Inspirational Failure

Trespasser is one of many games in the Jurassic Park franchise.  Released in 1998, it was a commercial failure and winner of Gamespot's worst-game-of-the-year award.  Disappointing to see considering that it spent three years in development with a very talented team of designers.  Just to stress that last point, Austin Grossman (the writer for Deus Ex and Dishonored) along with Seamus Blackley (father of the Xbox) both worked on this game.  So, what happened?  In a word - "overscoping".

As is all too common in game development, the team behind Trespasser bit off way more than they could chew.  There were a lot of ambitious "firsts" such as large open outdoor environments, a diegetic interface, a physics engine, and a complex AI to give the dinosaurs life.  That last point is especially noteworthy because all of the half-dozen or so dinosaurs species (as well as sub-types) found in the game move and act in strange ways due to them literally being puppets on strings.  It's kid of surreal to see in action and hasn't been emulated since (the one exception being the creatures found in Rain World).  

The physics engine also ties into this due to how players interact with the environment.  Much like the mannequin dinos controlled by the AI, the main character has a single working arm that they use to pick up, manipulate and throw objects with via the mouse.  Again, it's kind of weird and not a game mechanic you really see outside of quirky indie titles like Octodad and Surgeon Simulator.  Nonetheless, Gabe Newell cited the physics engine in Trespasser as an influence on a similar system Valve used in Half-Life 2.

Not having any kind of HUD was hardly a new concept in 1998, but doing so in an action-oriented FPS was courting disaster.  To work around the lack of a health meter the protagonist has a visible heart tattoo that indicates their status based on how full it is.  Ammunition for guns is tracked by the player character vocalizing how many shots they have left after each pull of the trigger.  Weird as these ideas are, they eventually popped-up in games much later on.  Dead Space for example has a life bar on the back of Issac's suit.  Meanwhile Alyx (from Half-Life: Alyx) sometimes comments on her ammo supplies.  The official game for "Peter Jackson's King Kong" movie features a particular button that (when pushed) causes the player character to exclaim how many bullets they have left.  In truth, it kind of makes sense in that game since King Kong features a lot of teamwork.  Maybe you'd want to let your allies know how you're doing ammo-wise from time to time...?

Lastly is the outdoor areas which were quite expansive for the time.  For the most part, FPS games released around that era were of the corridor shooter variety.  Obviously, Trespasser was brutally difficult to run on 1990s hardware because of the sheer amount of geometry on-screen at any given moment.  Even so, the idea of wide open environments was a direction that game development would expand toward; Halo: Combat Evolved and the original Far Cry being two big steps the industry took that way later on.

While it certainly deserves to be called a very flawed game, Trespasser ultimately attracted a cult following of sorts in the form of mod makers and bug fixers.  These individuals actually poured in a considerable amount of effort in order to make the game run with fewer issues and even significant improvements.  In some ways the fan updated (i.e. current) version of the game feels like a VR title.  Incidentally, someone is working on a mod for that.  There's also an unofficial pseudo-remake of sorts in the works, but it's anyone's guess if the DNA of the original can be revived or if it will simply live on as little bits and pieces in games that have come since.   

Welcome Aboard Commander

Carrier Command 2 is not only a sequel to the 1988 original, but a return to form after the failed 2012 soft reboot Carrier Command: Gaea Mission.  Nowhere is this more apparent than the visuals.  Gaea Mission attempted to go with a semi-realistic near-future look while the direct sequel is a mix of voxel shapes and pixel textures that feel like a natural evolution of the original game.  

At heart, the Carrier Command series is a RTS/FPS hybrid.  The games create a simulacrum of actual carrier operations.  The big caveat being air, sea or amphibious operations are carried out by drones which are controlled remotely via camera links.  Alternatively, the player can issue instructions on a tactical display which the drones will then carry out semi-anonymously.  Ideally, a mixture of both is how the game is meant to be played.  While it is certainly possible to tour much of the titular carrier through the player's in-game character, most (if not all) the game will be experienced on the bridge.  In this room, there a nine stations (three for drone control, one for the helm, one for shipboard weapons, two for managing logistics, one for power/coms, and the captain's chair).  It's certainly possible to play solo though a lot of multi-tasking is required to achieve any degree of success.  That said, I can't see there really being a need for more than three or four players aboard a carrier.  The game allows up to 16 which can participate in PvE or PvP style matches.

Aside from destroying all enemy carriers, the main task which players will be focused on is capturing islands.  Unsurprisingly, the world is an archipelago consisting of (a default) 64 islands, each procedurally generated and defended by computer-controlled vehicles.  A shield rating system (from 1 to 4) indicates how heavily defended a particular island is.  As far as I can tell one-shield islands are guarded by lightly armed land vehicles only, while two shields means they have either air or sea units present.  Three means both of those are deployed in addition to turret and missile defenses.  As for four...well, let's just say they are tough nuts to crack.  Each island also has its own biome (volcanic, tropical, forest, desert or snow-covered) and manufacturing focus (fuel, small munitions, large munitions, air chassis, ground chassis, support equipment or supply barges).  Once captured, the player's team can use the island's facilities to produce some of what they need to keep up their war efforts.  The logistics aspect of the game is actually fairly important to the point that it can occupy a lot the downtime that occurs when traveling between islands.  Another island type of note is the player's starting one.  It's a stockpile hub, but more importantly has a shipyard capable of launching small single-purpose gunboats.  These are handy to have, but also completely dependent on the carrier for fuel and ammunition.  Overall, the vibe I got was one similar to Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak.  So while Carrier Command 2 has a FPS perspective, it's really only there for emersion purposes.  The player can leave the carrier if they want, go swim in the sea or even walk around the various islands in the game, but there isn't any reason to do so.  Unlike Gaea Mission, there are no personal firearms or man-portable weaponry to be had.  The player can only attack through vehicle-mounted weapon systems.  Just to drive the point home, there is an option in the ESC menu that teleports the player back to the bridge regardless of where they wandered off to.  Welcome aboard commander!  Now that you are here you can never leave...well, at least until you win, lose, or quit to desktop.

Dread the Metroid

I've heard from a lot of people that there's no meaningful distinction to made between sci-fi and fantasy.  Like a lot philosophizing it's true in an absolute sense, but not so when it comes to statistical averages.  To clarify that point, it's not hard to find films, novels or video games that straddles the line between those two genres.  On the other hand, I think there are a lot of fantasy stories that feature things like dragons and wizards.  There are also a lot of science fiction stories that have robots and spaceships in them.  It doesn't mean that's always the case, but the terms still do imply the presence or absence of certain mental images.  So, having said all that, which genre is the Metroid IP?  Neither...it's in a special subgenre of its own co-creation called "Metroidvania".

A combination of two NES titles, Metroid and Castlevania, this particular type of game typically includes a gameplay loop involving exploration and acquisition of new abilities.  There are countless examples; Ori, Axiom Verge and Hollow Knight are some of the more prominent titles to come out in recent years.  Now that the venerable Samus Aran (protagonist of the Metroid series) has made her debut on the Nintendo Switch, what does this new entry in the long running franchise have to offer?  In a word - Dread.

Not dread in that the game is full of bugs or poor design choices...rather the feeling of apprehension one gets when they know the next part of a game will be difficult.  I experienced this feeling a lot when playing Dark Souls or Resident Evil and Metroid: Dread has that same vibe sprinkled into it.  The feeling is especially prominent whenever one of those E.M.M.I. robots show up.  Some of the bosses also evoke the same feeling, though I found that it often gave way to frustration.  Much like Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze the developers over at Nintendo Studios are perhaps a bit overzealous about limiting when the player can strike back against a boss monster's relentless onslaught.  Regardless, Metroid: Dread is true to its roots even though it never quite achieves the greatness of Super Metroid.  

That might sound a bit harsh, but Super Metroid really does stand head-and-shoulders above every other entry in the franchise.  The reason is simple, it lets the tension build in ways that no other Metroid game seems to have the patience for.  Not just the prologue and intro, but the ghost ship, the boss statue, and the lead-up to the final showdown are all times when the game lets feelings of mystery and apprehension pile on top of each other. The music score adds quite a bit to this, and is (hands down) is some of the best video game music composed by Nintendo.  Sadly, Metroid: Dread doesn't emphasize these design elements.  Even so, it's still nowhere nearly as bad as Other M in terms of quality.  Then again, I'm very bias toward 2-D Metroid games.  So, whatever Nintendo has planned next for Samus, I hope it's more like Dread and less like Prime.  

Star Trek

Created by Gene Rodenberry, this space sci-fi franchise got started in the 1960s as a TV series.  It only ran for three seasons, but made a lasting impression with audiences.  Eventually, this led to a variety of spin-off media including films, novels, a cartoon and (of course) video games.  One of the things that made Star Trek stand out was its rather utopian vision of the future.  In particular, characters tend to get along surprisingly well with one another.  Professionalism and maturity seem to be the ideals that humanity strives for the most in the 24th century.  Telling compelling stories in this sort of setting though, can be a real headache.

Ask anyone who has studied the art of script writing and they'll inform you that plotlines thrive on conflict.  In fact, if you sit down and watch most sitcoms, soap operas or "reality" TV programs that have come out over the last couple decades you'll notice that pretty much all of them revolve around rivalries and in-fighting between main characters.  The simple reason for this being, it's not easy to come up with interesting storylines if they lack interpersonal tensions.  On the plus side though, this difference helped Star Trek standout.  Here was a show wherein the challenge was more about putting heads together to solve a problem, avoid a crisis, or unravel a mystery.  Science fiction concepts were traded in and out from one episode to the next.  A lot of the stories were duds, but sometimes they could be thought provoking or at least memorable.  So...what does all this have to do with video games?

Well, as I briefly mentioned, there have been quite a few Star Trek video game released over the years.  They run the gamut from point-and-click adventure games to first-person shooters and space combat simulators.  Recently, there haven't been any notable new entries in the franchise.  This is partly because the Star Trek Online MMORPG has been keeping fans satiated, and also partially because games like Mass Effect stole Star Trek's thunder.  Even so, that franchise is just as interested in its third-person shooting and RPG mechanics as anything Star Trek related.   Hence, I find myself returning again and again to the question, "what kind of current day game would capture the essence of Star Trek?"  I'm not entirely sure, but to express it in a single word - talking.

Because of budget constraints, any given episode predominantly consists of conversations between characters.  Even on the rare occasions that action takes center stage there still tends to be a lot of discussions going on; punctuated by commands like "Engauge!", "Energize!" or "Make it so."  Assuming that the player takes the role of a starship captain or some kind of commanding officer, they should be spending the majority of their time doing the following:

• Soliciting Advice
• Giving Orders
• Accumulating Information

That's not to say they can't go places and do things.  Exploration is, after all, baked into the IP's DNA.  It's just that I can't really see a Star Trek game being any other way and still be true to it's roots.  The player shouldn't be flying a starship, firing weapons, or repairing a non-functional warp nacelle.  They should be telling other people to do those things, while they make the big decisions that decide the fate of their crew and possibly the course humanity.  

About the Half-Life Series...

Back in the day, I played and enjoyed the original Half-Life, Opposing Force, Blue Shift, some mods (such as They Hunger), and the Uplink demo version of the game that featured unique areas.  Later, I played Half-Life 2 and found it to be better from a technical standpoint, but not as intriguing in premise as the original.  I never played Episode One or Two, and I have little interest in the Black Mesa update of the original.  All that said, Half-Life: Alyx has sparked my interest much like the original did.

I don't own a VR headset.  I don't have the space, money, or large blocks of free time that such a device would require.  Even so, I appreciate the fact that Valve went out of their way to make a proper Half-Life game in VR.   Up till now, it has felt like pretty much every VR title has been little more than a tech demo.  Thankfully, Half-Life: Alyx actually has some meat on it's bones; both in terms of length and content.  One of the neat things about VR is its ability to turn environmental detail into gameplay.  Rummaging through drawers and dumpsters in the game is kind of like going on a fun little scavenger hunt.  This tactile quality transfers over to the shooting and puzzle solving as well.  There's also a much more vertical quality to everything, since the act of looking up and down in VR is much more instinctive/intuitive than when using a monitor (plus mouse and keyboard) setup.  In short, there are some gameplay mechanics VR adds or enhances, but there are a few things that are decidedly worse when it is employed.

For reasons I don't fully understand, movement in video games always feels more plausible to me if it's in a vehicle of some sort.  To me, first-person shooters always come across as a conceit of sorts in that the player is really more of a floating gun than an actual character in the game...sort of like a hovering drone being controlled remotely by the player via a camera and monitor...anyway...my point is it doesn't feel especially natural.  In VR though I find this problem of physical movement amplified unless there's some kind of design conceit such as the player character being in a wheelchair or a cockpit.  Oddly enough, it's not an issue for me at all in the third-person perspective because I can trick my brain into thinking I'm manipulating my on-screen character like an RC car which brings us back to the drone analogy. I'm not sure if my own personal reaction holds true for most other people though.  The fact that the gameplay in Half-Life: Alyx is smaller in scope than previous entries in the series makes me think that some design concessions had to be implemented for the sake of accessibility.  Having said that, the fundamental mechanics still retain the same spirit as earlier entries in the franchise.

I think, when it comes to Half-Life, Valve feels pressured to make each entry innovative in some way.  In the case of Alyx, I believe they succeeded.  However, it is very much the same kind of "innovation" as before in that isn't truly innovative.  Instead, it's more of a big-budget polishing and of mechanics introduced in other smaller titles years prior (oftentimes the kind of niche games that get ignored by mainstream gaming culture).  Still, if you're one of those rich people that can afford a high-end personal computer and a thousand dollar VR rig then at least now you got something that does the hardware justice.

All Because of an Axe

Respawn Entertainment (makers of Titanfall) released a game a little while back called Apex Legends.  It's one of those Free-to-play multiplayer titles capitalizing on the battle royale craze that is sweeping the online shooter market.  By most accounts it's a good example of the sub-genre, but there has been one big catch; the parent company of Respawn is none other than Electronic Arts.

Yup...EA, the video game publishing company that has become the embodiment of bad business practices is pulling the strings.  So, unsurprisingly after reviews had come out praising the game, the dev team decided to introduce an "event" involving pricey cosmetic DLC sold via loot boxes.  Introducing "surprise mechanics" in video games still seems to be EA's modus operandi despite all the controversy and backlash surrounding this particular monetization scheme.  Predictably, there has been a lot of community friction recently.  To say things have become ugly would be an understatement, I think.  What caught me off guard though was the development team's reaction.  After trying the "we're sorry (but not really)" approach certain employees at Respawn decided to vent their wrath on customers.  Basically, the counterattack headed by the community manager and project leader has been spearheaded by claims that the player base is being overly hostile and abusive.

It's accurate to a degree, but doesn't address the fundamental issue - exploitative  monetization practices.  Complaining about socially inept basement-dwellers being mean on twitter or reddit feels suspiciously like an attempt to deflect criticism and draw the discussion away from what started the problem to begin with.  It's also worth mentioning that some of these toxic elements are teenagers who are irate because they are being psychologically manipulated.  Are these kids being articulate when it comes to expressing frustration with being treated like idiot cash-cows?  In many cases certainly not, but in their defense they're not adults.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure everyone working at Respawn and EA is in their 20s and 30s (if not older).  Yet, some these people who hold positions of power in a multimillion dollar corporation sink to the level of irate children when called out on their scummy behavior.  It's a sad state in that the opportunity for a grown-up conversation has been lost because of all the temper tantrums.  Sign of the times, I guess...

Of course Vince Zampella (the president of Respawn) eventually did step in and attempted to clear the air with an apology message...which failed to address the fundamental issue of quasi-gambling in-game microtransactions in any way shape or form.  Instead, the discorse is entirely framed around who's the victim here - gamers or game creators.  The truth is both are...at the hands of triple-AAA publishers like EA. 

Call of Duty Kids

I've never been much of a gun enthusiast, but I have been friends with, and neighbors to, a number of collectors.  They were mostly into pre-WW2 stuff, six-shooters, bolt-action rifles, double-barreled shotguns, and even a British breech-loading single-shot lever-actuated rifle from the Zulu Wars that fired brass black-powder cartridges!  As a kid I would sometimes go out target shooting, and as such was thoroughly instructed on proper usage of firearms.  Guns aren't all-powerful killing devices, nor are they toys.  They are tools that can be very dangerous and need to be treated with the utmost respect.  Something else I learned very quickly was that anything larger than a .22 round was painful for little 12-year-old me to fire.  I'm not just talking about recoil here, discharging a .30-06 will rattle your teeth, reverberate in your chest and make your ears ring even with proper hearing protectors on.  In movies and (by extension) video games, they love to load guns with slow burning reduced powder charges.  The result is a huge flame out of the barrel and very little kickback.  Obviously it's not all that similar to the real thing.  Another thing I learned very quickly was (unlike Hollywood movie stars or the protagonists of point-and-click shooters) hitting anything with a pistol is really hard, even when the target is close, doesn't move, and you have all the time in the world to aim.  I have a relative that claims I would have eventually gotten the hang of handguns provided I burned through a few thousand rounds worth of ammunition practicing at the shooting range, but for better or worse, budget limitations forced me to limit myself to a BB gun most of the time.

Regardless, my experiences with real-life firearms has always made it difficult for me to enjoy the FPS genre.  Not so much when it comes to the likes of DOOM since, let's face it, that game has more in common with an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon than anything else.  No, the games that bug me are "realistic" shooters made by the likes of Activision, EA, and Ubisoft.  You know...the kind of games that replace the tedium and fear of real warfare with a lot of glamour and balls-to-the-wall action.  I'm not actually against the concept.  After all, video games about escapism in one form or another, and unlike a vocal sub-set of people out there, I understand the difference between correlation and cause.  Especially when it comes to violent media and society.  That said, it still annoys me when naive youths get the idea that these kind of games reflect the reality of things in any way, shape or form.  I'm just going to come out and say this right now:  assault rifles aren't good home defense weapons.  The best firearm for such a purpose is (and has been for over a century now) the pump-action shotgun.  It's reliable, doesn't travel overly far (so you don't risk harming innocent bystandards as much), has excellent stopping power, and best of all is easy to hit targets with.  Alternatively, more muscular types might want to go with cold steel instead.  The Roman gladius has killed more people than any other type of weapon in human history.  You can buy high quality replicas for relatively affordable prices and it's well suited to close quarters fighting (plus you don't have to reload or worry about it going off accidentally).  In fact, the only time I can see an assault rifle coming in handy is if your dwelling is under siege by a squad of Waffen SS troopers (possibly led by zombie Hitler himself).

Just to absolutely clear here, I'm not against violence in video games.  By their nature video games are conflict driven, and what kind of conflict is more universal than survival?  All the same, it's a little bit weird that there's never been a piece of media that accurately depicts gunshot wounds...probably because audiences would find it revolting.  You see...the horrifying truth is bullets rarely kill outright.  Real life humans don't have HP bars.  They have blood vessels, nerve centers, muscle, tendon and bone, as well as vital (and non-vital) organs.  Not to mention psychological factors like shock and adrenaline.  All of the above can (in the short term) cause the effects of gunshot wounds to vary wildly, from painless to agonizing, with little regard to the severity of the actual injury.  Games don't acknowledge this, nor do they ever admit to being way off the mark.  They could, but they won't because it might affect their bottom line.  When it comes to the risk-adverse triple-AAA scene, the only acceptable way of thinking is bigger explosions and higher body counts.

Survival Simulator 2029

The Terminator is a great science fiction film.  The sequel, while more of a remake than anything else, was good fun.  Sadly, pretty much everything after that has been garbage.  On the video game front there have been a lot of attempts to adapt the franchise with varying degrees of success.  Pretty much all such adaptations fall into the category of shooters with first person, third-person, side-scrolling or light-gun configurations.  One noteworthy example was the 1991 DOS game, simply called Terminator, in that it basically looked and felt like a crude version GTA.  Players could choose between Reese or the titular terminator and the game would end as soon as the terminator or Sarah Conner were eliminated.  It was even possible to play the game two player provided you could find a way to connect a pair of PCs together back then.  Sounds cool, but honestly I never really cared much for the time traveling, modern-day aspects of the IP.  Instead, my interest was, and still is, firmly set on the future conflict.

To me the war against the machines is where a video game adaptation could really shine.  There have been a few attempts, Bethesda made a game entitled Terminator: 2029, which obviously puts players in the boots of a future human resistance fighter under the command of John Conner.  Sadly, the game has the player running around in a super-suit (supposedly stolen from Skynet), that frankly gives players a mood-killing advantage.  You see...the most interesting part of the setting is being this relatively weak human having to scurry around the moonlit ruins of Los Angles, avoiding H-Ks (Hunter-Killers), just trying to survive.  Conceptually, swap out zombies for huge intimidating robots and you're halfway there.  The infiltrator units also bring up some potentially exciting gameplay in that the player might encounter what looks like other people, but not know if they are friend or foe.  Of course the T-600 series of terminators reveal their true nature up close, but a T-800 (aside from being on the big side) is anyone's guess.  Dogs could always spot a terminator, making them a valuable asset.  Weapons, whether it be plasma rifle, slug-thrower, or canister-bomb, are all important tools of the trade.  Vehicles, and vehicular weaponry (such as rocket launchers and mounted guns), are also extremely important for knocking out the heavily armored Skynet units.  Speaking of Skynet, it needs electricity, raw materials and industrial centers in the same way humans need food, clean water and medicine.  In some way there's almost a strategy element to the setting...

One question that I've heard bandied about regarding this Human/Machine conflict is the notion of biological and chemical weapons.  Specifically, Skynet doesn't seem to use them, but it's never explained why?  The simplest answer is that even though Skynet is self-aware, it may still be governed by certain basic functions of its programming (or "laws" if you prefer that term).  Hence, it might not be able to use WMDs aside from the nuclear arsenal it was provided with upon activation.  One setting which explores this idea in more detail is "Reign of Steel," a table-top RPG for the GRUPS ruleset.  In a nutshell, it's the Terminator circa 2029, except with the focus pulled out from southern California to a global view.  Depending on what part of the world you're in the robot conflict looks considerably different.  Local administrative AIs are given a degree of latitude as to how to deal with humans.  Some, such as the AI in charge of Mexico seek to destroy all organic life, while the AI in charge of England allows humans to live in a robot dominated police-state.  Others still allow humans to live so long as they keep their ecological footprint to a minimum (i.e. hunter-gatherer societies).  In essence it's a kitchen-sink for every robot apocalypse that has ever been created in entertainment media.  You could if you wanted have the computer game Earthsiege, the movie "Oblivion," the anime OVA "Casshern: Robot Hunter" and the short story "Second Variety," more or less all on the same planet just separated by geography and (to a lesser extent) time.

As you can probably gather, there's a lot of storytelling potential here.  Much like the blogpost I did recently on the Aliens franchise though, the games we have seen are surprisingly lacking in creativity.  Most are simply copies of the movies they were based on.  Then again, that's the basic problem with pretty much every film in the Terminator franchise after the original.  Rather than expanding on the lore of the setting, we get rehash after rehash of the same basic plot points and visual cues over and over ad-nauseam.  Still, given the choice I think I'd rather have more early access survival games where robots are the threat, rather than zombies, if for no other reason than a change of pace.

Duelology

For reasons I don't quite fathom (it probably has to do with money) entertainment media likes to do things in threes, or sets of three.  Video games are no exception to this trend.  Mass Effect, God of War, Gears of War, Dark Souls, The Witcher, they all have a trilogy associated with them.  However, this isn't always the case.  There are tons of games that never get a sequel, and there are also a lot of games that blow right on passed the number three mark.  Final Fantasy is up to its fifteenth iteration while Resident Evil is fast approaching it's seventh installment (and that's not even counting all the spin off titles each franchise has).  Considerably rarer is the duelology, or pair of games, so in this blog post I'd like to highlight one such example - Condemned.

Split between Criminal Origins and its direct sequel, Bloodshot, these two first-person action/horror games are a bit unique in that they are set in the modern era, but focus on melee combat.  The player takes the role of Ethan Thomas, an FBI agent attached to a special serial crime unit.  His assignment is to track down "Serial Killer X," a serial-killer killer operating out of the fictional rust-belt urban sprawl known simply as "Metro City."  While investigating the scene of a murder, Ethan's sidearm gets swiped by the lurking Serial Killer X, who then proceeds to use the weapon to murder two police officers, thus framing Ethan for the crime...I guess...I mean didn't they check trigger for fingerprints?  It's not like Serial Killer X wears gloves...that, and I'm not sure how Ethan is supposed to clear his name if it involves murdering a bunch of violent homeless people...

Glaring plot holes aside, Condemned does an excellent job of setting the mood.  Whether it be a subway, library, museum, burned out doll factory *shivers* or huge cabin in the woods (b-b-b-bear?), players will spend the majority of the game poking around abandoned, rundown buildings, mostly at night, while fending off attacks by deranged squatters.  It's never clearly explained in the first game why these individuals are so psychotic, the police dismiss them as being drug-crazed.  However, there are some subtle hints early on that it isn't a simple narcotics induced crime wave.  Dead birds turn up all over the city, and odd bits of metal can be found hidden everywhere.

During development, this game was entitled "The Dark," which is an apt name considering how many foreboding, poorly lit and claustrophobic environments there are in the game.  It also featured a much stronger supernatural element.  The player could even cast spells in the game that would open doors or steal a weapon out an opponent's hands.  A tiny bit of this made it into the final product in that Ethan seems to be gifted with clairvoyance, or some similar psychic power.  I kind of like how they ultimately chose to ground the setting though since, in my opinion, preserving the plausibility of the premise makes the experience a lot more terrifying.  It's a pity the developers backtracked on this when in came to the sequel.

As I said before, the storyline was not one of Condemned's strong points, but what it did excel at was the gameplay.  Guns are rare and have severally limited ammo, so the player has to depend a lot on improvised melee weapons such as fire axes, sledgehammers, crowbars, flat head shovels, chunks of rebar, locker doors, boards with nails in them and pretty much any other bludgeoning object you can possibly think of.  The AI is no slouch either.  Enemies will seek out ambush points, block and even feign attacks to throw the player off.  Breaking up the action is an occasional forensics segment in which the player must locate clues regarding Serial Killer X in order to advance the story.  It's fairly straightforward stuff since Ethan's lab partner, Rosa, does most of the analytical work, but it's a welcome addition nonetheless.  The sound design is also great (an often neglected feature in video games).  Here the incomprehensible ranting and raving of adversaries mixed with the sickening crunch of a lead pipe to the face add a lot to the already creepy atmosphere.  What little music there is in the game is also a perfect fit for the setting.

The now-defunct Monolith Studios was responsible for this duelology, and it's easy to see the DNA of their big followup franchise, F.E.A.R. (empty structors, clever AI, a gifted protagonist, and a mixture of action and horror thematic elements).  Unlike that FPS though, Condemned drew inspiration from movies like "Silence of the Lambs," "Se7en," and directors like David Lynch rather than "Ringu," "Akira," and John Woo.  Although...is it just me or does Ethan Thomas look Asian American?  I guess he's not given his appearance in the second game.  Too bad...it would have been a lot more interesting if he had been something other than yet another generic 30-something, scruffy white guy...

Facsimile

In modern English the word "facsimile" is synonymous with "fax," or "copy," but the origin of the word comes from Latin.  "Fac," is the imperative of "facere" (to make), and "simile," means "similar" in English.  So, what does any of this have to do with video games?  Well...I can think of a couple of relevent examples.

Ever heard of a game called Orion: Prelude?  It's often referred to as "The Best Worst Game" on Steam.  Typically it can be found on sale for about $1.  Having played the game for around seven hours I recommend not paying more than that amount for it.  Rather than simply telling you about this FPS, let me ask a few questions:  Do you like Halo?  How does wave-based co-op multiplayer sound?  What would you think if the Covenant were replaced with dinosaurs?  If your answers are "Yes", "Yes", and "Great!" then this game might keep you entertained for around an hour or two.  Otherwise go buy a pack of gum with your hard-earned dollar.  Trust me, You'll get a lot better return on your investment.

Normally when I think of knock-offs I tend to imagine the label "made in China," or possibly Taiwan.  Not so with this title.  Apparently the job of copycat game development  more often than not ends up in the hands of someone living in Russia.  That's not to say I don't like Russian made games - far from it.  I've played more War Thunder and World of Warships than I care to admit (even though one sometimes feels like a doppelganger of the other).  That aside, Bloodbath Kavkaz feels...well, to put it nicely - unnecessary.  The first Hotline Miami had enough convoluted storytelling and gratuitous violence to satisfy a deranged psychopath.  Just in case that wasn't enough for you though, the same developer went on to make a sequel - Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number.  It has more of everything to the point that a lot of what made the first game good ended up lost in transition.  More specifically, the expanded level layout and increased number of enemies led to a great deal more frustratingly random player deaths.  It undermined the intensely tactical puzzle solving that made the original game special.  If, for some reason you want more 2-D pixelated gore though there's always Bloodbath Kavkaz...I guess.

Last example, for this blog post is Prey for the Gods.  Get it?  "Prey", not "Pray".  Haha...they so clever.  Ahem.  Anyway...it's a Shadow of the Colossus rip-off, but I can't say much more than that because the game isn't out yet.  For all I know it might actually be good.  Keep in mind I'm not inherently against the idea of a derivative game provided it does something that the originator didn't.  Even if said changes were not wholly successful I'd still be willing to praise the game for attempting to innovate on its respective genre.  Much like a Xerox machine though, if all you're going to do is make a copy then (by definition) the duplicate is guaranteed to be of inferior quality.  So take some pride in your work, struggling game developers.  It's okay to borrow from the masters (after all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery).  Just remember to make your own mark on those clones.  Otherwise it's a waste of time and effort.  Doubly so for people that go through all the toil of making something that boarders on copyright infringement.    

Pull for Lucky Jack! (Part 2 of 2)

Regardless if it's a sloop, bark or galleon, all sailing ships have a lot of shared tactical considerations.  For one, every ship is vulnerable at the bow and especially the stern.  Only a small number of "chaser" guns can be mounted in fore and aft arcs meaning that the vast majority of a ship's firepower is concentrated in the flanks.  Compounding the lack of armament in the front and back, is the effect of "raking fire," shots that travel the length of the vessel potentially causing considerably more damage than if the shots bisect a much narrower section of the ship's profile.  Having the "weather gauge," i.e being upwind of an opponent, is usually advantageous in a number of ways ranging from holding the initiative to being more likely to pierce the target's hull below the waterline.  The reason for this being downwind vessels tend to tilt over a bit when turned perpendicular to a strong wind.  In extremely bad weather though the disadvantage might be on the windward ships because they lean so far over as to make it impossible to open the lower gun ports without sea water rushing in.

Naval gunnery was still in its infancy during this era and as such ship engagements tended to happen at extremely close ranges.  Technically most cannon were capable of sending a ball of iron out a thousand feet (300m) if not more.  However, due to "windage," gaps between the projectile and barrel, it was all but impossible to hit a target accurately or with enough punch left to be of any value unless the range were a fraction of that distance.  Rates of fire averaged out to about 2-3 volleys every five minutes, an eternity for FPS fans, but from gameplay standpoint I think it's fine since the long interludes between broadsides allow the player time to plan their next move.

Ammunition types also varied considerably.  Aside from cannonballs, chains or bars of spikes were used to damage rigging and sails.  Other than that "grape shot" was used to inflict harm on the crew while "fire arrows" could keep crews busy dumping buckets of water on anything combustible.  "Double shot," loading two balls in the gun at once, was sometimes employed as well since it essentially increased the weight of the broadside twice over.  Although it was really only viable at point-blank rages.  On rare occasions whatever happened to be on hand (referred to as "langrage") ended up getting loaded into cannons, effectively turning them into oversized blunderbusses.  Seaside fortresses, having the advantage of being predominantly made out of stone, could make use of "hot shot" by heating cannonballs glowing red before loading and firing them in the hopes that they would ignite flammable materials should they hit a wooden target.  Toward the very end of the age of sail explosive shells were introduced although this type of ammo could only be used in mortars found on land or in special "bomb ketch" ships.

Despite all the deadly weaponry brought against sailing ships and the men that inhabited them, sinking as the result of enemy fire was a fairly rare occurrence.  Wood, after all, is naturally buoyant and patching a hole in the hull quickly enough to prevent catastrophic flooding was well within the ability of a skilled ship's carpenter.  Because of this inherent resilience, and relatively safe placement of powder magazines, a much more common outcome was crippling caused by the destruction of masts or rudder control.  A warship that can't maneuver is like a soldier who has his hands and feet lashed together.  In such cases the only sensible course was "striking the colors" or more simply put - surrender.

A popular tactic for fast ships that were outgunned was to attempt a boarding action.  Pirates were especially keen on this since taking the opposing ship (and its cargo) for a prize was how they made a living.  While close quarters combat with cold steel was an essential part of capturing another ship, gunpowder weapons still held an important role.  Swivel mounted guns on the forecastle and poop deck were used to "sweep" the decks of enemies, sharpshooters would fire down from high above in the crow's nest, and primitive grenades could be used to gain a foothold on the enemy's decks.  Flintlock pistols tended to quite popular too since they neutralized threats quickly.  Long reload times meant that these single handed weapons tended to be one-shot affairs.  However, as a partial solution to this limitation, boarders could carry several loaded pistols with them.  The notorious English pirate captain "Blackbeard" was famously described as wearing a bandolier of "three brace" (six!) pistols in battle.

On modern gaming platforms it's possible to have realistic wind, water, smoke and fire effects.  Individual tracking for each gun could be used to calculating the effects of a broadside with unprecedented detail; right down to planks of wood, swaths of sail, lengths of rope and every single crewman (from the commanding officer down to the powder monkeys).  Granted all this might overwhelm even top of the line GPUs in large scale battles, particularly the physics engine in the event of catastrophic explosions like the one that destroyed the French flagship L'Orient during the Battle of the Nile.  When you get down to it though some of the most interesting engagements during the age of sail were one-on-one duels; Constitution versus Guerriere,  Drake versus Ranger, or if you prefer a fictional account HMS Surprise and the privateer Acheron.

So, overall there are a lot of layers to this onion, from the strategic decisions made by the admirals to the tactical ones made by individual sailors, game designers have a wealth of material available to them.  Some might look and cry that the time period is a huge knotted mess, but to me it's a wealth of opportunities as deep as the sea.  You just got to grab a piece of thread and go from there.

A Beautiful Mess

I've been introduced to the term "a beautiful mess" recently to describe video games which have interesting elements that failed to gel together into a cohesive whole.  Thinking back to titles that I've played in the recent past Banner Saga is the first that comes to mind, but I'd rather dedicate an entire post to that game at a later date.  So for now here are a few older titles that come to mind as quintessential examples.

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth is one of the more recent attempts by the game industry to adapt the collective works of horror novelist H.P. Lovecraft.  Particularly the short stories "Shadow Over Innsmouth" and "Shadow out of Time" are on display here in faithful detail.  The video game also draws heavily on several table-top gaming supplementary RPG books by Chaosium to fill in some of the blanks.  True to the source material, sanity loss plays an important part in the game, as well as cosmic horror (not to mention a pinch of old fashion slasher flick gore to punctuate some of the scares).  It also tries to implement an accurate injury system which can inhibit the player controlled character in various ways if left untreated.  The problem with this title is it tries to be too many things at once.  Just to illustrate my point the genre of this game starts off walking simulator, then changes to a stealth game, followed by platforming and rail shooting.  After that there's a smattering of puzzle sections, straight up first person shooting and finally a decent into survival horror territory.  This would be great except none of the aforementioned gameplay bits are well handled...or fun really.  Lots of game crashing bugs don't help either.

Miasmata combines exploration and survival with biology and cartography.  You character is a severely ill castaway trapped on an isolated island, alone except for some birds, insects, squirrels...and a creature.  What kind of creature?  That's a good question.  It's not exactly something you can find in a zoology book.  In fact it might not be real in the strictest sense of the word.  Also, there's lots of murdered people, abandoned huts and a twist ending.  In order to survive the player will find themselves trying to keep hydrated and rested.  Mapping out the island by triangulating landmarks is important too since it's vital to the task of collecting local flora specimens to synthesize medicine and potentially a cure.  The game uses it's own original rendering engine (impressive when you consider that the development team consisted of only two people).  The cloud and water effects are particular iconic as well as the island itself, which feels like an amalgamation of several real world nature preserves, complete with ancient ruins, bamboo forests and weathered Moai.  Day and night cycles and dynamic weather add to the experience as well.  The problem with this game is the poorly optimized code, terrible sound design and general lack of polish.  Normally, this would just be a bunch of nitpicks, but all these things represent the glue that holds the entire experience together.  Hence the title fails to make a good initial impression (not to mention keeping immersion).

Demon's Souls is probably my favorite PS3 exclusive.  Hard as nails, filled with unique mechanics both on and off-line.  The story has the perfect amount of presence.  Just enough detail to get the ball rolling, but not so much it feels obtrusive, plus extra goodies for players who want to know more.  Visually, this dark fantasy title looks like it draws heavily from old-school Dungeons and Dragons artwork (actually the Fighting Fantasy series of game books).  Oppressive darkness, horrifying foes, cryptic allies, and overall feelings of desolation intertwine with demons, undead, mutations and madness.  This game freaked me out more than most horror games, and was...unforgiving to put it lightly.  Mechanics-wise though this first entry in the Souls series suffered from poor PvP, useless weapon classes (axes and crossbows in particular), not to mention two weapon fighting is impractical despite getting extensive animations.  Oh, and the dragons, giant beetles and certain bosses can only be killed by spamming incredibly awkward attacks over and over ad nauseum.  Key mechanics aren't explained anywhere and character stats are unbalanced with no way to re-spec less-than-optimal character builds.  World tendency (an online persistency mechanic affecting difficulty, the presence of certain NPCs and access to some locations) has to be actively avoided by disconnecting the PS3 from the internet in order to complete some sub-objectives as well.

Despite all my complaints I actually really enjoyed all three the above mentioned titles.  Perhaps I can overlook the flaws simply because I feel like these games offer something new.  Sure the latest triple AAA titles are more often than not polished to a high level of sheen, but I can't help having a soft spot for beautiful messes.

The Spaces between Space

The notion of alien geometries is something comes up in science fiction stories to reference places that don't exist in the universe as we know it.  A simple example is the artwork of M.C. Escher which in turn has been translated into a PSN puzzle game by the name of Echochrome.  By shifting the view point around players are able to impose forced perspective tricks on the environment.  It's a clever idea, but for the purposes of this blog entry I want to explore the concept in video games a bit further...into higher dimensions.  Be forewarned a lot of science talk is coming up so put on your thinking caps.

Before we jump into the deep end though let's think about perspectives.  Humans have awareness and mobility in three dimensions, meaning we can see and move up and down, left and right, as well as forward and back.  We perceive time, the fourth dimension, in slices.  How big a slice depends largely on the activity of your brain.  Under extreme duress the slices might become very thin, stretching seconds out into what feels like minutes.  Meanwhile, sleeping thickens things to the point where hours pass in the blink of an eye.

To help explain what's coming next let's do a quick though exercise involving tiny hypothetical 2D creatures.  Imagine these flat little guys live on a sheet of paper.  Because of their nature they can only see and move forward and back, as well as left and right.  Everything above and below them doesn't exist from their perspective.  Now imagine for a moment you were to press your finger onto the paper in front of one of the creatures.  From its perspective it would appear as if a large amorphous blob had suddenly materialized in its plane of existence.  Then, of course, lifting your finger off the paper would promptly cause the blob to disappear.  I imagine that the creature would find this rather unsettling and if possible would want to communicate this disturbing event to its fellows.  The witnessing creature's faculties might be called into question, but assuming that such occurrences are a rarity in this 2D world; ghosts, UFOs or even magical interpretations aren't out of the question.  This might sound slightly mischievous or cruel, but a much more devious thing to do would be to bend and twist the paper 2D world on which these creature live.  Again, to them nothing has changed, but if you are operating in 3D (or higher) then things are definitely different than they were before.

In Siren: Blood Curse this kind of effect is represented by a kaleidoscope when the human protagonist of the story is pulled into the lair of the last boss, an alien being that inhabits a higher number of dimensions than four.  Dazzling color displays aside, this final opponent has the ability to seemingly break itself into pieces and then reassemble into several radically different combinations.  In fact the pieces aren't actually breaking apart, rather the player simply cannot see the connecting tissue because it does not intersect with the human plane of existence.

The term non-Euclidean is sometimes used to describe this hypothetical phenomenon since it literally means two lines or, by extension, planes that do not intersect.  The horror novelist H.P. Lovecraft used this kind of terminology to describe the sunken city of R'lyeh.  According to the text the buildings consist of various monolithic stone structures that have angles and gaps that would ordinarily cause a structural collapse.  However, this isn't the case because the buildings are supported in ways our mind can't process visually.  Indeed, in the story stepping through these weird cracks in the architecture can cause a person to come out in an entirely different location.  Obviously this makes it very easy to get lost.  In the point-and-click game The Dig, aliens attempting to explore six dimensional space find themselves lost and unable find their way back to normal space without the help of the player.

Obviously, all this is a bit difficult to imagine in your head, but there are several video game rendering engines that can produce weird geometric effects like Klein Bottles or "spiral" hallways that require 720 degrees of rotation to complete a full circle.  Don't believe me?  Check it out for yourself:

Are you thoroughly disoriented yet?  No!?!  Well, here's one more for you using the Portal 2 engine:

Now, if your sanity is still intact I think it's safe to say that you're a fairly logical minded person.  Whatever you think though don't dismiss all this as a bunch of improvable nonsense.  After all, only about 10% of the matter in the universe is accounted for.  While a number of astronomers have speculated on the nature of black holes and the average number of planets in a given solar system, I think using the catch-all term Dark Matter is a bit misleading because as the game footage above demonstrates, it might not be about light emissions but rather spacial locations.

The Sum of All Parts

I was recently catching up on Extra Credits videos and happened to watch one episode in particular that got me thinking.  It's entitled "In Service of the Brand."  If you haven't seen it here it is:

I'm going to assume you watched it so without further explanation time to jump into the main topic of this article; video game series that shifted genres.

Dune II is probably one of the earliest examples.  The first Dune was an action adventure game modeled after the David Lynch film, which in turn was based on the Frank Herbert novel.  Granted, if you played far enough in Dune you would get to some real-time strategy bits of gameplay.  However, Dune II decide to forgo story in lieu of what is essentially the first Command and Conquer style game.  Unsurprising, when you consider the developer was Westwood Studios.  Halo Wars is another somewhat similar example, taking the well known FPS and converting it into a top down RTS spin-off.

Game titles with the word "tactics" in them usually mark an RPG which has been transformed into a turn based strategy game.  Final Fantasy: Tactics and Fallout: Tactics being the two biggest that come to mind.  For better or worse none of the reworkings I've mentioned thus far were terribly successful aside from one outrageously profitable venture called World of Warcraft.  Although different than the above examples, it was not a huge leap considering that RTS Warcraft games had RPG elements as early as Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal.

There's also an entirely different kind of overhaul worth mentioning.  Zelda II, Duke Nukem 3D, and King's Quest 8 are all examples of series sticking to the same genre, but changing up gameplay dramatically either because of improvements in hardware performance or game design.  Then we have Might and Magic.  Originally a long running series of RPGs which morphed into Heroes of Might and Magic, iconic turn based strategy games that got re-imagined as a puzzler (which I reviewed here).  Personally, I think all these conversations were for the better, both commercially and artistically.  So, I guess that lends credence to Extra Credits' opinion that Bioshock: Infinite would have been better off breaking with brand conventions.

Actually, I have one exception I want to mention that represents a radical shift in genres despite being a direct sequel made by the same team as the original.  There's a lot I want to say about this game though so I'm going to dedicate a full blog post to it for the next update.  Until then...

The War to End All Wars

After the PS4 announcement event, I was sorely tempted to post about it here, but I think it turned out better to wait because now that the Xbox One has been officially relieved it's time to talk about these two dueling giants of the game industry.  Despite all the talk about who's got the best bells and whistles, there's really only a single all important factor that decides if a console is a success or failure.  It's all about the games.

The way the industry is going it looks like there will be a lot of cross gen and cross platform titles.  It's pretty much necessary in order to offset the high cost of triple AAA game development.  So, that means all consoles are more or less on equal footing, right?  Well...here's where things get complicated.  Graphics are obviously a big deal since given the choice of playing a low fidelity title on the Wii U or a fancy HD PS4 game, most people are going to choose the PS4 version.  Hence, platforms like the Ouya might do alright, but it's hard to imagine achieving dominance via iPhone games.  Meanwhile, Xbox One and PS4 are on similar footing when it comes to specs.  They really only have one other equal, a high end PC.  Moving on, there are a few tricks Sony or Microsoft could pull to give themselves a leg up on the competition.  Undercutting through a reduced pricing structure at retail is a possibility.  Another method is to have periodic online sales like what Steam does.  If the next Assassin's Creed is half price on PSN, but full price on Xbox-Live why would anyone voluntarily pay the higher price?

Then there is the concept of exclusives; stuff like Halo, Alan Wake and Gears of War for Microsoft...Killzone, Resistance and Uncharted for Sony.  Honestly, I think both platform manufacturers have been doing it wrong though because all those above mentioned titles are sci-fi shooters of the first or third person variety.  The titles that really set platforms apart are those smaller unique experiences that can't be found anywhere else.  Toy Soldiers, Journey, Echochrome, Bastion or even titles like Demon's Souls and the first Mass Effect are far more noteworthy exclusives, but not because they sell big time.  Rather the reason they are important has to do with escaping the ever growing puddle of generic goop that is big budget gaming.

So, with so much up in the air this upcoming generation of hardware could go sour for anyone (or everyone).  I think there is one way to ensure survival though.  Don't piss off people who make or buy video games.  Nintendo and EA's profits are waning while Gearbox is getting hit with a class action lawsuit.  The reason?  Randy Pitchford over-pimped Aliens: Colonial Marines to the point of false advertising and destruction of a subsidiary development team.  Nintendo is screwing over fans on Youtube, and third party developers through alienation.  As for EA...need I drudge up the extensive list of offences they have committed in the last twelve months alone?  Right now Activision has a 20% market share thanks to a combination of Call of Duty and Bobby Kotick recently keeping a low profile.

Granted, Sony and Microsoft are bigger than the above but they too can be brought low by similar hubris.  Valve, becoming the successful company it is, wasn't a fluke.  Now billionaire, Gabe Newell worked hard to build up consumer and developer goodwill.  Sure he made mistakes along the way, but the harsh reality is you don't need to be perfect, just don't screw up as bad as the other guys.  Good luck console makers...your going to need it.

Bad Blood

Antagonism is nothing new in to the world of video games. There's been plenty of rivalries over the years. Not just between leader board high scores or companies like Sega and Nintendo, but also between fanboys. Even iconic talking heads go at it from time to time. Most recently Annoyed Gamer (GT) and HipHop Gamer (EGM) have been doing a bit of tit-for-tat. What I haven't really seen though in the last couple decades is the level hostility we're experiencing now between the people who buy games and the people who sell them.

Sure, there has always been some degree of conflict when it comes to internet piracy. What's really getting out of control is the antagonistic nature of publishers. Granted gamers can bitch about anything and everything, but that doesn't mean all complaints are equally (in)valid. Word spreads fast now via twitter, youtube, facebook and various forums allowing a greater degree of communication that ever before. Gamers, if they really want, can put pressure on companies that rub them the wrong way. So to counter this publishers have been engaging in a number of tactics.

For one they have tried to cozy up to media outlets as well as restricting their voices by way of NDAs. At the same time they push for pre-orders which is a great way to ensure bad games still sell well out of the gate. Another trick is to take a beloved franchise "hostage", claiming that if it sells bellow a certain target no sequels will be made. Thus putting boycotting prone gamers in a major imposition. Speaking with the wallet is a gamers best voice, but "hostage taking" tends to misdirect that voice.

DLC sales also drop off the longer a game is out, but rather than making better DLC many companies deiced to simply make it day one.  Or else have a "season pass" which allow them to pre-sell content. That way they get gamer dollars regardless of the quality of the final product. Marketing deception is an issue too. How many games came out last year that were trying to copy Call of Duty? I guarantee it was a double (if not triple) digit figure. Ads also have increasingly focused on the lowest common denominator, obfuscating genres and aiming for the least industry savvy demographics.

Lastly, and this is the one that irks me the most, is front-loading. Supposedly there are statistics out there that show only a small percent of games sold are actually played to their finish. So, somebody got the bright idea that the solution is to cram all the good stuff in the beginning and pad out the end. Dead Space 3 is probably the most recent example, but even games I personally like (such as the Witcher 2) suffer from this. It's nothing new. Dark Forces had this problem at it came out in 1995, not to mention a myriad of JRPGs. That said, it still sucks that we haven't moved beyond this.

So, where are we headed? I'm not sure, but the ball is in Sony and Microsoft's court.  For everyone's sake let's hope they make it a good serve.

They Should Have Been Games

Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid, the later entries in the Final Fantasy series...what do these games have in common?  They all feel like the product of a frustrated wannabe filmmaker.  Perhaps these particular stories would have been better off had they used movies as their medium.  Dragon's Lair, especially to me, always felt like it would have made an awesome animated film rather than a clunky QTE driven collection of FMVs.  So, while these phenomenon of the video game industry exist, there's also several examples in the world of cinema that would have probably found a more receptive audience had they chosen to be video games instead of motion pictures.   

Flash Gordon was originally a pulp sci-fi comic which debut in the 1930s as a direct competitor to the similarly themed franchise Buck Rodgers. In 1982 a live action film came out. Then a game was released in 1987, but it pretty much ignored the style of the film. This was most likely due to the fact that the movie bombed at the box office. For better or worse the film has since become a cult classic with its distinctive look as well as quirky tech; such as atomic rockets, lightning fields, and ray guns that go "pew-pew." So, why should this have been a game? Well to start with the blond-haired, square-jawed protagonist is the star quarterback of the New York Jets (Yale Polo player originally). This makes him perfect marketing material. A less snarky reason comes from the world of Flash Gordon (a.k.a. planet Mongo). It's basically a sci-fi version of Hyrule. For starters we have hawk-men, lion-men, and shark-men which correspond well with Deku, Gorons and Zora. Then there is Ming the Merciless in lieu of Gannon, King of Evil. Flash has a love interest in need of rescue, just like Link. Even the respective princesses, Midna and Aura, thematically overlap each other quite a bit. Hammy acting plus black and white morality may seem cliche in cinema, but in video games it's par for the course. Also the soundtrack courtesy of Queen rocks.  

Total Recall (the remake) would have made an excellent FPS had it been picked up by Monolith Productions. Instead though that company has been delegated to making League of Legends with a Lord of the Rings graphics set. A pity since the film felt like a lot of loosely stitched together action set pieces. It would have been great to play, but felt a bit awkward to watch. Also, is it me or do the robot enemies look an awful lot like the ones featured prominently in Binary Domain?

Prometheus was a disjointed disappointment on the big screen, but what if it had been a classic point-and-click adventure game? Lucas Art's The Dig with the horror elements cranked up is what I'm thinking. Or maybe Darkseed set in space...Gemini Rue and Primordia by Wadjet Games are some good recent examples of how to make a fun sci-fi title that's light on the combat. Plus, there is the matter of video games not being required to adhere to a two hour or so format. Imagine having more time for exploration, character development and (god-engineers forbid) answers to some of the questions that the film asks. At the very least the stupid behavior of the science team would make a lot more sense if it were the result of a mischievous player's input. I don't know how anyone else played Space Quest back in the day, but I highly doubt that I'm the only one that wanted to see what happened when Roger Wilco touched stuff.

Well...that's all I got for now.  But before I go let me ask one question.  Why are all these guys looking to the right?  Seriously...all three pictures I posted are from DVD box art and in all three cases the faces displayed prominently in the center foreground are looking toward something off camera to their starboard.  Weird.

Part FPS, part space flight-sim, this could have been an interesting hybrid game rather than a forgettable TV series