Online services like PSN, XBL and the Virtual Console have given many of us the opportunity to play classic titles from a variety of systems. These games may be titles that let us reminisce and bask in the nostalgia of games from decades past, or have new experiences with older games we have missed out on the first time around. Personally, the Virtual Console has allowed me to delve into the Sega Genesis library and experience Genesis titles beyond Sonic.
My favourite of these Genesis titles is M.U.S.H.A. The game is a pretty straight forward Bullet Hell Shoot ‘em Up. The story takes place in the year 2290 AD. The control system for a newly built space colony malfunctions and sends an army of robots to assault Earth. In response, a group of mech pilots attempt to stop the invasion and all are killed, save one. Players take control of the survivor, Terri, as she continues on her mission to stop the invasion.
M.U.S.H.A. was originally released in 1990, and was re-released in January 2009 on the Wii. The game that is wildly popular amongst Genesis collector and original cartridge can fetch around $100 online. Yet, I have hardly met anyone that has even heard of the game, much less professes any sort of love for it. I find that extremely surprising as it is one of the most enjoyable videogames I have ever played. Perhaps, the title is more well known an appreciated in Japan or was a bigger deal when it came out. Being three years old at the time of its release, I cannot known for certain, as I was far more enthralled with Super Mario.
Regardless of why the title has faded into obscurity over the past twenty years, the game is absolutely brilliant. M.U.S.H.A.’s production values are top notch. Despite the game coming out early in the Genesis’ life cycle, the visuals are some of the best I have seen on for system. The fast paced techno-rock fusion is easily one of the most enjoyable parts of M.U.S.H.A and is incredibly well suited to the action heavy, hectic battle atmosphere. Furthermore, the game is fun in a way that is hard to match with other games. I find it incredibly easy to pick this game up a few times a week and spend an hour on the couch having a run at beating the game. Because of this incredible accessibility I have probably spent more hours with this game than most people do with lengthy JRPGs.
If I were to have to say something negative about the game it would have to be the difficultly. Perhaps, this was just my inexperience with Bullet Hell titles, but when I started out, even set to easy, the game was challenging and took me quite a while to become comfortable with dodging oncoming fire and enemies, whilst gunning down everything that is thrown your way.
Collecting power ups for your weapons and putting your shield drones into certain formations depending on the situation becomes incredibly important as the games goes on. Precision can only go so far. Strategy is what will lead you to victory.Even though you have multiple lives at your disposal, when your mech is destroyed you start again from where you left off without a break in the action, and lose any upgraded weapons you might have previously ha. Going back to zero midway through the game starts an uphill struggle that is almost futile, but not impossible.
Truth be told, I am having to think quite a lot to explain this game, because the moment you truly become comfortable with M.U.S.H.A. is when you become so entirely relaxed, so transfixed and in tune with the rhythms that you do not even realize you are playing any longer. When I finish a game in either success or failure, it is like waking up from a haze where my conscious mind has been turned off or away in an entirely different place and only my reflexes and physical body have been responding to stimuli.
As a literature student, I shall use my superior writing abilities and intellect to win you over with my impressive arguments. Now, you may wish to judge me for not having actually played Bayonetta, but I can assure you that I would never have to due to the fact that I am a Sony supporter, and I only purchase titles that are exclusive to my system.
inFamous and Bayonetta are both videogames within the action genre that, to put it bluntly, only really exist to give people erections. When comparing these games with one another, it becomes unmistakably obvious that inFamous is the superior title. Anyone who thinks otherwise and favours the pathetically ambulatory and truly inferior Bayonetta is obviously a blathering dolt who should be taken out back and flogged into submission.
It is fairly evident that Bayonetta is merely a reskinned abortion of a Devil May Cry title. Anyone who has played the Devil May Cry 4 demo on their PS3 can attest to how awful it is. Therefore, one can assert that Bayonetta was created merely as a sexual experiment in the medium of gaming, and offers little to no enjoyment in the sector of actual gameplay. In Bayonetta “some female characters perform suggestive taunts and poses, including opening their legs or gyrating their hips.”* Tecmo have already tested these tried-and-true tactics to the point where they have become tattered and tired. In addition to this, Bayonetta tries to play on every young boy’s fantasy of a sexy librarian, but in doing so it becomes evident that Platinum Games obviously have little imagination or creativity and must shamelessly emulate other things from popular culture in order to succeed.
In contrast, Sucker Punch was quite ingenious in crafting inFamous as a sexual experience. Firstly, the morality system does an impressive job at making the player feel like a naughty boy. There is always the option to do the ever so quaint “right thing”. However, it is so much more rewarding to do the opposite that positively no one can resist the allure of evil and the incredibly, edibley sexy Sasha.
Throughout inFamous, “a boss character named Sasha appears covered in a tar-like substance, which leaves her cleavage exposed. She sometimes makes suggestive comments during battle”** as well as later in the game in psychic messages akin to fever dreams which occur during inFamous’ impressively complex moral side missions. Her voice is so sexually charged and suggestive that anyone playing inFamous is surely hiding a massive erection. Platinum Games rely on playing on adolescent fantasies to stir arousal in its players, where as Sucker Punch have created a game so sexually charged that you cannot help but lust after a psychopathic drug addict.
Additionally, in one of the most brilliantly inventive moves in gaming history, Sucker Punch has made the gameplay so awful that most of it can be boiled down to relentlessly mashing a single button in order to progress. While this may sound like an awful gameplay mechanic, it only requires the player to equip the controller with one hand, leaving the other to be placed squarely around his joystick. As such, inFamous is most certainly the superior title in every respect, and puts Bayonetta to shame.
Yesterday I was asked why I bought a PS3 like it was some sort of status symbol in the gaming world. It were as if I had just purchased a Bentley and was sipping fine champagne and enjoying caviar, whilst enjoying my Blu Ray, and having titillating conversation with fellow members of the elite about mocking the poor commoners with their Xboxes. The question stimulated some thoughts that were not at the forefront of my mind. Why did I “shell out” for a PS3 when I could have just as easily got a 360? One might chalk it up to brand loyalty or personal choice, but my reasoning went in a direction we, as gamers, do not often talk about:
One of the best ways we, as consumers, can show our support, or lack thereof for someone, something, or in this case: a company and its business practices, is by voting with our wallets. Personally, I am majoring in environmental studies and political science in college right now, and this voting is something I do on a daily basis. Every time I take my wallet out of my pocket I can’t help but think of the implications. It may not be the most fun thing to do, and sometimes I think being ignorant would be a little more blissful, but in general I am happy to sacrifice some things if I think it’s morally justified.
You vote every time you eat. This is one of the big reasons I became a vegetarian. I could not go on to support the meat and corn industries that, amongst many other issues, have subsequently created a growing Dead Zone the size of the State of New Jersey off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico in which nothing can ever live again.
You vote every time you purchase something in the game industry as well. Recently, I decided I was not comfortable purchasing anything from Activision-Blizzard because of the viewpoints their CEO has made abundantly clear and because their practices echo such sentiments. I am sure Starcraft II will be a blast, but I have decided that I cannot support that business as it is currently operating. I am not even going to buy them used or pirate them, to stiff Kotick for the 60 dollars. If I did buy them and then expressed my enjoyment for them, it might serve as a recommendation to others to purchase the games, and then my boycott will be for naught.
Finally, I am getting to the subject of this rant, why I cannot support Microsoft. It’s fairly obvious that Microsoft does not respect its customers. That sentiment has been expressed a great deal, especially here at Destructoid. Jim Sterling said it far better there than I could hope to right now after a night of collegiate binge drinking. I have not made a secret of it, but Nintendo of Japan is and has always been one of my favourite companies in gaming. A large reason of this is because it is evident that they have a love for what they do, and have a healthy respect for their fans and customers, no matter how much NoA tramples on that, or “hardcore gamers” shit on them for trying to bring a medium that we have all enjoyed for years to an expanded audience.
Microsoft has no such love for gaming and gamers. Steve Ballmer is in the business of making games to make money. Satoru Iwata makes money to stay in the business and make more games.
Microsoft entered the console gaming market merely to compete with Sony for market share, after the PS2 killed off the Dreamcast. That is all well and good, even if I don’t particularly like some of the unsavoury aspects of capitalism, I realise that it is perfectly legitimate to enter a business merely to make money. However, Microsoft, like Activision, charges for things, not because they think it is worth it, but because they can. This ranges from the wireless modem, to dash themes, the ability to use the internet you are already paying for with Microsoft’s network, clothes for your MS Mii and I don’t want to get started about some of the pricing for downloadable titles. Microsoft knows people will still buy it, so they might as well charge for it, even if its a betrayal to their loyal customers.
So when I began to have interest in purchasing either a 360 or a PS3, again this dilemma of voting with my wallet came into question. Both are rather humongous faceless corporations that I have had prior experience with their products outside the gaming market. I never had an affinity for either the Playstation or the XBOX brands, because I was always a Nintendo and Sega guy. Both systems have exclusive games I am interested in playing. However, after looking into it, it became very apparent that for a 360 to function on the same level as a PS3 it would be more expensive, not only upfront but also over time as well.
In a potential 10 year life cycle you could spend 500 dollars on XBL membership. Don’t get me wrong, I know it is a great online service, if you’re willing to pay for it. That’s 500 dollars that could have added roughly 10 titles to your system’s library or purchased your next console. That’s 500 dollars that should have stayed in your pocket to begin with. However, at only a few dollars a month, no one seems to really notice or care too much.
Anyone sucked into purchasing a 360 Arcade at its economical price and wanted the capabilities of a fully upgraded system have found themselves spending far more than buying the more expensive models or the stereotypically expensively priced PS3 would have. It is a good marketing strategy on Microsoft’s part to move systems. However, expecting you to pay more for a lesser piece of hardware with higher rates of failure and malfunction is really just corporate greed.
Did I buy a Playstation 3 because it is a status symbol about how big my...wallet is and how much I love Blu-Ray & the HD Revolution? Well, no. Sony may not be falling all over itself to please its customers, but as it turns out I just would rather support a company that doesn’t want to constantly have its hand in your pocket and would rather earn your business than bleed you dry.
I had to vote against that kind of treatment towards customers. I don’t hold any real contempt towards people who decided to vote the other way, whether they realised what the message their dollars were sending when they walked away from that cash register. That money either means approval, or a willingness to put up that relationship of disrespect. In such a market driven society, the money we spend effects more than just our bottom line. It is probably the strongest socio-political tool we have, and if people just start to wake up from their apathy and introversion and realise this, things will start to change.
So this past weekend I happened to meet the Pokemon Trainer from popular web series There Will Be Brawl. He was a really nice guy and was surprised that I had even heard of his series, much less was a big fan of it. It turned out to be an interesting evening that started off with the usual binge drinking. Next we began throwing of balls at cups full of liquids. Then we ended up taking a two mile hike across town, which culminated in “Red” spraining his ankle. Several of us helped him to stabilize it with duct tape and made a 3 AM call for a designated driver to get him evacuated to safety.
I enjoyed Mirror’s Edge for the gameplay and interesting take on the platforming genre, but as far as the storyline goes, it has extremely little appeal. However, I would like to set the gameplay and story aside and take a deeper look at something not often lingered upon, the game’s setting: the unnamed city that I assume is called New Eden from my digging around in the game’s periphery.
The city that hosts Mirror’s Edge at first glance is a beautiful, clean metropolis. It appears to be very utopian, with low crime and tall, spotlessly clean architecture. Aesthetically, if I were to live in a heavily populated urban environment, New Eden would seem like a highly desirable location to inhabit. The environmental aesthetics shown in the trailer were a driving force behind my purchase of the title.
Dig beneath that glossy exterior though, and you will uncover that the city is not as desirable a place to inhabit as it might seem. While, New Eden was once a more ordinary place, over time increased surveillance on behalf of the mayoral government was added to the city’s infrastructure. This heavy surveillance was ignored initially, but eventually led to protests and the “November Riots” where protestors were captured and killed by the local police force.
At the time when Mirror’s Edge takes place, New Eden is oppressed by a totalitarian regime that heavily monitors any and all electronic forms of communication; hence the existence of the “Runners” that create the game’s cast. In addition to an extensive system that watches and listens in on its citizens, New Eden also has several divisions of police forces, some that are even contracted out to third party mercenaries, in order to enforce the Mayor’s tyrannical will through use of state terrorism.
Colour also plays an important role in painting New Eden as a totalitarian society. The city appears very sterile, and thus is largely white and reflective glass, that play into the titular name of where the Runners and other societal recluses living on the fringe. Other than that sterility, much of the environments in New Eden are exclusively painted in bold primary and secondary colours that allude back to other totalitarian societies in history.
Other than the limited portions of free roaming platforming, the most interesting part of Mirror’s Edge was the silent backstory that could be viewed as much, or as little, as the player wants. No one wanted to play this game to fight cops or hear Rhianna Pratchett blather on about Faith and her sister, but those that did play through Mirror’s Edge quickly without stopping and smelling the roses, missed out on one of my favourite things about the title. Various things, such as City Eye, the municipal news company spews propaganda and heavily censored news for the government really helped to flesh out what could have been just another flat picture of totalitarian rule in modern storytelling.
Last night I began to play...inFAMOUS. While finding it fun, after a couple hours with the game I began questioning what the point in playing further was.
Initially I took delight in harming civilians, only to realise they were not puppets but reacted in different ways: some cower, others run, and some stay and fight. At the outset, I killed everyone in my path indiscriminately, but soon I turned my attention towards the cowards. Those that cower and run deserve to die. This is an apocalyptic survival situation and the civilians who wish to fight for their lives should be able to do so, those that run and hide, seeking pity were my targets. This was Darwinism at its finest and I was God, eliminating those too weak to survive and allowing those that could adapt to flourish. However, this only amused me for so long.
I heard this game was about moral choice. Naturally I decided to test this system. I took the evil fork in the road early on, but soon found myself healing felled civilians. Why should I be pigeon holed into an evil stereotype of a villain? I am my own person. I thought, perhaps, on occasion I should use my powers for good, if I see fit. These people be just mere mortals, not my adversaries, perhaps they should be allowed to go on with their lives.
Later I was given the option of telling a man that his wife was dead, thereby reasoning with him, or killing him to gain access to a tunnel. I was far more sinister than the game could imagine though. I planned on breaking the news to the man, filling his heart with sorrow, only to violently kill him moments later. However, the game “rewarded” me with good karma and didn’t allow me to kill the character after I broke the news to the widower. -So much for next generation videogaming. Apparently this game is black or white, or red and blue as the case may be, and I may not walk in the grey.
My roommate was watching me, and having played the game previously, criticized my actions. Apparently, I should have known the game was polar and didn’t have a full spectrum of morals. Apparently every choice in life is either good or bad and cannot have mixed outcomes. I have been informed I can choose to walk my path as I see fit, but I will only stand to gain from my actions if I stand clearly on one side of the line.
I want to be morally ambiguous. I want to show compassion for some, while being far more menacing than the game allows to others. So here I am, wondering if it is worth it to continue on with a game that has failed its purpose as I saw it. Should I return the game to my roommate’s shelf? Or should I continue on? If I do so there is a choice I will have to make, do I want to play the game the black or white manner it is set up and reap the benefits of this polarized system, or should I play how I want to play, even if that means that I will not be benefiting and thus, may have a difficult road ahead of me as the difficulty ramps up as the game progresses?
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press living the dream since March 16, 2006
