CoD: Ghosts & South Park: TSOT - Both give me headaches.

There’s something about turn-based strategy that I really like. It’s probably because whenever I do sit down and play a game that utilizes it, it’s a breath of fresh air; a lot of games nowadays try to pack as much action into an eight hour campaign as possible with little to none actually involving the player, and by God, Call of Duty is the worst culprit. Yes, I’ve been playing CoD: Ghosts’ multiplayer since Christmas but only recently have I tried the single-player campaign because frankly, I can only handle a barrage of explosions with a paper-thin plot from a Cold War vet’s fever dream so many times before a mind-numbing hatred of the U.S. sets in.

Nonetheless I decided to give Ghosts a shot this time around only to be disappointed yet again because CoD is doing the same nonsense it did with Black Ops; come up with a title that’ll lead you to believe we’re actually trying something new but prove the exact opposite at the very beginning of the game. At what point does one doubt the covert ability of a paramilitary group called ‘Ghosts’? Is it when their first course of action is to blow up a truck and run in guns blazing? Or is it when they call a helicopter to a LZ so hot it feels like Jessica Alba in the middle of August? But I digress.

As I’ve said before the video games industry has a plethora of half-assed action games so I’m glad that despite the massive risk it took, South Park: The Stick of Truth is a TBS title that’s enticing enough to see it all the way through, but I cannot stress more than I will now that the IP in question is certainly not the reason why the game is good; much more credit is due to Obsidian Entertainment for managing to create an addictive turn-based system and interactive environment that contrasts the constant face-palming from all the insipid humor that is South Park. The thing about it is, it’s not a show you watch for laughs, it’s a show you watch to see how low it’s willing to set the bar in taking the piss, and TSOT takes enough piss to arouse questionable R&B singers and drive Bear Grylls absolutely mad.

To give you a partial idea of how much piss taking unfolds in TSOT, here’s the rundown; you are the new kid in South Park and you make acquaintance with all of its denizens through live-action role play. Yes, LARPing. As you and a few LARPies (mostly Butters and Kenny) finish up your first day of fantasy and adventure, you lay your over-sized afro to rest (if you’re like me and chose to make the kid as negro as possible) and find yourself being anally probed by aliens not much later. You then proceed to fight your way through the ship in an attempt to escape, cause a crash-landing, and a mysterious green goo oozes from its cargo and into the sewer system that causes an outbreak of…Nazi zombies that chant in audio clips from Hitler rallies.

I cannot make this shit up.

As the game continues the writers constantly point reference at themselves and the things they’re mocking as if to say “Oooh aren’t we a bunch of cheeky bastards! Teehee!” It’s the kind of dry, blatantly tasteless humor that appeals to people that like to sniff glue and laugh at all things Jewish. Not for any particular reason, just because it’s Jewish.

I'll give you one guess as to what's going on here. 

The actual game is quite well designed, using concepts similar to Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga. There’s a fantastic musical score and attacks require you get into a rhythm of button presses that make beating 4th grade children to a bloody pulp with a dildo all the more fun. Weapons, items and upgrades are also well varied to keep you interested and encourage new tactics, though remain fair because you’re never in a situation you can’t handle; if you ever find yourself dying a lot at a particular instance, you’re doing something wrong.

To be honest, TSOT had me in a sort of trance where I felt absolute gaming bliss yet I’d occasionally want to bash my own teeth in with a hammer because the boss I just fought was Khloe Kardashian’s giant Nazi zombie fetus.

Not even kidding.

Needless to say at this point but I’m not a fan of South Park, though I’m sure my two cents isn’t going to stop people from playing TSOT, bugging out and writing a twelve page thesis on why it's the perfect example of everything humorous, that it’s the epitome of  ‘social commentary’ and the success of this title is only further proof of it.  

...Then again, those people like to fling their poo at things and think that Canada is a monarchy, so why should I care?

Seems there really is no saving Gotham these days.

If by any chance you live in a cave and haven’t played any of the Batman Arkham games:

SPOILER WARNING.  

Batman: Arkham City is arguably the greatest super-hero game ever made, and is now the benchmark for all others in the genre to follow it. 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man showed a valiant effort by replicating elements of Rocksteady’s achievement, but couldn’t land even remotely close to the pedestal that City towers over boldly with pride. Despite its success I couldn’t shake a lingering fear that I have felt since the viewing of its end credits, and Arkham Origins quickly brought that dread to reality; the stagnation of a truly wonderful series.

I know what you’re probably thinking; “It’s a sequel (prequel)! Surely you can’t expect the game to be ground-breaking.” And surely you would be right with that statement in most cases, but what Origins fails to accomplish is the growth of the franchise. Progressing through each mission, collecting extortion data, and swooping in to beat up a group of bad guys looks and feels exactly like City. Gadgets found in the previous adventure return with a slightly different aesthetic, like the Glue Grenade, which has the exact same functions as the Ice Grenade. Meaning that you’ll once again throw pellets at the water to make rafts and pull yourself across flooded hallways with your grapple hook. Predator missions - while capturing the same essence of gratification through great stealth mechanics - manage to become a chore rather than a challenging obstacle once you attain most upgrades. The few new toys that Batman carries in his arsenal this time around only serve to make overall progress even easier than before; now you can whimsically point and shoot at a dude and have him hanging from a vantage point across the room. In combat you have the Shock Gloves, which turn you into a bloodthirsty monster truck and everyone in a square-mile radius into a crowd of Justin Bieber fans; satisfying in the most cave man of senses, but takes away all the tactical aspects the game tries so hard to build up.  In the end, you lose a bit of self-respect because you know you’re better than that.

So, Origins treks similar paths as City in the gameplay department. At least it was kind enough to switch it up by having a brand new group of villains pose as a threat to a younger, more aggressive Bruce Wayne. 

...Right?

Nope.

The Joker makes yet another appearance, assuming the role of the main villain. This rings a bit insincere; I know that this is a prequel but Joker died in City. This was the grand opportunity to have Batman focus on at least one of DC Universe’s other colorfully costumed psychopaths. Yes, there are villains such as Deathstroke and Bane, but Batman shrugs Slade off in one fight and finds him imprisoned not much later. Bane on the other hand, while threatening, doesn’t particularly fulfill the role of a cunning, harsh villain despite that he could. Though I suppose it’d go against Arkham tradition to have an installment that doesn’t have you fighting a steroid-induced brute.

So, WB Games has even managed establish an aura of monotony in the string of events that tie all of the game play together.

Mind you, none of this is to say that on its own Origins is a bad game. Though it certainly isn’t memorable, so what’s the difference? If a game is unsuccessful at leaving a significant mark on the player then it’s failed to do its job, even more so than something genuinely abysmal like Sonic ‘06.

What’s particularly amusing however is this:

It seems that Rocksteady has hastily jumped back on board to fix this boo-boo – but it hasn’t even been a full 5 months since release and this so-called Arkham Knight is coming later this year? I understand that Batman games are becoming a cash cow but Christ, please don’t let this go the same route as Assassin’s Creed; we don’t need another gargantuan sandbox being released yearly.

Praise the Sun!

Have you ever wondered what it’s like to experience something inexplicably horrifying, agonizing, frustrating, and utterly brutal? Probably not, because that would be incredibly masochistic. However, what if I told you that Dark Souls is all of those things, as well as breathtakingly beautiful, well rewarding, and – arguably - one of the best-designed games of all time? From Software’s masterpiece hits so many sweet-spots with their harsh-but-fair action RPG that players will find it a daunting yet irresistibly addictive nightmare that brings elation you will never feel anywhere else after defeating its final boss.

In this hellish adventure, you are not a hero or a villain – you are an Undead, whose destiny is to continue the Age of Fire, or end it and begin the Age of Darkness. However, Dark Souls does not explain its lore or most events taking place through cut scenes or an excessively long narrative – ultimately it is up to the player to discover these things on his or her own. Examining items and interacting with NPCs provide pieces of the puzzle, but the extremely hostile environment is sure to keep you from making story exposition a primary concern, at least before you make it to New Game Plus.

The greatest aspect of Dark Souls is that its gameplay is remarkably refined, and serves many purposes as well as being a means to an end; the lack of music (except during boss fights) sets an eerie atmosphere, and combining that with the toughness of enemies establishes a solid motif of horror that forces you to question what is an immediate threat. Often times you’ll approach a harmless NPC but mistake it for an enemy, and the actions you take because of those mistakes do have significant consequences.

Combat is weighty, responsive, and intuitive; three key elements that complement the soul-crushing difficulty perfectly. When I say Dark Souls is brutal, I mean it.  You will die, a lot. In most games, death is a minor inconvenience. Here, it is a teacher, and creates a great amount of risk for the player. When you die, you lose all of your souls  – currency that is used for everything in the game; buying and upgrading equipment, improving your stats – and you return to the last bonfire you rested at. The only way to get them back is to recover them from the spot you were at a few moments before your demise, and if you perish before recovering, they’re gone for good. This creates a situation that rewards not the impulsive warrior that throws caution to the wind, but the patient adventurer that carefully studies the environment before advancing. The landscape is quite varied and introduces hazards that contribute to many deaths as well, stressing the importance of spatial awareness. Strafing around or back peddling from a tough enemy can be ended abruptly by falling off a cliff you didn’t realize was there. Later, your journey will bring you to a fortress infested with traps. You’ll find yourself balancing across support beams while being assaulted by projectiles. You’ll even be navigating pitch-black caves and dark forests, and this only scratches the surface of dangerous terrains that you will face.

Does all of this sound overwhelming yet? Good; because if that isn’t enough for you, each time you rest at a bonfire most enemies you’ve defeated while exploring are revived, and, if you’re in human form, other players can invade your world in an attempt to kill you.  However, players can also be an aid to your survival because you sometimes see their silhouettes and messages that can help you guess what’s about to come your way, but be warned – nothing is going to stop a player from lying to you.

Dark Souls is by no means accessible. Along with such ruthless difficulty, it is also arbitrarily obtuse. Many parts of the game can be easily missed; illusory walls hide numerous secrets, parts of structures that seem impossible to reach actually can be through some kind of improvisation, and basic functions such as casting spells and shooting arrows can be a little confusing. But, judging from the overall nature of the game, how can you blame it? Everything is deliberately geared toward making your experience an inconvenient one, and it’s your job to overcome it all.

Thankfully, despite all of the obstacles in your path, Dark Souls allows a lot of flexibility by giving the player tons of options to choose from in order to step up to the challenge. There are dozens of different weapons and weapon types: straight swords, longswords, greatswords, daggers, rapiers, spears, axes, long bows, short bows, crossbows, and many others are available to you, along with an extensive catalogue of armor and sorcery. Moreover, the majority of weapons you find have different movesets; so one greatsword is by no means wielded like another. The sheer volume and diversity of weaponry and magic makes the game’s arsenal astounding, and allows easy experimentation to find what’s most comfortable for you.

Despite all of the stress that Dark Souls creates, it does know how to reward you for your efforts. After a lengthy session of exploring you begin to notice you’re low on healing Estus, and I can guarantee that reaching the next bonfire will have you exhale an unprecedented sigh of relief. Often times the gorgeous environment contrasts the burning frustration the game induces so well, so you will sometimes sit back and reflect on your toilsome endeavors before advancing to your next untimely death. You will try many, many times to defeat a boss that you feel is damn near impossible to beat, but when you do, the feeling of accomplishment is so empowering that it pushes you to keep moving forward; and that is the genius behind it all.

Fighters: A More In-Depth Clarification

The fighting genre is my favorite of them all, and it’s appropriate since the very first game I played is Street Fighter II Turbo on the SNES. Suitably, this is the same game that established the genre. I say established as opposed to created because it’s often argued that no-name titles on the Commodore 64 implemented the key aspects of what make a fighting game. In spite of that, the genre didn’t exist until Street Fighter II hit the market. This isn’t to say that in the industry today, every fighter needs to emulate the gargantuan franchise in every single aspect. The fundamentals need to be there however, and I’ve created a list of criteria to clear the confusion that’s prevalent among gamers.

A common misconception of fighters is that all one needs in order to be in the genre is, quite simply, physical fighting; regardless of core game play. I’m pointing the finger at games like Super Smash Bros., Power Stone and others of that sort, but I’ll examine Smash Bros. in this case.

As mentioned earlier, to be able to fit in the fighting genre a game needs to have certain aspects that are more or less inspired by Street Fighter II. These few aspects include:

•  Orientation. What I mean by this is, when two players are clashing, attacking and defending are always geared toward your opponent specifically. Movement is directly affected because of this; directional inputs correspond to toward and away, not left and right.  
• A life bar, or something of such nature, that represents a finite amount of health/stamina for the player (an obscure exception would be Bushido Blade, which lacks any status icons).
• Stages that in no way dictate the outcome of a battle due to random chance, or hazardous environmental change. There’s a clear difference between environment interaction and an arbitrarily hostile environment.
• All game play occurs on a 2D plain, or in cases of 3D fighters, the ‘3D’ is the ability to sidestep (once again, Bushido Blade being an exception, which cleverly executed environment exploration with 3D fighting mechanics).

Knowing these four factors, it becomes quite obvious that Super Smash Bros. doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the crowd. Rather, it’s part of a subgenre dubbed by many veterans as ‘brawlers’ (which is exactly how it refers to itself; Super Smash Bros. Brawl): movement is much more free form, attacking and defending aren’t affected by orientation, there’s an incredible arsenal of items and weapons that drastically change the pace of a fight, and we all know that Smash Bros. is quite enthusiastic toward crazy environments. All things considered, Smash is much more akin to the action/beat ’em up genres than fighters, and it shows vibrantly when you consider how well-executed its adventure mode is; without any change in mechanics, Smash can be a platfofmer, a beat ‘em up or a combination of the two whenever it pleases.

Smash Bros. has the freedom to go from this:

 To this:

By contrast, take a look at Tekken 6’s Campaign mode:

It dabbles in similar concepts but is far less varied, because the mechanics in question aren’t as suitable for the situation. Every few moments are mediocre stop-and-go encounters because as soon as you meet an enemy, orientation kicks in and all flow of movement is lost.

The most interesting part of all this though, is Smash’s percentage system and how it works.

In a Smash match, your percentage increases as you take damage, and higher percentage means greater knockback, with the ultimate objective of knocking your opponent off-screen to score points or deplete their stock of lives. It’s a concept I’ve never seen in any other game, but it works not because of the game itself (i.e. a life bar), but relies much more heavily on human incentive. It works because of the assumption that, in this competitive situation, players will comply with the task at hand. In reality it’s a system that gives far too much leeway to be truly fair; who wins a match if the score is even but my opponent has 200% damage while I have 50%? No one does, you’re forced into sudden death, which is essentially a 50/50 situation given that both players are of similar skill level. It’s that gaping hole in the system design that further prevents it from being considered part of the traditional fighting game scene, if its other aspects aren’t enough.  

So now one might ask; “Ryan, why are you telling me all this?” Well, it’s certainly not stemming from a dislike for Smash Bros. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t like Smash, you’re unlikely to be the kind of person I’d hang out with on a Saturday night. I’m presenting you with this because Smash cannot and should not be put in the same category as other traditional fighters despite people’s efforts to do so; if a friend were to ask me what my favorite fighting games were in an effort to get familiar with the genre and community, and then I were to respond with “Street Fighter, Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi and Smash Bros.”, don’t you think that’d be a bit misleading considering the friend’s intent? Those are three very different games rooted in their own separate conventions, serving their own purposes and catering to completely different demographics.

A bit of clarity is all I’m asking for.