Shallow Depths

I've been a bit sick over the last week.  That hasn't been conducive to a lot of posting, but did mean some quiet gaming time.  I should probably be tackling my stack of shame but, as often happens, I was tempted by shiny new experiences instead.

Firstly, I downloaded a copy of Trine, gladly snapped up on sale for $5 on Steam.

Trine is a game I almost love.  I was charmed by its beauty and fairytale atmosphere.  The graphics have a sort of intimate quality.  Everything feels a little bit shiny and fantastical, but with a softness to it.  The overall vibe really works for me.

Unfortunately, I soon became frustrated, especially with the combat.  I keep wanting the skeletons to go away so I can focus on navigating the levels, which is really the better part of the experience.  The controls felt just a little bit off and, having been a little fuzzy in the head recently, I wasn't well equipped to deal with them.  In truth, I've only made it through a few levels so far.

For the unfamiliar, Trine is a 2D platform puzzle game, in which you swap between the three main characters to take advantage of their different abilities.

The Wizard is a sleazy character, who is normally more concerned with impressing the ladies than developing his magical aptitude.  He can conjure or levitate objects, but has only very limited combat utility.  The Thief fights using a bow and arrow, and has a grappling hook for swinging from wooden objects.  She is the quiet member of the group, patiently biding her time and looking for an advantage.  The Knight is our well meaning (but not very smart) melee-focused character.  He has dreams of proving himself a hero, but isn't actually sure what "undead" means.

Yes, the characters are all classic archetypes.  This is an unashamedly fairytale setting, and I don't think that diminishes the experience at all.  I was enjoyed the initial game scenes, and was happy to be drawn into this decaying fantasy kingdom.

I really wanted to love this experience, but it falls just a little bit short.  It feels like a great game in potential.  I hope that when I sit down and try it again as a healthy person things will go better.

If you are bothered by ten-year-old television spoilers you might want to skip this entry.

I have a large X-files box set, which I've been working my way through at a rate of approximately one episode per day for, well, quite a while now. I am currently in Series 7, and just watched the episode "First Person Shooter". In this episode, Mulder and Scully investigate a virtual reality game which has somehow started killing people for real.

The X-files is not a show that always takes itself too seriously, and that is fine by me. I'm happy to ignore the ridiculousness in a lot of the cases investigated. However, in this particular example they really missed their mark for me, and First Person Shooter may well be my least favourite episode. Which is sad, given my interest in gaming, and love of geeky episodes and the lone gunmen. The episode is even written by William Gibson, which I would have thought was a good sign.

I think the X-files in general does quite a good job of portraying an equal partnership, and exploring gender dynamics in a relatively genuine way. They don't always get everything right, but Dana Scully remains one of the best examples of a strong female character I encountered during my teenage years. So, it's a bit of a kick in the teeth when they decide to cheapen those dynamics.

In FPS, Scully spends a lot of time ranting about testosterone fantasies, and arguing against the possible merits of violent games. Meanwhile, Mulder effectively regresses to adolescence and gets very excited at the prospect of running into the simulation all-guns-blazing.

It's as if the mere use of video games as subject matter makes it okay to hype up gender stereotypes. And I don't consider that okay. Not even ten years ago when this episode was aired.

If there is a twist (and in the realm of X-files there is usually a twist) it's that the sexy virtual assassin woman causing all the problems was not created as a man's fantasy. Rather, she was a female developer's reaction to working in a testosterone-dominated environment. She was her "goddess", designed as a source of strength. In the scheme of plot twists it wasn't a very important one.

Ultimately it's Scully who has to kick enough arse to bail Mulder out, but that's a rather tired girl-power story. I've become accustomed to something better than that (though I will admit she looks pretty cool...).

I know video games are still finding their feet when it comes to gender. It would be pretty stupid of me to try and claim otherwise, and I do think it's important to address that. But that doesn't mean games should be portrayed as though they cannot ever be divorced from gender imbalance. Sadly, I'm not convinced that in a similar scenario created today would be any better. That is really quite upsetting, and it's stories like these that give non-gamers of the world skewed perceptions. We can all do better than that.

I have often pondered the character dilemma in computer RPGs.  Either you are given a fixed character to play, with a relevant story but less personal input.  Or, you create your own character but the story needs to be generic enough that their personality doesn't matter all that much.  Basically, Planescape: Torment versus Baldur's Gate.

Sure, the moral choice systems and character development have improved over the years, but personality and story options remain fairly limited.  That doesn't make these games terrible, and it's something I would generally accept.  If I want a more customisable experience I probably won't look to computer games for that.  But can that flexible story actually be achieved in video gaming?

April 16th is the release date for Sleep is Death, a new independent game by Jason Rohrer.  It's a storytelling game, or perhaps more accurately a set of tools for collaborative storytelling.  The two-player experience involves one controller who sets up the game world and scenes, and one player who chooses the actions of their avatar.

I'm a pencil-and-paper roleplayer, and already quite comfortable with a GM (or controller, if you like) generating a game world and narrative, as well as my potential role as a player in shaping that story.  I have to wonder how SiD differs from what people like me are already doing.  Is there something more to this than simply adding some basic graphical tools for a process that is already occurring in many homes and online communities?  And do those graphics really add something valuable to the storytelling experience, beyond the pictures and sensations we can already create in our imaginations (with effectively zero limitations, I might add)?

There is an attempt at answering the question of "How does this differ from playing a game like Dungeons & Dragons?" in this article.  It seems pretty inadequate to me, so if anyone can link to better discussion I'd love to to read it.

(1)  Turns have a time limit, making the game less about planning ahead or goal setting, and more about on-the-spot improvisation.

Okay, I will admit this is different (although I have played in games where we sometimes introduced a time limit for player turns).  I don't necessarily agree that it serves the experience, though.  I'm just not the sort of person who can easily think fast.  I find that even in a more relaxed pencil-and-paper roleplaying environment I feel under pressure to make decisions and can't always keep up.  If I am limited to 30 seconds my character is probably just going to stand there gaping at the world.  "Cha is paralysed with indecision" doesn't create a particularly compelling story.

I will admit that a common issue when roleplaying is staying focused, and keeping the story moving.  A time limit on your turn is one potential way to deal with this.  But I really hope that 30 second time limit can be changed, because otherwise you are limited to fairly frantic storytelling experiences.

Also, that thing about planning ahead and goal setting?  My best roleplaying experiences have been when I had a good sense of the character I was playing, both in terms of personality and their goals.  Without that sense I may be able to fly by the seat of my pants and create something, but I find it a huge barrier to immersion.  I have more satisfying storytelling experiences when I have time to create deeper underlying motivations, and follow their development.

(2)  It removes the awkwardness and embarrassment of face-to-face roleplaying.

Wow.  All I can really say here is that someone has clearly had some very different experiences to me.  The social aspect of roleplaying seems to be one of the most important parts for many of my friends.  While it can sometimes be a struggle to get people to focus and take something seriously, I don't think embarrassment has much to do with that.  In my experience it's more likely to be that some people are easily side-tracked into gossip and anecdotes.

This also ignores the large number of online text-based roleplaying communities that currently exist, and might solve this problem just as well.

---

The other glaring difference between SiD and most roleplaying is the number of players.  As I mentioned before, I don't always think fast.  And in a multiplayer roleplaying group I usually have someone else to pick up the slack if I am unsure of how to proceed.  There is also a lot more scope for interesting interactions with all those personalities bouncing off each other.  One player and one controller is far more limited.

Now, I'm not saying that Sleep is Death should necessarily conform to my personal preferences when it comes to collaborative storytelling.  It likely has different goals.  But, having established some of what it isn't likely to do for me, I have to wonder what it is... and whether I'm can find anything valuable here for me personally.

If the tools are good enough, I imagine this might really assist beginner GMs.  I might snobbily consider it a training ground for my concept of "real" collaborative storytelling.  I could potentially use it to improve my quick decision making.

The idea of graphical tools as aids to collaborative storytelling is an interesting one.  I potentially think of SiD being for text-based online roleplaying what a battle map with miniatures are for pencil-and-paper gaming.  Some of us are a bit resistant to the battle map.  It harks back to a wargaming heritage, and "playing by the numbers", which makes the whole situation seem very artificial.  That said, it can be valuable for giving people some sense of their environment.  So, I can appreciate that having some simple graphics could really help some people to properly imagine a scene.

That sort of idea has a lot of potential.  But I suppose I'm concerned about something that may appear to facilitate creativity while also placing limits around it.  I have this unfortunate habit of wanting to push against those limits.  It's also very difficult to find the people who would make really good controllers.  The popular reviewers have been lucky enough to experience SiD with Rohrer as controller, and I'm sure he knows how to spin a decent tale.

Overall I'm pretty sceptical about the whole thing, and wonder if my roleplaying goggles are causing me to miss something.  If anyone does try out this game I would really love to hear about your experiences.

"Hardcore" is another one of those terms thrown around a lot in relation to gaming, even though the definition is pretty fuzzy. Ditto "casual" on the other end of that supposed spectrum.

I don't own an XBox 360, rarely play FPS games, and don't usually enjoy competitive multiplayer. That rules me out of most of the stereotypes that pop into my head when someone uses the phrase "hardcore gamer". Also, although I find games fun and interesting I've never considered myself particularly skilled at them (though I have improved a lot in recent years).

I don't think that makes me a casual gamer, either (although the fun I've been having recently with Endless Ocean 2 may beg to differ). I'm pretty happy with my average-skilled, variable-genre approach to gaming.

Interestingly, some of the games I love do often get labelled as hardcore. Give me a standard FPS, or a God of War, and I'll worry about whether I can get through on normal difficulty. But give me a "hardcore" game that many people are not brave enough to touch, and I may actually be closer to my comfort zone.

A relatively recent example of a "game-I-like-that-may-be-considered-hardcore" is Demon's Souls (PS3). I still have a long way to go in this game, but to be honest I'm not finding it as challenging as many people have suggested. It does require a couple of important things. One is a willingness to go through a learning process. Another is to accept that you are probably going to die quite a bit in the pursuit of the knowledge and experience you require. Given that, the ability to study the deaths of other players by touching their bloodstains can sometimes come in very handy. Messages left on the ground by other players are also usually helpful rather than misleading.

While there are some reflex requirements, a large part of actually progressing in Demon's Souls comes from learning the level layouts (such as where to expect ambushes), and the best strategies for various enemies.


I suppose the "hardcore" label here comes from the fact that dying is quite easy to do. But the consequences for death are not as extreme as they could be. The level and all its enemies do reset after every death, forcing you to start over. But your character level and equipment continue to get stronger. Combine increasing character strength, with the knowledge you are gathering about the levels each time, and things really do get progressively easier.

After your first death, you continue to play in "soul form", which limits you to half-health (there is a ring in the first level to make that 70% instead of 50%). You will also do slightly more damage in soul form, so it isn't all bad. Getting your body back requires you to use a semi-rare item or defeat a boss. Alternately, you can invade another player's world as a Black Phantom and try to kill them, or as a Blue Phantom and co-operate to help them defeat a boss.

All this "soul form" thing really means is that you get used to being dead most of the time. Rather than feeling nerfed, you start to feel enhanced at the times when you do possess a proper physical body.

Besides, if I settle for soul form no one is going to invade my world to try and attack me :) That scared the crap out of me the first time it happened. I was a new player tentatively exploring an area that was slightly high-level for me. I hadn't considered the possibility of being ganked by a Black Phantom of much higher level. I felt a bit like a mouse being hunted by a bird of prey, but there were no good hiding-places to run to. The Black Phantom had much more to gain out of that situation than I had to lose, though, so in the end I didn't really mind. Later invasions by Black Phantoms were thankfully more evenly matched.

I've only played through enough Demon's Souls to defeat about six bosses so far. But, based partly on observations of my partner playing through to the end, there doesn't seem to be much of a difficulty curve. The game sets a relatively punishing difficulty from the start, and then stays that way.

I think overall these game design decisions lead to the perception the game is difficult and everything is against you. But the reality isn't quite as harsh as it may appear. When it's perfectly feasible to overcome something that initially appeared cruelly difficult, that's quite a powerful, confidence-boosting hook for gamers. Provided they can get over that first hurdle.

I'm not saying Demon's Souls is an easy game, by any stretch. I do find it really encouraging that there is still a market for challenging games. I think of this as a "love it or hate it" kind of experience, so I was really surprised to see an 89 on Metacritic. I really should get back to finishing it on of these days...

My favourite current-generation RPG so far is The Witcher, and I'm really looking forward to the sequel.

Unfortunately, Geralt's sexual exploits got rather more attention than the rest of the game.  It's not really the part I'm most interested in.  But I'm getting it out of the way first with this post, since it seems to come up whenever this game is discussed.

Geralt is infertile and immune to disease, but his promiscuity remains potentially quite emotionally reckless.  And I will admit it's pretty tacky to reduce sexual intimacy to a series of collectable playing cards.  It was widely labelled as yet another game trying to call itself mature, while including sex in a gratuitous, sexist, and immature way. I have a slightly different take on this.

I don't think casual sex is particularly terrible or sexist in itself -- provided everyone is adult, consenting, honest, and engaging in safe behaviours, of course.  It is important to note that women in The Witcher are not mindless or passive in the whole affair.  It's not quite as simple as one man jumping into bed with every woman he meets.  The game is staying true to what is a morally grey world with no real innocents.  Few people, regardless of gender, are going to come off looking good in that world.  The protagonist is a product of a society full of corrupt politics, sexism, and racism against non-humans.  He is not designed to be completely likeable, and participating in his story does not require me to condone everything he does.

Does the card collecting mini-game risk sending the message that women are nothing but sexual conquests?  Maybe, but if so the reactions I've seen online certainly were not happy to play along.  Most people saw it as childish and misogynistic... and I personally think that was the intended reaction.  If it made you uncomfortable maybe that's a good thing.

Our Witcher, for all his bravery and combat skill, is seriously lacking when it comes to emotional development.  When faced with relationships beyond the physical -- the possibility of love, family and commitment -- he doesn't handle it well.  He doesn't see himself as capable of those emotions, or he simply doesn't consider it compatible with his violent, lone-wolf lifestyle.

When he can't be flippant about sex Geralt suddenly becomes rather lost, and is a pitiable character in this context.  I found that an interesting situation to contemplate, and it's one where the player can clearly separate themselves from the character they are controlling.  Put simply, he makes some bad choices that we can avoid.

Speaking as someone who identifies as polyamorous I do think it's unfortunate you are more likely to encounter an orgy in a game than a multiple-relationship situation.  It's possible to handle multiple partners in a responsible way without falling back on the old standard of monogamous and committed = good, every other sexual lifestyle = bad.  There are other ways to be responsible about sex and relationships, though there is currently a serious lack of good examples from games and other fictional spaces.  Not to mention a scarcity of good real-life role-models.

Geralt is certainly no role-model, and his emotional flaws are highly visible.  But, coming from my own non-puritanical point of view, it was interesting to consider where exactly he goes wrong.

The interviews I've seen for the Witcher 2 suggest the game will continue to include Geralt's womanising aspects, but the collectable cards are disappearing.

From The Witcher Vault:

We definitely retain the 'womanizing' part. After all, Sapkowski himself created Geralt this way, and there's a lot of "that stuff" in the books. But even though we plan to retain sexuality, a lot has changed regarding the presentation. For one, we completely forgo the card collecting aspect. No more sex for roses or gloves. We are more interested in a cinematic type of approach here, less of 'another feather in the cap' and more of a relationship/emotionally warranted displays of affection. Possibly quite like in some of the modern games, like "Heavy Rain" – we want to make it so that the plot and characters' personalities logically conclude in them being together. This will definitely be closer to an "R-rated movie" than a card-collecting game. After all, we're not making the game for the hormone-driven 14 year-olds, but for mature players.

I'm not sure if Heavy Rain was the most appropriate game to refer to here.  But this does suggest some intent for the sexual aspects to mature a little.  I suspect there will still be a lot of complaints, but I at least will be interested to see how they handle it this time around.

As may be obvious I avoided making an "April Fool's" post here.  That probably puts me in the minority among gaming blogs.

I may just be a spoilsport, but I don't really see the attraction in trying to trick people into believing untrue things.  Admittedly, the gaming posts tend more towards the ridiculous, and probably create (at least potential) humour without people needing to be taken in.  But I'd still be very wary of taking part in that particular tradition.

Did you find any prank-posts that you thought were actually amusing this April Fool's Day?

More disturbing are posts like this one from last year on game pranks to play on friends.

It warns:

many of these jokes can be quite mean. They involve playing on gamers' deepest fears. So if you decide to attempt one, don't be surprised if it causes a rift in your friendship.

Thank you for that.  I might not have realised what an arsehole I was being otherwise...

The colour of a console theoretically shouldn't matter much, but in reality it can.  Whether a black Wii is more appealing than the classic white version is open to debate.  It's the hand-held consoles where colour choice is more likely to come into play.  When there is a choice, I would expect most people to at least give colour some brief consideration.

I am lucky enough to live within easy walking distance of work, and don't travel much.  Portable gaming isn't something I have had much need for.  That is, until I spent a couple of days sick in bed with my partner's PSP and a copy of Monster Hunter Freedom 2.  I was hooked, and had a sudden desire to own a PSP myself.

In local stores at the time, PSPs were available in a small selection of colours.  The old standards of white or black, a hideous bright yellow bundled with a Simpsons game, or silver.  Silver wasn't practical if I wanted to avoid mixing it up with my partner's console.  It wasn't much of a choice, and I spent time online pining rather pathetically for colours never released in Australia.

My dreams did not disappear easily, and I eventually managed to get a PSP specially imported.  It took some effort, and a fair amount of waiting time.  It meant I couldn't take advantage of any sales or special deals, and didn't receive a warranty worth a damn in this country. It meant I couldn't play UMD movies from this region (not actually such an issue).  I had to put up with the functionality of the "X" and "O" buttons being reversed versus a western PSP (and then swapping back to normal whenever I loaded a game).

I didn't care.  I coveted the red PSP, and was delighted when I finally acquired one.  It's a matte red and, I think, much nicer than the slightly metallic "radiant red" that was eventually released here.  The shine makes that one look distinctly pinkish, at least in the photographs I've seen.  However much of an eyesore some people might find my red, I was very satisfied.  But it was a frivolous decision on my part to value style so highly over practicality.

A few years, and many hundreds of hours of gameplay, later and my pretty red PSP has developed some problems too troublesome for me to fix myself, and too expensive to be worth getting it done professionally.

I've been feeling quite guilty at the thought of buying a new PSP.  I dithered over the idea for a while.  Then I found out about a one-day-sale thanks to Economical Gamer that would at least allow me to get a cheaper PSP than usual... provided I was happy to get it in lilac.  I had to make a decision fast, and decided to go for it.

This is a bit of a turn-around for me in terms of purchasing decisions.  The practical decision over personal style and choice.  It actually sparkles and looks as though it would be most comfortable running games featuring My Little Ponies or Care Bears


In the end, though, I find I don't hate it.  I intend to use it to fight some very large monsters, and prove that sparkly, pastel purple in no way threatens my metaphorical balls.

When I start to think about it, assigning gender to colours is really very strange.  Pinks and pastel purples have become strongly associated with little girls.  I don't know if that's innate or conditioned, but we seem to be stuck with that for the moment.  As a woman, those colours can be just as threatening to me as they are to some men.  After all, I have no more desire to be likened to little girls than they probably do.  That's the gut reaction I had to come to terms with.

In the end, I'm happiest when I have a choice.  People like to complain about colour ranges being a rather cheap marketing technique, compared to something more tangible, but they are bound to appeal to someone.  I have yet to meet the person who likes the yellow ones, but surely they must exist.

If I am going to fault Sony on something, it's their habit of creating bundles limited to particular PSP colours (not limited edition versions).  My lilac model is commonly packaged with Hannah Montana, because apparently that's the sort of game girls play.  To me, that reinforces a stereotype, and is unnecessarily limiting.  I don't think the lilac-lovers of the world should be prevented from taking advantage of an Assassin's Creed or LittleBigPlanet bundle.  I'm sure Hannah Montana runs just fine on other colours, come to that.