grenideer – Page 16 – why i hate everything

Jonathan Blow

By all accounts, I want to hate this guy. This may come off as strange since I am a game developer who has long wanted the existence of an indie game scene and Jonathan Blow is an advocate of the little guy and experimental gameplay. And these are things I’ve never had a problem with. But I do begin to get irritated by the pretension that artists and their craft sometimes exude.

Here, of course, I am speaking of Braid, a simple Xbox Live Arcade platformer emulating (and parodying) Mario. An annoying art style was only the beginning. A time reversal mechanic garnered high praise and the critics lavished the indie title with near ridiculous support. Having never played Braid myself I am really just perturbed at the critical acclaim which is perhaps more an indictment of gaming media than the game itself. To point, I have to admit that I probably have been too hard on this game.

Nevertheless, when it comes time for Braid creator Jonathan Blow to speak there is always a high-minded artsy slant to the coverage that encourages me to roll my eyes. But a recent gamasutra interview changed my tune.

It’s easy for certain game advocates or “futurists” to ignore how self-important they sound and make broad statements about the industry and what it should be. While Blow definitely has his opinions on right and wrong I was surprised at his lack of absolutism. When asked pointed questions about the ethics of certain games, he prefaces with, “I don’t want to be in the business of saying that all games should be anything.” As a person who uses qualifiers for *almost* everything, this style resonates with me. It is less about being authoritative and more about personal opinion. Speaking with authority does not make one an authority.

Then there are his thoughts on so called ‘social games’ and their impact on players. This is a hot topic in the game community and everyone has there own opinion, with my thoughts already posted to this blog. He posits:

It’s not about designing something that’s going to be interesting or a positive experience in any way — it’s actually about designing something that’s a negative experience. It’s about “How do we make something that looks cute and that projects positivity” — but it actually makes people worry about it when they’re away from the computer and drains attention from their everyday life and brings them back into the game. Which previous genres of game never did. And it’s about, “How do we get players to exploit their friends in a mechanical way in order to progress?” And in that or exploiting their friends, they kind of turn them in to us and then we can monetize their relationships. And that’s all those games are, basically.

What I appreciate is that I find his insight interesting while his tone is mostly balanced. Not that you’d imagine I favor these qualities after reading this blog.

Dead Island Trailer

Keeping in mind that this has no bearing on the actual game, this trailer for Dead Island is probably one of the best video game trailers in recent memory. It is no accident that movies and games are colliding when it comes to marketing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTtv3DyXRow

The problem I have is that I doubt the game can create this type of emotional response. Not that I think the ad is deceiving in any way. I’ve always said the best commercial is one that sells the *idea* of the game rather than the game itself. When you only have 30 seconds to reach an audience, the seed of an idea is much more powerful than any bulletpoint list or gameplay footage. Get a player excited about the concept and the rest will sort itself out if the game is any good at all.

And here’s a bonus for those who want to see a fan remix of the trailer in a mostly chronological sequence.

In Bruges

I haven’t really seen any movies lately that I consider a must see but I did rent In Bruges on dvd and thought it was pretty interesting. It has a bit of a normal action movie premise but with more original characters and a sequence of events, with just a touch of that European Guy Ritchie flavor to have style but not enough to be annoying. The writer and Director, Martin McDonagh, has parts England and Ireland in him and that seems to carry through to this film (which strangely enough takes place in Belgium). By all accounts he is an up and coming director so it might be worth checking out his first feature film.

Arrowhead Bottled Water

We’re all familiar with bottled water these days and Arrowhead is one of the more common brands out there. I happened to notice the label the other day and saw this.

Great, so Arrowhead is trying to be green, which I find ironic since the very concept of individual bottled water is about as ungreen as you can get. Still the company is trying to do their part. Then I read the fine print.

Arrowhead. Saving trees. Killing babies.

Call of Duty: Black Ops

Hypothetical question: You are Activision, the last two Call of Duty games by Infinity Ward sold like shit busters, Treyarch has a CoD release scheduled- what do you do? I said ‘hypothetical’ for a reason, because the answer is undeniable – imitate like you’ve never imitated before. So after all the marketing and hype, and being familiar with the Modern Warfare pedigree, how does Call of Duty: Black Ops measure up?

Well I will say this, they knew what game they were copying. Unfortunately, the execution isn’t there. The storytelling is nowhere near as good. The objectives are confusing and the levels jump around without the proper buildup. The animated sequences abound but they are jerkier than their Modern Warfare counterparts and lack the proper pacing. Let’s look into some notable points.

Level Design
The sequences in Black Ops are generally confusing. It is difficult to get a sense of purpose and the levels seem to come to a close without the proper expectation. The game jumps all over the place without giving the player a beat to digest what is going on. What results is an impulse to follow an objective marker on screen rather than worry about the fiction of your goals. A few segments feel out of place, some are suspiciously short, and ultimately it is hard to feel a sense of accomplishment because moments are not in relatable contexts.

Gameplay
The gunplay is not as good as it is in Modern Warfare. Either enemies need too many bullets to go down or you miss a lot, and it’s hard to tell from the death animations if they are dead or not. This means you often get shot at by guys you thought you took care of already and need to refocus your attention on them again. Autoaim when zooming sometimes works 100% like MW and sometimes doesn’t seem to work at all. I can respect if Treyarch tried to make aiming more of a skill instead of an auto lock but the feature needs to be consistent otherwise I am gonna try the auto aim and be frustrated when it fails. Overall there was less polish and attention to detail and it showed. I do, however, give them props for making a swimming mechanic and actually using it in a themed level.

Marketing
This is an area where Black Ops excelled. A heavy dose of hype and awareness with the Call of Duty brand resulted in a game that outsold even Modern Warfare 2. It is hard to fault a record breaker. Still, a lot of money was poured into this game and the question remains – was it well spent?

Sam Worthington, Ed Harris, Gary Oldman, and Ice Cube all did significant voice work but I didn’t hear about any of this in the advertising. For the money these Hollywood actors cost I have to admit that I didn’t notice exceptional voice acting. Kind of goes to show the focus was on being big but I wonder if they were a good return on investment.

Then we have the strange tie-ins. Honestly, the Black Ops sunglasses don’t really bother me. But let me introduce perhaps the most ridiculous video game marketing tie-in ever: The Jeep Wrangler Call of Duty Black Ops Edition.

Srsly.

Animation
What makes the Modern Warfare series stand out are the first person cinema scenes that are seamlessly speckled about the gameplay. Black Ops has its share of these sequences but they are not animated as well and do not read as clearly. What’s more, instead of usually giving slight camera control to look around a bit and remain pseudo-interactive this game usually goes the route of not letting you do anything at all. It is clear that this is a skill Treyarch is not as proficient in.

Music
Black Ops highlights events between 1961 and 1968 in locales such as Cuba, Vietnam, and Russia. There are a lot of opportunities for period music and indeed Fortunate Son, Sympathy for the Devil, and even a Celia Cruz song make an appearance. But the remainder (and majority) of music throughout the levels are a horrible blend of techno-rock loops that do not invoke the 60s at all. I understand that it’s almost a joke for movies set in Vietnam to feature tracks from the Rolling Stones or Jimi Hendrix so Treyarch didn’t have a lot to work with, but they could have tried to make it fit together. At least make some attempt to score music that doesn’t feel out of place in the experience. When the ending credits roll and Eminem starts blasting, I think it’s safe to say that marketing got the better of the creative team.

Overall everything about this game feels like a bad Modern Warfare rip-off. Admittedly, it is still above the level of many first person shooters and I am being harder on Black Ops than perhaps I should be, but with a monster budget and two great games as templates I felt let down. Call of Duty: Black Ops lacks any edginess or standout appeal to make it a true favorite that will be talked about on merits other than sales numbers. CoDBlOps is however the single best game acronym ever, so there’s that.

Also, I forgot to make fun of “Press R1 to Torture.”

The 3 Best Comeback Albums of the Decade

You love a band, you love their music, but a disagreement or death forces the collaboration to halt. And I’m not talking about a 3 year “retirement” hiatus Jay-Z style. No, this is a true parting of ways, a genuine end of an era. You’ve long given up hope of ever hearing new tunes from this group again but out of nowhere the impossible returns. Call it a comeback. But coming back is not the same as *being* back. Which artists have successfully been able to return to critical prominence? On this blog that means which music do I like most? Here’s the 3 best comeback albums of the last 10 years.

Chinese Democracy, Guns ‘n’ Roses
Admittedly the loosest definition of comeback on this list as many would just as likely label this a solo project, Axl created a legend more famous for the process than the final product. Chinese Democracy took over 10 years to make, involved a huge turnover of musicians, and was rumored to be the most expensive album ever to produce. How was it possible that these songs could live up to expectations? The album got mixed reviews and I do agree that there are some bad songs on it. What was worse was that some of the better songs were released or leaked early, taking away some of the luster upon release. But a great thing happened. Instead of the expected round of bashing, a contingent of fans emerged who still loved Axl’s voice and who appreciated some of the songwriting. A lot of the change ups in the music are original and scored critical points. It turns out that most of the bad public opinion were old guys complaining about, “these damn new electric drums.” While the album does have an overproduced sound and some of the weaker songs confuse noise with being hardcore, overall there is a very emotional layered elegance to the work. And when a process as easy to poke fun of results in a product that many critics begrudgingly respect, I call that a win.

Strays, Jane’s Addiction
Here’s an album that flies under the radar but deserves every bit of respect I am about to give it. Releasing 10 years after Jane’s Addiction’s last album and break up, this was a reunion that defied the odds. Why would a band whose members hated each other and had individual success after splitting up reunite? I have no idea but I am glad they did. All but a couple of the songs appearing on Strays are easily 4 or 5 star material. Track after track delivers variety and well conceived and executed harmony. What’s more, the ability of the band to generate the ‘same old sound’ without coming off as dated was nothing short of amazing. There is no single good reason that old fans of the band would dislike this material unless they didn’t give it a fair listen. But alas, it turns out the band members still couldn’t stand each other and a second breakup occurred. Is it possible Jane’s Addiction could reprise this award in the next decade?

Black Gives Way to Blue, Alice in Chains
Last but not least is the least likely of comebacks. For years Alice in Chains had limped through drug problems and Layne Staley’s death seemed to put the final nail in the coffin. The band was stuck on life support and fans were treated to countless dvds, compilations, and live albums instead of getting their fix for new music. Finally after almost 15 years a followup studio album was made possible with a replacement lead singer- and black dude sounds *exactly* like Layne Staley. Jerry Cantrell wisely steps back from the lead vocals and focuses on the guitar work and tempo that has brought the band fame. Black Gives Way to Blue laments Layne’s death but refuses to be defeated by it. Instead of hiding from the past the first track, All Secrets Known, unapologetically tackles the elephant in the room head on. “Hope, a new beginning. Time, time to start living, like just before we died.” And indeed, instead of being paralyzed by the tragedy Alice in Chains finally regains their strength. Similar sounds from past successes like Dirt and onward appear but are infused with a new boldness of heavy guitar that is almost lost in this day. This album is refreshing because it fights conformity and non-conformity at the same time and instead simply attempts to be true to itself. And what results is an album so good that it surpasses the self titled effort of 1995. The past is over and that’s ok. Turn the volume up and appreciate this one.

Modern Warfare Series

After years of the first person shooter market being dominated by the World War II theme (and space marines), Infinity Ward decided to go against the grain and shift the genre into a new trend. This was no easy feat. Several attempts on more original shooter stories have of course been created but the key metric was gaining the public’s acceptance.

After inventing the Call of Duty series and building up a respectable first person shooter talent base, it was time to enter the modern era. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was an interesting idea when it was in development but nobody could have predicted the success it would have. There were so many things the game did right as far as utilizing the first person perspective uniquely- instead of a crutch that inhibited storytelling the camera view was leveraged as a strength for in game cinematics and action. The game was so successful that the Call of Duty name was dropped and Modern Warfare became its own brand. The sequel, Modern Warfare 2, was groomed from the beginning to be a blockbuster and perfectly utilized all the great gameplay techniques of the first. These two titles sold more units than any other console games in recent years. As a developer in the genre I had to play them both, and as prepared as I was to hate on them I have to admit that these are two expertly executed single player campaigns.

Here’s a breakdown of notable features:

Plenty of variety to counter core mechanic fatigue.

Movie Moments

A shooter, at its core, consists of great gunplay and enemy reactions. Still, no matter how deep the weapon system is it will get eventually get tiresome to endlessly repeat the same actions. Pacing is a great tool that designers use to make sure a player is not constantly doing the same thing again and again. When a player is walking down an empty street with nothing in sight for a bit it makes the combat segments more interesting. But downtime isn’t the only way to get a break from the core shooting mechanic. There are so many other special situations during the game used for this. Whether you are manning a turret, breaching a door in slow motion, swimming, rappelling, or driving- there are plenty of change ups. These are things that all shooters employ to some degree but Modern Warfare executes them as short one-offs that are reminiscent of movie moments.

Great story.

Story

In the true style of modern combat, wars are not fought by a single soldier who can never die. The action jumps around between several different people working for different units. The SAS, the Marines, the Army Rangers, the CIA- the interplay between the different factions all over the world is fascinating. And dare I spoil the plots a bit and say that not all the characters make it through alive- I’d even go as far as saying getting shot in the head is an Infinity Ward trademark. Dialog and voice acting also get props in an industry that doesn’t always provide an ‘A+’ product.

Every level has a sensible entry, a clear target, and a cool exit.

Level Progression

Storytelling in games isn’t only the metaplot- it is also the level progression, or unfolding of events during play. In Modern Warfare it is usually easy to know what the current objective is, when you are leading up to a climax, and when the status quo changes. Many games do not do this well and may in fact fail miserably in this category. If you get lost or confused during levels and don’t know what to do or why you are going somewhere then you have fallen victim to this design flaw. It is likewise important for players to feel a sense of accomplishment, and some sort of clear progression and achieving of goals needs to be understood instead of aimless wandering around. In addition, many of the Modern Warfare levels start in interesting ways like ferrying from a submarine into the bottom of an offshore oil rig or flying into a mountainside prison from the side of a transport helo and end in exciting sequences like airlifting out of the middle of an ambush or running to an extraction point while outnumbered and under chase.

There are no real movies.

In game story

Speaking of all this cool action, it is important to note that it all happens in game. You lose control of your character and can sometimes move the camera around a bit but the point is that you are taken in and out of gameplay seamlessly and ensures that you don’t sit through belabored performances with an itchy trigger finger. Sure, there are prerendered movies instead of loading screens but these are computer images and audio recordings for the most part – nothing excessively hard on the development team but interesting enough to watch. These add style to the game and cover the level loads without becoming a strain on the animation team.

The AI doesn’t try to be too smart.

This is a small point but worth noting because some games try to get too complicated with the AI and do too much. In Modern Warfare, enemies use designer placed fire points or some similar system to determine where the AI can stand and fire. To be honest this is a weakness of the first game because many enemies stand in the same place and it feels like after you kill one that another soldier just pops back into the same place, but the sequel mostly corrects this problem. My main takeaway is that the friendly allies either follow the player and take cover or lead the player in a 100% scripted fashion, the enemies take cover and either defend or advance slowly, and that’s it. There’s not a whole lot going on and there doesn’t need to be because that is all the action needed without getting overly complicated.

And just for good measure… the main weakness of the series:

The zoom firing mechanic.
The damage model in modern Warfare is fairly high. That is to say that enemies go down with a few bullets and the player can’t take many more before needing to duck and hide or die. Facing multiple enemies without mouse control can be tough especially when getting shot kicks the camera around and covers the screen with blood. Console shooters use various aim assist techniques as a great equalizer, anything from making the reticle ‘stick’ to targets to nudging the bullet trajectory from a near miss into a hit. The unspoken rule with aim assist is that it should be helpful without being noticeable. One such technique that Modern Warfare over relies on is pushing the reticle towards the closest target when you push the zoom button. Unfortunately Infinity Ward outright abuses this feature and makes the reticle immediately snap to enemies making it supremely affective to rezoom rather than aim manually. I am sorry but quickly zooming and unzooming to autotarget is a ghetto aiming system. I am not against removing the hardcore nature a precise aiming game offers by giving some sort of autolock- that is a fine compromise to bring a hardcore game further into the casual space. The problem is the execution of the feature. When forcing the screen to zoom and unzoom repeatedly in a nauseating fashion is the clear optimal strategy then there is a problem with the game. Not to mention the number of times the autolock forces me to *miss* my target because I am trying to manually aim at it while I am unexpectedly ‘assisted’. Weak sauce. The designers need to either force the player to aim (and make getting hit yourself not be such a penalty to counter-balance) or more realistically build the autolock feature into the game in a better way without making the screen jumpy.

But enough nitpicking. Lord knows I do it enough as it is on this website. For once the public opinion and sales numbers got it right. Modern Warfare is the most successful recent console franchise and *it should be*. Do yourself a favor and play these two games if you are among the few who haven’t yet.

MMA

Mixed Martial Arts has really been catching on over the last 5 years and I admit I’ve been enjoying the ride. It is fresher and more violent than boxing and its other brethren while still remaining very technical. The wider array of skills required of fighters provides comparatively vastly different fighting styles and ways for any given bout to turn out.

Unfortunately, MMA is in a very real danger of turning stale. It is ironic that a sport notorious for being brazen is comfortably settling into boring. While it is impossible to overcome the adage ‘what was once new is now old’, I am alarmed at how fast MMA fighting is losing its edge.

For the record, I am not going to start a diatribe about the good ol days of ultimate fighting where anything was allowed and sumo wrestlers fought ninjas. It was a great gimmick, and a bloody good time- literally- but it simply wasn’t sustainable. To garner real credibility and attract long term athletes many safety issues needed to be addressed. MMA had to go legit if it had any hope of surviving.

I’ve complained at length before about sports that involve judges handing down decisions. After 3 rounds of battle the last thing viewers want to be left with is a scorecard determining the better fighter. Split decisions are even more horrible because it means that two people whose job it is to grade the fight thought that different people won! But it is begrudgingly hard to not have some sort of tie breaker in a sport like this (though I’d be open to experimentation). And letting the fight go on forever isn’t a solution because nothing is worse than watching two gassed fighters hugging each other and gasping for air.

So why not look into solutions that avoid stalemates?

Takedown

The takedown is arguably the biggest tactic that separates this sport from boxing and without a doubt injects a sense of excitement into an otherwise stand up affair. A large part of the ‘Mixed’ in Mixed Martial Arts is due to the fact that every fighter needs a ground style to complement his stand up style. Gone are the days when you can simply be a good puncher and get far- Kimbo Slice can attest to that. What this means is a well rounded fighter is a better fighter and there is bound to be good variety in the fight. Going to the ground is good for the game, no doubt, yet takedowns are still proving to be the weak link of Mixed Martial Arts.

Give the weapons back
There are a lot of illegal strikes in the UFC. Many of these are holdovers from when the sport was trying to claim its legitimacy. But now that MMA commands a lot of money and viewership its backers can flex their muscles and allow some of these strikes again. I don’t think anyone is asking to see more knees to the heads of downed opponents but if a fighter is on his back and being attacked from above, he shouldn’t have to worry about whether his attacker has a knee down on the mat or not. He should be allowed to strike away like crazy and open up the fight. Let’s make it potentially more painful to simply lean on top of a guy and kill clock.

Remove the defender’s edge
In the earlier days of MMA takedowns were more exciting mainly because dominant styles weren’t formed yet and it was harder to defend yourself on the ground. It was much more common to see arm bars and other submissions because the opponent often didn’t know what to expect. The classic ground and pound was easier to apply because an opponent didn’t properly counter a full guard position advance. These days everybody and their little brother attends MMA gyms and learns takedown defenses and the whole thing degenerates into two guys on the floor trying to control the others’ hands. It is common for neither fighter to get a strong edge for long periods of time because they are both trained to use the same tactics. Everybody knows that wrestling is gay and you wouldn’t ever find it being relevant except perhaps in an Olympics discussion, yet this is what we end up watching for large portions of UFC matches. The only other real ground style is jiu-jitsu, which sounds a lot cooler but actually turns out to be even more homosexual than wrestling.

jiu-jitsu

So why is it that these strategies are still allowed? Fighters are ultimately just gaming the rules- give them new rules to make things more exciting. The forward pass did wonders for football, after all.

Is change easy? No. Are the solutions obvious? Of course not. But the problems *are* clear, and it only takes a bit of foresight to address them. Don’t reward lazy fighting. UFC is only 3 rounds because the action is supposed to be intense. Don’t allow fighters to sit in stalemate positions to catch their breath. If a fighter is not being dominated then he should have tools to fight back. Coaches often tell their fighters not to leave the outcome in the hands of the judges. The reality is, as long as the UFC ruleset doesn’t promote this mentality, you can’t expect the fighters to do anything different.

3 Bands that will Never be the Same

I collect music much differently than most people I know. I find a sound that means something to me and I follow it through. I still listen to NIN just as much as I did when I was in high school (although I probably etch the logo into desks less often). Instead of having DMX in the heavy rotation one year and listening to bluegrass the next (sorry Dan), I slowly but surely build up the soundtrack of my life. This is why it pains me so when bands go in unexpected directions with their music. While it can sometimes be an amazing surprise we all have to admit that many times these changes don’t work out for the best. Whether still good or not, these are 3 bands that will never be the same.

Filter – The first record was rough and original- part Nine Inch Nails and part garage band. Richard Patrick and Brian Liesegang proved to be a creative force that infused simplicity with a temper. Hard, powerful songs made up the brunt of the album and were complemented with a couple softer, driving masterpieces. Everything looked roses for the group’s future but it wasn’t meant to last. Patrick thought Liesegang was too experimental and kicked him out of the group. Filter would never be the same again. The subsequent albums have been more focused on live music and less filtered effects, essentially forsaking the roots that led to the original’s success. There are plenty of good tracks among the rest of Filter’s collection, to be sure, but none have managed to capture the bold ideals of Short Bus.

Finger Eleven – Never have I seen a higher percentage of great (not just good) songs on a band’s first two albums. Finger Eleven was pure rock that hit you out of nowhere and didn’t take a break until the last track was done. At a time in the industry that was short on talent and full of copycats, this band proved that you didn’t need a gimmick to make a strong sound. Unfortunately, they didn’t prove that they could be commercially successful without one. Their 3rd album debuted with a foreign sound that was a makeover of their previous identity. New voice effects, new guitar style- Finger Eleven crumbled under the pressure and joined the throng of one-hit wannabes. Inauspiciously, they gained some popularity with One Thing and never looked back. In truth, the slow ballads aren’t horrible and there is a lot to like about the heavier outings but it is hard not to be wistful about the days when this band was uncompromising.

Pearl Jam – Extremely outdated to the point of being an afterthought, this band makes the list purely because it is the king of bands that will never be the same. Ten was not merely a great debut album- it was a cultural movement. The explosive vocals and sloppy guitar ignited a new era of rock and a new generation of listeners. I identified with this music, man. I remember not going back to class because I was busy listening to my Animal cassette. Even Vitalogy was a strong showing, but there were chinks in the armor. Eddie Vedder was growing to hate his success more and more and began taking it out on the fans with crap like Hey Crazy Mophandle Mama. Unlike the two bands above, Pearl Jam’s decline happened slowly and painfully. Every album would have less worth than the one before it until the point where I could not bring myself to listen any longer. I seriously can’t even think of another band whose music I don’t buy anymore- it’s that drastic.

So next time you are drinking a cold one and feeling a bit sentimental make sure to pour out a bit for your dead homies. We can always remember their past.

Taco

The League is hands down one of the best new comedies on TV. It’s about fantasy football. It’s about a group of friends ragging on each other. It’s a guy show that stands out from the other guy shows by being unapologetic about being a guy show.

Of course, there are some legitimate complaints about The League. The show structure is a bit formulaic after seeing a few episodes and the writers try too hard to create lingo in scenes that are heavily ‘inspired’ by Seinfeld. But by far the biggest problem of the series is the character named Taco.

All of the guys on the show have their thing. Taco’s thing is more or less being Joey from Friends. He’s the dumb guy who puts himself in odd situations without knowing any better for cheap comedy relief. He’s an easy way out for the writers any time they need something completely off the wall to happen. Seriously, his shtick is playing an acoustic guitar and singing wacky songs not unlike Adam Sandler from SNL in the 80s. Or Phoebe from Friends in the 90s. For a mostly original sitcom I really wonder what went on behind the scenes to have this happen.