Dante: “Where are the others? Why aren’t the other damned down here with me?”
Lucifer: “This isn’t their Hell, Dante. It’s yours.”
- from Dante’s Inferno

Dante’s Inferno is a half-hearted action game that gets caught up in its own spectacle. The offensive content of this video game is enough to repulse the casual observer, but those that actually play it will find its sins go far deeper: it is a video game that makes its own existence unnecessary with a combat system wrought by designers who have learned nothing about action games in the last five years. The result is an artifact that only serves as another reason why video game enthusiasts continue to bleat loudly and thump their chest while struggling to justify the cultural legitimacy of video games. Dante’s Inferno is a game that sought and received a lot of attention, but for all the wrong reasons. Electronic Arts’ campaign to promote the game was an embarrassing display, but fascinating in how it adapted to the response of the video game community. And yet the worst criticism levelled at the actual game upon its release was that it was a poor imitation of God of War, while glossing over the general offensiveness of the content – both visual and ludic – in what can only be labelled as acts of sloth. Dante’s Inferno is a mark upon the rich history of video games that reveals more failures than successes, but still manages to recognize the most noble of attempts. However, Dante’s Inferno has no hope of being a work as accessible or impactful as the ones that are the subject of so many retrospectives. Dante’s Inferno will be remembered, but not for the reasons Visceral Entertainment had hoped.

Read the rest of this entry »

Within the first fifteen minutes of playing a video game, I can tell if it will be good. I have yet to decide whether this is a useful skill in the context of adult life.

Services like Steam and the XBox Live Marketplace have effectively streamlined the process of consuming game demos, often before a game is available for purchase. This strategy is part of any publisher’s winning marketing plan. Let the masses jump on the game to provide free word-of-mouth advertising, and then watch them argue ad infinitum in every corner of the internet, since no one can be proven wrong. This is the ideal way to arrive at launch day. The review scores hit the usual aggregate sites based on the media’s preview copies, and people rush to the stores not just to get their hands on the game, but to prove everyone else wrong.

I am not usually such a person.

I have played and reviewed many demos since the inception of this website. In fact, I find myself relying on them more for the 360 than when I was solely a PC gamer. New PC games don’t stay expensive due to the high shelfspace turnover at electronics and even specialty retailers, whereas console games seem to retain their price a lot better^[1]. When I’m thinking about a new game purchase, reading exaggerated reviews and watching video samples of the game in action aren’t enough.

This makes the demo extremely important to someone like me. And once I start making notes on my first impressions of a game, it’s hard to stop. Most demos I’ve bothered to play provided me enough information to settle on an opinion. I knew the games weren’t going to get any better. And in the case of Ghostbusters: The Video Game, I was ensnared by nostalgia in the hopes that I would be playing Ghostbusters III. I wish I could say that was true.

Then there was Batman, a license that wields even more brand power, arriving in the form of Arkham Asylum last month to an unsuspecting audience. There was suprisingly no hype to speak of; no previews out of the usual. The demo was made available two weeks prior to the full version’s release. It caught a lot of people off guard, myself included. Everyone was excited over the possibility that a video game starring Batman was actually good. Naturally, the initial impressions were positive – and they spread.

I played the demo the week it was available for download and was prepared to post a negative review based on my impressions. There is no way the game should be receiving overwhelming praise. Except something held me back. My experiences with the game felt unfinished.

Surrounding myself with the opinions of people I know and who had played the full version, my suspicions were confirmed: the Arkham Asylum demo was terrible.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is the second part of a two-part series. Read “Part 1: Discovery”

I started thinking about writing full length reviews of video games in late 2001. I was still at University. I was going to make a website and came up with some generic name I thought was edgy and reflective of what I wanted to accomplish. It was going to cover more than video games. I had some things to say about popular culture.

After talking to some friends at school about my vision, there was some interest in this collaborative effort. There was already a zine floating around our faculty, but it was horrible. It was a soapbox for people frustrated with school and mostly contained their annoyingly priveleged views on an “oppressive” society. Instead of being provocative or insightful it was lampooning popular culture with pedestrian observations and half-baked philosophy. I could do better.

Of course, when you rely on friends to produce something for free, it doesn’t happen unless you get on their case about it. And I wanted to keep my friends. Plus, the whole “trying to graduate from University with a degree” thing. The project died on the vine, and I gave up the dream. For the time being, anyway.

I graduated from school the next spring, and started playing video games while I looked for work. My comptuer was getting old, and at this point the most it could muster was Unreal Tournament and Civilization III. I read the issues of PC Gamer that were mailed to me to keep up with the industry and the hobby I loved. I hung out on the internet a lot, and read too many terrible reviews that people actually got paid to write. My head started filling with ideas again. I could do better.

I started thinking about another website. Something that would capture my love of video games and provide an outlet for my brand of scathing commentary. I would call it “Tales of a Scorched Earth”, because I am an insufferable Smashing Pumpkins fan. I would adopt the handle of “Gatmog”, because it sounded cool and it provided the mystery any good internet handle should have^[1].

During this time, I started playing and thinking about video games as if it were research. I built a new desktop PC after I got a job and some money. I had a new purpose: I would record my thoughts on video games, write some reviews and share them with others. The availability and ease of use of self-publishing tools made this easier than I expected. I thought I would be doing something different than the typical weblog, and I used that as inspiration.

I wrote a lot of reviews and embarrassing posts during that time^[2]. I published most of them. It was a start.

Read the rest of this entry »

The “Gaming Made Me” series of video game retrospectives started by Rock, Paper, Shotgun came from games industry writers, journalists and the designers that make them. It’s become a kind of collective autobiography sourcing the video games that shaped who they are.

Of course, the cynical part of me expected this community-driven effort to consist of mostly name-dropping key titles from the history of video games. But I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the response of webloggers that have taken up the mantle where Rock, Paper, Shotgun left off^[1].

So now I feel the need to contribute, because I think it is absolutely necessary for anyone who loves to play or write about video games to recognize the ones that got them into the hobby. Or in the case of game designers and professional writers, what made them get into the industry itself.

I have been into computers since very early on in my life, and playing computer games was a natural extension of that interest. However, I had no idea that this hobby would result in me creating a website to talk about them. I’m no industry figure, weblogging personality or budding game designer – I’m just a guy that loves to play video games, and write about them. For the people that truly love video games, they are as important as the books they read or the movies they watched when growing up.

For any game weblog, I’d say that writing something like “Gaming Made Me” is more essential than an “About” page. It’s important to let readers know where the author is coming from, and what games influenced their lives and opinions of what makes a great video game. It provides context for the reviews and criticism they produce.

At this point in my life, video games are no longer just a hobby. They have made me a writer, and they have taught me to be critical of things beyond video games. Both video games and this website have become such immutable aspects of my life, that I can’t imagine it without them.

It was hard to come up with this list. So hard, that I had to split it into two. I wanted it be a list of games that shaped me as a player of video games, as well as my viewpoints on what makes a great video game, instead of simply rewording a “favorite games of all time” list. So I’m not going to list off the Zeldas, the Half-Lifes, the Thiefs, or the Rainbow Sixes. That would be too easy for me. No name dropping of the classics and pretending as if they meant something to me in my early development as a gamer. The following list of games got me started in the hobby, tempered my opinion of the medium, and introduced me to the genres I love. Most importantly these are the games that eventually led me to write about them^[2]. They are the ones that left an indelible mark. And for that, they must be recognized.

Read the rest of this entry »

Magic: The Gathering is a property that formed the foundation of a tabletop gaming empire for a new generation of gamers, changing the face of a hobby that until then was buried in basements and isolated in musty smelling comic book shops. And yet its history in video games is pretty shameful in the numerous attempts to bring this brand even further into the mainstream. While most of the titles bore only a passing resemblance to their inspiration^[1], Magic: The Gathering Online (2002) was the closest thing you could get to actually playing the card game.

The recently released Duels of the Planeswalkers (2009), available on Xbox Live Arcade, is not Magic: The Gathering Online. It is the card game pared down to its most essential components.

As an ex-Magic player that dropped out shortly after the Ice Age expansion in the mid 1990s^[2], Duels has reawakened my respect for what Richard Garfield created in the game of Magic: The Gathering. Despite launching the completely ridiculous trend of collectible card games.

Much like my time with Games Workshop’s Warhammer, I found that the amount of one-upmanship that goes on in these hobbies borders on the unfair if you have unlimited resources (ie. Money) to sink into your collection. Players who don’t invest as much money in the hobby are immediately at a disadvantage when going up against the players who are well equipped and dialed right in to the latest cards and strategies for maximizing the return on their investment. The arms race continues until the only ones left standing are the demigods with ultra-powerful decks containing hundreds of dollars worth of cards. Of course, going into tournaments there are rules for this to balance the playing field, but I’m just generalizing here for the sake of my argument.

Duels of the Planeswalkers is a pre-packaged Magic: The Gathering experience. It successfully captures the essence of the game, without bogging down the player with a ton of cards that all end up doing basically the same thing when you really look into it. And this seems to be the biggest complaint about the game: the lack of comprehensive deck building tools.

Duels gives you a set number of decks to unlock through the single player campaign, while also unlocking individual cards for use in customizing these decks. “Customizing” is a very loose term in this context: you’re either using it in the deck, or you aren’t. There’s no way to get new cards after they have all been unlocked, and you can’t create a completely new deck. For some people this is too limiting, and makes this interpretation of Magic somehow less authentic.

I don’t think the Campaign mode is particularly interesting in the way that it creates “characters” for you to fight; I’d rather have seen an AI controlled player that randomly selects one of the pre-built decks and plays with it, which would provide the most replayability in single player mode. However, I don’t think this was the game’s main thrust. The Campaign mode was put in to get players familiar with the mechanics of play, to (re)learn the rules, and to get comfortable working in high pressure situations. At first, the inexperienced player will feel overwhelmed while they get acquainted with the cards and the rules of the game itself. And this is just the set-up. What Wizards and Stainless wanted to ultimately produce was a game that approximates the experience of playing the card game with humans in the online mode.

By limiting the number of cards and decks, the game is already pre-balanced. New players will never feel like they will be overpowered by some unknown card, and experienced players will be able to make the most out of their decks from the beginning. This effectively curtails the arms race. There is a ceiling that is predefined: once everything is unlocked everyone is going to be using the same cards. In the end, it simply comes down to luck (just like the real thing) and being skilled enough to use the cards at hand to overpower your opponent.

Putting in the Challenge mode was a terrific idea, as I found it to be an excellent training tool. It is a collection of “puzzles” that sets up one turn where you must win the game with the cards in play and in your hand. It encourages players to test their knowledge of the game; to solve a puzzle by taking advantage of its nuanced rules. This would then carry over into the Campaign or online versus mode, where you are working with the same cards and with enough luck and determination can put together a similar last-ditch counter-attack. However, there are only eight of these challenges and the advanced player will rip right through them.

Some might say that this game is simply a focus-grouped promotional tool for the upcoming release of the 11th Core Set that will get people out and buying into the physical card game. I would partially agree; It’s pretty clear from the beginning that Wizards and Stainless focus-grouped the shit out of this game, but it was to make it balanced for new and experienced players to enjoy the essentials of Magic: the Gathering. It’s no Magic: Online, but to me that was always for the players I mentioned earlier; they just don’t want to go out and physically buy the cards. Those players will never touch Duels because it is not meant for them. They should stop complaining.

I must admit I felt the pull of my old card collection, long since sold, after playing a few rounds of Duels. But it’s just another box of stuff that would end up collecting dust in a closet somewhere in my house. I’m glad I can pick up this game, play it, and put it away knowing that I have spent only $10 for an experience that will remain timeless.