VGX Sucked as Expected

When I saw the advertisement for VGX, Spike's Video Game Award show, I new it was going to suck worse than a crack whore with Parkinson's. Seriously, whoever could not smell the bullshit streaming from the concept alone really needs to evaluate their bias, because their being lead by bullshit delusions.

The primary reason why VGX was designed to suck was the same reason why it should not have aired (or streamed). While award shows work for TV, Movies, and (I suppose) music is because they have a plethora of material to cover. They don't just give awards to the titles, but to the director, to the actresses and actors. Even if these award shows come off as pretentious and unnecessary, they at least know what their intended audience wants to see, and they have a categories to cover (promote) the highlights of the respected industry. VGX did not have that. VGX will not obtain that, unless a reward show could actually handout rewards to individuals that develop heavy weight titles.

VGX had a few games to promote, a few games to nominate, and a few interviews (that were botched completely). Watch any other award show and ask yourself why they succeed, even with the blatant marketing and advertisements.

In order or VGX or any other video game award show to obtain success, they first need to a serious approach, know their demographic, and then do the work to treat developers like fucking rockstars. Without bringing more of a human quality to it, it just reeks of shallowness. The reason why Oscars work is because they don't just reward the movie, they reward the team, and stars in it. They have more to show other than one reward.

TL;DR VGX sucked because it had 5% real material and 95% bullshit and filler.

Finals Week and Tecmo Bowl

A gauntlet of finals awaits me, and I have prepped and readied for a glorious conquest, but not without help from Sunday NFL and Tecmo Bowl! Watching the Vikings almost secure a victory after watching the Eagles dominate through the heavy snow against the Lions, I ended with a grudge match between the 49ers and the Seahawks. Damn, some fine games back to back, but what eased my mind from the constant studying was dusting off Tecmo Bowl for the NES for some glorious blitz of my own.

And I can still recall all the crap I've been trying to cram. I think my finals are already done.

Castlevania SOTN: Cheap Tricks

I'm playing through this little title called Castlevania SOTN again (like for the 50th time), and while I enjoyed the aesthetics, feel, sound, and mechanics of the game. The difficulty, or the lack thereof, just made it seem all too easy. The only time enemies become a problem is like never. The enemies look so well designed and thought out, but they die within less of a second. The inverted library has a interesting Wizard of Oz theme with the Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tinman (not sure what the shmoo is supposed to be), but it's silly that they put all that effort into something that will die from a nearly invincible Alucard. The reason?

Soul Steal.

This spell is learned pretty early in the game, and it will allow you to keep max health through most encounters. The only few times where soul steal did not matter was when encountering certain bosses.

Olrox was an interesting encounter. While you can corner him with cheap hits, you'll end up taking some hits yourself. No big deal, because is health gets too low you can just cast that cheap spell.

Galamoth: this beast is tough battle, even with soul steal. The boss has so much HP, that you're better off just attacking him with everything you have. Soul steal, I believe, only does 1 damage per hit for 8 hits. He, on there hand, can drop your HP faster than you can restore it.

So, really, only one boss in the entire game actually comes off as a challenge even with soul steal. My point is that Konami should have balanced the game with that in mind.

Retro Holiday

Every year during holiday shopping, when searching for shirts for those on the "budget" list, it can seem like we're really selecting a preferred billboard out from the thousands available. We're, for the most part, walking pieces of advertising, and we're the ones that are paying.

Didn't mean to dabble into the psychology of advertising and marketing, I just couldn't help myself. You see, I have some information I would really love to share, but I don't want to come off as simply plugging a brand or company.

If you grew up on an NES or an SNES, and still enjoying dabbling into the nostalgia enriched waters of retro gaming, then you have to check out what Timewalk Games has to offer.

Imagine getting a complete box, manual, and cart of rare Japanese-bound games like Clock Tower (SNES), Bahamut Lagoon (SNES), or even Sweet Home (NES). Timewalk Games also specializes in reproducing fan-made specialized projects such as Super Mario World 3: Return to Dinosaur Island (SNES), Chrono Trigger Crimson Echoes (SNES), or even Legend of Zelda: Outlands (NES).

For those curious enough to check out the site, I know what you're about to ask. Why such a steep price? I hear you, and trust me. I understand your financial pain. While you could easily and comfortably play these titles on any emulator, you won't have a physical copy complete with a high-quality box, manual, and cart. I understand that much fun could still be had with emulated copies, and I'm not about to pretend to be a pompous elitist and state that emulation can't create an authentic experience. But for those that require and actual cart, SNES, controller, and an old-fashion TV, then Timewalk Games will be your friend.

Of course, for collectors on a budget, you could collect the original Japanese imports of certain titles like The Firemen (SNES), but do you read Japanese? Probably not.

For avid collectors and retro completionists, Timewalk Games can make for a great gift this holiday season.

Stay classy...

Sex Depiction in Games

After watching the latest episode of Tropes VS. Women (Anita Sarkeesian's soap box for all things wrong in gaming for both men and women. Oops, I'm sorry. I meant all things wrong with gaming for women, as it is just one big boy's club) I couldn't help wonder the seriousness of her message. For those that haven't seen it, the episode is essentially that the way women are depicted in games, by using stereotypical female ques in character design, is harmful as it maintains the status quo.

My main gripe with this argument is that gaming is far less a contributor to maintaining the statues quo than let's say advertising in media, or even the fashion industry. In fact, it isn't men, or just men, that encourage women to invest heavily into make-up, clothing, jewelry, and etc. It's part of a advertising machine driven by both men and women, some powerful figures in fashion. However, that's not relevant to Anita Sarkeesian, as her web show focuses on video games and the harmful effects it has on women. But, wait, if video games represent culture, and beauty and fashion is big in our culture, than it would make sense to consider why stereotypical ques are used.

Essentially, the reason why female gaming characters are designed with overtly stereotypical ques is the same why male characters are. Duke Nukem, the Doom Marine, Contra dudes, Mario, and Gears of War dudes are all designed with overtly stereotypical images that obviously do not represent the men that play the games. Lara Croft, Joanna Dark, Samus, Princess Peach, and Dead or Alive babes are all designed with overtly stereotypical images that obviously do not represent women in our everyday lives.

Anita, if you're this upset about video game depiction of women, than you'll need to battle against the notion that sex, beauty, and tough dudes and dudettes sell products faster than celibate, ugly, and weak dudes and dudettes do.

My second point is that she argues that female characters are simply a female version of a male character. I was baffled by this retort. There are three key things wrong with her statement.

First, I had to remind myself that biologically speaking men and women are counterparts of one another. Men and women look very similar but with differences in body shape, reproductive roles, and (evidenced indicates) slight differences in max strength.

Second, old-school games required a simple to decipher difference to indicate male or female characters. I'm not sure how else a developer is to indicate that a character is female or male without stereotypical ques for each. Ms. Pac-man wears a bow because it is an instant identifier, because in western culture bows are an article of clothing that women tend to wear. It isn't stating that women ought to wear bows. It is simply a quick and dirty identifier. Besides, one could flip the argument and state that male characters use stereotypical ques. Link has a flat chest. The characters in Double Dragon have muscles. Ken and Ryu have muscles on muscles, and Scorpion has a deep manly voice. These are all quick and easy stereotypical ques to describe a character.

Third, um, Ms. Pac-man had more of a personality than Pac-man, by a long shot. I don't know where Anita gets off stating that she is simply Pac-man with a bow, because she is a classy lady that can handle her own. Peach in Super Mario Bros. 2 is not simply a counter part to Mario, she is a ideal character with an advantageous jump. Samus is a male counter part to who? Mega man? No, wrong series. Zelda is a female counter part to Link? Well, I guess since they are both elven, but one tends to be a princess, while the other is some poor kid from the country.

Look, I'm not going to state that women are represent fairly in video games, but neither are men. Oh, but Jesse, men are represented like a thousand times more. True, and while that might be an indicator of implicit bias, it may also be a bias formed about the target audience. The other issue is what I consider to be a strong female character carries what Anita would classify as "male" traits. But why should traits be gender specific? I know they tend to be, but a strong female is one that can kick ass parallel to that of any man while doing dishes.

I'm obviously joking. People should learn to not take things so seriously. Video games are an immature hobby aimed at boys with very boy like tendencies (masturbating to pixels). Wanna change how females are depicted in gaming, be a trend setter, and see how well it sells. That's how. Fund game development that caters to feminist games. Is that a game? Would men be like slaves to women in those games? I might like that.

Favorite NES themes

The NES has a plethora of games, some great, some legendary, and some so-cringe worthy that they are better off unnamed. Regardless of status, some games, even the worst, included some really awesome themes. I might be hard for others to fathom, but I would play certain games just to rock out to the music. Playing a game like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the first one) just to listen to chiptunes. 

I digress, but the point remains: the NES had some kick-ass themes. What is your favorite theme?

For me, it is hard to name just one. Mega man 2 included a sweet melody for just about every stage. Batman featured a sweet bass heavy theme, and then there are melodic classics such as the Zelda theme, especially the Link's Adventure theme. 

If I had to choose one, just one. Like as if some crazed gunman ordered me to just name one, and only one, I would go with the Contra theme. What about you?

Pay to Play, when Paid to Own

Yes, I'm aware that in this day and age the term ownership for a game, a disc, a cart, that you purchase is just a warm pipe dream.

Apparently, dropping $60 on the counter in exchange for a game means very little, especially when. the game treats tokens like a damn arcade. Am I gaming at an arcade, where the initial cost of the machine is on the establishment and not on me? No, of course not.

Instead, I purchased the right to access a game with $60 and then get offered to by tokens that will grant me further access. Wrap your head around that. Imagine if in the old days with arcades, a player had to purchase the machine and then purchase additional access via tokens. Yeah, tokens make sense, but having to fork over money for the machine is not.

May not sound like that big of a deal, but when one considers the rising trend of micro-transactions, especially in upcoming Xbox One titles such as Forza 5, where you can purchase a "Great Value" of tokens for $99 USD. Ryse: Sone of Rome is poised to have micro-transactions to help players skip through character progression. What? Why didn't World of Warcraft have this? Because investing time for the reward of developing a virtual avatar is a reinforcer. Plopping down cash for the sake of winning is only going to hurt those in the end by ruining his or her experience. The gamers that utilize this system are the same that don't value money, the same that are too weak minded to stand up against getting nickled and dimed.

Don't agree? Then give me a compelling argument as to how it is a good practice to spend additional money on a game that you already acquired the rights to access with the initial purchase? You can practice mental gymnastics all you want. You can dwell in the pain of cognitive dissonance, but just know that you're also informing companies that these practices work.