Games

This is something that's been a discussion point with some peers recently, and I was wondering if someone else had some extended thoughts regarding it.

What do we want out of the next Metroid Prime title?

I mean we can safely assume that it will be a first-person shooter with puzzle-solving elements like past Metroid prime titles… but could we also expect an overhaul at all? And to what extent? Will they throw everything out the window and make it a bejeweled-based action horror game? Or will they just abandon some Metroid traditions and maybe put in more of Prime 3's ambitious but flawed cinematic cut-scenes? It's hard to tell. Mostly cause I don't know what I want either.

Breath of the Wild wowed me with it's perfect blend of embracing old Zelda traditions, while experimenting with some wild (no pun intended) ideas. Can we expect the same of Metroid? Or will it perhaps just be a return to form with some typical but fun Metroid gameplay?

God of War has been a smash hit since its release April 20th. With a strong sales launch and massive critical praise, the game is primed to be a benchmark in AAA gaming. By setting the game in the Norse world, God of War borrows the mythology of the Norse cultural groups. In doing this, The game sets expectations for what enemies you will see, what locations you will go to, and what events will occur. However, the game plays with the conventions and established canon of Norse Mythology in surprising ways. This article would analyze how Norse mythology is applied to the God of War universe and how the game subverts our expectation of traditional Norse myths and characters.

Bioshock and objectivism. Braid and determinism. Senua's sacrifice and free will. Videogames frequently borrow concepts and tropes and sometimes are based entirely around philosophies. In what is eventually a limited medium – as one has to 'win' the game – is this a misguided attempt to elevate an ultimately flawed art form? Or can videogames be an entry point towards encouraging philosophical thought in others?

Acheivements have been available for quite some time in the form of PC gaming on Steam. However, with the addition of these starting the XBox 360/PS3 era, I think there has been a shift in how many people perceive playing games. For myself, I research video game literary studies, so I have seen my own perceptions in playing games. When I was younger, I played simply to enjoy a game, play a story, do a little grinding, but when it moved to this acheivement system, I found myself playing game differently. No matter what, the trophies are in the back of my mind. I am constantly thinking about what I need to get the Platinum. Also, when I play as a researcher, I am looking for more story moments, so games that are combat heavy (BioShock Infinite) that have a great story tend to feel like a slog. How can we, as gamers and researchers, keep these different gaming "personalities" in check so that gaming doesn't feel like a job or chore, and what does it mean for gaming in the future? Looking at somthing like a David Cage game (I'm looking at you, Detroit: Become Human) is obviously great for the research, but playing to get the Platinum is an entirely new beast altogether, and they tend to meld when playing.

To boil it down, how has the advent of achievements/trophies changed the way gamers look at, and subsequently, enjoy video games? Do the trophies make them more fun or more of a chore after so long?

The newly released first-person, open world RPG "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" has been criticized in some quarters (perhaps unfairly) for not including black people in the game. Vocal defenders have emphasized the game's commitment to historical accuracy (after all, there would likely have been no black people in a small village in medieval Bohemia, where the game begins) and have frequently mocked the criticism as further evidence of the ridiculousness of the social justice warrior.

What does historical accuracy even mean when it comes to this RPG? Is it historically accurate to exclude black people yet to include the possibility of becoming a "bard" or a "knight"? The term "bard" wouldn't apply to medieval Bohemia, either, and lowly blacksmiths of that time simply didn't climb the social ladder; they pretty much lived and died in the same lower class that they were born into. Is it historically accurate to not have fantastical creatures to battle yet still to allow the player character to craft potions using a skill called "alchemy"? Those potions create short-term buffs that don't look at all the different from the buffs created by magic potions in medieval fantasy RPGs such as The Witcher or Baldur's Gate.

Even casual fans of Zelda have heard of the triforce. The mystic golden triangles, left behind by the 3 goddesses after their divine act of creation, each represent a particular character trait, power, wisdom, and courage. The bearer of each piece of the triforce is said to personify the character traits that each piece represent. In addition, complete balance and mastery of the triforce requires one to have all three pieces at the same time. Without all three pieces at the same time, a person's soul is out of balance.

In a lot of ways, this characterization of the triforce shares similarities with Aristotle's virtue ethics. Aristotle wrote that in order for a person to reach eudaimonia (sometimes translated as 'flourishing' or 'happiness') they must have the proper balance of the different virtues, such as courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. Aristotles ethics would provide a unique lens to analyze the different character in the Legend of Zelda and how the embody their respective virtues . Link obviously embodies courage, and its easy to see why. Link consistently takes on monsters 3 times his size, is motivated solely by justice, and is steadfast in his duty. An article examining the major characters of the series through the view of virtue ethics would be a neat take on the series.

A look at the prevalence and effects of sexism in tabletop RPGs, such as DandD. How are female players and their characters treated by their male counterparts during a game session? How does this differ from a female character played by a male player, if at all? Some women who play RPGs have gone to certain lengths to avoid sexism during game play, such as forming all-female leagues. How is extreme sexism that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated in everyday life by male players justified during a game? There are many routes this could go, but it is, I feel, a fascinating subject with many points that could be taken away by various audiences.

In 1954 François Truffaut coined the term 'auteur' in his groundbreaking work "Une certaine tendance du cinéma français", a descriptive that would subsequently be used to describe directors whose style or approach is so idiosyncratic that their films would be easily recognized (See Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Charlie Kaufman and the Coen Bros). But could this perspective and theory be possibly applied to the video game world?

We don't hear much of names in the video game industry, but the ones that come to the top of my head include Hideo Kojima, Shigeru Miyamoto, Toby Fox (for his sheer creative control in Undertale), Ken Levine (of the Bioshock games) and Sid Meier, who has built his own empire from his Civilization games. So my question is: is it possible to consider such visionaries auteurs? Can their games be considered solely products of their own unflinching vision? Or is another step in order: wherein we ought to consider companies/collectives as auteurs in their own right?