Archive for category Gaming Culture
Initially, I had doubts Naughty Dog would be able to break away from the framework they established with the ‘Uncharted‘ series. Although the series is a massive success, it was becoming old hat. But their latest entry, ‘The Last of Us‘, showcases an amazing depth of what Naughty Dog can deliver. What Naughty Dog crafted here is, hands down, one of the best gaming experiences this generation. Everything from the character and level design, UX/UI interface, story presentation, and so on just shines. But most of the chatter around this game circles around one major aspect, the ending. If you completed the game, then you know know it was nothing short of shocking. As a forewarning, this post will contain heavy spoilers though out. Do NOT read any further if you have not completed the game.
I appreciate and love that Naught Dog did not give us game built entirely on conventional themes or cookie cutter characters. This is a look at an early dystopia and there no heroes or bad guys. There are no happy endings. For all loses, Joel is clearly not a ‘good’ man. He’s not even close to being a disgraced or fallen hero. Even at the onset of the game, he’s shown to be a very selfish individual. In the very beginning while driving through town, they see a family trying to flag them down for help. But Joel forcefully insists that his brotherTommy keep driving and leave them. Even his daughter Sarah makes a minor quibble about this. After surviving an ambush, Ellie asks Joel how he knew they entered an ambush and if he killed any ‘innocent’ people. Dryly, Joel responds he’s been on both sides of the situation regarding her former question and leaves it up to her decided regarding the latter. Most of his motivations are shown to be in his own self-interests, even to the very end. In another instance, Joel and Ellie partner up with another lone wolf and cub duo by the names, Henry and Sam. During a pursuit by some hunters, Joel is suddenly cut off from the group. A flustered Henry hesitates, but fails to see any immediate solution. Henry then leaves Joel and Ellie to fend for themselves. This example is played out many times throughout the game. Regardless of who these people were in the old world has little relevance here, what matters is survival. In short: ‘good’ people are sometimes forced to make ‘bad’ decisions given the situations they’re put in.
This game is just chockfull of these kind of humanistic moments.There’s one touching scene between Ellie and Sam where she gives me a toy robot he had to leave behind. This is off set by the next morning where it’s revealed Sam is infected and is by by his brother, Henry. The grief of which drives him to commit suicide right there. I call out this scene for a few reason. One, this is a perfect example of how well Naughty Dog is able to convey human emotions and moments flawlessly. And second, they display a keen attention to detail. Before this event occurs, your group is in a toy store where Ellie will stand next to the robot. Proceed to the next section but don’t go through the door just yet. Turn around and look at Ellie, the toy robot will be gone. This kind of attention to detail and continuity is what makes this game memorable. If there were any protagonists in the game, it would be Ellie. Despite seeing the world fall into madness, Ellie still maintains an air ‘innocence’ (and I say that ever so slightly). Her teen sensibilities and child-like nature provides the perfect balance to Joel’s gruff nature. But unfortunately, she’s never really given a true moment to be the “hero” of the game aside from saving a dying Joel. Who, arguably, may not be worth saving in the first place.
But that’s the real question: who’s worth saving in the first place? Joel and Henry briefly discuss how quickly people turned on each other when the infected begin to spread. On one hand, it’s easy to empathize with Marlene’s perspective. The key to humanity’s survival potentially lies with Ellie (more specifically, within her brain). We learn that Marlene has essentially raised Ellie from a young age after the death of her biological mother. And the choice to sacrifice her does not come lightly but she believes it is for the greater good. In contrast, Joel has never quite come to terms with the death of his own daughter Sarah. But the journey with Ellie, has softened him into viewing her as his adoptive ‘daughter’. There was no way Joel could endure that kind of loss again, humanity be damned. It’s interesting how both Joel and Marlene are surrogate parents to Ellie; yet they both have their own agendas in mind. There’s also some eerily Messianic ties in this dynamic. Would you sacrifice your only ‘child’ for the greater good of man no matter how far they’ve fallen? For Marlene, begrudgingly Yes. For Joel, Hell No! Ultimately, it was not a decision for either of them to make. It should have been Ellie’s choice. Granted, laying the fate of humanity at the feet of a child is extremely messed up in itself. But it’s still a decision that belonged to Ellie, not her ‘parents’. Joel was right about one thing: Marlene would never stop hunting them. Obviously, that’s no sound justification for killing her, but it is a fairly accurate assumption given Marlene’s demeanor. In the end, it’s clear Ellie knows something doesn’t add up with Joel’s explanation of what happened. Part of me even believes that Ellie realized later on that she was going die to help develop a cure, but played along as a comfort to Joel. What is clear is their relationship going forward is standing on some serious rocky ground.
In closing, a big round of applause and bravo to Naughty Dog for delivering such an outstanding masterpiece. I love this game so much that I truly hope they opt NOT to make a sequel. I’d welcome the planned DLC, but the game itself is perfect as a stand alone title, moral ambiguity and all. What do you think?
The media frenzy with Microsoft and the Xbox One continues. In a surprising turnabout, Microsoft has decided to reverse their Xbox One DRM policy. It turns out that vocal minority of whiny gamers wasn’t so minor after all. However, the cynic in me believes that pre-order numbers must’ve dropped at such an unbelievable rate that Microsoft felt compelled to respond in order to stay competitive against Sony’s PS4. But quite frankly, this was NOT the right move to make.
There’s no doubt Microsoft needed to respond to Sony after E3. But conceding on what was essentially the linchpin to their long term strategy was too reactionary. In some ways it reflects a lack of confidence they may have had in their original plan. If Microsoft was truly dedicated to moving gaming into a new digital age that benefited everyone, then they should have stuck to their guns despite the mountain of bad press. Instead, Microsoft backslides into the safer, short term bet of retaining their current customer base instead of betting the farm on the longer term rewards and learnings. All of this just smacks of weakness.
If anything, I was assuming if Microsoft scaled back on the mandatory functionality of the Kinect 2; if not stripping it out completely to cut back the price. This would have easily made it more competitive with the PS4. To date, I have yet to find any information on why the Kinect 2 is critical to gaming on the Xbox One. If any of you do, please share it with me. Removing the Kinect 2 would’ve been a more sensible strategy given the reservations many still have about it. But this was a head-scratcher from day one. If they were going to make the Kinect 2 mandatory, why not just build into the system in the first place? This most likely would have greatly increased the manufacturing costs. But that’s a cost Microsoft can eat. And it would have easily justified the $500 price point. However, Microsoft is set and locked with Kinect 2 still being mandatory despite removing DRM.
The real culprit throughout this whole Xbox One debacle can be boiled down to one issue: Microsoft’s Ineffective Communication!
From day one, information from Microsoft has been a whirlwind of conflicting sources and vague half-truths. The message about Xbox One has failed to be consistent. Not only that, they’ve failed to really be entirely forthcoming about how the new DRM policy would help benefit consumers and studios. Admittedly, there are sources outlining some of these details, but not many that clearly painted a picture of the how it translated to users in a practical manner. It wasn’t until I found this obscure article referencing an Xbox One engineer that the whole DRM really made sense. But when the head of Xbox is making flippant comments about disadvantaged consumers combined with everything else, how do you expect consumers to react? And lets face it, they knew enforcing DRM was never going to be a popular decision. But they should have done a hell of a much better job helping consumers embrace the changes and conveying the benefits that could follow.
Losing DRM eliminates many of the planned services Microsoft had in mind such as digital access to games, family sharing, lower game price points and more. These were all great ideas building on what Steam is already doing. And honestly, it would have been worth the risk. But Steam also has an OFFLINE mode. Why couldn’t Microsoft offer a similar option for Xbox One? They could have avoided a mountain of resistance around the required internet connection and the 24 hour check.
Many outlets view the reversal as a major win for consumers. And in some ways, it is (despite my cynical inference). But there’s no denying, games are transitioning more to the digital space. And Microsoft tried to embrace that change. Whether or not it was the ‘right‘ approach is neither here or there. The true winner here is Gamestop and other used retail outlets, not consumers. But this still put smaller studios in more danger of layoffs and closures as game production continue to increase. But as I mentioned in previous posts, the ballooning cost of game development really needs to be re-evaluated. But more importantly, publishers and developers need to crack down on Gamestop and other used retailers for lost revenue. There’s no sound reasons publishers and studios should not be getting a cut from used games sales. That dynamic should have been resolved by now. There is a solution in that relationship, and it’s not by passing the cost down to the consumer.
The DRM reversal also raises a few new questions such as: what does this mean for indie developers? Will the XBLIA space operate under the same manner or is it it still closed off? What does this mean for digital downloads, especially new titles? What about cloud gaming? Sony is already ahead of the curve in this regard. For quite a while, the Ps3 has been offering day one digital downloads for new titles. Sony is poised to stab the knife further into Micosoft’s back if they can offer day one downloads at discounted prices, say $49. And if the rumors of cloud gaming for PS3 titles on the ps4 is true, Microsoft has a lot of catching up to do.
Sadly, even with DRM removed, the Xbox One just doesn’t come off as a more appealing option over the PS4. Bottom line: Microsoft still has a more expensive console with minor issues lingering around Kinect 2. It would have been really interesting to see what Microsoft had in the works and how it played out. One thing is for certain: this console war just got a whole lot more boring. Now we have two similar systems that weren’t event that revolutionary to begin with. Congratulations gamers, your voices (and complaints) were heard loud and clear. Now lets see if you’ll be happy with the fallout of what’s to come.