Left 4 Dead

In my extensive 10 years of dicking about on the internet, I’ve learnt a few things. Firstly, don’t click a link that your friend claims is “really funny”. Next, no-one cares that much about what you think about much (woah). And finally: generally speaking, the internet is a malevolent force. And of course, no unrelenting demonforce is complete without little helpers, manifested by the assorted detritus that is the internet community. Of course, most of them are good (apparently), but never is there a hive of more scum and villainy than internet gaming. Specifically, the first person shooter. For some reason, giving anonymous people virtual guns and telling each other to “basically, go nuts” is a bad idea in the end.

I’ve attempted playing Counterstrike: Source in the past, but that experiment endly rather quickly. Team Fortress 2 has been my loyal pet for quite a while now, but under the present situation my Steam client has decided it doesn’t want to update TF2, and instead amuses itself by crashing. So it was with reluctance I picked up Left 4 Dead, the newest game from Valve. I’m sure you all know about it, but for those who don’t: A group of 4 survivors fends off zombies (including powerful boss zombies) in an attempt to get to safety. Oh, and slight thing: All four survivors (and occaisonally the zombies) are controlled by real people supposedly working together over the internet. Let’s see how that pans out, shall we?

 

On the left: Uncensored box, as appears in the US, UK and Australia. On the right: Censored box seen in Japan and Germany, and completely missing the point.

First up, there’s not much use buying this without a good internet connection. The singleplayer teammate AI, although capable, lacks the random human element and motivation to keep going throughout the levels. They won’t take the lead, for instance, forcing you to keep the party going no matter how close to death you are. The game is controlled by a system known as The Director; it works well, assuming “well” means “Holy crap holy crap there’s zombies everywhere”. It does mean, however, the whole thing keeps fresh throughout the playthroughs. It’s a good thing, too, as there’s only four campaigns at the moment. Admittably, they are all broken up into lovely little chapters, but it seems Valve is banking on downloadable content (free for the PC, naturally). Each campaign will last you for about the same length as a short horror film, so be prepared to take breaks if you need them. Continuing with the whole cinematic thread, Left 4 Dead comes across as a delightful horror movie in its own right. Each campaign has the prerequisite cheesy title: Guess where “Blood Harvest” takes you through? Give up? IT’S A FARM, JACKASS. The graphics of the game are drained with some sort of film grain, almost giving the whole first-person thing a Cloverfield spin. And whilst the campaign’s loading you get a movie poster displaying the cast in this macarbe tale.

 

Nothing like an evening run to get the congealed pus oozing.

 

I suppose that brings us to the cast. Truth be told, there’s not much you can do in an online shooter in terms of character, but Left 4 Dead’s seem relatively well designed. The opening sequence illustrates their personalities perfectly: Bill, a Vietnam vet who’s also the group’s knowitall; Louis, a sarcastic office worker who also fills the niche for a stereotypical African-American; Francis, the biker who seems oddly comfortable holding a gun; and Zoey… The obligatory girl. The soundbites are well-written, though – even if they do announce every single reload – and they’ll play automatically if your character hears a boss zombie approaching or finds something useful. It’s handy not to have to deal with constant messaging (especially if you lack a headset), though there seems to be very few sound files for “I’m reloading”, which you will hear often.

 

If you don't get it, you never will.

 

The guns of the game feel very distinctive. True to Valve form, each weapon has tradeoffs or advantages, so they’re all balanced. You start off only being able to choose from two – a shotgun or an uzi – which is good enough on it’s own, really. Still, each player also starts with a pistol that never runs out of ammo, and soon you’ll be able to dual-wield them. And once you get a small way through a campaign’s chapters, you’ll get a bit more choice, with a combat shotgun, assault rifle or hunting rifle all up for grabs. Only one primary weapon at once, though, so there’s a fair degree of specialization required.

“But is it a true zombie game?” I hear you ask. Well, I’d first correct you by saying they’re not strictly speaking zombies (think more the Rage virus). And yes, I suppose it is. You’ll never feel completely at ease unless you’re in a safe house. The AI director ensures games maintain unpredictable, and you never know when an angry horde will come sprinting and climbing into your direction. You really get those “Oh, bollocks” moments when the Director decides to send zombies whilst you’re reloading, and having to shoot down a Smoker who’s busily choking your friend in the middle of a massive undead cluster is always tense. Oh, while we’re on the topic of bosses, you will learn to hate them. They’ll never catch you completely off guard, though, as you can normally hear their distinctive call or musical motif before they show up. Then there’s the witch. DO NOT DISTURB THE WITCH. Seriously though, there’s nothing more unnerving than having to move through the pitch-black (lights startle them, you see), listening to them sob whilst also hearing the groans of the horde getting closer…

 

Time until death: 0.01 seconds. Old design of Francis, by the way.

 

Is it a perfect game, though? Well, it depends. The largest gameplay quibble would be getting stuck with a bad team, though you can’t attribute that to bad game design. What you CAN attribute bad game design to, however, is the lack of a server select. Instead, the game forces you to use a lobby system, where you get thrown into a waiting room with random players. Of course, you could set up a password one, but it almost takes the whole server dedication away. I can report good ping, though, despite my lame internet, so it’s fine by me. Oh, and apparently there’s a fair amount of exploiting going on at the moment. It’s something that will be ironed out quickly, knowing Valve, but it’s still rather annoying for the time being if it happens to you. Still, slight niggles in gameplay or design can’t detract from the fact this is to date the definitive Zombie Survival game. So for a bit of shooting with randoms that doesn’t involve “OMG WTF HAX”, get your cold, clammy hands on Left 4 Dead.

 

They're absolutely DYING to get this game!

Call of Duty: World At War

I have the best metaphor for this game. Are you listening? Are you listening? Well, listen:

Although I wanted to blast COD:WaW into oblivion, break it’s morale and take it prisoner, its bravery and overall competency was enough to warrant a surrender.

I JUST BLEW YOUR MIND. Not really, but still, here we go. For those of you who have lives, Call of Duty: World at War is the next game in the Call of Duty series. Call of Duty games are normally noted for their World War 2 setting, linear but rewarding gameplay and an often grim portrayl of warfare. Then came along Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, a radical new imagining of the franchise, now offering… err… a linear but rewarding gameplay experience… and a… grim portrayl of warfare. Ah, yes, but this one was in a Modern Setting, which really made all the difference. As everybody knows, World War II happened a long time ago, and there’s only so many years worth of material you can scrounge up. So it was good to see a war game finally make a modern bent that ended up paying off. It appears the Call of Duty franchise has learnt from experience and… gone back to World War II. Riiiiiight. Don’t fret though, this isn’t permanent. Modern Warfare 2 is in production, and this game is made by Treyarch, who you may know as making the gawdawful Call of Duty 3. So their life was on the line here, as some friends of mine already made judgement simply because of this. Oh well. It can’t be that bad… right?

In short, no. In long, no game’s perfect. So let’s get right down to it, I suppose. Let’s start with the bad. The first, most obviously glaring point, is the World War 2 setting. Though something should probably be pointed out to you, the uninformed, that this particular World War 2 setting hasn’t really been seen before. World at War, amongst Russians holding back German forces, also features the rarely-before-seen Pacific Battleground, focusing on Americans turning the tide of the war against the steely Japanese (or Empire of the Rising Sun) warriors. Does it work? Yeah, it does. The pacific location is very effective even solely from the novelty, but it excels in instilling a different mindset of warfare in the player. I’m used to sniping Nazis whilst hiding in a church, or sniping Spetsnaz whilst hiding in an apartment block. In World or War, sniping’s never really come up. There’s trees everywhere (well, everywhere that hasn’t been bombed), and you never know where the enemy’s going to come from. Which brings us to the new enemy. I was always sort of scared of hearing about the Imperial Japanese troops. The dedication, often bordering on psychosis, these guys exhibited is something to be seen. Walking through the rainforest, you can never be entirely certain when there’s going to be an ambush. And then, suddenly: “BANZAI!”, and the soldier comes dashing towards you with a katana. Holy fucking shit. Okay, the life ’round they come out at exactly the same spot, but the first time around I have trouble aiming right. Oh, and then there’s the lesser-known “retard squad” of the Japanese forces. Yeah, the AI’s occaisonally comparable to a rock. Many times I’ve been standing right next to a Jap, whilst he focuses primarily on sniping the Marine four million miles away. Still, its’ nothing game breaking – just turn the difficulty up, I guess – and it still ends up with the feeling intact. Oh, now let’s move on to the depiction of war. This is probably the most brutal COD game I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing. It’s definitely not for the faint-of-heart, though I suppose that’s only a good thing when it comes to war. Single player is a relatively standard affair, following the two radically different stories of two radically different soliders. The differences between the two campaigns are more than purely cosmetic, too. As the Americans you’ll be fighting in an unconventional battlefield, varying from wide open fields to tight-knit jungles. It’s unpredictable, which works well for the setting and ambience of the levels. The Russian campaign sees a great deal more emotional involvement, fighting a war of revenge as the Soviet Army pushes back the nasty old Nazis out of the USSR. It’s literally a war of revenge, too: the very first level of the campaign sees you bleeding to death whilst German soldiers put down your comrades permanently. A lucky break means you get a new lease on life, however, and your squad leader (also part of the massacre) takes a particular hate to the Nazi swine. Both of your commanding officers in both of the campaigns are well-realised characters, each with their own motivation behind the military orders. Roebuck, your C.O. in the Pacific campaign, just wants peace and the end of the war to finally come. Reznov, your Ruskie leader, wants to kill every single German for everything they ever did. The guns feel sturdy throughout the game, and veterans of CoD 4 will have to change their tactics to keep up (?) with the guns of World War 2. Rifles are out in force, which means battle often feels slower and clunkier, but to a historical effect as opposed to bad design. The graphics utilise the same engine as its predecessor, so the game often feels like a full conversion of Modern Warfare. There has been, by the looks of things, some tweaking though, as flames and other environmental effects appear with more clarity and general prettiness-of-ugliness in the harshest of places. 

So that’s single player. Though when Modern Warfare was released, the game’s multiplayer seemed to be better received than the singleplayer. It’s hard to say exactly why, but the unlockable weapons system based on rank seemed to have something to do with it. So now Treyarch not only has to release a good World War 2 game (which is getting increasinly harder these days), they have to deliver the alread rabid fans more of the great multiplayer that is becoming synonymous with the CoD franchise. Let’s start with a word of warning. You can’t expect everything to be fair in WaW’s multiplayer. The fact that different weapons are unlocked depending on your level of XP (gained by kills, headshots, capturing the flag, et cetera, et cetera) means there will be players better off than you are to begin with. Or at least, players that have stuck by the game. There’s a fair amount of grinding involved with the multiplayer, as you’ll find yourself searching for 50 more XP so you can unlock the next weapon. Also a main feature of the game’s multiplayer is the Perks system. Perks (also unlocked by increasing in rank) bestow different advantages to the player, but only a few can be used in one loadout. Although it helps the diversity of players, you’ll find a few perks are… shall we say… Overpowered? True,  they each offer different things, but a few perks, in the right hands, can be nigh on unstoppable. Nevertheless, I enjoyed myself the entire time throughout the experience, simply because the options included are so damn liberating. Whatever mode you play, WaW will (probably) cater to it. The CoD games of late have also started to include new modes that put a spin on classic FPS fodder. Take “Hardcore” mode, for instance. In Hardcore, the HUD is completely removed, friendly fire is always on, and bullets do considerably more damage. It helps the overall realism, if that’s what you’re after, and is definitely for players with a bit more experience. I’m pleased to say World at War’s multiplayer carrys on the grand tradition of fine multiplayer from a well-renowned series.

I wasn’t expecting too much from World at War, to be honest. Another World War 2 shooter, from a developer with a slightly dodgy history, using the same engine as the last game from last year. And it a lot of respects, World at War isn’t exactly revolutionary. But it doesn’t have to be. It’s a solid game that gets by from the success of the game before it, and I can say it is the best WW2 game to date. Hopefully, then, it’ll be the last. 

 

It was only once they'd started burning the effigy of Churchill I'd realised I was on the wrong side.

Guitar Hero: Nerd Tour

Oops, that should be World Tour. Oh well, I guess it’s still applicable; after all, there’s a certain feeling you get within the first five minutes of playing a Guitar Hero game that niggles at your mind. It’s the realisation you’re standing in front of a TV holding what appears to be a Fischer-Price toy, twaddling in time with some notes going down the screen. Any little doubts soon fade away, though, and you enter a period of delusion I like to call “True Rockstar Status”, where you actually become convinced you are an actual Guitar Hero, and even start singing along or waving to your fans. I’ve considered using Guitar Hero as a way to impress chicks, but I imagine it wouldn’t turn out as well as it does in my mind. Anyway, onto the topic of tonight: Guitar Hero: World Tour is the fourth full game to come from the famous series, though not actually the fourth game overall. That doesn’t really matter though. So…

 

Fun for the whole family (assuming your family are cats)

 

Ever since Rock Band (developed by those scalliwags in charge of Guitar Hero 1 & 2, as well as the Rocks The ’80s expansion) was released, it became clear mere guitars weren’t going to sell games anymore, and thus the arms war of music-rhythm games began. Rock Band got off to a good start, but has been largely ignored in Australia since its release in November of 2007, as the game hasn’t come out in Australia for a fucking year later. I think largely on that I’ll be ignoring Harmonix’s release, and stay happy and satisfied with GH:WT. And satisfied I am, for I can easily say this is the best game in the series to date. I know, I know, as a reviewer I’m expected to say that, but this game really exceeded quite a few of my expectations. Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?

A music game lives or dies based on its setlist. Consumers today expect real songs (not covers) that translate easily onto notes, and also encapsulate the rocker aspect (or in this case, the feeling of being in a band). World Tour seems to carve its niche in all audiences, using a wide range of songs that I’m sure at least one of will appeal to everyone. I did notice, however, a particular propensity for heavy-rock (Or even *gasp* Metal songs!), so if you’re after an easy ride, you’ll be disappointed by the thrasho songs. There are quite a few classics that will no doubt be replayed time and time again, with songs-even-70s-children-will-like including Hotel California or Band On The Run (If you don’t know it, look it up). It’s got quite a few songs that stick to you, from Blink-182’s Dammit with its distinctive riff or Jimmy Eat World’s The Middle, with a chorus that can get anyone born in the 90s singing along. That isn’t even to mention the possible wealth of downloadable content already trickling onto the online store. If you’re a fan of Metallica, you’re in for a treat (or not), as their new album (Death Magnetic) is available for download. Failing that, songs like Jesse’s Girl or even Another Way To Die will keep the party going for as long as you can afford it.

 

No Mozart in this one. Sorry, no-one.

 

Keeping the arms war analogy, Harmonix and Neversoft must have two different research teams building increasingly more powerful peripherals. Hopefully this will continue until the two companies actually do break out into war, and I think I speak for all of us when I say “I look forward to two geeks bashing each others heads in with plastic guitars”. Anyway, the point is is that the peripherals of World Tour and Rock Band are at times eerily similar, and at others eerily different (right…). The biggest difference in the two setups are no doubt the drum kits. Rock Band was criticised by people with no life for not mirroring a drum kit in perfect correlation, whilst everyone else happily banged along in joyful bliss. It seems the drones at Neversoft have had the chance to learn from Harmonix’s mistakes, and the drum kit packaged with World Tour matches a real drum kit a lot better. You have 6 notes in all on a drum kit in WT: 3… Normal drums… 2 cymbal thingies… and a foot pedal. The whole thing seems pretty sturdy, and is obviously built to take a bit of a beating. Unfortunately, the thing is still riddled with some design bugs, as my cymbals are occaisonally unresponsive. I did a bit of home-tuning this evening though, and they seem to be working okay for now. In any case, having not experienced Rock Band’s guitar I’m not authorized to comment on the difference, but I can say World Tour’s guitar is an improvement over GH3. The whole thing feels sturdier and weightier and helps the illusion of playing a guitar, and the widened strum bar is a suprising massive improvement. There is also, of course, the touch bar (I’m pretty sure that’s not its real name; it makes it sound like an awesome tavern), built for even more “Real Rocker” moments. Basically, certain notes in certain songs can be played just by sliding your fingers along the bar, and feeling incredibly smooth whilst doing it. So the guitar and drums appear to be pretty well made. As for the microphone… To tell the truth, there’s no way to fuck up a microphone. I just want to see the next step taken and make the damn thing wireless; something that will help set up my concerts more effectively in future.

 

The next logical step for the series?

 

There’s a lot of little and not-so-little touches that help the whole World Tour experience. I should mention the fact that this Guitar Hero is not, in fact, sponsered by any one guitar manufacturer. It’s a big change, as it means you’re no longer stuck with the reasonably bland, untouchableGibson designs as seen in the last game. It helps facilitate a great degree of customization, as you now have the ability to build your own guitar. Choose your own body shape, headboard and so on, and go w ild with the designs. I’ve already made a guitar to call my own, and I like to think it’ll be a worldwide-recognised symbol of ROCK. The possibilities truely are amazing, especially when coupled with the Bass and Drum customization options (there’s one for mics, too, but the options are rather… limited). I’ve spent quite a great deal of time making my own axes, and as long as I keep getting designs I’ll keep swapping them around. Ooh, that brings me to another great part of the game. After so long of having to use rockers thinly disguised by having their names changed, you finally have the option of making yourself (or at least, someone you want to be). First you pick an “attitude”, ranging from Rock or Pop to Black Metal or Classic Rock. The changes are purely cosmetic and don’t affect your playing, just what actions your character does whilst onstage. The real fun comes in customizing your clothing or using the extensive tattoo system to deck out your Hollaback Girl (ahem) in some sweet threads with an eagle on her back. Not that I do that, of course. There’s a lot of other little things that keep the game fresh; or at least, not frustrating. I’m not going to give them a seperate paragraph, so here they are: The ability to line up a setlist, so you don’t have to choose a new song one at a time; the changes to your concert venue during encores, which can include accidentally lighting a banner on fire above your band; and last (but certainly not least) the epic – and I mean epic – music creation studio. I mean, this thing is in-depth. Theoretically, you could produce whole new songs on this as effectively as a slightly-crippled guitar, and already people have no doubt started posting knock-offs online. Me, I’m waiting for a recreation of the B-52s’ Rock Lobster. Then I’ll make a red lobster guy with a lobster guitar to play it on.

And it shall be awesome.

So yeah, World Tour is pretty good, assuming you have the friends or family to play it with. Although the set list isn’t exactly ideal, there’s a great list of downloadable content already on its way. The peripherals may occaisonally act up, but it’s not something liable to damage your overall enjoyment. That’s not even mentioning the massive creation aspect, coupled with the create-a-rocker/guitar/drum kit/bass facilities. Frankly, the customization options make this game more than just another Guitar Hero or Rock Band knock-off, and help give it wings as a game of its own. And what a game.

My 9 Or 10 Lives

What is it about my life that is so boring I have to find other ones? I’m sure there are many answers, and many a late night is spent adding to the list. Though I’m not the only one feels this way. As a small interlude before launching into this article, allow me to present you with some statistics:

• The best selling PC game of all time is The Sims, having sold at least 16 million copies.
• Its sequel, predictably named The Sims 2 is number 3 on the list, having sold at least 13 million copies.

Now, take another look at those statistics. 16 million copies. This beats the amount of World of Warcraft players by 5 million (WoW’s playerbase is just over 11 million, based on October 2008 data).

Yeah, apparently.

 

What does this mean, you may ask. It’s quite possible living a virtual “real” life is more addictive than living a virtual fantasy life. So this article is dedicated to those games that, despite simulating a life that may seem boring, never let you go.

Let’s start with the biggie: The Sims series. Released in 2000, the original Sims took the world by storm, offering gameplay never seen before by a PC audience: Nothing. Tell you what, innovation’s sure as hell changed since then. Anyway, The Sims was notable in that it attracted a massive female audience, notoriously hard to reach in standard games. But what was the lasting appeal of a game like this? Player-made content, it would seem. The Sims 2, with its relatively simple video or photo-capture equipment, provided a springboard for players wanting to post their creations over the internet to anyone willing to look them up on Youtube.

Watch it. All of it. Anyway, that’s not all the internet creates when given little fake people. Some people (ranging anywhere in computer literacy between “master coder” and “Brick with a lemon on it”) go to the trouble of creating new clothes, makeup, genetics, houses, beds, toilets, ad nauseum, for their scene teen Sims. I must admit, I’ve partaken in several years of The Sims, and it pains me to admit I’m looking forward to the release of The Sims 3. Why? There’s a couple of reasons. Firstly, The Sims allows me to create a fantasy world I’d rather live in. It’s very easy to make Sims that look like yourself and your friends, and then it’s just as easy to go wild and hook two up. Every time I play a neighbourhood of my virtual self (often living close to other real-life friends), I’ve married the same girl, often divorcing her to marry a different one when the need arises. My little superego remains the only version of me to have had children and a successful job. If anything, playing The Sims 2 ticks me off more than amuses me, as the smiling effigy I name “Healey” seems to be saying to me, “That’s right. YOU’LL NEVER ACHIEVE THIS.” Then I deprive him of sleep. It’s oddly theraputic, satisfying both my lofty lifegoals and my sadistic fantasies in one sitting. And now I sound like a crazy person, so I’m going to move right along. The Sims, along with many other of Will Wright’s games (see Spore) keeps fresh based on the creativity of its users. Whether or not that’s a good thing remains to be seen, and hopefully number three maintains its moddability. Until then, I’m going to create a new neighbourhood and get married again.

As far as occupations go, farming must be pretty boring. Waking up at 4, scooping animal dung with a pitchfork, eating the half-dead corn you grew yourself… Oh, and fun fact: Farmers have the 8th highest death rate as a profession in America. It’s odd then, that the Harvest Moon series has been going on since 1996, and was first playable on the almight SNES (Super Nintendo Entertainment System). The basic premise of the game hasn’t changed: You maintain a farm in a small town. Along the way, you have the chance to raise animals, make friends with the villagers, get married to one of the local ladies, and participate in some of the local festivals. Yep. That’s about it. It keeps going, and will keep going indefinitely, unless you overwrite your game. Your kid (When/if you have one) will always be a tiny baby, even after fifty years of marriage. Creepy, yeah. Anyway, Harvest Moon tends to be less about custom-content or fancy-schmancy graphics, and more about… err, repetitive tasks. Somehow it works, and a lot of people report the games to be rather theraputic. I’ve noticed it too; after a couple of years of trying to attract the local nurse, I couldn’t help but think of the futility of life itself, and began another slow spiral into depression I hadn’t felt since I played The Sims 2. The game’s enjoyment comes almost entirely from the sense of freedom. I mean, sure, running a farm is fun, but sometimes I snuck in a quantum of solace and went fishing instead, or dedicated an entire day to cooking for the lady I wanted to woo. Come to think of it, if I put as much time into real life as I did Harvest Moon, I might actually have a girlfriend and fishing prize by now. Still, its easy to take refuge in the mundanity. Rather than worrying about deadlines or civil war, it’d be easier to go farming for a while. Oddly enough, Harvest Moon is a perfect game to play for something relaxing or to get rid of tension; Y’know, before going off to play a killer rock solo or sometahing. Though the odds are if you’re playing Harvest Moon you’re probably not likely to be playing killer rock solos. At least, not on a real guitar.

There’s a great article out there written by someone using the alias of “Chewbot”, chronicling his dark misadventures through the world of Animal Crossing. Animal Crossing is another life simulator. Come to think of it, of course it’d be; that’s what this article is about. Anyway, Animal Crossing takes place in a bizarre world where the player is the only person and the rest of the inhabitants of the town of Animal Crossing are all… Animals. Hmm. You know, I really should’ve paid more attention before writing this article. Anyway, like Harvest Moon, Animal Crossing is all about living a lovely boring life. Having not played the game myself, I can’t attest to any first-hand praise or criticism of the game. As ar as I can tell, though, Animal Crossing is even less goal-orientated than Harvest Moon, with no farm to run or “must-reach” goals. The only real goal could be getting your loan paid off, as you’re basically imprisoned by the local business owner, Tom Nook (a raccoon. Go figure.) until you release yourself from his financial oppression. The series is well-known (Well, to its fans) for the cute art style and utter charm it permeates. Not only that, but the DS version (Wild World) uses the DS’s internal clock, thus the game is played in real time. I guess if it’s utter realism you’re after, it works (considering the… well, unrealistic setting) but I’ve often found myself irritated with real-time events. It often means if you can only play games at certain times (eg, not during work or school hours) you’ll find yourself constantly missing out on events ingame. Then again, there is the other way; I’ve heard a report of a student who ran out of a university exam to play through a festival occuring in his own little Animal Crossing. Personally, I think if there’s a game that has that great an effect on you, there’s even more support for a matrix-esque virtual reality life system. Well, either that or a real life. Who am I to talk about real life, though, when I’m a gamer? Maybe I’ll go ask one of my Sims about it.

Sado-Masochism: Why I Love Gaming

On a side note, I’ve just realised I should probably put a little more thought into my titles.

A lot of people don’t understand gaming as a hobby. So often, my parents, friends, relatives and even just assorted people express disbelief at how my Waste-of-Time hobby is helping me. One particular event comes to mind: I was playing Call of Duty 4 on my trusty Playstation 3. It’s the flash-back sniper mission; basically, the very end of the level sees you holding off a massive force of assorted Soviet “terrorists”. Simply put, it was not a good night for me. It’s probably about the time I wandered (rather casually; or perhaps obliviously) into a nest of the buggers, and was promptly turned into an attractive display case for Soviet-made bullets. I did the gamer’s flail (you know, the one where your limbs go limp and your face becomes enraged/saddened) and not-so-silently seethed at this stupid game. Upon selecting “Restart” for the umpteenth time, my father asked me, “If you keep dying, why do you bother playing?”. It was probably more his way of an insult (Good old Dad) than an actual philosophical question, but it still made me think. And as I once again got shot twelve hundred times with a semi-automatic, I had to ask myself. In my entire life of gaming, there’s one game I’m yet to do well in. I’ve been trying it recently, and if I ever get to a reasonably successful state of gameplay, the internet will be the first to know. Anyway, the game’s Simcity 4.

SimCity 4 owns me.

Although the damn game is 5, almost 6 years old, I can’t quit it. It calls to me late at night, when I’m trying to sleep. “Beeenn,” it sings; “Come play with me. Come make a city in your image. Name it Healeyville…” And even though I resist, saying “It’s too difficult”, I always end up building a crappy railway system in a crappy industrial zone hoping to get my crappy city’s population over 1000. I played it last night, you know. For a minute, I was confident. My rail system was working, for Sim’s sake. I was balancing the books just right.. And then it happened. I got greedy. I tried to build an education system. Within minutes, all my money was gone. “I hate this game” I said to myself, before trying the damn thing again. Why, then, do I play this game; or indeed, any game? Easy.

To Win.

I know, I know, it sounds immature. But why else would I do it? Storyline, maybe. Characters, not a chance. In every game I’ve played, despite how drawn in I am by graphics, plot, or…. physics, the need to win keeps me in. Maybe that’s where a lot of the criticism of the internet culture was born. I have one friend (Who will remain pretty nameless) who is obsessed with online FPS playing. I must admit, I was the one who first told him about COD4 (a relative favorite of his), so maybe this monster is my creation. Still, I’ve seen the change it had on him. He’s become obsessed with winning in his games. I didn’t actually believe in the stereotype, but now I’ve seen it bloom. In my short stint of playing Counterstrike: Source, I encountered the stereotypical online competitive gamer. “Fag” to them is a noun, pronoun, adjective and verb. That’s probably just one indication of their bloodthirstiness. In short, they (which now includes my friend) are the dark side of winning. Though the definition of “Hardcore” is probably for another study session, so I think I’ll wrap it up. Winning is often what brings gamers together. Though once in a while it’s important to remember the desire to win is often what breaks gamers apart.

Anyway, back onto my point (Which I was informed I sort of missed). Let’s get back to that Simcity 4 game. SimCity 4 is a good example of my answer as to why I love gaming. Despite the fact SimCity 4 breaks my morale at every chance, I keep going back to it. As I said, I want to win. Though (and here’s the crux) if a game isn’t fun, I won’t be playing. Yeah, I love gaming because its fun. Who’d've seen that coming? And maybe (Like so many people) I love a challenge. If a find a game fun, I’ll keep playing until it destroys me. Thus, you could probably simplify this concept to a formula of some sort. So I guess what I’m saying (In so many bloody words) is that so long as a game is enjoyable I’ll play, no matter how much I hate it. Here’s something I’ll admit: Despite the fact I own Crysis, I have never actually completed it. Why? It wasn’t that fun for me. Even though the challenge gave me something to reach for, the gameplay itself gave me no motivation. So here it is.

I play games to win them. I won’t play a game unless it’s fun, though. Ask anyone I’ve ever played Buzz with. Well, that’s that. Stay tuned for less majorly philosophical topics on gaming, and maybe I’ll call someone a n00b.