GTA V Is Not As Violent as Previous Entries

Since the biggest video game launch in the history of the medium has just occurred, I thought it was appropriate to dedicate this blog post to talk about the mega-monster known as Grand Theft Auto 5. Now, just to clarify, this isn't a review. I always try to examine the aspects of the game from an analytical standpoint and try to zone in on unique ideas behind the concepts, trends, etc. of the game. With GTA 5, I could go on and on for days breaking the game down into its varying components (and I'm sure I will in future posts, so stay tuned), but today I'm going to focus on the violence in GTA 5. Here's the odd thing about the violence in the game: in my opinion, it’s not as easy to commit violent acts as it is in previous games. This claim might sound strange, considering the history GTA has with violence. After all, GTA is the franchise in which you drive around and beat up hookers with baseball bats. But, that's precisely my point when talking about GTA V. Take, for instance, the baseball bat just mentioned. Introduced in GTA III, the baseball bat has gone through a couple different iterations (changing from wooden to aluminum in the games. The newest game, GTA V, features a wooden bat). In the first game of the series featuring the bat (GTA III), the bat is readily available at the safe house. Access to it is easy and it’s always available to use. It is also easily accessible at the safe house in Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. But, in GTA IV, the bat is not easily accessible. The bat doesn't just spawn at the safe house. Rather, it has to be bought in a back alley shop for $5. I've played the newest iteration, GTA V, for around 20 hours and have yet to find a baseball bat. I know it is available in the game, but my point stems back to its availability. It’s not as easy to walk around and beat the crap out of people (at least in the beginning of the game). The ability to commit violent acts isn't just handed to you in GTA V. The player starts out with hardly any weapons and has to earn money through the story missions to be able to pay for weapons and ammunition. Can you still shoot random people on the street? Yes. Can you run people down with your car? Yes. However, all I'm trying to say is that it's a bit more difficult to achieve this type of violence than in previous GTA games. I believe this also strongly ties into the fact that GTA V is the first GTA game that feels more like a simulation then any of the other entries. So much is available to do in the city besides killing pedestrians. The player can play tennis, smoke weed, watch television, go to a movie, get on the internet, etc. Even though games such as GTA IV had these types of events, the depth and detail in which they are showcased in GTA V allows the player to fully immerse themselves into these activities. For instance, I have seen two movies in-game. One ran about 20 minutes long and the other ran about 15. The player can play 5 sets of tennis if they so choose. With all of these events at the tip of your fingers, the urge to focus ALL your time killing pedestrians goes down. Yes, the game is still violent and everybody likes to mess around in the city. However, with a slightly more limited cap on weapons and an astounding number of non-violent events to partake in, the violence in GTA V is not as prevalent as in previous releases.

A Dragon Age to Remember

Dragon Age: Inquisition is coming as the third chapter in the role-playing franchise. The game spouts numerous improvements in its battle system and storytelling technique. One of the more interesting aspects of the latter mentioned, the storytelling technique, comes as a bit of a surprise. The character the player gains control of in the game is someone of high importance. They lead a character who is the leader of a mysterious order. Little is known of this order, but they do wield highly powerful influence in the game world. This fact comes as a surprising revelation, seeing how in most RPG's, the player takes control of a low-level nobody who slowly rises up the ranks. The game wipes out this narrative cliché right from the get-go. As you begin the game in a high power position, you try to lead your organization to gain more and more power over the land. While leading the organization, the designers of Dragon Age: Inquisition purposefully integrated this concept of high power into the game. One of the designers of the game said, "It's fundamentally about giving an organization the same kind of progression you might expect out of a character…but what it’s like if I can take an organization and give it a character-give it a feel and a tone”. Building off of this idea, specifically focusing on progressing the organization you lead is a great idea. Many games don't utilize this concept. Sure, you get to progress your own character and deck them out with cool looking clothes, weapons, etc. However, if the player is completing missions for his army, faction, etc., the organization often stays the same. Addressing the organization as a type of character in the game is a pleasant production choice to see. Along with the concept of organization as character, the battle system also emanates refreshing ideas. As a designer of the game said, " The concept of the fully controlled party- in our case, doing it with that hybrid real-time or pause-and-play-has always been a thing that we saw as part our legacy and something we want to make sure is key…but we want to make sure we haven’t lost the reactivity and speed-the crispness-with which a character follows their orders. I see that as part of modern gaming." That last part really got to me while I was reading the article in Game Informer. "Reactivity and speed...I see that as part of modern gaming". As a turn-based game, evolving the speed strikes me as...unique. Are the designers tailoring to a more ADD audience? Is modern gaming more fast-paced than ever before? I think modern gaming has been touting behaviors of fast-paced antics in recent years. Specifically, the reactivity of earned points in modern FPS's is mind boggling compared to the FPS's from a decade ago. Since the computers harness more firepower, designers can give the player rewards instantly and for almost anything they want. It should be interesting to see how Dragon Age: Inquisition plays out. I, for one, am looking forward to it.

Skylanders and Disney: Infinity-Breaking the Mold

Hello fellow gamers! I am here to stay and promise to keep posting consistently. Today, I read an article about the new Skylanders game coming out. Skylanders: Swap Force will be coming out shortly, and I can't help but think how fun of a concept Activision has latched onto. Yes, some may see it as a marketing scheme (the article I read from Game Informer stated that you would have to pour $740 into the game to experience every nook and cranny of the full game. That part, I'm not the biggest fan of, to be honest). However, the concept behind this game is something that breaks the mold of the traditional video game. For those not familiar with the Skylanders titles, the games heavily focus on using toys to "upgrade" and "power-up" your gaming characters. Pog-like chips exist in which you place on a small power pad and they link directly to your character on the screen. It's almost as if my boyhood fantasy has come true: Your toys become "real". The link between the real and the imaginary worlds now have a physical connection. I think it's awesome. Skylanders does have competition. The likes of Disney is coming out with Disney: Infinity. The game works in the exact same way as Skylanders. However, with Disney's licensing, their toys will pull in the big names of Jack Sparrow and Mr. Incredible. Though it may be an overzealous financial investment, I believe these games do have some potential to do some good in the gaming world. I'm always eager to see and play new concepts in the video game world. This is one definitely worth checking out.

Halo 4 Going Back to Its Roots

Hello to all! Welcome back to another exciting reimagining of Jurassic Park in blog form! Well, maybe I'm not going to get that crazy with this post. However, I do have some exciting news to announce to all Halo 4 players. Beginning in early April, the ranking system currently being used will be replaced with a system similar to Halo 2 and 3's. It's being called "Competitive Skill Ranking" (CSR) and is harkening back to the competitiveness that made the early Halo titles ever so popular. I think this is a huge announcement and a major change to the game. My friend and I were just discussing this exact issue last night while tearing up in Team Doubles (it doesn't happen often, so I'll gloat when I can). What separated Halo 2 and Halo 3 from the later Halo titles (ODST, REACH, CE, 4) was the ranking system. In Halo: Reach, you progressed in ranking, no matter how bad you did in a match. You could lose 20 matches in a row, but would still earn experience points (XP) and continue to climb the ranks. The franchise that has glorified this system of ranking and leveling up, no matter how bad the performance, is the Call of Duty series. This is one of the major differences between the Halo franchise and the Call of Duty series. Both franchises decided to take two varying approaches to the concept of online chaos. The result is two vastly different styles of gameplay, as well as two different attitudes while playing the games. In Call of Duty, there's really no stress while playing. Sure, you play to the best of your ability and get stressed when matches come down to the last kill, but at the end of the match, you level up no matter what. That level 10 prestiege (MW 2, BLOP 2) is always attainable, even if you can't seem to get the win all that often. However, the competitive offering from the Halo games instigated an additional layer of tension into the multi-player experience. You lose the match, your rank will go down. The top Level 50 isn't attainable by sheer time spent in the game. The wins have to rack up and rack up well, or you're never going to attain that top level. I personally love both franchises and I see positives and negatives to both systems. Needless to say, this system has driven a wedge between players of Halo and Call of Duty. Many gamers side with one franchise over the other, and the differences that create this divide lie within gameplay and how the multi-player experience is set up. So, what is your opinion on the CSR in Halo 4? Is it a positive change or a step back for 343 Studios? Or, do you simply hate Halo and bleed Call of Duty? Let the debate begin!

Back to Basics

Have no fear, readers! I am glad to be back (been a bit busy writing for some websites...and the whole life thing can sometimes get in the way. But, I promise to keep your mind stimulated with all the video game news and ideas that you can handle! So, today I thought I'd hit on a topic I think you'll enjoy. It involves nostalgia, so you know it's good! I'm 24, and grew up in the 90's. Now, the 90's were an interesting time for the world of video games. A battle was raging (much like Sony and Microsoft today), the Internet hadn't effected the gaming landscape, and WCW was a company just beginning to hit its stride (Woooooooo)! During this time of square haircuts and Starter jackets (both of which are making a comeback), the landscape of multi-player was sparse to say the least. Most gamers focused on the single player campaign (I'm talking about consoles, of course). The main draw for the player wasn't interconnectivity or achievements. No, the focus of the player was simple: to have fun. I have recently been playing my N64 a lot and I am having an absolute blast reliving my childhood through classics such as Cruisin’ USA and Goldeneye. Cruisin USA has quickly become one of my favorites to play, and I noticed something when my friends and I were playing. We spent a solid three hours playing the game one night, and I can't describe to you the joy I had. Four friends just sitting around, racing some AI as we complain about the erratic driving of that one blue car. My point? The simplicity of these games is something that might be lost forever. I'm not saying this is bad. I love achievements and am a huge fan of accomplishing and completing challenges and getting rewarded for them. However, the 90's had an aura of simplistic game play that is something to be longed for. While playing Cruisin USA, I was almost relieved that I didn't have online leader boards to compete against. I didn't have to think of all my stats being piled up for me. In games of this era, everything is tracked and stored. When I turned on Cruisin' USA, I didn't have to worry about that. I simply popped in the game and started playing. I love it. This goes for most games of the 90's. The simplicity is something that could (maybe) be implemented in the future. When that happens...who knows where games could go. Sometimes, going back is good.

Big Macs and GTA: A Match Made in Advertising Heaven

Marketing has entered a new age for our generation. In the 1930's, marketers began to hit the radio waves. During the 1950's, these same marketers peppered the television screens of so many with images of cigarettes and beer. So, what's the next step? Well, there's online advertising. We all experience this when we peruse the Internet. Sometimes, we can't even get rid of these ads (thank you, Ad Blocker). However, an untapped market exists in which advertisers are just beginning to scratch the surface. I am, of course, talking about the virtual worlds in which Master Chief, Link, and Samus Aran call home. Yes, the video game is the next frontier for advertising and marketing. Numerous examples already abound within the video game world. Let's take a look at a few. First, we have one that, frankly, surprised me. My friend, whom I frequently play Xbox Live with, informed me about an in-game advertisement for the president. At first, I didn't believe him. Really? Obama advertisements in an Xbox game? Well, it turns out he was right. Voteforchange.com appears on the side of the scorer's table in NBA JAM (Xbox 360). Even more interesting is the fact that the advertisement only appeared in certain states (my home state of Ohio being one of them). This isn't the only game the president's face has graced the virtual playground. A billboard featuring the Big Cheese's head was placed in 2008's Burnout Paradise. Sports games aren't the only target for in-game advertisements. They even show up in the most serious of situations. Imagine: you're a CIA agent. You're sneaking through a top-secret facility to stop terrorists from annihaliting the world. As you creep through the offices, you peek around the corner to make sure no enemies are waiting for you on the other side. The bright light of the SoBe vending machine almost blinding you. Wait, what? Yes, in 2002, Sobe partnered with Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell franchise. Even secret government agents get thirsty. That was in 2002. Think of how it is in today's world. You can't escape ads, whether they're in your video games or on your computer. YouTube has even succombed to the marketing prowess of advertisers. In-game ads aren't going away either. According to Forbes, in-game advertising will double by 2016. The industry already makes 3.1 BILLION dollars. By 2016, that's going to exceed 7 billion dollars. That's a lot of money for in-game ads. You might be asking yourself why advertisers would spend all this money. After all, just becasue I see a cheeseburger on television doesn't mean I rush out to grab a Big Mac. However, Nielsen research would disagree with you. According to Nielsen, NBA Street Homecourt (2007) advertised Gatorade. Surprisingly, sales for Gatorade shot up 24%. Yeah, it works. Weird, right? I really don't have a strong opinion on the subject either way. I think if anything, ads could either create a more realistic experience in games based in "reality" (GTA, Burnout, NBA 2K, etc.) or they could bring the player out of the experience and distract them. They may find the ads confusing and be turned off by the concept of ads "cluttering" their games. What do you think? Leave a comment below if you want your voice to be heard!

The Delicate Fruits of Love

Peach and Mario. Link and Zelda. Sonic and...Amy? Yeah, we'll go with Amy. Hello to all fellow gamers out there in the harsh, cruel world of reality. If you haven't noticed, today is a special day. Today is the day in which card companies and chocolates make all their dough. Yes, today is Valentine's Day! In honor of this holiday focused on love (we all know it's about the marketing), I have decided to write about...love. What is love? What mysteries lie in the depths of our souls that ache to be let out? Well, maybe I won't go that far. I will, though, focus on love in video games. After all, love is everywhere. Here's how I like to think of it. We (as gamers) play games for a challenge. We like to overcome obstacles. We find this fun. However, when we play these games, we begin to get emotionally attached. Whether it be to a game from our childhood or a specific game character, love is always flowing out of us. According to this research study, real people become attracted to virtual people through three avenues: personality, usefulness, and looks (if you'd like to learn more, simply click on the link above for the entire article). Amazingly, we judge these video game characters just as we do real people. It also mentions in the article how we don't like the idea of virtual people realistically looking like humans. However, that's another topic for another day. As we form emotional bonds with charcters, we feel their pain. We feel their joy. We feel the indifference (RPG's, I'm looking at you here). I can attest to this concept of emotional bonding. I remember playing the game Dead to Rights when I was a child. In the game, you take on the role of a police officer in a K-9 unit. At the beginning of the game, your father is murdered and you have to track down the criminals in the city, trying to figure out who murdered him. You finally get your hands on him at the conclusion of the game in a bolier room. It's fisticuffs to the end, a one-on-one match. You might be wondering where this is going. Well, I clearly remember fighting him in the boiler room. My friend had come over and was watching me. I began to yell obscenites at the character. I remember my friend telling me to calm down and that it was just a game. I turned to him and said "I can't. He killed my father. He's got to die". That right there is a perfect example of the emotions I was feeling at the time. I legitimately cared for this guy and wanted this man who murdered my father dead. This emotional attachment is something unique to art. We see these types of bonds in books, movies, and television shows. A great example of a recent video game that has exemplified this type of emotional attachment is Telltale's The Walking Dead. The player is a convict that takes care of a small girl, Clementine. You then take on the role of a father figure to the girl as the game progresses. This relationship is one of the most popular of the year in gaming. Why? The fans have become so emotionally invested in her. According to this article from Game Informer, the craze of Clementine is structured. Everything from the character's appearance to the lines she says is carefully crafted to tug at your heart strings. With all of this in play, us as players can't help but get sucked into her struggle. This attachment goes beyond merely caring for her in-game. A Twitter account exists in which people share how far they would go to save Clementine. People even dress up as her for conventions. People genuinely care for her. I think it's amazing how far we'll go for virtual characters. And you know what? I think we all need a little bit of that. We could all use a little love, virtual or not.