elite, I didn’t know that one...) The nostalgic angle is very enjoyable, but I wanted to be educated as well as entertained, and I feel it missed the mark. What could have been a remarkable moment for video games seems to have been lost.

Quest to Progress II

So far things are going well:

I'm top of my group!! That was unexpected, and I am very proud. Just need 38 more points before I can start to qualify for a promotion...

A little bit later...

I am giving up for today. I started with two losses (aargh!) and lost about 30 points :( I dropped down to third in my division.

Luckily I just had a win and I am back up to 58, which currently puts me back on top.

Losing is so demoralising, you lose so many points. Luckily that last game must have been against some tough opponents, as it has shot me right back up the charts. Let's hope I can maintain this.

Freemium Woes

I've been replaying the excellent Plants Vs Zombies, but this time on my smartphone. And I have certainly had a very good time.

So I was so chuffed to see an advert pop up one day telling me to download PvZ 2! Hurrah! It really is about time! (the slogan- you will know what I mean when you play it.)

It was free! Free! Wow! Thank you, thank you for giving this to us for free :)

So, some graphics improvements, changes to the music, slightly different zombies and plants, but effectively the same game. Grrrrrrrreat! Something about travelling through time...erm...not sure...why??? But still great.

After playing a few levels, some gameplay changes were introduced which are mostly unnecessary I think, especially the power ups. I do like the plant food though, this is a nice addition and it is fun to see what happens when you use it on each plant. Still having fun, but starting to move away from the simplicity that made PvZ so appealing.

Then I get to level 11 and there is a gate that I can only get through if I have enough stars (another addition, don't ask). I don't have enough stars, but the game insists that I click on the 'stargate'. So reluctantly I do.

Pirate Seas! The next zone! Hurrah.  But I don't have enough stars... I need 8 and I have 4 (or something, I can't remember the exact amount, don't get cross). But if I want to I can buy the next level for £2.99.

Not a huge amount, but I'm pretty sure I bought the whole PvZ smartphone game for less than that. Suddenly I see why it is free.

It just jars with me that I'm in the game (PvZ 2 is VERY immersive, thank you) and suddenly I'm being asked for money. Surely the point of the game is to enjoy playing it, not to just pay your way through it, playing as little as possible? (Remember I'm a 100% completion freak.)

I'm not as used to these kinds of games as you lot might be. I tend to ignore any real money transactions and stubbornly grind my way through the game, because that's the purpose of a game right? To win with skill, practice, dedication and the odd bit of luck. PvZ 2 is perhaps the first time that it has been pushed in my face quite so much.

Sigh. It is a sign of the times. I understand why freemium is needed. I'm quite happy to have PvZ 2, which possibly wouldn't exist without it. And I am happy to have BF4, which again might not be possible without EA exploring new ways of making money.

But I don't think I will be contributing in that way. *Stubbornly folds arms*

The Last of Us...too violent?

***Just realised I didn't post this, it is a little bit old now, but my thoughts remain the same. Except we have now finished it.***



I'm currently watching The Last of Us, and it is a brilliant game. It has a very engrossing survivalist horror plot, and the gameplay is mostly fluid and engaging. The characters evoke sympathy and are believable, and the game does some fairly brave things with them.

So what's wrong?

I am enjoying the game a lot, and it is one that I want to see through to completion (narrative completion). But there are some parts that I think are a bit too violent.

If you want to avoid any spoilers, then you should not read on! Play the game yourself and then come back, and let me know what you think.

This gap will save your eyes...

So firstly, the character you play does some particularly violent things when killing enemies. In video games, we are all very familiar with shooting people or perhaps whacking people with some kind of melee weapon. Because we are familiar with it, perhaps we are desensitised, and this could be the root of why I have an issue with some of the actions which are more than just straight forward shooting or whacking. I am not desensitised to it.

It has been suggested that the game is just being realistic, and we are not supposed to enjoy the killing, but indeed to be repulsed by it.

This would be a good idea; but you do far too much killing, and quite a lot of it is of the extra-violent variety that I have an issue with. If you only ever had to kill 5 people throughout the game in a particularly violent way, then maybe I could accept the strong violence as necessary to the experience of the game.

One argument as to why the violence may be perceived as particularly strong in The Last of Us is that you play a game (command the character to do certain actions), and therefore you are active in the violence; but that you watch a film, and you are passive. Being active in the violence can perhaps make it feel stronger. It is an interesting idea, but I am watching this game being played, and so I don't feel I could apply that theory here.

Another counter argument to this is that in this game, you do not always directly control what happens. Many times Joel has grabbed a person from behind, ready to smother/strangle them quietly, but suddenly this doesn't quite work, and instead Joel will push them to the ground and then stamp on their face. It does seem bizarre (even to me as I write this) that I would have an issue with one method of killing over another, but I do. The stamping on the face is firstly much more violent (how many times have we seen this before? - hence a lack of desensitization) and also it is not what was intended, therefore coming as a surprise and being more shocking than the original method.

When your character (you) does these things we accept that because the story has been set up to make him/her the hero, we are doing them for 'good'. We can kill as many people as we like/need to, but we are not in the wrong, they are for trying to kill us. We have learned this through film, TV and comic books. Our 'guy' is always the good guy, and if he/she does some questionable things then we treat it as collateral damage for the greater good.

YOU HAVE TO KILL...

I have an issue with the game mechanic which alerts us to who we need to shoot and who we can talk to. I understand that without it it would make the game very difficult, but it seems odd that we sometimes walk in a room and shoot, and sometimes we talk to other humans. In the real world how would we know this? When we get to your brother's hideout, he isn't visible at first. Why didn't you just kill those on guard (including your sister-in law- ooops)? And in other cases, how do we know that we haven't just killed a potential ally? (Perhaps this is more me trying to turn it into an RPG- and also you know how much I like the 100% completion goal; what is their back story?!) It feels a little like we shoot first, ask questions later and that actually we didn't care about the questions anyway. Killing people is the point of the game. How many can you kill? And if you wanted to try to play it completely stealthy and avoid killing, the game doesn't let you. YOU HAVE TO KILL.

I remember one moment where we are being pursued by a human character, looking for revenge. "You killed my buddy" he yells. Gosh, I didn't realise anyone had buddies in games, except the protagonists. You are just a faceless minion/henchman/guard/soldier/criminal, surely? Does this make us reflect on what we have done? We killed someone's buddy, possibly in cold blood, for no reason. Maybe for a brief moment; but then our attention turns quickly back to killing him too. It is an interesting addition by the developers though.

The body count in this game is so high, that it is hard to imagine that there is anyone left, what with the plague and this renegade wandering about. It is a little contradictory to the idea that we might be on a quest to save humanity from the plague when we have just killed so many men, some presumably uninfected. (An interesting aside here is that you do not kill any women, unless they have been infected and are therefore physically altered. All the humans you kill are male.)

And there's another point...

Secondly, you have some pretty violent things done to your character too. Usually the hero is infallible. His/her motives are unquestionable, and his skills and methods are the best (once you have gotten to grips with the controls). You are going to 'die' a hundred times, but it won't stick, because you are the best. You are the hero.

You might get shot and die. We are used to that. That's not a problem, it is regular fare in this kind of game. However there are some ways to die in this game that again, because of their rarity, are more violent. In particular I recall getting caught by one of the Clickers. It's not nice when this happens, he/she will bite you and it's gross. But this one time, the Clicker grabbed Joel's top and bottom jaw in each hand and pulled...

This was a total shock. It was also quite unnecessary. Surely the Clicker's modus operandi is to infect Joel too. A completely dead Joel will not spread the epidemic. It is interesting to think that the designers wrote this and and had the animators create it, for just this one moment (I haven't seen it again since, but we are not quite finished). Interesting or not, it goes onto the evidence pile for this game being too violent, or at least more violent that I expected or am used to. (As another aside, this Clicker demonstrated free will- perhaps the Last of Us 2 will feature his story).

I've written enough now...

So whether you agree with me that The Last of Us is too violent or not, I think it is clear that it certainly pushes the boundaries in terms of what is 'acceptable' and 'ordinary' in games. Whether the developers knew this and set out to do this, I don't know, but I feel that they have done something unusual here. It is good to do something different, we don't want games becoming too formulaic, and this gives me plenty to ponder over. It is interesting to think why certain elements of games are considered 'ordinary', and of course there is the media violence debate which is real and needs to be addressed whether you think video games contribute or not.

Pro-Gaming Here I Come...

Yesterday I started my pro-gaming career.
Well, I started playing ranked games with the intention that I could get good enough to join a team.

Ultimately though, I know that this is not going to be a reality. But it will be fun trying.

I play League of Legends, and I main Support. Or- I only every play support, if I can at all help it. I *can* Mid or ADC, but if I can't get those then I will have to leave :(  (embarrassing)

Anyway I really surprised myself, because I was placed in Silver IV, which is much better than I thought, (expected Bronze tbh).

So here begins my quest to progress through to challenger. Or at least stay in Silver IV. But I should have a nice silver border to show off come 11th November when season 4 starts.

I will keep you updated. So far today, won my first Silver IV game, lost my second. Hmmm.



Quest to progress is a nice little rhyme. Perhaps I should be a poet instead. Or a rapper.

100% Completion Freak

I am that person. Though I will hasten to add that I don't always get there.

I want to argue that there are two ways to go about playing a game, the 'complete the narrative' approach and that the '100% completion' aim.

Just when is a game completed?

I am just offering my thoughts on the subject. I can imagine there is lots of academic writing on this subject already, and if you can think of any beauts then please let me know and I will happily devour them :)

Some preparatory reading!

First of all I would like to invite you to read a blog post by my friend.  http://gamasutra.com/blogs/SimonBrislin/20130529/193201/Balancing_Narrative_And_Gameplay.php

He writes about narrative in games and it is a very enjoyable read. After reading this I wanted to reply to some of the points he makes; particularly about sidequests and how they can detract from the narrative, because completing them can seem quite contrary to the point of the game.

To understand this fully we need to understand what audiences view as 'the point of the game'.
Is it to complete the storyline? Is is to collect all items etc. (100% completion). Or might it be that you can enjoy a game thoroughly without completing anything?

I can think of plenty games that I have played/watched that I haven't completed and I have still enjoyed. The failure (if you want to call it that) to complete could have been down to skill level (ahem), especially in the Mega Drive era of not being able to save. But is is also often due to a lack of time; and sometimes when you leave a narrative based game for a while and come back to it, the twists and turns of the plot are such that they can become overwhelming, and frankly, lost on me.

The game gets left, but enjoyment is not necessarily tarnished. Now this might be a *me* thing, I have also done this with Cloud Atlas (a book), I just didn't bother reading the last scenario as I felt satisfied enough with the others.

So Deus Ex: Human Revolution remains unfinished, but I am happy. On the other hand, when I finished Silent Hill 2, I wished I hadn't, as the final boss was much easier to fight than some of the other characters (e.g. Pyramid Head *shiver*) and it was a massive anti climax. I was disappointed, as I felt I should have had a better reward (a more difficult boss fight).

Satisfaction

So completion could be linked to satisfaction, and obviously this is going to be different for each player. The narrative itself doesn't always offer satisfaction. Sometimes a player might enjoy a game so much, that they wouldn't want it to be over, and this is where sidequests come in.

I want to talk about two games in particular that I think are kings of the sidequest. Any Final Fantasy game, and Fallout 3.

In the Final Fantasy games there are always loads of other quests to complete besides the main narrative. It wouldn't feel like you were playing a Final Fantasy game unless you fully interacted with these other adventures. You know you are taking on a 100+ hour beast when you first turn one of these games on. Who can forget Chocobo racing, Chocobo digging (my personal favourite!), Blitzball, the card game in Final Fantasy IX and everyone's favourite- maxing the health to 9,999 (until they pushed it to 99,999- that is a challenge too far, even for me :( ) Some of the quests did directly help with the main narrative; you might get a more powerful weapon for example, but the game is still very much complete-able without grinding every single map and looking in every single nook and cranny. So there is more to it than just feeding into the main narrative. I guess there is a lot of pleasure to be had here if you are a 'collector', or dare I say it, an obsessive type.

In Fallout 3, it was the thrill of finding somewhere new and 'off the beaten track' that pushed me towards the 100% completion aim. Obviously you weren't going to find anything that the developer didn't put in there, but I still felt that what they did put in was there to challenge you, and I'd love to think that they were placing cabins, underground bunkers and deserted towns in the outer reaches of the game world, hoping that no one would ever find them. Am I the first to wander into this abandoned factory??? Has anyone else picked up all the radio signals??? Make sure you talk to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER as well, as you do not know what juicy tidbit you might miss out on. I felt a great sense of wonder and discovery when stumbling across something new because of my relentless self-imposed quest to reveal everything. So again, here I gained a lot of pleasure. (Writing this made me think of Baldur's Gate, and how I insisted on revealing every single pixel of the maps between towns, and if there were trees or rocks that prevented this, it really annoyed me- that's the 100% completion aim!)

So it satisfied me to search these places and it gave me great pleasure to find something new, or to collect all of a set of something. If I had just played the narrative and wanted to stay immersed in the game world (more specifically the unity of time- 'we have to fight the monster immediately' etc) then I would not have been able to get this kind of pleasure and satisfaction.

Sidequests for all?

I am not totally disagreeing with the points made in the article. I do think that there is a time and a place for sidequests. The games I discuss above are both ideal for this kind of gameplay, whereas others aren't. So developers need to consider sidequests carefully. Are you making a sidequest kind of game? Or not? Make sure they add value and don't detract/distract.


For me, killing the big boss means the game is over. No more game. On to the next game. And I feel like when a title has so much more to give then that is a shame.

Or am I just a little bit obsessive?

L2P Noob

How seriously should you take online gaming?

Is it for fun or is it a serious pastime?

When playing a team online game, what should your attitude be towards winning?

Sometimes I play ranked games and the consensus is that these are the games that you should take seriously. If you play in a real world sports team (which I also do) there are friendly games, pick up games and league/tournament games. The league and tournament games are the ones you should take seriously, and in online gaming these can be compared to ranked games. Especially if you play for a pro team; then obviously you should always want to win, and you will spend a lot of time preparing and practicing so that you can do just that.

When you play an unranked game, especially when you have been automatically matched up with teammates, then this is what I would consider to be like a pick-up game in the real world. Pick-up is arguably more fun than a tournament, because it is more relaxed. You are playing the game for the fun of playing the game, nothing is at stake here. This doesn't seem to be the way in online gaming.

But...? Winning...???

Now obviously winning does increase the fun, and so I can see an argument for wanting to win. However we know how this works- if there are two teams then *someone* will have to lose. It's annoying when that happens, but it does happen. So does losing always mean that the enjoyment of the game is immediately lost?

I don't think so. You may still feel that you as an individual played a good game, or you developed your skills in some way. Sometimes it is actually down to technical difficulties, though a "lag!" call is hard to greet without skepticism. Sometimes you are simply outclassed by the opponents (which will quite often be denied by your furious teammate - no they're fed/op- *humph* *sulk* *whine* etc)
But you have the knowledge that it is only a game, you can play another (if it isn't past your bedtime- zing!) and learning to cope with losing from time to time is something we all have to deal with in life.

If you genuinely are bitter about losing, then I suggest you take a break from the game and do something else, because this angry energy is going to ruin you. And if you are just in it for a good old troll, then again, there are more healthy ways to be, not just towards others, but to yourself.

Good Grief!

What surprises me when I play online games, is the incredibly negative attitude some people have, even your own teammates. You will all be familiar with cries of "noob!" More lately I have come across "Waste of an Account", "Pls uninstall this game", "Worst (insert character here) EU".

So to call someone the worst player of that character in the whole region is, in my opinion, just a little extreme. For starters there is no way they could have played with everyone who has every played that character. Seemingly logic has no place here.

Or what about "L2P, noob!". Again logic would say that if someone is playing unranked, then they are learning to play- by taking part in a game against real world opponents they are developing their skills and applying and consolidating their knowledge, all key components of learning something. By definition, learning means to develop, not to just be instantly good at something from the word go.

But ultimately it seems that what these people really mean is:

You cannot see me, you do not know who I am, I am protected by the internet, so therefore I am going to boost my ego by being rude to you.

Its incredibly tiresome, but most of the time it is easy to ignore the comments. And when you do feel ready to play ranked, you will be surprised to find (as I was) that most people are nicer there.

Of course you should always play to win, but it is important to accept that this isn't always going to happen. So be competitive, but well spirited. Be ready to learn from others and remember, it is only a game.

Finally a big should out to all the people that say nice things and congratulate teammates, and even opponents from time to time. This is what makes you feel a better person. I look forward to meeting more of you when I am next online.

A Handy Glossary!

If anyone is reading this but you are not familiar with some of the terms I used above- have no fear :)

L2P - Learn to play

OP - Overpowered (a particularly strong character)

Fed - A character that has a lot of kills, usually because of a weak opponent

Log in Screen

Hello all, welcome.

There are two things on your mind right now; the first is that the layout is a bit shonky, (this might improve in time...) and the second is that the name of the blog is only half decent.

Why a shed?

Well it rhymes with dead; and as we all know, I am trying to make a pun on the title of a video game, The Typing of the Dead, which looks like this:

Extraordinary

So this blog is about video games. I really do love playing and watching games and I hope that I will be able to write something here that you might like, or you might want to discuss. I hope not to be just another games blog, but I am not quite sure what my USP is yet.

How you can help...

I really like the "Typing of the..." part, but if anyone can think of a more suitable pun then I'd be glad to hear it.

I went out specially to take a photo of my shed, but if anyone has any ideas I can always take another photo. As another little challenge to keep you all interested, who can tell me the name of the game referenced by the  little dude in the top left corner? And for bonus points- what do you think he is shooting at?

Let me know what you think so far, but bear in mind my brain will only process sensible comments, so I will have to delete anything that isn't polite or clean.

OK I'm off to write a sensible post now.