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...
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, November 22, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
GTA Shark Cards: Waste or Worth it?
You ever wanted to be a millionaire? Well, guess what? You can! Just give Rockstar twenty dollars and you'll receive over a million GTA credits! The dream you wanted will finally become a reality! To Squaresoft didn't think of somehow implementing a similar feature into their Final Fantasy series. Fuck grinding for shit, I'm gonna just pay my way to the end....
Eh, no...
Reading over details regarding Shark Cards, GTA V's micro-transaction offering, I couldn't shake a sense of cognitive dissonance. The thought of exchanging real-world currency for in-game currency seems rather troubling. Rockstar asks for a handful of US dollars in exchange for thousands of GTA credit, and though it could help those that our limited in time, one would be wise to take caution as to not set a precedent for "pay-to-win" chicanery. Oh wait, "pay-to-win" models already exist and business are utilizing them to nickle and dime consumers. But while most, if not all, "pay-to-win" games start out as free downloads, GTA V requires around sixty hard-earned dollars. Having already already acquired a copy through legitimate means, it seems odd to me that one would be so willing as to pay Rockstar additional money just to turn around and waste it on items already in the game!
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but why would you, the consumer, spend extra money just to acquire a virtual product that was already included on the disc? Would anyone actually pay Nintendo for coins, power-ups, and lives in Super Mario Bros.? It seems silly as 80's technology wouldn't allow for it, but it seems reasonable to believe that had the option been available people would fork over the money.
But perhaps not, as Super Mario Bros. and GTA V are vastly different in terms of amount of time required to obtain certain rewards. Rockstar wants the player to invest time into GTA V, and thus provides a wide assortment of obtainable rewards, but for a hefty amount of GTA credits. Sounds typical of just about any game. In Final Fantasy, one gains experience in order to level up, and gains money in order to purchase new gear, and while the level cap and prices may increase, they do so within reason. In GTA V, however, the gap between mission payout and cost of mods, clothing, weapons, and other crap is rather wide. A player could invest hours, even days, into doing countless missions just to earn GTA V credits. The credits would trickle in very slowly, leaving the player waiting longer for the perceived reward he or she wants. A faster way, however, would be to exchange twenty dollars for a Shark Card valued over a million in GTA credits. In a game where a tattoo costs ten-thousand, a million can escape from a player's wallet rather quickly.
What baffles me about this though is the absurdity of forking over hard-earned cash for virtual credits that one would use to purchase more virtual crap. While the Super Mario Bros. analogy suffers from complexity, considering this micro-transaction system integrated with games such as Chrono Trigger should offer clarity. Imagine, if instead of investing time into the game gathering experience, tech points, and money, a player had the option to pay his or her way through. Doesn't sound so bad since it only undermines his or her experience, but it does erode the legitimacy of any claim of accomplishment. The other side of this issue is that had the technology existed, along with the current practice of micro-transactions, one could presume a chance that the developers would design the game to encourage micro-transactions. In other words, Squaresoft would have a monetary motivation to design Chrono Trigger with micro-transaction in mind. Thus, creating a repressed economy in the game that renders long investments of time rather stupid.
Of course, what do I know? I'm just some thirty year-old gamer that grew up in the late 80's and early 90's, basking in the glory days of Capcom, Konami, Nintendo, Sega, and Sunsoft. I grew up in a time where purchasing a game meant you could access playable data on the cart. While a game like Mega Man 2 for the NES could cost around fifty bucks, it didn't require or encourage additional payment to enjoy. Capcom didn't charge the player per blaster shot, or in exchange for any other bullshit.
As somewhat of a Libertarian, I understand it is ultimately the decision of the individual what to do with earned money, and it is up to companies like Rockstar to decide on what to do with their product. And while throwing a few fives at Rockstar for some easy GTA credits seems like it does no harm, that's money that could be better spent at a strip club. Either way you come out with nothing but shame, guilt, and an awkward boner.
Eh, no...
Reading over details regarding Shark Cards, GTA V's micro-transaction offering, I couldn't shake a sense of cognitive dissonance. The thought of exchanging real-world currency for in-game currency seems rather troubling. Rockstar asks for a handful of US dollars in exchange for thousands of GTA credit, and though it could help those that our limited in time, one would be wise to take caution as to not set a precedent for "pay-to-win" chicanery. Oh wait, "pay-to-win" models already exist and business are utilizing them to nickle and dime consumers. But while most, if not all, "pay-to-win" games start out as free downloads, GTA V requires around sixty hard-earned dollars. Having already already acquired a copy through legitimate means, it seems odd to me that one would be so willing as to pay Rockstar additional money just to turn around and waste it on items already in the game!
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but why would you, the consumer, spend extra money just to acquire a virtual product that was already included on the disc? Would anyone actually pay Nintendo for coins, power-ups, and lives in Super Mario Bros.? It seems silly as 80's technology wouldn't allow for it, but it seems reasonable to believe that had the option been available people would fork over the money.
But perhaps not, as Super Mario Bros. and GTA V are vastly different in terms of amount of time required to obtain certain rewards. Rockstar wants the player to invest time into GTA V, and thus provides a wide assortment of obtainable rewards, but for a hefty amount of GTA credits. Sounds typical of just about any game. In Final Fantasy, one gains experience in order to level up, and gains money in order to purchase new gear, and while the level cap and prices may increase, they do so within reason. In GTA V, however, the gap between mission payout and cost of mods, clothing, weapons, and other crap is rather wide. A player could invest hours, even days, into doing countless missions just to earn GTA V credits. The credits would trickle in very slowly, leaving the player waiting longer for the perceived reward he or she wants. A faster way, however, would be to exchange twenty dollars for a Shark Card valued over a million in GTA credits. In a game where a tattoo costs ten-thousand, a million can escape from a player's wallet rather quickly.
What baffles me about this though is the absurdity of forking over hard-earned cash for virtual credits that one would use to purchase more virtual crap. While the Super Mario Bros. analogy suffers from complexity, considering this micro-transaction system integrated with games such as Chrono Trigger should offer clarity. Imagine, if instead of investing time into the game gathering experience, tech points, and money, a player had the option to pay his or her way through. Doesn't sound so bad since it only undermines his or her experience, but it does erode the legitimacy of any claim of accomplishment. The other side of this issue is that had the technology existed, along with the current practice of micro-transactions, one could presume a chance that the developers would design the game to encourage micro-transactions. In other words, Squaresoft would have a monetary motivation to design Chrono Trigger with micro-transaction in mind. Thus, creating a repressed economy in the game that renders long investments of time rather stupid.
Of course, what do I know? I'm just some thirty year-old gamer that grew up in the late 80's and early 90's, basking in the glory days of Capcom, Konami, Nintendo, Sega, and Sunsoft. I grew up in a time where purchasing a game meant you could access playable data on the cart. While a game like Mega Man 2 for the NES could cost around fifty bucks, it didn't require or encourage additional payment to enjoy. Capcom didn't charge the player per blaster shot, or in exchange for any other bullshit.
As somewhat of a Libertarian, I understand it is ultimately the decision of the individual what to do with earned money, and it is up to companies like Rockstar to decide on what to do with their product. And while throwing a few fives at Rockstar for some easy GTA credits seems like it does no harm, that's money that could be better spent at a strip club. Either way you come out with nothing but shame, guilt, and an awkward boner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)