The defining edge

While on my regular podcast runabout, I was listening to the Player One Podcast where CJ Johnston relayed a criticism about the Mirror’s Edge demo with the criticism, “It is a glorified series of Quick-Time-Events.” CJ was inclined to agree, but he was unable to elaborate a bit more about the comment.

I have previously discussed my own disdain for the QTE, both loving and loathing the simplicity of the mechanic. Omari Akil at Eat|Think|Game has informed me of his own manifesto for the QTE which includes: sparse usage, minimal button sequences, no game over on failure, never use it to end a boss battle, and use only when least suspected. These are all fair requests, though I do believe the QTE becomes confined into the horror-game arena under this itinerary.

It is not surprising that the QTE seems to work so well in horror-games because they can easily fit into this list. My major gripe with the QTE are in action games where it is much more difficult to integrate the mechanic into the genre because the player is already performing visually superior and rewarding actions. Which is why I became interested in this criticism for Mirror's Edge as it is promoted as less of a traditional action game and more of a platformer.

Of course I have only played the demo and both CJ and the commenter have only played the demo as well. There is the chance that this may merely be over analyzing the play mechanics because a jump button is a jump button and so forth. But there is clearly something different and special about Mirror’s Edge that has prompted players to question the presentation and execution of the game’s control scheme.

By describing Mirror’s Edge as a glorified QTE I have begun to ponder to what the QTE actually is. One game that had blurred the line for definition is Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones where a flicker would appear on enemies indicating the player to press a button to time a correct attack. A similar technique was used again by Ubisoft in the battle mechanic for Assassin’s Creed. The only difference is that it does not integrate the “Simon Says:” repeat the button sequence mechanic, but still follows the importance of timing to complete the desired event.

If we a following semantics, this rhythm gameplay is basically a QTE. There really is no discernible difference except one visual is replaced for another. The largest difference is one may visually be within the game while the other gives off the impression of an in-game cinematic. So what makes Mirror’s Edge a QTE instead of a platformer? I believe it is because the visual action of sliding, jumping, rolling, and landing presents the same animation every time it is executed in the first-person perspective. And though the environments may be varied, the animations are singular. From what I have seen of the game, the protagonist Faith does not seem to have a diverse repertoire animations to prove my suspicions otherwise.

So is Mirror’s Edge a glorified QTE or merely the control and visual aesthetic of the game? Heck, even Fallout 3’s V.A.T.S. can be considered a loose QTE. I don’t think the problem with Mirror’s Edge is that it is a glorified QTE, but that the definition of QTE can be misleading, because every aspect of control mechanic can be a QTE to some extent. Perhaps we should rename it an SIP: Sequence Input Progression. If anything, the parkour elements of Mirror's Edge can be equated to the QTE as purely a gimmick. Which, is what I believe, to be the largest criticism towards the QTE. Whether it will have the design and intelligence of last year's Portal has yet to be seen, but luckily we do not have too long of a wait to find out.

Good Grief

While having lunch with friend, we came upon the subject of "griefing" in videogames. He had mentioned an article he read in the Times about online griefers and Craigslist harassment spilling outside of the Internet space. In response, I bought up an old Computer Gaming World article I had read called "Confessions of a Online Hitman" (I believe that was the title) of a gamer who was hired, almost like a mercenary, to purposefully go online to games such as Halo or Counter-Strike to annoy a particular player whether it is closing in specifically from the opposing team or just hindering and irritating the player as a teammate. The extent that this gamer would follow the gamer from match to match is outrageous and frightening.


I'm sure we are all aware of the funeral raid in World of Warcraft from the clan Serenity Now. There is the humorous Team Fortress 2 videos from Team Roomba. And of course, VentertainMe whom Shawn Elliot had introduced to me takes Ventrillo harassment to genius levels. The best griefing comes from creative individuals that know the limits of their victims psyche and capitalize on their annoyance. These griefers think intensely outside the box and to their credit it can produce hilarious results. But there is also the presence of the psychotic in these individuals. They show little remorse and purposefully hinder the enjoyment of others. This is not Internet trolling. This is bullying. And yet the majority of gamers condone these actions. I myself am guilty of such an act. I make no qualms with the fact that I utterly enjoy these videos. It is strange how much entertainment we can partake in from another persons' suffering. Of course we can rationalize it believing that because this is merely a game the stakes are so low they become inconsequential. We also admire the thought and methodical nature that goes into how there griefers approach their prey.


Kieren Gillen had interviewed Team Roomba months ago in The Escapist. In the article, FLOOR_MASTER (aka Ryan) makes one of the most telling statements about griefing and our enjoyment of the practice.

"The move to griefing videos was prompted by the most dangerous of influences: plain boredom. 'You run out of things to do and start looking for unconventional ways to have fun with a game."

"Boredom" is probably one of the most telling facets in all media. I remember a discussion I had with one of my professors about the French New Wave and avante-garde. When it comes down to it, boredom is probably the most important element in creation of the new, the different, and groundbreaking. It can be the foundation for the divorce from everything in the previous movement. This sentiment of boredom can easily be found in games with its repetitive and rudimentary design to the routine of multiplayer matches. And that may be why we appreciate griefing of this kind so easily. It lets us view the game in a different light- at a different angle. I have recently come across commentators claiming that griefing is becoming an art-form. But we must tread lightly to how we respond whether it is enjoyment or disdain because the further we go down the rabbit hole we may not like who we see when we reach the end.

Push it to the limit

It has been almost five years since I have upgraded my PC. Sure I have replaced parts on occasion because I would need a new motherboard or CPU, but essentially I have been using the same PC for half a decade. My graphics card is nearly five years of age, an Nvidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB. And though I have pondered the idea of upgrading I keep convincing myself to wait until the next big thing is released whether it is a cheaper duo core, Intel motherboards, or even a Direct X 11 Graphics cards. Sure, I have come across comparable deals for $20 GeForce 8600 cards after MRI (Mail-in Rebate) but even deals that are a steal have me at hesitation. I am the PC gamer that refuses the upgrade until every part of his rig is obsolete.

Thankfully Dead Space ran like a dream on my PC, albeit with above average original Xbox graphics. But optimal graphics can be over-rated. Just like the Nintendo acolyte, I too believe that graphics are not the end all be all of this console generation or the next. Which explains my disappointment with the current growth of game design these last few years. For the past year, I have told myself that Fallout 3 will be the game that makes me purchase a new rig. Well, the release date has passed and still I am content with my current PC situation. I often joke that when Half-Life 3 arrives in 2014 it will the be year I finally upgrade.


But perhaps I am reaching my limit. Currently, I am playing two extremely graphics intensive games on an unsupported graphics card, Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3. Both can run the game fairly smoothly but of course everything is on low settings. All of the textures in Far Cry 2 are merely solid colors and whenever I am in the heat of battle the frame-rate drops exponentially and Fallout 3 crashes if I play more than an hour. Plus, the fog of war makes me feel like I am playing Turok for the N64. Often I will get shot at by invisible enemies until I walk close enough for the models to pop-up into my view. It is not the most convenient way to game nor is it what the developer intended the experience to be.

And though I do own the next-gen consoles (my first time owning a console in more than a decade) I am unwilling to move away from my PC loyalties. Playing Bioshock on the Xbox360 verified my suspicions that the console FPS just isn't for me and while playing Valve games on my PC online remains adequate, it does not convince me that I have any need to upgrade just yet. This is the diatribe of a stubborn gamer and also a good argument against PC gaming though I will fight you to the death if you claim such a farce.


The same argument can be said to those not playing games on an HDTV. In fact, the reason I have not upgraded my PC is because I am investing in an HDTV. Gaming's relationship with technology and entertainment is a fickle one. Unlike any other medium where technology is often combatant with music and film, games have blossomed under business models such as subscriptions and digital distribution. And the relationship between Nvidia, ATI, Intel, and AMD with the gaming world is fascination. But I digress as this is probably an entirely separate blog post in itself.

The fact of the matter is, perhaps I have finally reached my limit to hardcore PC gaming at the moment. Though I will attempt to trudge through Fallout 3 with my diplorable minimal settings and I am certain I will definitely be playing Left4Dead on my PC, I doubt that I can keep up with the majority of the PC games that are released an longer. But despite this fact, I sure as hell will try. The Witcher and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. were amazing two titles releases the past year and I am sure that many more PC games will be released in 2009 that I will definitely attempt to test out with this old PC. Unofficially supported be damned, I am a masochist gamer and PC fanboy. And though I am sure it would visually and optimally make sense to purchase multiplatform games on the console, old habits die hard. It is funny how much a platform of choice allows a gamer to rationalize and tolerate at obscene limits. And though my experiences with my inconsistent frame-rate, model popping, solid texture, limited field of vision, and game crashing will definitely hinder the intended enjoyment of these games, it is small potatoes compared to the ability to play on a machine that I built and love to play on--warts and all.

Reveling in the splatterfest

Elephant in the room: Game violence. Since the arrival and passing of 1992's Mortal Kombat, game violence has become a notorious topic and often combated with immediate aversion from gamers. If some one brings up the issue they are instantly viewed as some sort of prude. Nowadays the hot topic is sex in games, but glorified violence is still ripe with discussion especially as games reach another milestone of graphical prowess approaching the uncanny valley.


I had just finished Dead Space and though I adore the entire absent HUD aesthetic of the game, I was taken aback by how pornographic the death scenes in the game are (my favorite clip is at 3:28). I would not go so far as to say that I was offended or disturbed by having the protagonist Isaac being ripped in half or eaten. But I do have to say that the gore in combination with the rag doll animation was strangely both bothersome and visceral. There is an extremely voyeuristic quality that goes along with the splatter film that is not only disturbing but compelling. Just as with a car accident on the road we a drawn to this unseemly horror in horror games as well. But Dead Space has the luxury of escaping this sort of violence in gaming argument. Instead the game can be categorized as violence in media because the violence confronts the player as a consequence as opposed to being conducted by the player.

This glorified violence is just as gruesome in other games as well. But the reception and connotation of violence takes on a different meaning when performed by the player. In Fallout 3 using the V.A.T.S. system to finish off enemies will change the camera angle to view to third person and then jump to the enemy in slow-motion to augment the violence. This is amplified even more if the player has the Bloody Mess perk which enhances the violence to satiric degrees with heads exploding and limbs flying. It is not wrong to assert that violence is the reward to the player for using V.A.T.S. in the game. Fallout has always been an ultra-violent series, but the violence in the previous game was itself confrontational whereas the violence in Fallout 3 becomes confrontational moreso because it purposefully highlighted rather than merely violent. Personally, I gain a huge sense of accomplishment when I shoot a nail-gun at a person's head only to have the particular anatomy nailed onto the wall behind the limp body that is feet away from the limb.

In an era where Gears of War curb stomping is acceptable and No More Heroes and Mad World can be considered the saving grace for the hardcore to the Nintendo Wii it is interesting how we intake our violence. But what is fascinating is how subjective we are in how it disturbs us in a case by case basis. David Ellis of Gamevideos.com has been particular vocal in how appalled he was with Fallout 3's violence. But he did not give a second thought to Gears of War whose dismemberment is just as glorified. That is not to say that he is wrong, but something in that game's depiction of that violence was disturbing particular to him. And maybe, that is one of the successes of Fallout. Developer Bethesda intended Fallout 3 to become a game with consequences, and by accentuating the violence it reveals itself as a consequences. The world of Fallout 3 is a detrimental dystopia to live in and there is an atmosphere of desperation, sadness, and loneliness that marries itself well with the game's explicit gore. This may be a cheap cop-out and giving Bethesda too much credit. But if a gamer can begin to confront violence as a consequence of his actions, it not only vindicates the philosphy of this game, but adds another element of player response that is underplayed and ignored in interactive media within the community.