The Sheer Brilliance of PETA

Oh Internet, I have officially seen it all. The two subjects I write most about--video games and politics--have come together once again! Let's not get into what kind of a sick human being is hugely interested in both video games and politics and instead talk about skinning raccoon dogs! We all know and love (hate) PETA: which of course doesn't stand for People Eating Tasty Animals as peta.org once linked to, but for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (and is also far more convoluted).

It seems they have gotten their oft uncomfortably bunched panties into a bunch again over the upcoming Nintendo 3DS game Super Mario 3D Land releasing this statement along with a flash game where the aforementioned raccoon dog errrr... gets his skin back: 

When on a mission to rescue the princess, Mario has been known to use any means necessary to defeat his enemy—even wearing the skin of a raccoon dog to give him special powers.
Tanooki may be just a "suit" in Mario games, but in real life, tanuki are raccoon dogs who are skinned alive for their fur. By wearing Tanooki, Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur. Play Super Tanooki Skin 2D and help Tanooki reclaim his fur!

 Mario does indeed wear the aforementioned raccoon dog suit to give himself special powers. I have a question though. What kind of a suit does PETA members wear to make themselves super douchebags?

What a deplorable animal abuser... either that or he's a fictional character with fictional powers in a fictional world where animals are not skinned for their fur because the characters in the world have been created by the developers to provide an entertaining platforming experience that takes no philosophical positions outside the context of the game. But which is the better sounding sound byte? 

So in an effort to appeal to kids, who don't vote or influence public policy in any direct way, PETA unnecessarily tries turning a gaming icon into some sort of merciless animal slayer? The website also comes complete with all the G-rated, family friendly violence you've come to expect from the kind of reputable organization that supports domestic terrorism.
You know, I've played Mario games for years and I can't recall ever skinning an animal and parading around in its literal skin. Mario has more to say about blue balls than the issue of fur trading. PETA's pathetic attempt to shoehorn their agenda into the release of Super Mario 3D Land is simply laughable. I think I speak for most gamers when I say: fuck off. Stop exploiting the medium to make cheap political statements to a demographic, children, that couldn't give two shits about the issue you're trying to raise.

Candidates Called by God

Are you there God? It's me, Rick.

Michele Bachmann. Rick Santorum. Rick Perry. Herman Cain. What do they have in common? Besides treading water in the intelligence department, all four of them have claimed that “God” called them to run for President.

Of course, no one has asked them the obvious question of: “do you often hear voices in your head?” Not many questions are asked at all. If you're a Republican running for public office the media simply assumes you were sent by God. However this concept has seemingly jumped the shark in this campaign cycle. Four candidates claiming to be sponsored by God? Well, that certainly doesn't make sense. They can't all be President and, furthermore, if God is as omnipotent as he claims, then surely he knows this. So what gives?

The answer is simple: they're lying right to our faces and we're letting them get away with it.

Herman Cain: the latest candidate to be "persuaded" by God to run.

This isn't a matter of whether or not God exists. It's a matter of disgusting political opportunists who exploit the religious beliefs of a gullible public to secure votes for themselves. Voters tend to prefer candidates that are principled: case-in-point Mitt Romney. Many would also prefer a candidate that shares their religious views and it's perfectly okay to vote for someone because you agree on philosophy. However, that's not exactly the case here. It's an easy sell rhetorically because, if this article is correct, fifty-two percent of people believe that Jesus speaks to them directly through their thoughts and emotions. I'm not saying that politicians don't have religious beliefs, of course they do. But this “called by God” nonsense is just taking it too far. It's like saying “A vote against is me, is a vote against God”. And if you lose? Well, it's because God is obviously punishing America for not faithful enough by electing a President that's not anointed... Duh. Do you see why this is a problem? They claim divine inspiration and have a convenient escape plan if their candidacy falls through.

If you look at the numbers you do find that Congress is overwhelming Christian, but I think this has more to do with simple demographics. America is 60-70% Christian. Many candidates don't run for office on their faith and it's not an issue. And, of course, the majority probably have never claimed a divine calling.

Pete Stark: First Atheist in Congress and possibly Iron Man

So just how many non-Christians are in Congress? The 111th House has been lauded as the “most religiously diverse... in history” yet only 36 members are non-Christians... out of 435. Only a single representative in the House identifies as an atheist... care to guess which state he's from? 10 points to Gryffindor if you said California. But I digress.
Maybe these candidates legitimately believe that God has spurred them towards the Presidency. Maybe I'm just reading too much into this. Maybe my cynicism has reached new heights. But what's more likely? We are talking about politicians here: a social group known for its trustworthiness and strong moral compass. Do you honestly think they wouldn't exploit religion to rally support? Herman Cain played the God card after being caught up in a sexual harassment scandal... coincidence? Here's what I do know for sure: anytime a human being claims to speak for God, even as indirectly as these candidates have, you know trouble is coming. Don't fall for it.

Retro: Rayman

It seems that nowadays most video game companies don't use their mascots anymore, save Nintendo (and to a lesser extent Sega) who plaster Mario's iconic mug onto anything they can get their hands on. It's more likely for someone to own a piece of Mario merchandise than a first-aid kit. That's a fact (that I just made up). PlayStation had its platforming/adventure icons: Crash, Spyro, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank. Xbox had resident badass Master Chief... so on and so forth.

I suppose there's room for two Michel's in my heart.

Lest we forget Ubisoft's mascot: Rayman. Created by French National Hero (at least in my mind) Michel Ancel and debuting in the eponymous 1995 platformer. If you've never played Rayman, now might be a good time. 2011 marks the long-awaited return of the limbless fist-slinger in Rayman: Origins which is shaping up to be an incredible piece of platforming joy.

The original Rayman is a colorful and vibrant 2-D platformer. You'll notice this right away when you step into the first world. The environments are impressively detailed and surreal. Each themed world is both cutesy and nightmarish in its own special way and has unique obstacles and creatures that want Rayman dead: weaponized fruit, gravity-defying piranha, and eyeballs that shoot lightning... I'm not kidding about the surreal part. It's like if Candy Land fucked Dir En Grey's Obscure music video. Did I mention Rayman doesn't have any limbs? He's a floating torso with magic hands and feet! Rayman himself is vibrant, animated, and aesthetically pleasing.

Bonus character for Assassin's Creed Rev.?

One thing Rayman will do is remind you that video games used to be hard. We all remember those days, don't we? Rayman's health doesn't regenerate and not all stages have a midway checkpoint. I don't think the game gives you nowhere as many continues as you need and that's my only real criticism of the game. You start out with 5 and I'd be surprised if a newcomer completes Dream Forest with more than 1 or 2. I've played quite a bit of the game lately and, far as I can tell, you can't get any additional continues unless you cheat (Up, Down, Right, Left on the Game Over screen when you have less than three continues remaining... you're welcome). Or maybe I should just suck it up and admit that modern gaming has spoiled me.

So if you like platformers and you've (somehow) skipped over Rayman, give it a shot. You probably won't be disappointed. Oh and speaking of French National Hero and Certified Ass-Kicker Michel Ancel...

My body is ready, Pey'j...

We await patiently for Beyond Good & Evil 2. 

How Much Can I Love Indie Games and Not Be Called a Hipster?

Is it ironic that I spent so little time editing this image or am I just lazy? Shit.

You know me guys. I'm a rabid gamer. PC and console primarily though I've had my tenure at the tabletop playing Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering, and others. So I'm reading through all kinds of articles on Kotaku, Gamespot, IGN, etc. today about the Bethesda-Notch debacle and I notice something: most of the argument in the comment sections, especially on Kotaku, seem to be focused on the issue of mainstream games vs. indie games. As in Skyrim vs. Minecraft.

I really love indie games because they're often significantly more inspired that mainstream games. Give me Braid over Black Ops any day. That's just the kind of guy I am.

If you didn't know me at all (perhaps you don't, I generally just assume my friends read this) and all you knew about me is that I loved playing Bastion and blogging about how Beyond Good & Evil is a work of pure genius, wouldn't you assume I was a hipster? What about the fact that I just listed three indie/cult games that all start with the letter B?

Maybe I am a "gaming hipster." But then again, hating hipsters is the new hipster. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play some more Barkley, Shut up and Jam! because it's so bad.

How Praise Turns to Criticism: Final Fantasy X. vs Final Fantasy XIII

This game can't be good... no online multiplayer.

Let me go ahead and get this out of the way: I fucking love the Final Fantasy series of video games. I've at the very least played every incarnation of the main series and most all of the spin-offs. I've fully completed IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XII. I came very close to finishing I and II. III I've spent the least amount of time with followed by V (which I'll be working through next). Oh, and yes, I played Final Fantasy XI and I enjoyed it while I did.

So, naturally, I was hella excited when XIII hit. I even took a picture of it with my phone and uploaded it to Facebook before I got home after the midnight release.
At that point I had a 360 so I popped my game in and started playing. Boy, was it beautiful! Everything looked amazing. Some of the first few battles kicked in and while I felt very limited to what I could do at first, more and more combat techniques starting creeping in. I started noticing similarities to Final Fantasy X, definitely one of the best entries in the series, after the introduction level. I quite enjoyed that first night playing it.

A few days later, I wanted to know what my friends thought about it. Their response was almost universally negative. In fact, one kid at school kept bugging me day after day with a new disparaging review he had read on Screw Attack, anecdotal stories about how "it was showing up in bargain bins for like $15 everywhere," and parroting oft heard criticisms of "it's too linear." I told everyone I enjoyed the game and they just couldn't believe it. It was like I was the sole defender and everyone who knew that just couldn't wait to tell me how they didn't like the game very much. I didn't really argue with them except to simply say that I didn't buy the linear argument for a second since I generally prefer linear games to sandbox games. Especially for a story-driven experience like Final Fantasy. However, one day I decided to fight back and I brought up how similar the game was to the much beloved Final Fantasy X.

Oh nostalgia!

For example, in both games, "summons" (Aeons for X, Eidolons for XIII) play a central role in the plot. Characters are driven to complete a task that will end with death for success or failure depending. The growth system ditches experience points completely and opts instead for a kind of map (Sphere Grid for X, Crystarium for XIII) that the player explores to unlock benefits and new techniques. Both games feature a theocratic body that engages in a sort of "Holy War" (Bevelle for X, Sanctum for XIII). Both games are linear with players advancing from one point to the next to further the plot and engage boss characters. Both games have minimaps used to steer the player to the next objective. Both games feature an large free-roaming area at the end of the game that can be explored. In both games many monsters are portrayed as corrupted souls ("fiends" being corrupted Unsent and "Cie'th" being I'Cie that didn't complete their Focus) Both games were also directed by Motomu Toriyama and both mark huge changes to the battle and development systems. On a more superficial note, both games are well-known for their graphical advances and lush, detailed environments.

So why then is Final Fantasy X lauded and Final Fantasy XIII derided by most players I've met? Most professional reviewers did give both X and XIII high marks. For one, XIII featured a hugely different battle system that was an evolution of Final Fantasy XII's love-it-or-hate-it ADB system. ADB played out more like an MMO with monsters roaming the field and battles taking place in the field without a separate "battle screen". X's Coditional Turn-Based Battle system is more like Final Fantasy Tactics than any other main series title and is miles different from the Active Time Battle system that the series used since IV. In ATB, time was always counting down and a characters could perform an action when their ATB gauge was full. CTB eliminates time pressure but creates a new kind of tactical pressure. It gives you a list at the right showing in what order each battle participant gets to act so you can choose whether to mount a full assault or build up your defenses for your enemies get their turns. XII drew much ire by some players for its departure, but was openly embraced by many more it seems. XIII is certainly no different.

Most interesting to me is the criticism of XIII being so linear. I didn't hear much mention of this when X came out. X and XIII are virtually similar in this regard. XIII does seem to have more FMVs than X, but the point still stands. There were a few that raised small objections lamenting the departure of the the controllable airships and open world maps, but these objections were minor and not shouted from the mountaintops like they were for XIII. But what do you expect? We live in an age where games like universally acclaimed games like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves still draw criticism, mostly by average Joe gamer and hardly ever by critics in this case, for being "too linear". It feels like every Western game has to have character customization and open worlds to be successful or "good".

Does nostalgia play a role? FFX's combat felt more traditional compared to anything that came after it. XII and XIII took bold steps in a new direction and seemed to step on a few toes in doing so.
So what gives? I'm not trying to make the argument that Final Fantasy XIII is as good as Final Fantasy X because I don't think it is. I do think it's a really good game. However, people who dish out harsh criticism of it, and then remember X so fondly perhaps need to think a little longer on the issue...