Meta-critic

Hey all!

Welcome back, to you and to to I.
Does absence make the heart grow fonder?

I haven't played a FPS in years. When League of Legends came along it occupied my gaming space like no other game had ever done before, and I found I had no time for other games. Gaming ceased to be my hobby, League of Legends became my hobby. Playing LoL, watching LoL, reading about LoL, patching LoL, trying out the new game modes, shopping for new skins and champs, stressing about ranked. You can see why it pretty much becomes a full-time occupation.

When I started streaming at the start of the year I started off with LoL, either NAMI TIME! <3 <3 <3 (for ranked games) or ARAM TIME! <3 <3 <3 (for ARAM, obviously). But as you know I got next to no views and I started to wonder what else people might like. I also had a bit of a hankering for Left 4 Dead 2. So I streamed a few games of this and it was 50% more popular than my LoL stream. As in, before I would get maybe 2 views, L4D2 brought me 3. Ah well. (I did get my first ever comment of "headshot!", but I didn't reply in time and they soon left.)

What I was most excited about though was the different game experience. I jumped into L4D2 looking forward to the more unrehearsed, panicky, fun moments that this kind of game can bring. After a while, LoL can feel a little formulaic in the way it is played. The pseudo-state of gaming enlightenment that is the 'meta' evolves and the game loses its random nature. New patches go some way to spicing it up a little, but it isn't long before a new meta emerges (just like the Highlander, there can be only one) and cuts the head off the old one. Now everyone must obey the new meta-king.

So I thought that playing L4D2 would be a break from the rigidity of LoL. The summer holidays to the dull but necessary term-time. It was certainly chaotic. It turns out that my friends had been playing this a little in lunch breaks and so had kept up a little practice. I however, had not played it in well over two years.

First challenge, press WASD, not QWER. This is harder than it sounds. QWER is so much more natural for a human hand. Perhaps FPS pro-gamers of the future will have evolved a strange claw where a sixth finger grows out underneath the middle finger and rests beautifully on S.  (Put your fingers on WASD to see what I mean.) After three seasons of QWER my hand had muscle memory and was afraid of change.

Next. Woah, where the hell am I looking? I remember I prefer my mouse inverted. Quick ESC to fix that.

Aaaaand let's go! It was fun! It was panicky! It was fun because it was panicky! But what's that I see emerging through the haze of jolly good freedom? No, surely not. No, it can't be! A meta! A bleeding meta. Just what I'd hoped to avoid. Turns out that the people who never left L4D2 have been secretly plotting and scheming to scientifically calculate the exact route; the exact moments; the exact hiding places; the exact weapons to take; the exact zombies to shoot and the ones to run past etc.

So precisely two rounds after starting to have fun, I stopped. I was getting killed left, right and centre. When I played as an infected, I couldn't find anywhere to spawn; either getting popped immediately or spending my whole time chasing the survivors through the level until the ultimate embarrassment pops up- You are too far away, press E to respawn :( Oh god. I fail at staying alive. I fail at being re-animated.

So onto my next game, Dirty Bomb.

It's a battle based team FPS, with no sign of zombies despite the radioactive threat. But it is new, hurrah! No meta yet, and hopefully never. It's currently in Beta and should be out very soon. I have only played the Objective maps in casual mode but so far I love it. I still am finding WASD difficult, and killing people is not really my speciality, but Dirty Bomb is very inclusive. Come one, come all!

Can't shoot but can press E every 5 seconds? Welcome :D
Don't have a clue about what's going on but can follow your teammates around? Welcome :D
Get confused when you are revived but know that you can press Q for an airstrike? WELCOME :D

It's hard to read, but I'm getting 5XP for putting an ammo pack down here.
You get even more if someone picks it up!

The reason this works is because you get points for practically anything you do that helps the team. The game is so generous in its rewards making it such a positive experience. Even if you are bottom of your team you have probably still racked up 1000+ points, so you know that you are contributing. The games are quick and so before you have done too much wrong it's onto the next map for a fresh battle.

So, for me, right now, Dirty Bomb is a real joy to play and I can't wait until I can run around with friends in there. Thank you Splash Damage/Nexon.

LoL might have to to contact my PA to find a gap in my schedule.

Someone silence that streaming child!

Hey!

After the disappointment of languishing in Bronze 4/5 for the majority of the 2014 season, I have turned my attention to a new challenge. I'm still playing too much LoL, but now I want to share it with the world.

I have been playing around with the idea of streaming games. I like the idea of sharing game experiences (you will know that from my earlier posts), and streaming seems to be the next logical step.

I've watched a few streams of pro LoL players, particularly Krepo and Kev1n and I have enjoyed the level of interaction that this can bring. You can watch them, listen to them, react when they react, join in on jokes and even chat with them (via the chat box, which you type into).

A lot of people use this to goad the person playing, some say offensive things and get kicked, but a lot of people just join in an have a jolly old time.

So it looks fairly easy to do. I have a computer with my game on, internet connection, a headset and a webcam.

What else do I need?

1. An account with www.Twitch.tv. There are other streaming platforms available, but this is the one most gamers use.
2. A program to stream your games. Twitch suggests a few; I went with OBS (Open Broadcaster Software). It is both free and seemingly unlimited in its features. You will need a tutorial to help you set it up though as it is a bit complex.
3, People to watch you. This is what I have struggled with so far. I have had a maximum of 3 people watching me, but no one typed anything into chat, so I guess they could have been some kind of bot.

I'm still learning and trying to overcome the silliness of talking to myself, so I will keep my progress updated here.

If I get more than 3 people watching me I will let you know :D

What have I been up to?

Well, I haven't posted anything for a while!

Got to get back on track and have a little think about what I've been up to since JANUARY! (oops)

I've been learning to code, just a little bit, in JavaScript. So far I have drawn a plate of food, a box with the word 'rug' on it, a frog's face and a pig.

All created in code :D Very proud of myself.

The pig was supposed to resize proportionally, but at the moment it doesn't. I have so much more to learn :D. I have been doing this through Khan Academy and the tutorials are pretty straight forward to follow. You get achievements when you compete tasks too, and you know how I like collecting those :D

So I need to keep going with the coding. I'll keep you up to speed with my next amazing creation!

Cute Picture

Not really an official post, but just a quick one while my game is loading. I won't do too many of these I promise.

This is my cat Fleur watching BoTA with us before Christmas. She just loves LoL.

<3 <3 <3

Cuteness out.

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.