E3 recap

Readers,

Due to my lack of internet access in my current "sitz in leben," I'm completely unaware of any news from this year's e3 conference. Anyone wanna give this Catholic gamer the details?

Thanks in advance,
Andy Kirchoff

Link's Christlike example

Lately I've been playing a ton of Legend of Zelda, splitting my time between Link's Awakening (on the classic brick Game Boy) and Ocarina of Time downloaded from the Virtual Console.

Playing through both of these games, the thought occurred to me: Link really is, out of all the gaming characters, the most selfless hero out there.

Video games are filled with characters who exude good virtues. Locke from Final Fantasy VI might have been a thief, but he goes out of his way to rescue Terra and Celes. Halo's Master Chief destroys a race of aliens hell-bent on destroying the universe. And Pac-Man might be the Vatican's first virtual exorcist.

But Link's adventures have mostly consisted of his going from town to town, helping people without ever complaining or thinking twice about it. Rescuing Princess Ruto from Lord Jabu-Jabu's belly. Delivering love letters (in my mind at least) from old men to old women, and fetching masks for people all while saving a planet from being destroyed by the Moon.

After he does that, a huge carnival is thrown. But is Link honored? Heck and no. He leaves town presumably to go help someone else.

In each game, you're always tasked with these great missions, and while Link receives tokens of appreciation along the way that aid him in his quest, it seems like he's never truly thanked for the hard work he's done in saving everyone's lives.

He reminds me of Christ in this aspect (yes I realize that I compared a digital character to our Lord and Saviour, and I realize that Link isn't going to save my soul from Hell, but hear me out). When Jesus healed the ten lepers, only one of them returned to thank him. And while it certainly could have happened, when Jesus turns five loaves of bread and two fishes into food for 5,000, none of those people are mentioned as thanking him before he goes off into his boat, as tired as can be.

We see Christ do so many wonderful things for people, that it seems like The Bible should be filled with more of those people thanking him.

Even today, not many people (myself included so many times) really stop and thank Christ for what he does for us, instead just going on about their merry lives.

Of course, maybe we should all be like Link. Tirelessly helping others without expecting anything in return. I think Link follows Christ's words very well in Matthew 5: "But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles."


Link definitely goes the two miles.

Any other video game characters exemplify a Christ-like attitude? Leave a comment!

Final Fantasy and Philosophy

I thought I would put a little post up about quite an interesting book I read earlier in the year. It is titled "Final Fantasy and Philosophy" and is essentially a selection of essays from unknown academics at minor institutions on the philosophical issues raised by the FF series. The book is not as good as it could have been, it tries far too hard to be 'pop culture' with pointless jokes and word plays (possibly at the hand of a redactor) thrown in, this is epitomised by the opening prologue which you should probably avoid, it completely trashes the essays' academic credibility. Secondly, the 'philosophers' as a whole know absolutely nothing about Christian Philosophy and make one or two embarrassing references to the philosophy of St Thomas and some clumsy supposed problems with the Christian vision are thrown out without any explanation. I am thinking in particular of Chapter 13- Is fear of stopping justified and Chapter 8- The four light warriors saved the world. A third problem is that some of the essays are very dull- the first and last chapters which both centre around the philosophy of language are tedious and philosophically narrow with the impression that the individuals just heard a 101 on a certain linguistic philosopher and decided to apply it to an aspect of ff. A fourth problem is the inclusion of essays written solely about the film "Final Fantasy- The Spirits Within", which every genuine FF fan would rather not hear about!

Now on to the good qualities, some of the authors have a really good knowledge of deep issues playing out in some of the major FF games- and spot the existentialism, deep green philosophy and Neitzschean Nihilism running throughout. The three best essays by far are 2- Kefka, Neitzsche, Foucault, 11- Sin, Otherworldliness and the Downside to Hope, and 12- Human, all to human. Cloud's existential quest for authenticity. The last two feature an analysis of FFX which parallels my take on it reviewed on this blog some time ago. http://catholicvideogamers.blogspot.com/2010/08/review-of-ffx.html

The difference is that the philosophers (explicitly ch 12) are more or less writing from the atheistic existentialist perspective themselves. They raise some important questions though and I really enjoyed them. I enjoyed their contribution to the debate.

The chapter that sides most with our way of thinking is that which touches on what FF teaches us about morality Ch 7- Final Fantasy and the Purpose of Life The essay is poorly structured but essentially supports a teleological virtue based morality (which he claims is based on Aristotle but includes not one reference to Aristotle throughout the article!) over Kantian and Utilitarian morality.

My overarching conclusion of the book was that it could have been much better, but for the few decent chapters I felt it was worth the £7 I paid for it.

If anyone has read it, I would love to hear you thoughts as well.

Behold!

It is mine, precious!!!!!






Also obtained: Street Fighter IV 3D and Super Monkey Ball 3DS. More impressions to follow!

Revisiting the Mortal Kombat kontroversy

If you were a kid in the 90's, I'm sure you remember the glut of one-on-one fighting games. Street Fighter II, World Heroes, Samurai Showdown, Virtua Fighter, I could go on and on.

(By the way, my name is dustin Faber, and Andy was kind enough to let me post on this blog. Instead of a self-congratulatory post talking about the wonder that is me, I'll stick with letting you know I'm an engaged graphic designer/customer service rep who loves the Boston Celtics, classic gaming, and blogs at catholicguyshow.com, dustinfaber.com and thecatholiclovebirds.blogspot.com. Oh and Root Beer rocks).

Anyways, one fighting game stuck out, and it wasn't due to it's superior gameplay (Street Fighter was a better game). Mortal Kombat. Instead of beating people up, you literally killed the other guy, with blood splattering all over the place and the ability to rip someone's spinal cord out of it's socket.

While the gameplay's merits are up for debate, there's no doubting that this game made news. Parents and senators were up in arms, to the point that the ESRB was created due to games like this (and Night Trap as well). The ESRB made me mad: it prevented me from buying Street Fighter II: Championship Edition, even though my Mom had watched me play an entire match it in the arcades with no objections at all (To this day, it's the only parenting decision I strongly disagree with Mom on. She goes strictly by the ratings, I say there are other sources to go by as well).

But the realistic violence was too much for some people, and understandably so. If you wouldn't let your kids watch an R-Rated film, why let them recreate one on the Genesis?

But a few weeks ago, my fiance and I plugged Mortal Kombat II into the Sega Genesis, used a Game Genie code to make the fatalities automatic, and enjoyed pre-marital bonding by slicing each other up with razor-sharp fans. It made me wonder, during all of the bloodshed, if the criticism of Mortal Kombat was well-founded, or overblown.

Is this really that over-the-top violent as congressmen claimed?

Perhaps the HD graphics of today distort my views on the game, but the violence seems so cartoony and over-the-top, especially when you compare it to the upcoming MK title. It's not as if we were up in arms over life-like actors and actresses mutilating each other for our own amusement. More than once while playing MKII, I thought to myself that the game wasn't so bad.

Or is it? I really can't find any redeeming values in the game (then again, what redeeming values are in Pole Position?), other than the fact that it's really fun to trash talk your loved ones after a close battle. Perhaps the bloody carnage helped us bond in ways that Tetris Party could not do.

But I'm curious to your own thoughts. If you have younger children or nieces/nephews, would you let them play this game now, under the guise that it isn't as "graphic" as the violent games of today? Or would you consider the game just as off-limits as your standard M-rated FPS?

Final Fantasy IV

I have recently started playing through FFIV again, I think I last played it as a lapsed Catholic about 5 years back and this time round I am picking up a lot more depth in the game. I'm also amazed at how many elements of the gameplay have not been taken up in more recent ffs. For example, the screen blurring out of battle if you are under certain status effects- I think this could be done really well on the rich 3d new ffs. Another would be Gilbert's auto-hiding away when he is low on life, that is great. Another is the cave where you are not allowed to have any metal weapons or armour equipped- I am so surprised that there isn't a side quest dungeon of this sort in any of the later ffs! It is a great idea!

FF4 really was revolutionary on so many levels.

And philosophically ff4 is great because characters have set roles and different stat development curves- this is a fundamentally more Catholic view of the world than a job based system or sphere grid where the player essentially has the power at his own will to recreate the fundamental attributes of each character. I think it is essentially post-modern and actually makes for quite dull gaming.

I am playing the SNES version and would be interested to hear about how people have found the DS re-make as it looks pretty good.

Is the 3DS the New PSP?

Chris Kohler seems to think so. Universal praise, predictions of demise for its competitors, and a promise of "hardcore" gaming appeal - hardly typical of Nintendo, masters of mass-appeal gaming.

There is one difference in the position of the 3DS and Sony's yet-to-be-revealed new handheld (I await the day when the corporate masters deem it worthy for our eyes to feast on) is the position of Nintendo in the gaming market. Back in 2007, Sony was the dominant "home console" gaming company looking to destroy Nintendo's monopoly on the handheld gaming industry. Analysts and gaming afficianados alike predicted that Sony's PSP would force Nintendo into third-party game developer status. The reverse happened: Sony made a sizable dent into the handheld market, sure, but Nintendo sold more handheld machines than it ever had in the past. Now, Nintendo is unquestionably more dominant on both the handheld and home console fronts, with Apple's IPhone slowly emerging from it status as the "spoiler" competitor in the handheld gaming wars to a formidable gaming platform. And that's my prediction for the latest cycle of "console warz": Apple is going to take over the gaming market.

When Nintendo first unveiled it's "blue ocean" business strategy in 2006, gamers decried it as an abandonment of Nintendo's commitment to providing quality video games for a gradually expanding market. Analysts either dismissed it as a concession that Sony (and Microsoft to a lesser extent) had "beaten Nintendo at its own game" or predicted a massive drop in its stocks due to such a risky business venture. The rest is history: Nintendo usurped Sony's premiere status in a fashion no one thought possible.

But there's a funny thing about that whole "blue ocean" strategy Nintendo was bragging about circa 2007-2008. By targeting mainstream consumers as potential gamers, Nintendo may have put the nail in its own coffin. Since gaming has become so much more mainstream, it joins a list of other entertainment commodities that vie for the consumer's attention. Specialized products (think Amazon's Kindle) fall to "All-in-one" products like the IPhone and IPad. I believe the same will soon be true for gaming. The less "niche" gaming becomes, the more it will have to adjust to a market demand for multiple forms of entertainment. This is a bittersweet pill for gamers to swallow: it might mean a "decline" of hardcore games overall (not just for Nintendo, but for the industry as a whole), but it also means the days of social isolation for gamers are numbered. I believe that Apple is the company most poised to take advantage of this new "all-in-one" gamer demographic, especially given the increasing prevalence of downloadable content in all sectors of the marketplace. Nintendo is infamously negligent at utilizing the internet for its games, and as the above article shows, things don't look to be changing for the 3DS.

Thoughts?