Did you have a good Christmas? Great! Oh wow! You received *insert expensive gift item here* for Christmas?! I’m so jelly. Me? Oh the usual you know, drunk too much, ate my weight in variously cooked meats, reflecting on another expeditious year. 2015 has certainly been an oddity in my tenure as an independent member of the community. The refractory ideologies that I’d adhered to since pubescent have had adverse effect on natural progression on obligatory maturity. But now I’m finally learning how to drive, we’ve begun excavating the spare room to transition the spacial anomaly, previously used as a dumping ground for extraneous items into a more accommodating residence for a new occupant due in April and I have a new hairdresser. Yeah, the latter isn’t all that exciting but it’s certainly emblematic of my life now. It’s also been a much improved year for quality gaming content, sadly lacking from this generations tenure. But what have been this year’s essentially performers? The coup de gra of interactive entertainment? Well I’ve conducted an admittedly brief surmise of this year’s most prestigious titles and decided to let you, the informed viewing public determine the appropriate candidate for 2015’s game of the year. Also I couldn’t be bothered to do it myself. It is New Years Eve after all!
Oh and if anyone votes Destiny: The Taken King you are immediately disqualified from, now let’s be fair, everything there ever was, is or will be! And with that in mind…..
Happy New Year! Cheers……….
Um, well I was supposed to be including a poll for you to vote on what you think is the is the best of my choices. As it happens the “poll” icon appears to of disappeared. So as an alternative here are my picks and you can instead let me know your favourites in my comment section. And perhaps let me know where I can find this surreptitious icon? Stupid WordPress update!……
And in yet another twisted fate of circumstance my WordPress dashboard has reverted BACK to where the poll icon appears, also restoring my published article back into a draft?! I think this might be a latent millennium bug! Anyway, vote away!….
The term role-playing game has always confused me, especially in the way it’s regarded by the gaming community.
Your vicarious assimilation, however inured is a participation attributed to a specific role. Whether that’s a footballer or an intrepid adventurer. So why is there such a neglected recognition for anything that isn’t steeped amid extrapolated mysticism? For me the interpretive definition, commonly applied to anything with wizards dragons and other variants on asinine mythology is one made through convenience. I’m sure there are many that consider the term “RPG” a succinct appellation of the abbreviation, an aberration that meekly defines a specific game, but there’s such an exponent variation on what constitutes as an RPG that it’s difficult to accurately extract it’s specifics. If you’re simulating the role of Batman, Lara Croft, Nathan Drake or even a pixellated Hedgehog, are you not by the systemic rule of interaction playing the role of a character? An acquaintance of mine was telling me recently that he doesn’t play RPG’s as “that kind of thing is boring” he suggested. He is evidently more infatuated with a generic FPS in all of its asinine persuasions. Not that I’m criticising (much), but isn’t something like Battlefield or Call of duty a composite of both FPS and RPG? Isn’t every first or third person, racing, sport or any other abbreviation that categorises a genre, canopied under the governing prelude of an RPG?
Can you define an RPG by its merits, stature or size? Whether by its limited linearity or expansive setting? It seems a socially acceptable exclusion to anything that doesn’t depict imposing lands replete in swords and dragons, with ideologies specifically reserved for knights of valour as being the pictorial aggregation of a genre loosely defined. You’d think that amid the swell of secularised platforms that someone could recognise the clear parallel that most genres fraternised with role-playing?! An FPS for instance by its very definition is neutrally identifiable, evidenced in the banal troupes and indentured servitude. (Again I’m not having a go, honest!) If the game represents a first person perspective and you shoot things, then it’s probably an FPS. If your goal is to, well score goals in a game of football, then that’s sports. If you’re driving a car round a track, then that’s racing. But all of these types of games are emblematic depictions of an RPG. Aren’t they? Of course many gamers would resist the proposal to refer to anything outside of Tolkien or featuring spaceships as an RPG, which is rebellious in a conformists kind of way, that only conflate’s the negative association with this parlous conduit.
The dimensions that are proportionate to RPG such as size, themes and scale indicates the constitutions of what a contemporary RPG’S are supposed to be. I understand this is a very broad acquaintance and that games need to be regulated into condensed categories, but to me signifying something that conjures so much expansive connotations, the arbitrary RPG description facilitates a multitude of attributes. I may be misguided in my reasoning, it’s been known to happen on occasion, or perhaps Cod fans are just as geeky as the kids that dress up as their favourite gaming characters. So just admit that your cool, blowey uppy world war simulator is a role-playing game! Ugh. Nerds!
Are all games RPG’s? Leave a comment that agrees me entirely……by which I mean leave an impartial suggestions. Cheers.
Doctors, their employed for the national health service to provide impartial transparency and care. Conducting attentive diagnosis to our presented afflictions and deliberating the best possible recourse to aid us in our recovery with astute observations, delicate prods to sensitive areas (not there) prudent queries that could propose a theory to your contracted ailment, whilst maintaining courteous professionalism and fortified acknowledgement that their composed temperament alleviates our speculative assertions that often bound our neurosis. Through the frugality of their diplomatic assessments and simplified explanations; the clarifying knowledge acts as a placebo to assure our anxious minds. Of course this is a fictitious account of general practitioners and is evidently a decorative protraction, functioning as a fastidious introduction to what is intended to be a site dedicated to gaming (I’ll get there). The medical occupation is replete with significant, perhaps contentious doctorates. For instance: Dr Doolittle, Dr No, Dr Hibbert, Dr Emmett Brown, Doctor Octopus, Dr Who, Dr Quinn, Quincy, Dr House, “Doctor Doctor I feel like a pair of curtains?!” “Then pull yourself together man!” And Dr Evil. But I hasten to add that none of the above practitioners–regardless of the legitimacy of their medically acclimated credentials or fictional status–would ever be required in the regenerative world of gaming.
You see their existence would be muted by the ethereal availability to regenerate health by simply adopting the fetal position! I remember being petrified in Resident Evil when the celestial light began to abate, your down to your last clip of ammunition and your health is visibly diminished, indicated by the EKG juddering erratically on-screen as well as your accompanying, lethargic physicality and limp. Any surplus pharmaceuticals or medicinal subsidies have all been depleted by your exposed retaliations to contentious hostility. Your clandestine servitude merely delays your prospective intention. You throw flippant disregard for your hermetic reprieve and bravely assert your apprehensive acclamation….before being torn by the jagged ivory’s of a cannibalistic cop and mutilated canine as they begin to digest your mutilated carcass. This was the issue presented by games before the sedation of difficulty. Every mistake felt punctuated, every rash decision was punishable and the retention of your excess supplies was augmented by your deteriorating health.
Imagine the consulting physician that agent 47 would talk to? “Hmm? Deep lacerations to your abdomen, a severed vertebra, shattered pelvis, extensive blood stains on your suit and broad cranial damage to a head currently detached from your body. Ok, take two of these, some bed rest and conceal yourself behind a conspicuously placed crate”. Its become customary to recover from grievously inflicted wounds sustained under intense conflicts, which never really conform with the volatile nature of the situations. Even the sporadic power ups that provide temporary immunity or replenishment for your endured pains have been negated. We become so dependant on the rejuvenating principle of elapsed time rather than our own attenuated proficiency, which seems contradictory that stationary seclusion emits such redemptive vigour. If you’re in an intense conflict with a battalion of aggressors surrounding you, as you clutch your revolver with furtive aggression; how intense can that be if you know that immobility will sustain your immunised vitality?
The level of complex architecture that resonates so profoundly in modern gaming is a contributing factor, and its syndication has certainly been of beneficiary aid to me, almost coercing me to utilise more methodical means of progression. But it isn’t always coherent, often diminishing the intensity of the situation which invariably undermines the conversely prodigious events simulated. I also suspect that when enquiring about a consultancy with your GP, Lara Croft wouldn’t be impeded by a monotonous assistant enveloped in more cosmetics than Ronald McDonald, cordially asking “is your illness serious?”. If I Knew That, I Wouldn’t be phoning you!
Do games rely on the safety of cover and regeneration too much? Let me know what you think. Cheers.
Without the sacrificial gallantry, chivalrous deeds of heroism and the admirable sacrifices that defines an individual as a hero, how many of our beloved virtual worlds would be deprived of existence? Without Commander Shepard’s singular expertise, Earth would have been destroyed/saved/partially eradicated, depending on the varied recourse at your disposal. Tombs would remain unexplored crevices and dinosaurs would remain unmolested and very much alive, if not for the intervention of Lara Croft. And Arkham City would be manipulated by various factions of maniacal villainy, if not for the interference of the pointy eared billionaire, Batman. But with the various accolades and auditory praise received by each individual recipient, where is the same flattering appreciation that has been vacant from the supporting participant’s? What about the noble contribution of the crew of the Normandy? The unfortunate sherpa that guided Lara to a tomb, located atop a perilous mountain peak? Or the distinguished morale comfort afforded by Alfred’s vocal musings, not to mention the seemingly inexhaustible aid, dutifully delivered with prompt valour at Batman’s request? Do these individuals not deserve the same respectful, if not modest appreciation for their unflinching, stoic candidacy?
In the rich tapestry of virtual narrative–in a very broad specification–you play the hero thrust into dire situations, saving the world from some villainous terror, who wallows in the depreciation and torment of the world, and in frequent instances, rescuing the helpless damsel before embracing one another in warm, comforting tryst, which is of course a prelude to other more exhausting activities. All the while your faithful, though supplementary associate stands idly by, while the hero reaps all the generous recourse expected for the satisfactory deliverance of global tranquillity. “I’ve had to suffer the indignity of listening to you rattle on about your torturous progression through simulated life, tolerate your constant censure of my abilities, laugh at your highly juvenile jests and your unrefined wit, and all without a solitary consideration of my needs, opinions or even a polite enquiry about my past? Find yourself another partner”. The proud accomplice begins walking listlessly towards the exit, all the while the chiselled features of your hero are indignant to the flustered declaration recently disposed, as he resides hopelessly consumed by the loins of the appreciative victim (These simulated heroes don’t hang around do they?)
The congenital defect that naturally persists in gaming, is to divulge an extensive back story on the lead character, or even antagonist, that highlights the reasoning for their often terrifying endeavours, to engage the participant manipulating them to become more empathetic to their courageous motives. All the while forgetting to define the reliance of a partners ambitions, without it feeling like a belittled afterthought like; “because he’s my friend” or “because I want to be of assistance”. I have friends too, but even I have to seriously consider my own brittle mortality before I could competently decide whether or not to attend someone’s birthday, because of the volatile nature of the venue, let alone a conspicuously instigated gunfight! Of course without the blind gallantry and foundation of the subordinates, what would be the point of their inclusion? But occasionally these seemingly derivative cohorts become liberally sympathetic. In Uncharted, Elena and Chloe were distinct personalities, with varied desires that stabilised drake as a grounded individual. He’s conflicted obligations became influenced by his support cast; whether driven to distraction by Chloe’s derrière, Elena’s incessant musing for justice and moral stability, or Sully’s desire to suppress Drake’s ambitious fervor, in spite of the regularity of the instances that purposefully contradict him.
But any distinguishable background characters that retain any purposeful relevance or poignancy is scarce. Many are deliberately monotonous, merely implemented to engage in a vocal to and throw with the superior cast, that simply allows the story to progress with a more coherent purpose. Of course the dynamic altercations between the core protagonist and the menacing adversary are the pivotal considerations, that really encourages the story forward with aplomb, but many games appear hesitant to provide anything more than a name and objective for the supplementary cast, leaving us with tenuous presumptions as to what defines each individuals actions. Averting attention to other, amiable members of the narrative could offer a brief respite that would allow subject matter to endure with increased coherency, rather than relying heavily on the perceived heroes and villains. Perhaps motivations that really flirt with the ambiguity of good and evil, highlighting the fine, though distinguishing fictitious line between the two comparatives, as well as the culpable reasons for cavorting with their companion. Perhaps its a little too much to ask of a mere game, and it’s simply my ambitious complaints, lovingly concealed beneath a palatable request, but it couldn’t hinder progression.
Sophistry aside, the purpose of this article–other than venting some pent-up, vocabulary frustrations–was to highlight the negligible revisions of additional cast and the cavalier importance of their being. We take for granted the underlining pretence that someone is good or evil with measured, almost passive acceptance, and as such, these characters would be accompanied by similar minded individuals, and though perhaps soliciting too much relevancy for their associations is a little ambitious, the importance of their actions is somewhat diminished by the undefined specifications. Without their modest inclusions, the core hero/heroine would cast a solitary, forlorn shadow. I mean where would Sonic the hedgehog have been without his duelled-tailed companion? “Better off “I hear you rebuke, probably; but sonic would have been a very lonely blue streak through Emerald Hill.
How important are the side cast for you? And should they have more developed back stories? Let me know what you guys think. Cheers.
If you’re as inquisitive, potentially neurotic and certainly harbouring myopic, distant tendencies as I do, then your probably frequently left pondering questions posed by friends, families and colleagues; is there really a superior being that watches over us? Will we ever truly reach a state of former prosperity after this recension? Is the sky green or are we all just merely colour blind? How has Keanu Reeves retained the status of “actor” without actually submitting any such vocations for over 2 decades? All very probing, intimately diverse conundrums, all requiring sufficient deliberation and level of sophisticated, detailed analysis, that even Stephan Hawking would struggle to evaluate such queries with a definitive and accurate hypothesis. But above all over routes of inquisitive enquiries, with incessant though passionate curiosity, is how I can refrain-with increasing abstinence-from Saturday night television, and alternatively devote my precarious time to gaming instead?
The sheer volume of allotted time I’ve apparently, negligently dedicated leaves many people with an apprehensive contortion, of perplexed bewilderment so clearly tethered across their complexion, with just the tiniest, discernible hint of resentment and perhaps even vague notion of pity, as though my methods should only be subtlety audible through hushed tones. To them such diligence to gaming is a propensity only reciprocated by an isolated teenager, bereft of any social interactions. What seems to escape these individuals is that I enjoy dispelling the monotony of laboured, wholly uninspired TV like colonic irrigation, rather than suffering the indignity of sacrificing the scattered increments of internal functions that deteriorate with an exertion of its incessant presence, accosting what little intellectual capacity that hasn’t been corrupted, by protecting it from further penetrating fissures. I don’t hold any concealed vendetta or a moralistic aversion to the proceedings, nor do I deliberately tarnish what appears to be a highly revered form of entertainment, but I simply nurture a considerable lack of empathy for regurgitated concepts, intent on reducing the general populace imagination for ingenuity, especially considering the abundance of talented on-line contributors ,without the collateral allurement afforded by television correspondence.
Besides all the negativity and menagerie of episodic comas, as well as putting aside my internal antagonism, there is a surprising, beneficial ramifications from regular television frugality. Its seems like a selfish request to depart from the vicinity of your partner in favour of the blissful accordance of your console, that cordially entices you like a burlesque dancer, with her alluring trappings and exotic persuasions. And though my girlfriend isn’t the least bit inclined to subvert my gaming aspirations with embittered resentment, nor does she associate with games in the similar, cathartic enthusiasm that my years of potentially excessive perspiration, have bestowed. But programmes that I perceive as derivative and repetitive, seem to enrich my girlfriends jovial persuasions, which as a consequence allows each of us the desired time–without the restrictive approximation of ourselves–to hinder the credible enjoyment you can have from being separated from one another, admitting the fabled hospitality of seclusion from each others presence. There’s a mutual solidarity in our embellished desires for alternate separatism, that allows for not only further allotted virtual exploits for myself, but a harnessing of your relationship.
But I’ve averted further from the point of this meandering article, which appears to be a flippant revulsion to the industry as an entity. The fact remains that I would rather preserve my resources parrying the advances of devilish abominations in God of War, or pirouetting gracefully with deadly, interspersed reprisals to any foe that attempts further blasphemous advancements upon my person in DMC, rather than observing a distressed individual, divulging bereaved sentiments of how they were inspired to belch vocalised diarrhoea to the nation–for “entertainment purposes”–after the tragic demise of their mother, due to the shock of witnessing her fateful dog being used as an inadvertent ramp for a fire engine, that was attempting to extinguish the flames that had enveloped their family home which is now a smouldering carcass. Perhaps I’m being slightly too remiss in conclusions and blatant supposition, but the only alternative to my futile ramblings, is that television is more emotive and absorbing than any game could ever be. Hmm? Interesting theory, but let me counter that argument with this one, retaliative gesture……*Powers up PlayStation*
Do you seek solace in the company of your games whilst others watch TV? Or can you majestically incorporate both? Let me know your thoughts on this almost irrelevant subject matter. Cheers.