Geek Beats Episode #2: Sypro the Dragon

Recently I was watching some of the Did You Know Gaming videos on YouTube (it's a great series, I suggest you check it out if you haven't already), and I stumbled onto their video on the Spyro the Dragon series. The second I clicked play and the music started the nostalgia bug bit me again. I knew I had to talk about this game and, more importantly, the awesome music associated with it.

Spyro the Dragon is a 3D platformer developed by Insomniac Games for the PlayStation. It was originally created because Sony wanted more kid friendly games to compete with Nintendo. The game follows the adventures of scrappy young dragon Spyro as he roams around the Dragon Realms in order to free the other dragons of the land that have been frozen inside crystalline statues by banished antagonist Gnasty Gnorc. Enemy interaction with the playable character was implemented, bringing a unique charm to gameplay. A.I. would react to Spyro's presence with taunts and charges rather than following a static movement line. It was definitely one of the best platform games for PlayStation at the time, and of course it had some really amazing music as well.

The music of Spyro the Dragon was composed and performed by Stewart Copeland, former drummer of The Police. Many of the pieces or musical motifs from the game have been used in other Copeland pieces, such as the theme to The Amanda Show (hopefully some of you out there are old enough to remember Amanda Bynes' early years... you know... before the crazy). Each track has a fresh and catchy theme. The title screen theme, along with many others, features a driving bass line, twangy guitar, catchy drum beat, and vamping synth. Every home world has its own essence, and the musical themes fit every location.

Here is the opening title theme.

Game: Spyro the Dragon
Title: Opening Titles
Composer: Stewart Copeland

As an added bonus, I wanted to include gameplay of my favorite home world and favorite theme from the game.

Title: Magic Crafters Homeworld

Spyro the Dragon Wiki
DYKG Spyro the Dragon

The True Price of Cinematic Games - The Last of Us Thoughts: Part 2

There's a lot of ongoing talk concerning games that are highly cinematic and whether they should really be considered "video games" as we understand them or be put into an entirely different category altogether. The Last of Us has particularly been the example game in this debate, but I'm not here to argue for or against what the technical classifications of a game of this type should be. My real issue is with what The Last of Us offers and whether or not it's really worth $60 out the gate.

My previous post about The Last of Us expressed my disappointment in the ending of the game, and coupled with my short play time of only about 13 hours, I personally did not feel like this game warranted a full price tag. If I had picked this game up day one, I would have been upset about spending that kind of money. A general counter to this argument is usually how the multiplayer mode makes up for the short gameplay, but that only brings up another bothersome can of worms. Why does every game need a multiplayer mode? And furthermore, why does the mere existence of a multiplayer mode in a game supposedly justify the cost of a game?

All of this is more or less here to lead up to what could be a bold but possibly advantageous decision to make by a publisher of a story and cinematic-driven game. Instead of creating a multiplayer mode that is statistically destined to die out fairly quickly, how about just saving that money? A successful multiplayer experience in a game is a good way to encourage players to buy new and retain their copy of the game for its replay value instead of immediately selling the game back to stores like Game Stop. If a dev and publishing team cannot ensure a good multiplayer experience, then they might as well leave it out altogether.

Here's where the REALLY crazy idea comes in. Once the decision to leave out a multiplayer mode is made, sell the game cheaper at launch. Hear me out... The reason this could work is because right now, relatively short, cinematic games fall somewhere between longer games with much higher replay value or higher gameplay hours clocked in and epic movie trilogies. If there was a price tag attached to cinematic games that reflected the time commitment and value to playability in relation to longer games and movies, then I would wager more people would be inclined to pick it up new rather than wait for a cheaper used copy at some later time. If used games sales are so bad for devs and publishers, this could be a way to help counteract Game Stop's effectiveness. $40-45 for 13 hours of gameplay sounds a lot better than $60 if you're comparing it to a Skyrim, Fallout, Far Cry etc. that can give you anywhere from 30-100 hours of gameplay.

Obviously this wouldn't work in every situation, and it would be a big risk for a publisher to take, but I would love to see more price flexibility in general. With so much debate surrounding cinematic games' true value, this would be the best starting place for big publishers to take a chance at shaking up the status quo.

The Last of Us: Overview Thoughts - Part 1

I finished The Last of Us a little while ago, and although I'll put a foot on the bandwagon and agree that it is a game with a phenomenal story, there's definitely been something bothering me about the amount of hype vs. actual gameplay as far as my personal experience went. As an average Jane, I don't have the ability to run out and buy every hot game as soon as it hits the shelves, so I inevitably end up reading other people's opinion about a game before I myself get a crack at it. In the case of The Last of Us, it was particularly the ending that was so unlike the impression I had gotten from other people's opinions that it left me with a sour taste. Statements from average fans of the game as well as highly regarded video game reviewers painted a picture in my head of a game that was completely strong from beginning to end, that gave the player a sense of closure and satisfaction, and that, most importantly, actually ended. Like, wrapped it up, all the way, no loose ends. A game with a beginning, middle, and end. And the end is the end... I don't know if any of you realize how rare a game like that is, or any story-based entertainment for that matter, but when I believed that The Last of Us was one of those games it made me excited, and I'll explain why.

Too much of a good thing can turn into a bad thing very quickly and easily. As much as I love certain video game, movie, and t.v. show series, I always want it to end before it's overstayed its welcome. That's why certain series (The Simpsons and Assassin's Creed, for example) are killing me inside; these are series that flourished at one point, providing compelling storylines and genuine entertainment based on ingenuity. But to me, they're losing their character, the thing that made them what they were in the first place. I hate to see that in new IP more than anything, which is why the prospect of a game that can be stand alone and do extremely well without needing to be open ended is such a powerful gesture.

To put it bluntly, I'm the one who goes, "Come on, devs, don't punk out. Kill that character off if you got the balls the do it, you know that's a better story, so do it!" I'm not saying that I wanted any particular character killed in The Last of Us, I'm just giving an example of my mindframe concerning this topic.

In any case, in the ever raging battle of "Bioshock Infinite vs. The Last of Us: who dun it better?" I think I'm going to preliminarily side with Bioshock for the time being. It gave me what I wanted, a story that was essentially uncompromising in its ending (and I do say "essentially" because I acknowledge what argument could be used against this). Of course, I'll reserve final judgement until I play through both games again.

Maybe this is why I like George R.R. Martin so much, that guy's not afraid to kill anyone.

Geek Beats: Episode #1

What's not to love about good video games and good music? I would wager that most of the world has heard the iconic scores from franchises such as Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, and Final Fantasy. For me, music and video games have been a major part of my life for years. I've been a band geek since elementary school, have played many different instruments, and even graduated from college with a degree in Music Theory and Composition. As long as I've been playing music, I have also been gaming, and one of my favorite things is to listen to great video game music. I've decided to incorporate my two loves through this blog to show you all songs from games that maybe you've never played before, or perhaps you've forgotten about a game and the nostalgia boot kicks you in the ass. These are just my opinions on my favorite songs, so feel free to love it or hate it.

My first pick today resulted from my own nostalgia ass-kicking a few days ago when I was browsing YouTube and stumbled upon the music from the game Soul Blade. I find it suiting that this is my first pick because this was the very first game I bought as a kid without any help from my parents, and independence as a child is the cornerstone of fond memories.

Soul Blade is a 2-player Fighter developed by Namco that was released as an arcade game until its port to the PlayStation. The game was the predecessor of the Soul Calibur series and established the lore of subsequent games. From what I can remember from my six-year old opinion, the gameplay was great, and it spurred my obsessive love of fighting games for the next ten years or so. But the music, now THAT was fantastic. The opening song is a driving rock tune that sets the stage for the tone of the game and serves as a good contrast to the more orchestrated sounds of the in-game score. On the game disk there was an option to go into Theater Mode where you could listen to all of the game music and see the cutscenes, and I spent a lot of time there listening to the two different soundtracks that were created for the game. Super nerdy, I know. Don't judge me, I'm a band geek and video game nerd rolled into one, I can't help it.

Without further ado, here is the opening title.

Game: Soul Blade/Edge
Title:  The Edge of Soul - performed by Khan
Album: Soul Edge Original Soundtrack - Khan Super Session

Oculus Rift: The Future is Now! And it's a little nauseating...

I want to try the Oculus Rift. Why? For the obvious reasons, of course. This machine has been making big headlines since E3 throughout the gaming community and beyond; it has been heralded as the dawn of a new era of gaming and technology, with the ability to change the way in which we play, view, and experience. Those are pretty lofty opinions, so of course I would want to decide whether the Oculus Rift stands up to the hype for myself. However, I've found that I have been forming an opinion about this virtual reality breakthrough through reading articles and watching reviews, and there are issues that I have with the system that will not be put to rest until I strap the goggle-like contraption on and take it for my own test drive.

The matter of physical limitations when using the Oculus Rift interests me more than anything. At this point, I've seen enough YouTube videos of people falling over, getting sick, or just generally losing their minds at what they are experiencing to wonder how much thought is going into the idea that something like this can be dangerous, physically and mentally. From what I've seen of the general population using the Oculus Rift, it serves more as a dare machine than anything else, something where people get together and see who is the first to fall or vomit or break something.

Obviously, there is personal responsibility involved in knowing your limitations, but because VR technology has never reached the scope of what the Oculus Rift has achieved, there is not much prior knowledge at hand for people to make that call. Using myself as an example, I know that I am excited and thrilled to ride a rollercoaster despite the sinking feeling in my stomach, I do not care for 3D movie experiences, I only play a Nintendo 3DS with the 3D feature enabled for minutes at a time, and I am not particularly one to get motion sickness. I'd wager that I would last a good 5-10 minutes in an Oculus Rift headset before I gave up, but there's no way to know without experience. However, I cannot imagine a situation in which I had to play through an entire game using the Oculus Rift.

To me, this problem is only enhanced by taking into consideration something like the Uncanny Valley of gaming mechanisms. Examining the world inside the Oculus would feel so close to real and almost believable, but there would always be limitations to how far your brain can register this virtual world. In my opinion, the worst thing that a developer could do would be to try and create a game that strives for perfect realism as opposed to new fantastical environments. The disconnect between the brain's knowledge of the real world and the slight deviations from that knowledge which would come from a realistic game would almost be unbearable. (Sounds a lot like Desmond in the Animus, if you ask me)

Despite some of my concerns, I do feel that there will be a place for the Oculus Rift. Experiences that rely heavily on passive involvement as opposed to active participation will most likely be the most immersive. I was really impressed by the use of the Oculus Rift coupled with Google Maps which allowed users to view any location in the world as if they were there themselves. It's amazing to imagine the possibility of someone who would never have the opportunity to visit the Eiffel Tower or Great Pyramids looking up at a lifelike simulation of them as if they were right there in front of these wonders. Hands-free gaming will be reborn with new possibilities. And for those who can handle it, horror games and film will become all too real, which is perfect for fans of the genre. I guess this is another one of those situations in which only time will tell, and hopefully within that time I'll get to have a chance with the Oculus Rift myself.

Used Games: Don't Give Them Up Just Yet

Even before talk of the Xbox One and its now-nullified policies on used games came to light, I read plenty of articles and watched vlogs debating the state of used games on the gaming market. I am in no way an expert on the dealings of markets or the intricacies of supply and demand or anything of the sort, but I do find it interesting that there is such a split opinion about what will happen if companies do eventually do away with the ability to buy used games for their consoles.

There is something that hasn't sat quite right when I read the argument for the abolishing of used games, especially when this is coupled with the digital-only distribution of games, and that's the idea that games will suddenly become cheaper. The way it usually goes is that because publishers won't have to deal with packaging a physical product and sending it to stores to be sold, they will save more money and send those savings down to the customers, in either quicker drops in prices from the initial release or in cheaper prices up front. What doesn't make sense is the idea that this will result in cheaper prices for everyone buying the game. Why would a AAA industry that is, in this day and age, consistently in the red over the cost of big budget games create a way in which to assure more profit for themselves only to turn around and give back the money they stated they desperately need in the first place? This seems pretty impractical if they are trying to find ways to stop hemorrhaging money.

The thing that confuses me the most is how the people who advocate for the good of the end of used games even come to some of the conclusions that they do. Almost every opinion I've seen is theoretical, or based on sales of other forms of media. I've seen streaming services such as Netflix or HBO Go, iTunes, and Steam all used as examples of other products and services switching to digital forms and being successful. However, the thing that all of these arguments fail to mention is that 1, there is still currently a way to get physical copies of these mediums (well, maybe not Steam so much, but it's part of the video game conundrum), and 2, all of these other mediums have other competitors which drives down the price of its services.

Movies: Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, Crackle, iTunes, Redbox Instant, Amazon, Blockbuster
Music: iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, Pandora, Spotify, Grooveshark, Last.fm, HDtracks, Bandcamp
Video Games: Steam, Amazon, Origin, Gamers Gate, Green Man Gaming, GOG, GameStop, Desura, Beamdog, Get Games... to name a few examples...

If Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo held the monopoly on what could be bought to be played on their consoles, there would be no competition and thus no reason to provide better services or competitive prices. The only assurance that anyone has that this type of thing won't happen is the word of the company, which, in some cases, has clearly shown the exact opposite to be true. Microsoft has already had the opportunity to prove to customers that its policies on digital distribution will be positive and consumer-friendly by way of the Xbox Marketplace, but it has consistently sold games out of the Marketplace at full or close to full price way after the release date compared to other mediums such as Steam or used games.

What it all boils down to for me, and probably for most people on the side of skepticism, is that console companies have given absolutely no reason to trust them with this sort of power, and in some cases have given reason to do just the opposite. The used game market is arguably the only thing that does create competition with console producers. To give that up is to give away the only thing keeping these companies from charging literally as much as they possibly can.

The State of League of Legends Gamecasting

So, I've been watching a ton of the League of Legends Championship Series on Twitch.tv lately (I'm sure I'll come back and address my new found obsession with League of Legends at some point), and I've realized just how young and new this game and it's fanbase is just by looking at one thing: the speaking ability of both the game casters and players. 

I'm not hating on anyone's ability to publicly speak; I know I personally suck at doing it. But it's interesting to watch the championships and compare the tone, word choice, articulation, etc. of the casters in the LCS to that of, say, a professional sportscaster of the NFL, NBA, or even another esport. I've watched a good amount of Call of Duty championship casters, and sometimes it's clear which game has been around longer by how well the casters are able to cast the game. 

In the defense of LCS casters, though, it is important to note the nature of the game. There are so many different champions, attacks, items, monsters, etc. that it is a wonder how these people can even follow anything at all. As a beginner, I am always thoroughly impressed in the casters' ability to follow and talk through a 5v5 engagement, calling out the attacks used with no hesitation. I just think that as time goes on, the casters will find an even more articulate rhythm to their voice.

As for the player interviews, I would hope that at some point there will come a time in which players are essentially coached through how to hold an interview. Obviously some are better than others, as is the case for all players who are interviewed in other sports, but I know that I have a lot of problems following what some players are saying during their after-game interviews. Hopefully this is an issue that will be solved with more time and experience.