There was a time when E3 was a really, really big deal. Now, it’s simply a really big deal. One of the biggest factors of its whole big dealness comes from the console manufacturers’ press conferences. They typically range from the epic (introduction of the Wii) to the horribly, horribly wrong (introduction of the PS3 and real-time weapon changing). So how did this year go for Microsoft?
Plenty of films get adapted into video games, but yet there are some that manage to slip through the cracks. They might not all be blockbusters at the box office, but they’d all make for interesting games. For once, let’s take films and make unique new gaming experiences out of them.
Sudden Death
Much can be said of the films of Jean-Claude Van Damme, and much of that negative. However, it’s hard to deny that during the 90s he made some very enjoyable action films, including this one. The marketing pitch had to be “Die Hard in a hockey arena” and it shows. Van Damme spends much of the film in brutal one on one fight scenes and crawling around hiding from terrorists. Somehow though, if one can turn their brain off for a bit, it works at being entertaining.
Electronic Arts should snap this one up now while also snapping up exclusive rights to the NHL. Then, brand this game with the official NHL license and watch the money pour in. Sure, the NHL might not like being linked with a terrorist filled action game, but they’d love the scene where Van Damme suits up and heads on the ice. It’s a perfect match for EA Sports’ hockey game engine. One caveat, this game could not be made without voiceover work from Powers Boothe reprising his character. In fact, every game could be improved with voice work from Powers Boothe. (more…)
A recent Christian Science Monitor piece questioned whether the bigger threat posed by video games isn’t to increased levels of violence, but to decreased levels of morality. It’s a valid question, and one that far too often gets ignored in favor of, “The game made me do it!”
The crux of the piece, by Matthew Devereux, is that by not portraying any real consequences within video games, the developers absolve the player of moral choices. For instance, blowing up a building to get to the end of a level is justifiable regardless of how many innocents it would kill in reality. The truth is that few games do present any moral consequences or conflicts, and those that do portray them extremely limitedly.
When searching for moral consequences, I chose three titles that I think at least attempt to do what Devereux calls for. Those titles were Fable, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. We’ll start with Fable, as one of its major selling points was supposed to be its ethics/morals engine. The developer originally bragged how killing someone in one town would affect how people in other towns would react to your character. In other words, your character could earn a reputation. In truth, the game delivers a severely limited version of this. Kill someone and you will be chased by townspeople, but given enough time they will lose interest and you’ll be good as new. While in reality a case might go cold after a while, you’ll still find people investigating thirty year old murder cases. More than that, many criminals who are never convicted become social pariahs all the same. Where’s that level of reality? In the end, all of your moral choices within the game are supposed to affect the outcome of the game, but in truth you are given one last decision to go good or bad, undermining all previous decisions. Fable is perhaps the start of something, but not the goal. (more…)
Loading ...