Games

With the launch of the PlayStation 5 also came that of Demon’s Souls, the remake of the 2009 PlayStation 3 original to be precise. Reviews have generally praised Bluepoint Games’ attempts at revamping the graphical assets to show off the PlayStation 5’s increased horsepower. But some critics also pointed out that in the process of updating the art design, Bluepoint also sacrificed a bit of the original’s feel and atmosphere, the increased detail depriving the art of the lack of clarity that lent the original its eerie tension.

In light of these observations, it’d be fitting to have an article that takes a closer look at video game remakes/remasters, particularly the tug-of-war between updating assets that may not hold up well to scrutiny on more modern displays and preserving as much of the source material’s original atmosphere as feasible. Other examples of game re-releases that attracted scrutiny for their reinterpretations of the original art design, such as the Silent Hill HD Collection and BioShock: The Collection, can be mentioned and explored.

The potential article’s main line of inquiry could be the following: Why is there an appeal in preserving a game’s ambiguous details—particularly those stemming from technical limitations on original hardware—in the face of visual touch-ups for remasters/remakes? In the case of games with eerie ambiances, for example, could such an appeal lie in wishing to preserve the uncanny valley and fear of the unknown (e.g. unclear details on characters and environments that heighten the fear of the unknown and make players fill in the blanks with their imagination)?

I think it would be interesting to see why we play video games on an intellectual level. What do the mechanics of the gameplay influence in the player's surroundings and what influence does the setting of the game have on the story that may teach the player through the immersion process games tend to have? Sure, video games are fun, but what more do they have to teach us?

I recommend looking up Game Theory on Youtube to see what is out there on this topic, though I'm coming at this topic from a more philosophical nature versus a scientific one.

Using both popular examples (e.g. Grand Theft Auto series, Elder Scrolls Series, Minecraft, Skate, Assassin's Creed, etc.) and less popular titles, analyze how games give players the freedom to do as many things as possible with a main mission line looming in the back.
Which games limit features that can only be unlocked by progressing far enough in the main story?
Do some games unlock all features before the main mission is even completed?
Games like Skyrim and Spider-Man (2018) can randomly generate enemy encounters for the player. Is this implemented to give the illusion that there is another world outside the main story? That the player can comfortably abandon the main story since the rest of the game's "world" keeps on going?

We can all name more than one game franchise that's essentially a recycling of sorts. A lot of R&D goes into improving features and adding new ones, but they still "feel" the same once gameplay begins. Why does this happen? Are such games not receiving enough hard work? Or is it just us feeling that way while the truth is different?

Witcher 3 – why was it more than just a game? It was the prerequisite for the Netflix show. Pokemon games – why did they spawn a whole franchise of merchandise, TV shows, and more? In this article, I will dissect what makes a game have that sacred "emotional connect" for most of the people who play them.

Video games that require or encourage violence are prolific. There have been countless studies on whether the violence of such games has psychological impacts.
But, what are the moral implications?

Using a selection of games that involve violence, consider whether it is morally wrong to 'physically' harm a virtual character. Explain why.

You could argue either side of this argument, or argue that the moral implications differ depending on the situation. For example, perhaps some forms of violence are more acceptable than others (e.g. fighting vs. murder). Or, maybe there's a difference between harm the game tells you to inflict to complete an objective, and the harm you choose to inflict but has no bearing on your completion of the game.

Ensure sound justifications are provided for whichever stance you take. Relevant philosophical discussion would complement this topic well.

It seems as though in more recent years, video game developers are adding familiar faces to their stories. We saw Ellen Page in Beyond: Two Souls, the star-studded cast in Death Stranding, and Keanu Reeves in the highly anticipated Cyberpunk 2077. Does seeing a specific actor in a game entice you to purchase it, or do you lose the immersion factor?

On September 21st 2020, Microsoft purchase Bethesda Softworks and its parent company ZeniMax Media in a massive $7.5 billion dollar deal that has the potential to reshape the video game landscape. Due to the massive deal, Microsoft now owns acclaimed game studios like Arkane Studios (Dishonored), ID Software (Doom), Machine Games (Wolfenstein) and Bethesda Studios (Elder Scrolls and Fallout), all of which create multiplatform games that regularly release to critical and commercial acclaim. Microsoft and Xbox have been criticized for its lack of first party games (in comparison to its competitors Nintendo and Sony) but the purchase of Bethesda and its parent company could rewrite this narrative and push more consumers toward the Xbox platform. Will the massive purchase help Microsoft sell its new Xbox consoles this fall?