Bioshock Infinite: A Theory *spoilers*

At the end of the game we find out that the game deals with parallel worlds that are built off of the decisions you did not make.  Specifically, Comstock is a result of Dewitt choosing to get baptised at a pivotal point in his life, thus, providing us with reasoning for him being "gung-ho" about God and Government.  Another thing is that in these "other worlds" your appearance can be drastically different from how it is now.  After some thought, I started to piece together my own universe, one that directly connects all three of the games.  My theories are as follows:

-Andrew Ryan is Dewitt,  mostly Comstock.  I believe that Ryan was created when Comstock decided to embrace God and religion.  By embracing those things, a parallel world was created where he chose to reject them, which is what Andrew Ryan does.  Essentially they both come from Dewitt, but, more evidence of relation can be found in Comstock; after all, the game only gives you enough background to understand where Comstock came from, to try and figure out where Ryan came from we would have to make stuff up or "grab at straws."

-Sophia Lamb is Daisy Fitzgerald.  I believe this mostly because she was the rival of Comstock, well, the most prevalent one.

-Delta is the guy who became the Songbird.  The whole idea of "protection" that surrounds the character leads me to believe this.  Also, the fact that he was a man turned into a machine.  Though there is little evidence to back this up, what is there, though, is solid enough.

-Anna is the protagonist from the first game.  It makes sense seeing that its an offspring going against its parent.  If the Letuce's other self is a male, then why can Anna not be a male in a different world?

-Tenenbaum is Letuce.  This is based off the fact that both characters created the "big science things" in the games.

-Rapture, and its history, is erased at the end of the game when Comstock is destroyed.

Catering to the "Bro" Gamer

Has this logic taken gaming off the path of righteousness?  After reading an article from Kotaku, I have found myself questioning the world of gaming as it stands now.  I remember when I was younger that each system had tons of games spanning different genres.  Variety, to me, is what makes video games so great, in that you are given access to a different kind of interaction with creativity that one could not find in simply reading a book or watching a movie.  I can look back at my youth, which started with hand me down Ataris and ending with the Playstation 2 and Xbox, and find myself lost in all of the different games that I played.  Now when I think of video games, the primary genre that pops into my mind is "first-person shooter."

Since the dawning of Halo, the gaming market has dedicated most of its time to the FPS genre.  After all, it does make sense to, seeing that Halo is one of the biggest names in the game with a whopping fifty million units sold (information found through google).  Halo, in it itself, is a simple game that has everthing a guy (or girl) loves: combat vehicles, combat weapons, grenades, and stuff to use the aforementioned things on.  With all of that being said, the reality of the matter is that the "simplicity" of the game helped gaming reach a whole new crowd: the casuals.  Halo does not require much in terms of gameplay, in that you can jump in and out whenever you please and not have to feel overwhelmed with terminology, skills, and control schemes.  You jump, shoot, crouch, run, and repeat.  I guess a good comparison of Halo to other games is a simple game of throwing a football back and forth in comparison to a whole game of football.  A game of catch is something fun that everyone can do where as an actual game of football is something that is only for certain people, for it is much more demanding.  Everyone plays catch, in some form or another, but, when it comes to actually playing football, the rules and physical and mental aspects can be seen as overwhelming.  Halo introduced this simple version of video games to the population, in that it showed everyone that a video game does not have to be complicated, that you can just play a game without dedicating yourself to it as if you are learning something in school.  The funny thing is that there are other games that fit this description of mine that came out way before Halo, but, they did not (obviously) capture people's minds as Halo did.  I am getting too much into this, anyways, one cannot blame game companies for trying to make money, but, they are (even if indirectly) at fault for the decline of creativity and the death of certain genres.  The biggest threat to these two things comes in the form of Call of Duty, the next step in the evolution of FPS that Halo started.  Halo may have been simple, but, Electronic Arts figured out a way to make a game much simpler.

As far as being at fault for the decline of creativity, it is quite obvious that the "something evil attacks and we must use our military something to stop them" storyline has been overplayed. I guess this can be said for many games in different genres, but, the whole "government" backdrop has been really played with this generation.   No longer do we see oddball games like Toe Jam and Earl, Sonic, Earthworm Jim, Bubsy, and Battletoads.  To keep up with the "money game," third person games have started incorporating this "cookie cutter" storyline, games such as Vanquish, Gears of War, and Army of Two are a few examples.  This storyline does prove to provide and interesting "read," but, the fact that this has turned into what sells makes developers wary of trying something different.  You can clearly see this in games like Syndicate, James Bond, and Resistance 2, all of which turned from being their own things to simplified "Call of Duty" clones.
The biggest problem with this is that there are a handful of games that do stand well on their own without copying the norm, like Uncharted, who's multiplayer gets flack for having "perks" like Call of Duty.  A simple similarity causes those tired of the norm to dismiss a great aspect of a game.  Who can blame them, though?  If something reminds you of something you dislike, you tend to stay away from it.

My Quick Two-Cents on the New Riddick Movie

Most of the reviews that I have read pertaining to Riddick are definitely full of critiques.  One of the common critiques is that the movie adds elements to the world of Riddick that contradicts the character all in an attempt to make the movie feel "edgy."  Specifically, most of the complaints stem from vulgar humor (rape jokes) and the overall violence displayed in the movie.  

You see, the "rape" comments and grittiness does not surprise me. They have hinted that the world these characters operate in is filthy and criminal infested. This is not only hinted at in the movies, but it is also hinted at in the two games (more so in the latter). I don't think that it is wrong for them to flesh out this idea a little more. Sure they may have failed in execution (some people think so, some do not), but hey it is what it is. These kinds of things will always be a part of movies because, as time goes on, we will try to mimic as much of reality we can in movies; it comes along with the art. With that being said, violence is and always will be a part of this world, in any form in may occasionally take. 

You can tell that when they made the first movie they saw that they had something with potential. Riddick is a series that I think will never be perfect, because each movie seems like they are figuring out more things that they can do with the world and the character. It may be perfect in a few movies or so, who knows. Now that I think about it, this may be why I like these movies so much. It is an ever-evolving ride that leaves enough for the imagination to run wild

My Review of Iron Man 3 (slight spoilers)

I know my blog is titled "Gaming with Ryu2388," but, I just feel the need to post my quick, two-cents on the movie.  Here it goes:

Iron Man 3 is the epitome of wasted potential.  There is so much that could have been built upon (post traumatic stress, events from the Avengers, Mandarin), but sadly they decided to waste not only the possibility of a good story regarding Tony dealing with PTSD over the fact that there are uncanny things in our world, but the Mandarin as well.  The Mandarin was the villain we needed and deserved.  The Mandarin encompasses the uncanny while encompassing a closer to home villain; he is a terrorist and alien at the same time (due to the rings, not because he himself is an alien).  The overall idea/moral of Tony being Iron Man with or without the suit would have been pulled off better if he fought and overcame the very thing that he is losing sleep over.

Iron Man 3 was also the epitome of false advertising.  I cannot help but feel that they tricked me into watching their movie.  The movie was marketed as a darker Iron Man story, with Tony on the verge of destruction.  The whole movie played out in a more comedic way, a complete opposite of the "serious" tone the trailers implied.  The Mandarin was also advertised in a different way, in that he was actually portrayed the way he is in the comics (minus the ring powers, which would have been fine because they could have found a way to give him the powers in another movie; the core of the character would still have been present).  I find it amazing that the promotional items (I would know because I work for a movie theater) portrayed him better than the movie ended up doing.  Everything that sold me in the trailers was not present in the movie.

The last thing I would like to talk about is the comedy.  I love the comedy in the first one, but, I feel that this movie went the "Michael Bay" route and added too much.  The new armor, which is advertised as his brand new, bad ass armor, was primarily a tool for humor.  Almost every line in the movie was written to be funny it seemed.  To me, the Tony that first appeared is gone.  In the first movie, Tony was not laughing in the cave, he was trying to find a way out.  When he fought Obadiah, he was serious.  When he did make a joke, it was in a way that said "hey, there is light in darkness."  Now the comedy in the movie really is not bad,  but, it has so much of it that it pulls you away from the serious parts.

All in all, I would say Iron Man was entertaining at best.  The constant comedy routines and the wasted potential that ties into false marketing lead to me feeling let down.  I hope that they listen to community (I have found that there are a lot of others who were let down by this movie, as well) and go forward into the future with lessons learned.  Unfortunately, money talks, so, if this movie makes a ton of it, they will take what was done and use it as the standard for the next movie.

Tales of Xillia PS3 Info

GREAT NEWS! http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/08/ps3-rpg-tales-of-xillia-gets-release-date

Review: Tomb Raider

I had long ago lost hope in seeing another great Tomb Raider game. I am not saying that every single one up until now was bad, some were okay, but, none of them truly stood out among other games throughout the years. I approached the new Tomb Raider with caution mostly because it looked like, to me, at least, a darker version of Uncharted; and I was not really feeling up to playing the same game again (I just recently platinum-ed two of the games in the series). Now Uncharted is my favorite series this generation, and I was slightly worried that I would be a little biased due to this, but, I am glad to report that I found the new Tomb Raider to be one of the most enjoyable experiences I have had with a game in a long time. The game is not perfect, but, what makes it great to me is the fact that it stands out as the prime example of a game that has a fun factor so grand that it overshadows everything else. I will go ahead and start off with the negatives and then end things with the positive.

Tomb Raider is a game that strives to give you that “you are surviving the impossible” feel. It accomplishes this in many ways, but fails in others. For instance, the hunting aspect of the game is only there to provide another way to gain experience. There is a part early in the game that gives off the impression that you will be hunting to eat, which goes as follows: Lara must go and hunt for meat and then bring it back to the first bonfire she gained access to. After this “mission,” you quickly discover that hunting does nothing more than, as I stated, a way to gain experience. I feel that a hunger meter, or even a stamina meter, would have really helped immerse me in the whole “stranded on an island” theme. I could go into more detail about this, but, I feel that it goes without saying that being stranded on an island means you are going to need to hunt and forage to survive. I may be nitpicking this, but, the fact that it was implied early in the game really left me feeling letdown.

Another way the game fails to play upon the “survival” feel is that Laura just does not feel human enough (well, enough in a way that makes sense to still have the action game they were going for). There are times throughout the game where Lara will get hurt, but, this is only really seen during the scripted cut-scenes (e.g. pulling an arrow from her side, being impaled by branches, and even cauterizing a wound). It would have been more powerful and engaging if you could dress wounds and mend broken bones, kind of how you can in Far Cry 3 and Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater. I just ended up feeling that this ended up underplaying the graphic, dark, gory, grittiness that the game was advertised to have and does show occasionally. With all of that being said, a stamina bar that depletes the more you do things would have been a great addition that would have really made you feel like you need to pace yourself and think to survive.

My last and final complaint that I have, before I get into what I really liked, is that there is not a whole lot of sense of danger as you wonder throughout the island. In the beginning you encounter wolves quite often, but as the game goes on, they become few and far between. I did find myself getting bored with just running around a level with nothing to do along the way, besides look for salvage to make better weapons (the game is still pretty linear for how "open" it was advertised to be).  The game really could have only gained by having the wolves appear randomly and more often. It could have also gained by having a variety of dangerous animals (only wolves are present) attack you. There could have been other environmental hazards besides animals, such as booby traps left by generations of people who were stuck on the island before Laura, and those who are currently residing there. You see a fishing contraption that the cult uses, so, why can you not see them hunting via traps.

With all of the negative stuff out of the way, I can now get into what I really liked. One great thing about the game is that when there is action, there is action. Its non-stop and adrenaline filled action that really makes you feel like you are in a movie. The different weapons you get really help create a game where you can play how you want. If you want to use the bow and rope to grab someone of a ledge, do it. If you want to use a silenced pistol to dispatch enemies ala Splinter Cell, then do it. You can even take out a single arrow to use as a knife against someone. As in most games, there are explosive items found throughout the game that can give you the upper hand while fighting. Ultimately, what I am trying to say, is that the game does a good job of making you feel awesome!

My other favorite part of the game is that the climbing does not feel as automated as what is found in Uncharted and Assassin's Creed. There are times where you will jump to a ledge and find yourself having to quickly press a button to throw your other arm up to grab hold. The pickaxe you get in the game allows you to traverse the mountain sides found throughout the island. This is a cool feature in that you have to time using it while jumping (although, there are times where it is automatic). Another thing that I liked was that you cannot just go and climb everything, you had to find the tools and the means to do so. I am not saying that this makes the game better than Uncharted, mostly because Uncharted is not based off of realism, but giving you that action/adventure movie feel; but, in comparison to a game like Assassin's Creed, I would say it is better and more rewarding, in a way.

I actually really enjoyed the story used in the game. I like the idea of having to deal with a cult that may or may not know the extent of what they are doing. There is also a good amount of fantasy mixed in with reality, which, although it is underplayed a little, is really cool to see. One of my favorite things to do as a kid was to watch Indiana Jones. I always loved the fact that the movie played off the idea that there may be more than what we know. If you are, like me, a fan of fantasy adventure movies, than you will enjoy the story that is to be found here.

All in all, what I love the most about this game is that it is an amazingly fun, but flawed, game. There is enough fun to be had here to where you will want to return, but there is also enough that is not there to make you excited for a sequel. This game, although really fun, did not set a bar so high that a sequel would have to live in it's predecessor's shadow; which, most of the time, ends up hurting a sequel (see Dark Knight Rises to Dark Knight, or Uncharted 3 to 2).

Tomb Raider is one of the greatest games released this year, maybe even this generation. With fun, adrenaline filled gameplay and a story that will satisfy any adventure junkie, your purchase at any price is justified. Even though the game could have been so much more, this is not necessarily a bad thing, for it will keep you wanting and leave you anxious to see what the sequel will have to offer.

TECHnically speaking:

• Fun factor: One of the most exhilarating games to do date. With the different weapons and upgrades that can be applied, fighting however you like is definitely an option.
• Control and gameplay: The controls for the game are pretty good. It would be nice to have a dedicated stealth button, though. As far as gameplay goes, there is enough fun to be had here with the rope arrows, fire arrows, and the various different ways to dispatch enemies. The game could have added a few things to help immerse the player in the “you are surviving” feel, like the need to tend to your wounds and different environmental hazards. It is also a little on the easy side.
• Graphics: The graphics are definitely top notch. I did not notice any textures popping and out, but, there are frame-rate issues that pop up every-so-often.
• Sound: Nothing to note here, everything sounded as it should.
• Replayability: I will definitely be going back and getting all of the achievements/trophies for this game. There are certain things in each of the areas that cannot be accessed until you gain the tools and means to reach them. The different difficulty setting also provide a different, more intense spin on things (rifle bursts will kill you in one shot, quick-time events are faster, and body shots do less damage to enemies are a few differences that I noticed). 

The Violence in Bioshock Infinite

Apparently the graphic violence bothered a lot of people when they played Bioshock Infinite.  The violence, also, for some, seemed out of place.  I feel that the violence makes sense, seeing that you are in a floating city full of people who have been brainwashed into killing anyone who tries to destroy their cities.  I also found the violence to be the "darker side" of what seems to be a world filled with brightness and "joy."  I enjoy the idea that there is a animalistic side to Booker and the inhabitants of Columbia.  Another argument I read is that the game has gore just for the sake of it.  This is an empty argument in that only the creator can confirm or deny this.  Otherwise it is just an assumption that is being presented as fact.

If you would like to read a really good conversation regarding this, please go to this link and read the comment section, specifically the conversation started by PitUprising (while reading, keep in mind that all the responses to a post are kept right under it. So, read a post and go to the one right under it to see any responses).  http://kotaku.com/bioshock-infinite-is-insanely-ridiculously-violent-it-470524003

How Playstation All Stars Destroyed my Pride and Honor

I usually try to refrain from using any character that will bring about harassment for using them.  In other words: I do not like to use characters that are deemed as "cheap" and "broken."  I decided to use Sweet Tooth as my main, mostly due to the general idea of "timing" that surrounds the character.  He is, by nature, a slow fighter, which does put me at a disadvantage most of the time.  Any-who, playing online when the game first came out was not too bad, seeing that everyone was trying to find their bearings with each character.  After a week though, everything took a drastic turn and almost everyone started using any character that had a "spammable" move.  I understand that a move is there to be used, but, if you are going to spam the same move or use only one combo the entire time, it really does take the fun out of the game (for other people that is).  It really is disheartening and irritating for people who, like myself, practice quite often with a character to utilize all he/she has to offer.  I do understand that a move is in the game to be used, I really do, but, if anything, doing the same one over and over again is taking advantage of the system just for the sake of doing so.  Most people point out that "it is not my fault the game is broken, I am just pointing it out and using it to my advantage." This is kind of like saying "Hey! I found a hole in your security and even though no one else has noticed it or made it known that they do, I am going to point it out and cause you and other people who use the same system as you tons of problems.  This is ultimately your fault and not mine.  Have a good day!"  Most things have glaring holes, but, it is common courtesy to not be that guy (or girl) to point it out and take advantage of it.  This may be a drastic example, but, the overall idea is still remains: it is wrong to take advantage of something just because you can.

I have given up my crusade to be one of the "good guys," one of the people who try to play a game as it was meant to be played.  I have recently decided to switch my main to Raiden, for he has enough cheapness to him that I can keep up with all of the "spammers" out there.  I do hate using him against people who are actually trying to play the game and I wish that I could somehow know these people before hand, but, it is what it is.  I have decided to take a shot to my pride and honor to be able to keep up and keep my interest in playing this game alive  It is not a matter of me sucking and refusing to admit it, I am just tired of losing to people who are not that skilled and make one of my favorite games not fun.  Its like the old saying goes: "If you cannot beat them, join them."

All for Nothing: David Hayter Not Returning to Voice Solid Snake

Over the past few days there has been news regarding the new Metal Gear Solid games and how they will not be featuring the voice work of David Hayter.  Hayter, who has been doing Solid Snake's voice since 1998, was not asked to return, nor was he given a reason for the decision.  Hideo Kojima, series creator, did go on record to say that they decided to take the series in a new direction, and with that, decided to go with someone new to make things "fresh."  I can understand the logic presented, but the fact that the guy who helped make one of gaming most beloved characters well, beloved, was not even given a reason as to why he was not asked to return is kind of a smack in the face.  In the end it is all just business, but, sometimes it is the smallest decisions that define us and this has definitely, at least to me, put Kojima in a slightly darker hue than what he was in before.

There are rumors and speculations regarding why this decision was made, most pointing to the fact that having the same voice actor for two characters (Big Boss and Solid Snake) may be confusing to people.  This would be a good argument if Kojima himself did not say that the decision was made to "freshen things up."  As pointed out by several fans, the original Ground Zeroes trailer that was about ten minutes long had the original Japanese voice actor (who, also, has been doing the character's voice since 1998).  So, why would the original Japanese actor be asked to return if they want to "freshen things up?" I did happen to find a link that actually confirms the return of the Japanese voice actor thanks to a poster on Kotaku.  The aforementioned link can be found with a few other links I used for research below:

http://www.explosion.com/26543/snake-japanese-voice-actor-will-reprise-his-role-in-mgs5/

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/27/david-hayter-says-he-wasnt-asked-to-voice-metal-gear-solid-5/

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/29/kojima-explains-metal-gear-solid-5s-mogren-fakeout-hayters/http://www.joystiq.com/2013/04/01/david-hayter-hearing-someone-else-as-snake-makes-me-a-little-i/

The World Wide Web of Pessimists

*This is a re-post of a random thought that was plaguing my mind a few days ago.  I was having a problem with typing the whole thing, mostly because it seems that I am over thinking how I should talk to my audience; I was having thoughts like:  Should I write everything like an essay? Should I talk to them as if they are right next to me?*

I like to read a lot of different news across many different facets, but there is one thing that I find common in each site that I go to: almost everyone seems to be overly pessimistic! Putting political articles aside, when it comes to media, everyone seems to be quick to highlight the negatives rather than praise, or even look into, the positives something has to offer. Now I am not basing this article off of anything specific, or to defend a game that I am fond of, but I do have an example that may help paint a better picture.

Take the social aspects of the Playstation 4 and how most people seem to be against the whole idea.  The PS4 allows the player to record and share game play videos with their friends or whoever cares to watch them. Social media is a big part of our culture; you cannot go anywhere on the internet without seeing something related to Facebook, twitter, Youtube, or tumblr.  If you were to go to Youtube and look up just about any game, you would find tons of videos that show off speed-runs, unique kills, walk-troughs, or even simple recordings pertaining to someone's take on the overall meaning of a game.  If you were to go to Facebook, you would find countless pages dedicated to games that offer updates on patches, tips and tricks, and even the opportunity to discuss something as simple as character design.  As I stated for both, there are countless Facebook profiles and Youtube videos, all of which are posted by your average joe, your fellow gamers.   All of this, at least to me, says that there is a very strong interest in being able to connect and communicate with one another.  If you were to go and read the comment sections on most articles related to the PS4 and its social aspects, you would find just as many posts arguing how the social feature is a "fail" as you would videos on Youtube.  Most of the arguments that you would find will argue that focusing on social aspects will take away from more crucial aspects of a game, such as story and gameplay, and that they refuse to waste their money on a social hub.  Now why is it that its okay for everyone to be social on the PC, but not on a game console? Is it not the same thing? Has the quality in PC games gone down since the introduction of podcasts and other ways to live-stream?  I can understand if the whole "social scene" is not your thing, but, is it really that bad to where a system needs to be written off completely because of it? Does it warrant bashing other people who are for the idea? With the idea of it being something everyone seems to indulge in anyways aside, is it really hard to just not use the feature? Is it really hard to see the usefulness in being able to record a video that could help your friend complete a level in his game? Is it hard to see the usefulness in being able to get help from a friend as he watches you play the part of the game that you are stuck on? How I personally see it is as this: the option to simply play game is still there and that the option to be social is just that, an option.

FIRST TIME!

Technically this is not my first blog, for I have one started over on kotaku.com.  I ended up deciding to make this one just to dabble in other blogging options.  Anywho, I plan on publishing a review of the new "Tomb Raider" in about a week or so, which will mark my first attempt at serious game reviewing.  I do not only plan on using this site to just review games, I am aiming to use it as a way to put my thoughts and ideas out there to try and better myself as a writer and a gamer.  I guess it is a little hard to try and create a good first impression through words, so, I am going to leave you with a few pictures that will help you gain some insight into the kind of person that I am.