by on

by on

As you may remember, I have in the past talked about three major philosophies that crop up often in politics: cosmopolitanism, nationalism, and materialism; or perhaps more simply, greed.

Well, it occurred to me today that it so happens that these philosophies are all represented by the major factions in Bethesda Softworks and Obsidian Entertainment‘s video game Fallout: New Vegas. I realize this may sound odd, but hear me out:

The New California Republic represents cosmopolitanism, or at least a Social-Democratic government that believes in modern-day values. They do to some extent impose Democracy by force, but nonetheless seem to hold more “enlightened” ideals.

Caesar’s Legion, meanwhile, represents Nationalism. They are a reactionary, semi-Fascist force that believes in primitive rituals, very traditional–even barbaric–social and gender ideas, brutal punishments, and a sort of Nietzschean romanticizing of power.

Finally, Mr. House represents wealth, greed and materialism. His reliance on science, technology, wealth, and mathematics (in the form of the gambling in the casinos) demonstrates this.

These aren’t all perfect fits, of course, and I have no idea if any of the writers consciously thought about any of these choices or not when they wrote the game. But it’s an interesting allegory, and I personally think it shows that more thought and care went into F:NV‘s storyline than goes into your typical video game plot, making it far more sophisticated than the typical “pure good vs. pure evil” archetype.

by on

Interesting article by Edward Castronova in the WSJ Review about gaming and its morality lessons. An excerpt:

 I foresee a future in which people who grew up playing hard games outperform those who wasted their youth watching films like ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona.’ The trick is not to set specific hours of media use, but to first have a sound conception of virtue and then tailor media consumption to enhance it.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say “wasted”, but it is an interesting point. In fact, I don’t think I really agree with all of his points, but nonetheless it’s a rather complex and thought-provoking piece; worth a read.

by on
Jackson Bentley: “What attracts you personally to the desert?”
T.E. Lawrence: “It’s clean.”–Lawrence of Arabia, 1962.

One of the many remarkable features of that film, David Lean‘s masterpiece, is the fact that there are many long scenes of people on camels trekking through the desert, and yet it never gets boring. The harsh wasteland in which T.E. Lawrence leads the Arabs in revolt against the Turks is so haunting and intriguing as to almost become a character in its own right.
It probably isn’t quite as hard to accomplish that effect in a video game, because interactivity makes the process of walking through a desert less dull, and thus there is less need for artistry in the landscape. Still, to manage to achieve the same in a video game is no small feat.

I mention this because, of late, I’ve seen a lot of complaining in the blogosphere about Obsidian and Bethesda’s game Fallout: New Vegas. And not from people looking to bash a game for no reason, but from people of good taste and intelligence like Wil Shipley and Simon Burdett.
Now, I will concede that both of them make good arguments as to the game’s flaws, and there are only a few points where I can actually say I disagree with them. But for me, all the valid criticisms I’ve heard for F:NV are utterly outmatched by its many virtues. 

The brilliance of New Vegas is really in the area surrounding the city of New Vegas. The story is obviously very good, and the writing is quite well-done, but where the game truly shines is in small moments as you explore the wasteland, especially once they are contrasted with the goings-on in the city.

New Vegas is yet another installment in Obsidian’s growing line of games that simply are literature. The land itself seems to become a character, its haunted desolation providing the tone of the whole story. The irony, however, is in the open, melancholy beauty of the Mojave contrasted with the crime-filled and ugly city. It serves well the game’s dark take on human nature: the sinister implication that humanity grows more corrupted and ugly as it rebuilds from the war.

This sense of escape, the feeling of exploring a vast expanse of land, also plays on the interactivity factor. It feels more like a world to be shaped and explored, than a pile of rubble to struggle over.

Fallout: New Vegas has its flaws, its bugs, its weak scenes and its missed opportunities. But I think of none of these when I think of playing it. I think instead about the feeling of adventure of standing out in a ruined abode in the desert, watching the sun go down behind the Mojave outpost as Marty Robbins‘ “Big Iron” plays in the background, wondering where I want to go next.

by on

So, it sounds like Nintendo is remaking The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time for the 3DS. Looking at those screens does bring back memories. It must be five years since I last that played game, but I can still remember it well.

The odd thing is, I’ve played other Zelda games since then and I never cared for any of them. Not that they were bad, but they’re just not my kind of game. But Ocarina of Time is something else entirely.  It was, in my opinion, the greatest game ever at the time it was released, and even to this day it remains in my Top 5.

by on

I will post a link to Wil Shipley’s review of the game Fallout: New Vegas that, suffice it to say, does not really see eye-to-eye with my opinion of the game.

The funny thing is, he makes many points I agree with, but none of them were game-ruining for me.

(Hat Tip to Hacker News)

by on

The Writers Guild of America announced the nominees for their video game writing award today. You can view the nominees here.

As you all can probably guess, I’m pulling for Obsidian and Bethesda‘s Fallout: New Vegas to win. Like the article pointed out, I’m also surprised BioWare‘s Mass Effect 2 wasn’t nominated.

However, the overall best writing I know of in a video game in 2010 was in Obsidian’s Alpha Protocol. In a just world, it should probably win for the character of Steven Heck alone.

Really, though, I’m just glad that such an award exists. It’s important that attention be drawn to the art of video game writing.

by on

Well, I confess I’m not really in a position to know for sure, since I only played three of the games released this year: BioWare‘s Mass Effect 2, Obsidian Entertainment’s Alpha Protocol and Obsidian’s Fallout: New Vegas.

So, it may be that there are other games out there that are better. Given BioWare and Obsidian’s excellent track records however, I doubt it. 

If forced to choose, I would say F:NV is the best, followed by ME 2 and then AP. I pick New Vegas over ME 2 largely because of a few serious problems with ME’s plot towards the end of it. (Detailed by Shamus Young here.) F:NV‘s story is pretty out-there as well, but it was fairly consistent in the level of what it asked the player to believe from beginning to end.

As for Protocol, while I still maintain that it is a fine game that was treated most unjustly by the critics, there’s no denying it had some bugs, some poorly executed concepts, and even a few instances of sloppy or cliched writing. (By Obsidian standards, I mean. It’s still much better written than the vast majority of games.) I suspect that it suffered somewhat from Obsidian focusing heavily on making New Vegas all it could be.

I should probably mention that my evaluations of all these games were perhaps slightly tainted by the fact that this past summer, I finally got round to playing Black Isle‘s legendary RPG Planescape: Torment. It is, as I had heard, one of the greatest games of all time–surpassed only by what must be considered its spiritual sequel, Obsidian’s Knights of the Old Republic II–and I suppose that my judgment of these more recent games was clouded by it.

by on

According to a new study: “Exposure to violent video games or television shows is not a strong predictor of aggression or violence among youth.”

I’ve never really thought games could make people violent. However, I will say that it might not be merely a question of violence; rather, it depends on how the violence is handled.

I wonder if anyone ever did a study comparing, say, people who play Metal Gear or Fallout to people who play Duke Nukem or Manhunt. All of those games are rated “M”, and contain violent and disturbing scenes, but the former handle them in a mature, intelligent fashion. The latter, not so much.

by on

The trailer for Mass Effect 3 is out:

http://www.gametrailers.com/remote_wrap.php?mid=708362

I admit I didn’t particularly like the first Mass Effect. In absolute terms it was a great game, of course, but it was poor relative to what BioWare had accomplished before it. Mass Effect 2 more then made up for it, even if its story wasn’t quite one what might have hoped for, the overall gaming experience was vastly superior. A joy to play, in fact.

I feel that the third installment will make or break everything. If it’s well thought-out, it will be one of the greatest video game series ever. If it continues to exhibit the same sort of story flaws displayed towards the end of ME2, it will rank as… well, still a thoroughly enjoyable series, but not quite the epic space-opera we all are hoping for.(Isn’t it telling that even BioWare’s disappointments are great games?)

(P.S. About the warning on that video: it only says that because it is a trailer for an “M”-rated game. There’s nothing terribly traumatizing in the trailer itself. At least, nothing you wouldn’t see in movie ads regularly on broadcast television at all hours of the day.)