Video Game Violence, Part Trio

Heavy Rain, QuanticDream's heavily anticipated "interactive movie" (their words, not mine) experience developed exclusively for the Playstation 3, released to a flurry of positive reviews this past week, and the flurries of snow here in Chicago didn't stop anyone here in the Chi from picking up the game - including one of my brother seminarians.

I have yet to play or even watch the game myself; however, the buzz about the game has reached my ears, and as it has some pertinence to the oft-discussed topic of video game violence here on CathVG, I'm going to offer the readership a chance to comment on it.

Now, the lexicon of the video gamer "chattering class" is awfully pretentious (the diction employed to describe the gaming experience is strictly limited to words like "innovative," "immersive," and "deep," and there's rarely any substantive attempt to distinguish between terms). Still, describing Heavy Rain as "immersive" is probably an understatement. The game takes a sort of "choose-your-own-ending" approach to the story; every action you as a player undertake has a dramatic effect on the story's progression. Anyone remember the "Goosebumps" books from the 90's, with the funky "alternative endings?" Yeah, it's kinda like that, only there's a seemingly limitless amount of endings to the story in Heavy Rain. Why is this important? Read on, gentle reader, read on...

Heavy Rain also "immerses" the player in its utilization of the Playstation 3's motion-sensing controller. Case in point: you character is a gun-wielding, neo-noir detective. You hold the controller as if you were holding a handgun (not too disimilar to the "light gun" arcade games of yore) as your character is forced with a moral dilemma: shoot an innocent bystander in cold blood (and thus save the character's son), or choose to back off and watch someone else die the same brutal death.

THE PLAYER pulls the trigger - or at least, this is what the game compels the player to think, as the motion-sensing control scheme demands that the player simulate the actual murder sequence.

So...with an immersive setting like that of Heavy Rain, is the moral culpability of the player any different? It's awfully clear that the developers are pushing the envelope in that direction, blurring the line between the "player-as-viewer" and "player-as-agent," per se. At the very least, the postmodern, "it's all just a matter of perspective..." thematic is certainly a part of this game, and for this reason alone I will say, without hesitancy: DO NOT buy this game for your 4-year-old grandson/nephew/brother. Even then, given that this game deliberately attempts to soothe away the pangs of a guilty conscience in its portayal (simulation?) of murder, well, I'm not sure if anyone else should be playing it, either.

That being said, I await the judgment of those who have actually, you know, played the game.

Dan Akroyd Hopes "Ghostbusters" Video Game Lays Groundwork for New Movie

Interesting Article from the "Arts and Entertainment" Section of today's LA Times:

"On June 16, Atari will release the much-anticipated "Ghostbusters" title...there is intense consumer interest in this game, and it brought together the core of the original cast for voice work - two facts that have restarted the dormant "Ghostbusters" filmmachinery."

"Ivan Reitman, producer and director of the two films, said the video game essentially hit the restart button on the franchise."

I've never watched any of the Ghostbusters movies, but I understand that many a movie buff will rejoice at the announcement of a new installment in this venerated series. However, the idea that a movie-to-game adaptation is going to "revive" a franchise seems silly to me. Gamers know all too well that, with very few exceptions (such as Capcom's Aladdin game for the SNES as well as the various LOTR games that have been released simultaneously with their movie counterparts), video games based on movies are nothing more than quick cash-ins for corporations to make a few extra millions off the success of a blockbuster movie franchise.

Now, there are signs that indicate this game won't be the typically worthless corporate rip-off crap gamers are used to. It's not being released as part and parcel of a movie release, so it needs to be a product that stands out on its own merits; secondly, it's been in production for a significant amount of time (some, as the article points out, would argue it's been in production for too long!), meaning that game-breaking glitches and bugs won't be a source of consternation for gamers who are becoming increasingly impatient with technical improprieties in video games. All in all, gaming fansites and magazines have been giving it fairly positive press, though to label it as a gaming hype juggernaut is probably overstating things. I'm don't think the article is trying to say that, though...

If the Ghostbusters brand name is strong enough, however, even harsh reviews won't deter good sales - and, consequentially, the movie sequel Aykroyd wants - because despite the complaints and poor reviews from the hardcore gaming populace, movie-to-game tie-ins DO often sell gangbusters at retail, even if they are dwarfed by their bigscreen film counterparts. The question is: Can Aykroyd hope to fall back on this if the game is indeed a critical failure? Can the specter of a new Ghostbusters movie potentially propel sales of the game, as well (methinks this is the REAL purpose of the article, FWIW). Most importantly: Is this game look like it's going to be anything particularly memorable? I certainly could care less for it, but not being a Ghostbusters fan anyway, I'm not the target audience for the product in question. For those of you out there who do happen to consider yourselves Ghostbusters fans, though...anything to add?

Star Ocean vs. Star Trek

On Sunday night I saw the new Star Trek movie. It has its rough spots, particularly in the first half of the movie, but it all comes together quite nicely in the end. I left the theater feeling a little underwhelmed, but satisfied. I don't think it deserves the lavish critic praise its received (95% rating from rottentomatoes.com? are you kidding me?), but I can at least give the movie a mild recommendation.

I also managed to finish off Star Ocean this weekend, and my feelings regarding the game are actually remarkably similar. I made no secret of my disdain for the narrative portion of the game in my last post, but the second half of the game (the last two discs combined took me approximately 24 hours to complete, barely longer than the entirety of the first disc) actually incorporates some much-needed character development, plot expansion, and some much-needed puzzle elements into the mix. Rather than feeling embarrased that I was sitting through 30 minute sessions of vapid dialogue from inane, uninspired characters, I was genuinely impressed with the writing and the overall plot structure. The gameplay, too, generally improved as I gradually reached the game's climax - the characters eventually faced off with a nihilistic nemesis bent on destroying the universe in the name utilitarianism (are you paying attention, Trekkies?)! Overall, like Star Trek, I can't help but think the game has been excessively praised by too many people, but overall, I think that the gaming community has done a far better job assessing the merits and shortfalls of Star Ocean than most movie critics have done in their critique of Star Trek.

On one hand, I'm slightly surprised that my feelings regarding both Star Ocean and Star Trek are so similar; on the other hand, considering that Star Ocean Producer Yoshinori Yamagishi has said many times that the series is heavily influenced by the original Star Trek, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that my sentiments regarding the former are so remarkably similar to my sentiments for the latter.

And so, a mild recommendation for both Star Trek and Star Ocean. Suffice it to say, both are good, but definitely not great.

Any thoughts?