The Games Parade

It’s fairly painful even thinking about games at present. Due to a fairly restrictive income and a general inability to make any assured decisions with what to do with my free time I feel like my current relationship with games is akin to them being the shiny thing that came to be in my possession inside a locked glass cabinet for which I was not given the key.

I really want the shiny thing. I just don’t trust in it enough to smash open the cabinet. Besides, I might need the cabinet. Cabinets are important when you’re supposed to be an adult, right?

But there it is. What with one thing and another, I have kind of stepped out from the games machine for now and, slightly distressingly, maybe forever.

But games are still very shiny. More than ever, perhaps.

And this weekend has been the annual parade of shiny things, E3. I’ve not often paid much attention to it but I always appreciated the announcements and the inevitable awkward and embarrassing moments from the Big 3 consoles as they make their presentations. But, for those not connected enough to actually be there in person, the real attraction of E3 is the plethora of trailers and game play footage that get brought out for the occasion. Quite frankly, what I have seen from this year’s showcase has been almost incandescent.

If you haven’t seen the trailers, there are plenty of ways to do so, so I won’t give any transcripts or anything. But, as I’m sure you can imagine, they were typically shiny and alluring. However, I couldn’t help but notice that, with my cynical sunglasses shielding my eyes, there was just the slightest hint of forced lighting behind the glow. As is the way of trailers, I guess.

Now, I know trailers are, when all is said and done, the worst indicator of whether anything will be worth your time. They are marketing tools, engineered so as to appeal to as wide a scope of demographic as it can. They can, conveniently, cut out all the bad that might exist within a game and completely camouflage what type of game you’ll end up playing. They are aloof, mysterious creatures, dancing in the light, singing from the rocks and telling us absolutely nothing.  Or telling us too much, at least in terms of story. My biggest issue with the Tomb Raider trailer was how much of the story was just nonchalantly spilled out to us. It’s annoying and something I know has been bugging film viewers for years as well.

Tomb Raider is proving to be a real puzzler for me, personally. The original games I missed out on due to not getting a Playstation until five minutes before the Playstation 2 came out but I’ve witnessed them through friends and the action/puzzles/adventure mix that I saw was enough to pull me in and drag me to buy some of the later games on the later generation consoles. They hold a place in my heart, even if the ridiculousness was gradually escalated with each new instalment. I totally accept the need for change. This new game is looking like a serious change. For once, Lara actually looks like a real woman. This is definitely change.

The quite-astonishingly-large-elephant-in-the-room surrounding the game, though, is that, well, it’s very sinister. Now, alright, running around long-lost tombs shooting tigers and finding world ending artefacts to add to your collection is also very sinister. But the footage released so far is looking for a new scale in terms of sinister. This search is being carried out alongside The Last of Us; a brutal survival-fest through fungus afflicted zombies and roving bandits. Typical game scenario. But, like Tomb Raider, the content so far has been intense, to say the least.

I’m not coming out against the portrayal of such subjects. I view video games as an art form and, as such, should be allowed to present whatever they want if done so in the interests of art. And these games are definitely doing what they are doing for a reason. I can definitely see that. Additionally, this dark ‘realism’ is nothing new. Remember Saw? But I didn’t see those films. Never wanted to. I just didn’t feel that spending my free time watching two hours of hyper-real violence was a good way of stepping out of real life for a bit. I worry that the more I see of these games as more and more trailers and game play footage is released, the more I will worry these games are eschewing art for violence.

Inversely, I also worry that as more footage is released it will ruin the experience of playing the game. Both these games have taken much effort in showing the world and horror that you as the player will be submerged in that they are actually taking away some of the horror. The publishers have certainly succeeded in piquing my interest but I’m definitely a bit sore that I’ll miss out on the suspense and shock from the game play experience. I guess, in that respect, this is a no-lose situation for the publishers.

It is this reason that has kept me from seeing the new footage of Assassin’s Creed 3. In fairness to Ubisoft, they tend to do well at keeping secrets but I just don’t need to take that risk. I definitely want to play their game, they have thoroughly hooked me. I don’t need to see anymore until release day. To the other extreme, I took a look at the trailer for The Unfinished Swan, and learned very little at all. It sounded intriguing but I really will need to see more to know if it’s worth playing. Considering this was E3, you’d feel this was the weekend to have a bit more than an arty teaser for those not able to go there and test it. It doesn’t pay to be uninformed.

Obviously, trailers play a role in marketing and the lustre they generate obviously succeeds. But E3 is fairly unfulfilling in this way. It’s very hard to hear about what the game is. Penny Arcade has made an effort in bringing back information behind the scenes and the returns have been really interesting to me, at least. I can watch trailers whenever. What I want from E3 is more news about the real quality of the game; to hear how it plays, how gripping the story is (without spoilers, obviously), what plans the company has in its further development up to release. I’m tired of just looking of shiny things.

Controlling the Controllers

There's a pretty mad battleground being drawn in the virtual sand at the moment and I can't help but feel a bit confused as to exactly why. Let's begin at the very beginning, shall we?

Once upon a time, in a dark room somewhere, some wizened alchemists of yore developed a new marvel. A wonder of light and sound and repetitive action. This new wizardry was to be called Pong and was to change the face of leisure activities as we knew it then. Or as older people knew it at least. But to control this great display of simulated ice hockey/tennis/whatever it was supposed to be, a new device had to first be crafted so that those that partook of the delights of this Pong could directly influence it. And so; forged from the very plastic that had been provided for this purpose, the first Games Controller was brought forth. And lo, there was rejoicing throughout the land. Amen.

Since these humble beginnings there have been many controllers, each attempting to add some new improvement to make gaming that much easier or comfortable. From the Holy Brick that was the NES controller to the strange trident of the N64. From SEGA's sleek and sexy Mega Drive controller to the weird ugly beast that controlled the Dreamcast. Even going so far as racing wheels and light guns. So many iconic designs, so many variations. Turbo buttons, Joysticks, D-Pads, Shoulder buttons, Rumble Paks, Memory card things (seriously, what was that thing on the Dreamcast controller for?). All these features but with one key element the same. The The D-Pad/Stick moves things and the buttons do things. Pretty simple, pretty extensive, pretty flawless. Isn't broke, doesn't need fixing.

And then Nintendo had an idea. While the rest of the gaming world was focusing on Hi-Def and powerful processing, Nintendo looked elsewhere. To the controller. To a new gimmick; after tiny discs and Rumble Paks that weren't just built into the controller to start with. They brought forth a question, a fearful doubt over how games were played. They pondered on the idea of controlling things with physical movement, on Motion Controllers. And so the world as a whole gasped in awe as the Nintendo Wii emerged with its white stick of power dancing erotically in front of our eyes, dazzling all with its power to simulate a baseball bat and then a golf club and then a samurai sword and then a tennis racket. It entranced us all and sold by the hotcake-load.

But then, we found out the truth. Sure, at replicating a swinging action, swinging your arm worked to invoke the desired response from your avatar. But past that, many problems became noticeable. The accuracy was questionable, the sensor bar; easily confused. The lack of buttons required actions to be commanded through seemingly irrelevant movements of the remote and, above all, there were the endless masturbation jokes. Controlling the Wii became an uncertain experience, owing as much to luck as to skill and, quite frankly, it just didn't seem worth being able to actually control a Mario Kart by tilting the controller like we had all subconsciously done in the past. Real, die hard, Played-on-the-NES-and-owned-every-model-of-Gameboy-that-was-released-ever gamers didn't see the need to flail your arm around like a loon just to get Link to swing his sword at someone. Motion control had to be just a fad, right?

But then we come to today, and the ever nearing battle between the other two Games giants. Those that spurned Motion control for better quality graphics and games. Sony and Microsoft. Playstation and X-Box. Good and Evil (This is me being impartial, I'm not saying outright which is which). These two companies have been the pinnacle force in gaming for the last decade and, once more, they are competing for top dog with their new innovation. ... Motion control? Seriously?

It's been coming for a while now. Sony's Playstation Move; essentially a (supposedly) more accurate and more glowy version of a Wii Controller and X-Box's Project Natal Kinect Whatever else it gets called before its eventual release; a gadget boasting its freedom from the reliance on controllers. WOW(!) Forgive my lack of enthusiasm, but I'm not really enthused. As highlighted earlier, Motion control is all well and sparkly (even more so considering the disco light at the end of each Move controller), but it is impractical when you're playing a sports sim or an RPG. You just end up frustrated at the fact you can't just press X to attack and, instead, have to accurately recreate sword techniques laid down by Miyamoto Musashi (yes, I had to look it up).

This problem is exacerbated even more by the Kinect and its supposedly impressive boast that it needs no controllers. What I can't understand is why people are impressed with this. So, instead of using a proven and very reliable method of pressing buttons to do things in a game when we need to, we now have to learn mime and shout what we want done before waiting to see if the recognition software works accurately and quickly enough to do the right action. Does this not seem silly to anyone else? Playing a racing game by miming that you are driving. Why not just go drive? Or, presuming the reason you want to play a driving game is that you can't drive in real life, why not just sit in a cardboard box and use your imagination? You'd look like less of an idiot then the guy who sits in front of a screen frantically flailing his arms and legs because there is too much room for error in a software's interpretation of your movements coupled with the guy that just walked between you and the screen or the itch you just had to scratch.

I can see merits in controller-free control. I, like many others, had a minor fit when I saw Tom Cruise manipulating his computer screen by physically moving stuff around with his hands. I prayed for the day that that technology would arrive. Feasibly, the Kinect offers that. But Microsoft has advocated the use of Kinect as a games controller and, as such, it is flawed. To bring in a flawed accessory to do the job of something that does it perfectly already smacks of desperate money-grabbing. I like games controllers. It always interests me to see what each new one will look like and what features they will have. I thought the PS3 controller was a marvel and, admittedly, that is down to the new Sixaxis thing where you can make movements by tilting the controller. But that worked. Tilting to keep balance whilst walking along a beam is a truly helpful innovation and, considering we all sort of did that anyway, makes a lot of sense. But I digress. The point is, I have never looked at a games controller and raged that it was the bane of my games playing existence. I never saw all the buttons and cried out for the ability to just flail my arms desperately instead. I was happy with games controllers just the way they were.

In the spirit of opinion and review, I will give this final thought. The Wii is fun and, for some games, it offers an advantage. Point and Click does well on the Wii. But, ultimately, there are times when you don't bother with the motion controls and you just use the old fashioned NES layout on the Remote. As for the Move and Kinect, I haven't tried them but I've seen demo footage and I think from that the Move is better. There have been a lot of bugs with Kinect demos that were obviously going to happen from the first advert I saw for it. That and the Move has controllers, a clear benefit.

But, in the end, even if I had any money I don't think I'd be rushing out to buy any of these. Secretly, I'm keeping an eye out for what the Move comes up with as it does look scarily accurate. If it can give us some really good games as well then it may just make it worthwhile. The Kinect, however, will need to do a lot to convince me it is really benefiting the world of gaming. I don't have an X-Box as it is and the Kinect is hardly making me regret my decision to avoid getting one. For now, though, I'll stick to mashing buttons.