Ellen Page and The Last of US

 

It has come to my attention that Ellen Page is a bit upset that Naughty Dog had used her likeness to create the character of Ellie in The Last of Us. It should be noted that Naughty Dog did redesign Ellie to look more like her voice actor, Ashley Johnson. However, Ellen Page still feels like she’s been ripped off by having her likeness used.

Now I’m not here to debate whether or not Ellie looks like Ellen Page. That point will always be subjective, though I personally think she does but not 100%. Regardless of this, the issue that I bring up is the people who are using the argument that they look like characters in games (or even TV shows and movies).

Virtually every movie that is out there now often has a disclaimer at the end of the credits that goes something like this.

”All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”

Likeness rights exist for a reason and that’s to protect every single person who exists the right to control the use of their name, image. likeness and any other form that is involved with their person. It’s there to protect from slander and libel as well. It’s also a form of a right to privacy which we in the U.S. seem to hold very dear.

The character disclaimer exists to protect the developers, filmmakers and the like from random people filing lawsuits over likeness rights. This means that Joe Everyman can’t claim that the character used in a work of fiction was deliberately using his likeness for the character.  It doesn’t always work of course and people have sued and, in some cases, have won their cases when they are able to prove that the the work had deliberately used their likeness. For the most part, however, the developers are protected.

Now we come to the Ellen Page’s comments.

It’s easy to accuse her and make claims, whether joking or not, that any one of us looks like a character. There’s a difference though.The difference here is that Ellen Page is not some nobody. She’s a well known actress who has been in many notable roles. Many will notice her as Kitty Pryde in the X-Men films among other famous roles.

Why this is more of an exception than any of us is the fact that it is very hard to believe that Naughty Dog would not have known who she was and that it was all accidental. Sure, there is always a possibility it was accidental but it’s just hard to believe.

The use of her likeness if that is the case is good reason to upset her. Due to her social status it’s, really, now upon Naughty Dog to prove they aren’t if she even takes legal action.

She might have just been voicing her concern or anger but nothing more. She’s within her rights to do whatever and she’s possibly right. That’s all this boils down to. If she sues it’ll be a court case that will surely get coverage on various gaming website publications. If she’s just complaining then that’s all it is and there’s nothing more.

All I’m saying is she’s not deserving of some of the backlash she’s getting over this but that’s just my opinion.

Microsoft and the Anti-DRM reversal

 

If anyone has read the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury they would know that the state of the world, in that story, became the way it did because people wanted it that way. Books became banned basically because people decided that they had no use for them. They embraced a world that was more controlled by the government willfully largely due to technological and mass media control. In short, they lived in an oppressive world because they wanted to.

Now it’s no secret that Microsoft has reversed its decision to implement their 24-Hour Online Check, Region Locking and their Anti-Used Video Game policies.

It’s easy to cheer and be excited that Microsoft did the right thing and it is good news. However, I just don’t feel that this is something they should be cheered for. It’s not a decision that is pro-gamer. It’s a decision that was forced based on pre-order sales and how the competition capitalized on it by not including the DRM features that Microsoft was doing.

Due to their lack of pre-orders and the rate they going to lose money they had to shift focus but there’s one thing that I noticed that I’m sure others have noticed too. They have been pointing out that features such as the “Cloud Gaming” and “Family Sharing” will not be implemented (at least at launch) due to this change.

Now this is what it comes off to me as.

It appears to me that they are using these features to get people to be upset but in a way that they can control. They removed these features so they can get people to be upset and request that they put them in. Then they explain the only way to do so is to make the system always online and then require licensing to ensure authenticate copies are used. They are providing an element to be despised so they can implement their anti-consumer business practice and the sad thing is that it’s working.

I go onto various websites and I read the comment sections and there are people who are complaining or are angry that they’re losing on the family share plan or the benefits of cloud gaming. They blame the amount of people who cried out about the DRM calling them names like whiners and the like. I just can’t understand this thinking.

The Family Sharing plan is a novel idea in that it allows you to share your purchased games with up to ten people. It’s great in that it allows those people to install the games onto their systems and play but it’s still limiting. It’s great if you have a family member away at college because then they can download it though considering how the online connectivity didn’t matter to Microsoft enough when it came down to military personnel it’s still limiting. Whereas, using the disc you can share with virtually unlimited people without requiring downloading or installs. Just plug ‘n play.

By taking away this feature you just prevent a family member from downloading the game you bought but this really only affects family members who are fare away. If they live close by or even in the same home then it’s really not a problem or, at least, it shouldn’t be.

The cloud gaming feature is another feature that is being taken away, again during launch and could be returned, and Microsoft is saying you’ll lose the benefits of the cloud that allow games to play better, use better technology, etc. This one I have a problem with.

My argument is that games should be fun. There is no amount of technology, processing power, graphical power or whatever that can provide this. Ingenious design, creativity and well planned out gameplay will provide the fun. The rest are bells and whistles. Losing the benefit of the cloud should not ever affect the replayability and enjoyment of a video game. There are games today that are fun no matter what and if you look at games like Angry Birds, Animal Crossing or even Tetris you can see that these games utilize fun over power. The cloud cannot and will not ever provide that. A bad game will be a bad game no matter what kind of power it has.

But, as is shown, it seems to be working somewhat. People are upset at losing these features and are stating that they would rather have the DRM on their systems and are willing to put up with that so long as they can have the small features that are provided. To me, the bad far outweighs the good.

Who knows though, maybe the complete 180 will be permanent and then maybe it won’t. Until November rolls around we won’t know if any of this really has an affect on the sales of the Xbox One or not. But it still looks like Microsoft is taking a page right out of Ray Bradbury’s classic.

Women & Box Art

 

So this is fairly old topic that has recently been brought alight again due to the cover of a GameReactor magazine.

This issue features Joel from The Last of Us however the original art here is a bit different.

That’s right! Ellie is in the original art.

Now then. I’m not, at all, saying that there is some sexism involved here and that GameReactor is being malicious in any way, but it does raise some questions. And thinking back to three games this past year with “BioShock Infinite,” “Remember Me” and, the above mentioned, “The Last of Us” it’s interesting to point out that there were issues with getting female characters into video games.

I don’t know what it is but it seems that there is this aversion to using female characters in games that aren’t either damsel in distress or sexualized. This isn’t true for all games but reports have been released stating the hurdles these developers had to go through just to get the female characters on the cover or as a playable character.

The argument for this is that the majority of gamers cannot relate to a female protagonist. There’s also talk that if there are romance options that the male gamer feels weird which I read more as a homophobic feeling despite the fact the in game relationship is a heterosexual one.

That’s where I begin to question things.

First off, let’s get the obvious homophobic one out of the way. If someone is playing a female protagonist and the character forms a heterosexual relationship in the game’s story and the player has issues then the problem is lying solely with the gamer. The gamer who apparently does not have the ability to differentiate fantasy from reality. Seeing a female protagonist fall in love in a game is no different than in a movie. It’s that character’s story not the players.

The argument is then that since the player controls the character they’re as much a part of them and that’s why it feels weird. That’s still not an acceptable thinking approach and I refer anyone to look up Shakespearian plays and will point at all the roles were played by men which include the female characters. So Juliet Capulet was portrayed by a male who had to act out the role with another male. It’s important to separate yourself from the role enough to enjoy the art at hand which, in the game’s case, is the story.

Now the second part: The argument that gamers cannot relate to a female protagonist and that the game won’t sell as well with a female on the cover.

We need to break our mindset that a game won’t sell because male gamers cannot relate to a female protagonist, the mindset that seems to want to prevent female characters from gracing the cover of box art because it’s not as appealing. This is art. Art should stand on its own and be pleasing despite the gender of the protagonist.

A well designed art cover will generate a lot of interest and get people to pick up the box to see if they will be interested in what the game is about. It shouldn’t be reliant on the gender of the character on the cover. That isn’t how art works.

Games are so desperate to be considered an art form and even if they are considered art by legal standards they still hold themselves back on the social standard by doing things like refusing to put female characters on covers and arguing that gamers cannot relate to female characters.

Gamers aren’t idiots. If the game is good, if it tells a good story and it plays well then I can promise that a female protagonist and female cover art will not hurt sales. People do respect quality.

The Last of Us

I try not to write reviews because, really, there are plenty of people who have done that and done it better. This is no attempt to review the game either but to bring up something I kind of find a bit interesting.

Every site and reviewer out there is lauding this game as a masterpiece, citing its superb storyline and well thought-out voice acting along with the message it conveys. I’m not here to argue that. The story is done good, the voice acting is top notch. The message is easy to understand.

No, what I’m here to argue is that this game has a surprising lack of gameplay. It’s something I find a bit troublesome for a game that has such a great storyline. It’s not often talked about but the problem with this game is that it feels like you are walking from cutscene to cutscene. There’s dialog while you are walking that just provides exposition and character development. This is good for story purposes but it’s not good, in my opinion, for gameplay purposes.

Now I’m not saying this game doesn’t have gameplay. It’s there. It’s just not a lot. There’s no boss fights either. In fact this is the issue I have with the game. The gameplay elements (which are either stealth or combat according to preference) are the boss fights. You walk and walk and walk, listening to the characters talk while you push forward on the analog stick then when you get to an ending point before a cutscene you’ll face a small battle.

I’m all for games becoming an artform and in the case of games like The Walking Dead, I can see it being more focused on the story but even I felt the game didn’t deserve Game of the Year status. Adventure games are fun if done right. For the most part The Walking Dead: The Game is. In the case of The Last of Us it looks like it struggles to decide on being either a game or an interactive film. Interactive films are decent and that’s what Adventure Games are. But it’s about striking that balance.

The Last of Us seems to fail at its gameplay mechanic just having you push along for story purposes without any major events happening then giving you a small battle arena to stealth or fight in before repeating the same long trek to the next cutscene.

Now don’t get me wrong! The Last of Us is a great game. I just think many people are ignoring the fact that it’s not giving you much gameplay because they’re taken in by the story. I see no reason it can’t have both.

The State of Gaming and Fear of the Future

 

OK so E3 2013 is behind us now and now is a good time to reflect on it as the excitement and hype has died down. I have to say that I’m worried about the future state of gaming, not because there will be bad games coming out because we all know there will always be good and bad games. I worry because of the restrictions placed on gaming such as DRM, online checkups, etc.

Now I know this is initially sounding like an anti-Xbox rant but I assure you my fear goes beyond that.

But let’s talk Xbox One. A lot of it does start from here. They have a very strict policy coming into this next console generation. They have a strong anti-used game standpoint. They have mandatory installations, online checkups, always on (for the most part) Kinect functionality, required internet service and the like. All of these are obvious anti-consumer practices that favor the corporate entities over the consumers, which is Microsoft’s right to do. So let’s look at a few things on this first and I do warn you that much of what I say may sound like I’m wearing a tin foil hat.

1) No support for trading.
Sure this might just be at launch and may be changed. I can’t predict the future. However there is an argument among people stating that you can still share it with up to 10 people in your home. I have a problem with this. The problem is that previously you could share your game with as many people as you liked. What happens here is a simple strategy that makes people willing to give up their rights. First you announced a major change that will restrict people. This gets them fired up. Then you announced a change of that policy that still restricts people but just not like you initially announced and they welcome it. We see this done often with gasoline prices. They skyrocket a dollar or more for a while upsetting people but then come down a few cents and people think that it’s not so bad now even though the price still jumped up dramatically.

2) Always on Kinect.
I’m sure people will argue saying that you can pause it or turn the system off. Fine, the Kinect may not be intrusive, we don’t know. However, with recent revelations with Microsoft, the NSA and spying, the fact that the Kinect is watching you no doubt has some people worried.

3) Anti-Used Games and Online Checkups.
The Right of First Sale is a strong law that weakens when digital content comes around. It’s being able to skirt around this law that allows DRM to persist in all sorts of mediums among other reasons. This law should exist for games as well as a protection for consumer. That doesn’t mean at all that it can’t still be illegal to copy and pirate. But as criminals are criminals by not obeying the law there’s no stopping them and you don’t really make it that much harder by doing so. Most hackers take it as a challenge. The always online checkups just seem to be a measure of authenticating that you have your legit copy.

Now I know a lot of this is preaching to the choir and you’d be right. What I’ve said about Microsoft and Xbox One has been said before and it’s like beating a dead horse.

So let’s move on to Sony. The beloved savior of video games.

I’m going to go on record here and say this flat out.

The applause Sony got for their consumer views should never have happened.

Now don’t get me wrong. It’s great that Sony is going in a pro-consumer view and it’s great that they will be less restrictive. That’s the problem though. There should never have been a situation like this to begin with that would require something as little as ownership being a major thing.

The DRM started on PC, the Microsoft blew it up and because of it people are cheering the fact that the Playstation 4 will not. This is an issue that it only takes a few people to accept it for it to become worse. Sony is getting tons of praise right now for doing what consoles have been doing for decades. It shouldn’t have come to this. Cheers should not be giving for someone doing what is expected of them. You can give a thank you just not a praise. That’s not to say Sony didn’t warrant it. The argument is because people should never have been pushed to that point to where what they expect is the savior. The real bad part about this is that during the applause and praise given for their standard pro-consumer stance they managed to say that you will need Playstation Plus to play online. A feature, that isn’t a big deal, but is still sneaking in an aside in the hopes no one notices which can be somewhat shady.

My fear now comes in that gaming will become more and more like consoles as they slowly take our consumer rights away. It may not happen and that would be great but I fear that if there is another generation it will be a company with even more restrictions and then a company using what Microsoft is doing now being praised for being less restrictive. And if it keeps going that route we’ll look back and wonder what happened to our consumer rights.,

Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s still a dreadful thought.

Way Too Long of a Hiatus

Well it’s been over a year since I made a post and largely that’s due to the fact that the minute I started this blog things kind of spiraled out of control. So I’m going to try to get back on track with this blog. Hopefully I can get it up and running on a more frequent basis now.

Same-Gender Relationships in Video Games

 

BioWare is well known for this. Lionhead Studios does it as well. You could even do it in “The Sims.” Of course I’m talking about same-gender relationships in video games. The reason this is being brought up is due to the current letter-writing campaign from activists against same-gender relationships.

For those not in the know, EA is under fire right now for including same-gender relationships in their video games. The specific games of note are both BioWare games being “Mass Effect” and their MMORPG “Star Wars: The Old Republic.” One can think back a few years when “Mass Effect” came under fire as an unsavory game, propagated by Fox News, even though you see more skin on over-the-air television. That controversy died down however but now is resurfacing due to same-gender relationships.

BioWare specifically has a long history of same-gender relationships. “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic” introduced the female character Juhani, who was a romance option for the female Jedi. “Mass Effect” has Liara T’soni. “Dragon Age: Origins” had a multitude of same-gender options and its sequel “Dragon Age II” had even more. The “Dragon Age” series is notable for having both male and female options in their games.

Now for my opinion on the matter. I like to think I’m fairly logical and understanding among both religion and politics. For same-gender relationships, I really feel that it should be allowed on a legal side. The government should not put forth any laws that discriminate against same-gender relationships. On the religious side, due to the separation of Church and State, I do believe that it is up to each religious institution to decide if they want to perform same-gender ceremonies or not.

That said, it’s only obvious that these groups often bring up religion as their reasons for wanting these same-gender relationships out of video games. My biggest question to this is why? I mean when you consider it, same-gender relationships are probably the least problematic issue in video games today.

Let’s look at a list of things you can do in video games: Kill, fight, wound, maim, insult, swear and more. It’s a small list of things that bring harm to others. To top it off with games like “Mass Effect” and,especially,“Star Wars: The Old Republic”  you have the option of being on the meaner side of things. In “Star Wars: The Old Republic” you can actually be evil.

Let’s consider this for a moment now. You can become a Dark Side character, perform assassinations in cold blood. In one instance you can kill a child’s father right in front of him, yet same-gender relationships are the problem.

In the “Mass Effect” series you can make decisions that lead people to their deaths. In one instance a poor drugged out alien who thinks it’s invincible can be sent to die instead of being told to get to safety but same gender relationships are the problem.

This is just my view and all but I have a really hard time in believing that these religious groups are righteous or noble in any way since they appear to spread more hatred and intolerance than anything. They don’t seem to have a problem where you can virtually murder people on a whim with  but you can’t have a same-gender relationship.

Another issue on this matter is the fact that this didn’t seem to be as controversial when it was female-female relationships. I could be wrong of course and just didn’t notice it but it appears to me that this issue started when the male-male relationships were introduced. Why is it that even with many of these prejudicial complaints in video games it only seems to really matter when it’s male oriented.

I’m sure the female side is shunned too and I’m not saying they don’t have their problems from these people because they do. I’ve once heard a complaint that why they don’t mind female-female is that no penetration is involved. To me it’s an issue of bias. It’s not about religious teachings. It’s about some personal, homophobic disgust that makes them decide to use religion as the excuse to express homophobic propaganda.

That’s really all I have to say on this matter and, really, there are other games out there that do not involve same-gender relationships. So, for those parents that don’t want their kids exposed to it then it’s your responsibility to make sure they aren’t. Stop trying to make video game companies do your job for you.