Games

Does the success of the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy speak more about the power of nostalgia or the appetite for platformers in a market dominated by sports games, shooters and RPGs?

You know you've done it, we all have, who hasn't?
What I'm talking about is the act of "grinding" in games, meaning the repetition of crafting, farming, playing level one fights for bonuses – the simple act of repeating a step over and over and over again for seemingly inconsequential gains. Now in real life none of us would often willingly engage in this (generalisation I know), but really people seem to go out of their way to engage in innovative, unique, interesting jobs – no one wants to do the same task ad nauseam. So why do we choose to do this in our down time when gaming? What really is the appeal of grinding?

I've been playing Divinity: Original Sin 2 a lot recently and it made me realise what I really love about RPG's; the way that they let you really create a character. But this doesn't end at their appearance or race. Games like Original Sin 2 fulfill the promise of character creation by rewarding absolutely everything your character can attempt. Giving the player so many options based upon the character they built and how they play makes the world feel alive and causes the player to feel as though their character is charting a course based on who they are. So many RPG's provide options but often you reach quests or situations where there is no alternative (due to narrative restrictions) or there is are blatant good, bad and worse options. There are so many other RPG's that allow for this deep character creation and they always seem to become instant classics. I also think this approach is incredibly interesting as it's rare that players notice just how much this level of reactivity influences their style of play.

Persona 5 takes realistic antagonists and uses an unorthodox means to force them…to change them. Heck, early in the game, it was said that this method risks killing the antagonist.

It is a topic that isn't questioned too much deep in game and I thought it would be nice to get that discussion going. Do note the game just came out so the discussion of Persona 5 is limited if anyone wants to add spoilers…which I do think it isn't necessary. In addition, I feel like this discussion could extend any other actions which ultimately is a means to 'force change'.

The general reason the Phantom Thieves are generally accepted as a force of good is because they are mainly fighting back abusers. I would also mention Death Note and how it also had a similar tale of Light, his sense of Justice and his god complex. A bad end in Persona 5 suggests a similar god complex as well.

Visiting foreign countries can truly change peoples lives. Whether its rural folk seeing thriving metropolises or hot climate citizens witnessing snow for the first time, being in a new environment can take your breath away. The use of graphics in gaming has skyrocketed. From the revolution of Pong 40 years ago, blades of grass and drops of rain have become routine for triple AAA titles. If we can imagine the difference in graphics rendering in 40 years, will a $100-$200 VR headset rival the thousands we spend on flights and accomodation overseas? If we could graphically render a building twice as tall as the Eiffel Tower, why go see the Eiffel Tower? Could virtual reality be a substitute, or threat, to global tourism?

Modern console's use of the internet in gaming has allowed some games to only be allowed to be played online. One example, is the incredibly popular For Honor, a hack and slash phenomenom. As popular as this game is, what is to stop Ubisoft from shutting off the servers if a sequel is announced, to force gamers to purchase the sequel? Many classic games suffer from eventual server closing, EA's underrated Lord of the Rings: Conquest is an example. Are gaming developers giving themselves too much power over consumers by forcing games to be mandatorily online?

"Detroit: Become Human" is a video game made by Quantic Dream coming out in 2018. It's a choice based game shaped by the player and there has been controversy over the acceptability of it's brutal story telling/choice based outcomes. The main character may supposedly choose to act or not act in a situation that can result in the death of a child by her father's hands or the main character killing the father instead. People are calling for the scene to be taken out from the game. Some say the former outcome will fuel abusers' fantasies while others worry the latter outcome will put victims of abuse in danger by inspiring them to seek violence in return. Neither situation is unique, as in, such events have been written about and occurred in films and art before. People want to draw the line so harshly for video games and what they can portray because of the interactivity. Is it fair to treat video games so differently? Provide examples of highly controversial video games depicting violent or disturbing scenes from the past, and speculate on whether their reception will shape Quantic Dream's decisions in addressing such concerns. Are these concerns valid?

We cannot deny the impact that video games have made and continue to make on our popular culture. Consider the evolution of the gaming industry. How, in fact, has it evolved? How has it become more mainstream? What do video games offer us emotionally, mentally, and sometimes physically? What can we learn from video games that we can apply to every day life, as well as in our intellectual and educational pursuits? After analyzing these factors, consider how (and perhaps, if) video games should be taught, possibly someday at a university level. What universities might already do this, and how do these courses operate? How are they taught? What do they offer?