Is Microsoft Really in Trouble?

The console war is a real thing and though it may feel that Sony is up to its shoulders with weaponry while Nintendo and Microsoft are busy playing with sticks, it's closer than it may seem. For the sake of brevity (and because I really don't think they belong), I'll be mostly keeping Nintendo out of the conversation for now. Well then, shall we?

"Let's use black. It's slimming."

Recently, it was found out that one of the most commercially successful franchise's new game, Call of Duty: Ghosts, would be running at 720p on XBox One while it would run at 1080p on Playstation 4. Admittedly, I'm no graphics buff, but this is a flop that could be costly considering Sony's current control over the next generation. Now, when I say Sony has "control" over the next generation, I should clarify. Sony's control comes from the more read gamer.

The above image was taken from a Gamespot Twitter poll asking readers of the website which console they were supporting. As you can see from the numbers, the support for PS4 is astoundingly larger than for XBox One. Now, one must take these numbers for what they are and not an indication of the population. Participants in this poll were a) Gamespot readers and thus more likely to have read stories regarding the XBox's shortcomings and b) had a Twitter account with which they could participate. With that said, the ratio of 88% to 12% does make me feel more comfortable in stating that people who visit gaming websites for news are more supportive of Sony than Microsoft.

This comes from a plethora of reasons. One can cite Microsoft's 180 on what was considered "essential" DRM, the aforementioned graphics revelation, the partnership between Sony and indie developers, or the slight difference in tech. Hell, that's not even considering that Sony boasts a price tag $100 cheaper than Microsoft. However, despite this trend of gamers flocking towards Sony, Microsoft still boasts an adequate amount of pre-orders, possibly as much as Sony. How can something so counter intuitive happen? There are a variety of possible reasons, but this is how I see it.

The console war cannot be decided until after the consoles are released. There are different types of gamers and though the more dedicated or "hardcore" gamers may prefer Sony at this point, there are still those who don't read up on this information. These may be less dedicated gamers or maybe just those with less time on their hands. In the race to reserve a next gen console, maybe they went with continuity or subjective preference over any objective reasoning. Furthermore, how many people buy consoles strictly because of these objective reasons?

Gaming has moved towards being a social hobby. I think back to when I started playing video games and how my relation with them has changed and I never saw online multiplayer as a plausibility. Granted, I was younger and less educated back then, but even a few years ago I wouldn't believe the prospect of a game succeeding like Call of Duty has almost solely on multiplayer. With consoles set up as they are, there isn't much available in terms of cross console multiplayer gaming, so when we invest in a system, this is something to consider. Sure, one may object to how the XBox has been marketed or the laughable public statements made (remember the XBox 360 comment?), but in the end, one might get more value out of that console because one's friends might be buying it. Perhaps the value of playing with friends is highly valued by this individual.

So is Microsoft really in trouble? So long as enough gamers purchase the console, these few could sustain them by getting their friends to join the community. The flaws or flops Microsoft have had leading up to the console release might mean nothing if by a month from now, there is a strong online community. I question Microsoft's position in the console war as much as the next person, but as of right now nobody can conclusively say that the next Xbox is in trouble. The beauty of the modern market is how much information is available to the consumer, but such information may be moot if the consumer makes decisions on extraneous factors.

Why I Never Played World of Warcraft

When I look back at my history as a "gamer," there are glaring omissions on my list if played games. Most prominent of these games is none other than the game that defined MMO's for the current gaming generation, World of Warcraft. It's not that I didn't want to or didn't have anyone to play with, I actually made a conscious decision not to.

Meet people without actually meeting them!

The reasoning behind it was mostly because of my not wanting to get sucked in. To this day, I still hear stories of people losing countless hours to the massive world completing raids with clans or even just exploring. Most of the people I talk to don't regret putting so much time into the game, but every now and again they'll express that questioning curiosity: What if I never played it? I couldn't help but wonder the opposite: What if I did play it? It wasn't until recently that this reasoning became more clear. It was because I didn't want to put a lot of time into the game, but with an added caveat: it was because I couldn't put that much time into the game.

I'm not afraid to admit that I've spent "too much" money on video games for my liking over the years. I vividly remember forcing myself to complete Assassin's Creed 3 despite not enjoying it, trying to put hours into Guild Wars 2 even though I wasn't really committed to it, and the list goes on. These were games I bought at, or close to, launch. The reasoning at the time was to get some enjoyment during my down time at school, but it's clear now just how much I was coaxing myself to indulge myself with satisfaction of completing a game.

In retrospect, I can say with confidence that owning/completing a game was emblematic. As this was the case, the pursuit of playing a game wasn't just for the enjoyment, but to be able to discuss it and dissect it. To be frank, rarely did I even get chances to discuss video games, I just wanted the ability to do so. Part of this came from an insecurity issue that resulted in me constantly trying to measure myself up to other, but the other part was riding the high of a conclusion I had some doing in.

My review of Assassin's Creed III: I had fun, I think

After having an expensive March with the release of the new Tomb Raider and Bioshock: Infinite, I began to question my motivations. In fact, Bioshock: Infinite may have been the game that made me come to this realization. I had completed a game that I had so highly anticipated in a different way, with patience. I consciously told myself to slow down, enjoy the moment, take the surroundings in, and try to truly understand the story. Realizing how different an experience this was, I decided to slow down on buying games not just for my wallet's sake, but to enhance my enjoyment from the games I loved.

So why didn't I play World of Warcraft? I was worried about it being a time sink, but now it's clear just how much of a wasted experience it would've been. I'd be on my own, chasing quest completion, grinding until I could say I had truly "completed" the game. This would be a disservice not only to the game, but to the MMO genre. Sure, there were other hurdles (I'm looking at you, $15 a month fee. Server maintenance be damned, I don't cherish any game enough for that cost) but the primary issue was always about time and the thrill of completion.

My issue with gaming as of late is that it seems to thrive on this "completionist" ideology. Playstation has trophies; XBox offers accomplishments. Both offer boasting material for us to display to our friends. My view of video games has drastically shifted to the point where I view it as a possible artistic medium. But can video games truly reach that point if there is a community of people who indulge in games to garner up symbolic accomplishments? I won't claim there to be a single way to enjoy games nor there being a proper way to play, but I can't help but feel that games will be damned by one aspect that makes them enjoyable: they're games. They're chances to play and if part of that play is to gather up achievements and trophies, then who am I to judge.

Was the World Ready for Beyond: Two Souls?

As of the time of writing this, Beyond: Two Souls stands at a 71 on Metacritic based on the reviews of 90 critics. This score was achieved not by consistently scoring "good" scores, but rather from getting incredible scores from those that appreciated it, and mediocre scores from those that don't. All of a sudden the 71 looks different. Rather than indicating what most critics thought of the game, it was the product of a polarizing game.

Ellen Page Simulator 2013 wasn't a success? Say it ain't so!

Beyond: Two Souls was the product of David Cage, a man who straddles the line between fame and infamy in gaming circles. His reputation comes from his interpretation of what a video game should be. Previously, I discussed the world of Telltale Games' The Walking Dead and how it was a narrative experience. Game play wasn't conventional game play, but rather an interaction with players giving them choice and showing how it affects those around them. This is the style of game that David Cage tries to produce, but with higher production values and, as a result, higher expectations.

David Cage is the head/founder of studio Quantic Dream. Though the studio has been operating since the late 90's, it wasn't until mid 2000 that the studio started to gain attention with 2005's Indigo Prophecy (also known as Farenheit). At the time, it was unlike anything on the market: a narrative experience that flirted with the supernatural and the absurd putting the player into the story as an essential cog in the story. It currently holds an 85 on Metacritic, this time with more consistently positive reviews. Following this, Quantic Dream put out Heavy Rain. Though holding an 87 on Metacritic, this marked the beginning of the polarization in reviews for Cage's games. This is also the first Cage game I played.

In Heavy Rain, you control multiple characters that are interwoven in a mystery involving someone killing kids by drowning them, then leaving their bodies somewhere with an origami figure. At the time, I hadn't played anything like it. Though the game was mostly comprised of quick time events, Heavy Rain had a quality that truly separated it apart from most modern games: there was no failing. If for some reason the player did not succeed in a challenge, it didn't reload from the last checkpoint. The story was then altered based on this outcome.

The type of hard hitting decisions to be made

As an introduction to the games of David Cage, Heavy Rain challenged me as a player in a way no other game had. I approached events with a different perspective. The permanence of a misstep was much more pressing. It was unlike anything I had ever played before. But a question nagged me: was I enjoying this game, or was I just impressed with the scope of it?

By the time Beyond: Two Souls was announced, I had become acquainted with the two different sides on this issue. Was Heavy Rain actually good? Was David Cage a revolutionary with an invigorating view of the future of gaming, or was he trying to make a product in the wrong medium? Over the three year span between games, people had began to see past the shine of Heavy Rain. Eventually, people weren't afraid to dissect for flaws that had been permissible at the time, because Heavy Rain was something new. People began picking apart the story and truly saw Quantic Dream's product for what it was. Granted, it was still a good game, just not as revolutionary as imagined.

Which brings me to Beyond: Two Souls. 

There were three types of people following Heavy Rain and thus three different mindsets going into Beyond: Two Souls. The first is the believers of David Cage and his games, the second are those who despise him, and the third are the apathetic. The ideology the person possesses creates an insurmountable bias towards the game and the division of opinions on Cage's view of video games has manifested itself as a division of opinions on his games. 

Most reviews for Heavy Rain give high praise for being innovative, but I see it all as a knee jerk reaction to this oddity of an experience. It's not a game, it's not a movie, yet these people applaud it for being the next step in video gaming. But as it challenges these conventions, it must be asked how much can it do that without breaking away from that medium? Cage is now in an awkward limbo where there is a divisive opinion towards him and as Beyond: Two Souls strays further away from being a "game," he may be in a medium limbo.

Was the world ready for Beyond: Two Souls? Are these games really indicators of where games are headed? At this point, it's all speculation, but it leaves me wondering what's next for David Cage and his team at Quantic Dream. As this last release indicated, not everyone is willing to give up their perception of what a game is and it may hurt them.

Telltale Games and New Narratives

Today, Telltale Games dropped a brief trailer teasing the future of their involvement in the Walking Dead franchise. For me, this is one of the most highly anticipated upcoming releases and a continuation of a franchise that reinvigorated video gaming and its unique narrative possibilities.

Season one was presented in 5 parts, each part being an "episode." The player controlled a character named Lee who has begun to look after a little girl named Clementine as they navigate the new wasteland of Georgia following a zombie apocalypse. Being cannon for a graphic novel, Telltale Games was put in a peculiar position. On the positive side, they were given a developed fiction and world in which to operate, but that came with expectations. But their aptitude for storytelling pushed the games to new levels.

In fact, these "games" could be considered the new media equivalent of "choose your own adventure" books. At various points throughout each episode, the character was given a divisive decision that would influence both the outcome of the game and how other characters perceived the one you were controlling. As this was the case, season one was propelled to a new level of narrative connection. Suddenly these complex characters and their oft-irrational choices became much easier to empathize with as Lee was put into more challenging decisions. Not only that, but us as players all of a sudden had a nearly tangible weight to our actions.

I remember my first time completing the first episode in season one. At the time, my expectations had been heightened by all the positive press. Yet nothing prepared me for a simple "who dies" decision. The agency I had with my given avatar made the actions I controlled, by extension, my actions. Furthermore, the relationships I held with the people were, again, my relationships. This had been done in video games before, but not in such a profound way. The decisions were dirty, gritty, and, as aforementioned, divisive. Curious as to just how divisive the decisions were? Check out this video.

***FULL SPOILERS FOR EPISODE ONE OF SEASON ONE BELOW***

But this method of story telling would only work if the characters and environments felt real. Far too many times will I play a game where the world feels to only exist around my characters. There's an immense advantage to be had working in an already developed world, and Telltale Games uses it. Characters that you encounter often have ties to the graphic novel/TV show and the game often reminds you that the world's social structure is collapsing. These are just two strategies the game implements in order to make this game a narrative based in Georgia, but happening on a global scale. In other words, the world feels fleshed out much further beyond our character's perspective. The believable nature strengthens the bond between the player and the interactions on screen while also avoiding the video game symptom that makes everything feel built around the player. Rather than having a crisis built around our character, our character helplessly watches this crisis while simply trying to last with his cast of survivors, each with a driving motive and unique relationship based on how the player progressed through the game.

So I'm prepared for season two. I'm not just willing to be subjected to such challenging choices, I want to. The unique way the narrative is woven to give meaning to actions exhibits just how video games can challenge conventional ideas of story telling and make the audience a part of the story. It had been done before, but not with as much expertise and finesse. Telltale Games reminded me about why I fell in love with video games by showing me just how unique of an experience they provide. As a fan, I can only hope it happens again.