I'd like to address a few of the complaints about Life is Strange since I disagree with many of them. Unfortunately, 2 of them I cannot discuss without spoilers so I'll put a page break in for those of you who still want to play these games. The first 2 are spoiler free though so have at it.
Not sure if I'm saying I'm smarter than everyone but....
1. The Secondary Characters are all Cliche Stereotypes.
On the surface, yeah, they are. You have a rich asshole dude, a popular alpha-bitch, reserved bible thumper, arrogant science/nerd girl, famous arrogant art teacher, creepy "I wanna draw you" guy, even creepier janitor who talks to squirrels, asshole security guard former marine, asshole drug dealer, and even Chole is a bitchy punk girl, who is only that way because her PERFECT father died in a car accident years ago.
Almost all of these characters get fleshed out and have many layers to their personality, some more than others, but still a lot more than your average video game character. Throughout the games, Max discovers more and more about these characters backstory and their motivations. Characters that seem like outright villains at first start to look more sympathetic once you discover more information about them. Some of the nicer characters might be a little darker than they seem at first. They have depth. Most video games ignore this kind of characterization, which makes this complaint mind boggling for me.
"But he's a Chief. A MASTER Chief."
This kind of complaint makes me wonder if the gamers that make it see EVERYONE as a stereotype. The thing this game does so well is make characters that feel like actual people. Social media, and the internet at large, tends to make us all look like stereotypes. People are rarely JUST a "Fallout fan" or "Avs fan" or "Gun nut", or "Republican", or "Liberal", or...you get the idea. And while I think there are a few people out there who do tie their entire identity to one thing, I think they are the exception, not the rule. People are more complicated than that. Life is strange indeed.
2. There is no Gameplay I swear this is the last time I'm going to mention this in regards to this game but please, stop. I know "walking simulators" exist in this grey area that is between full fledged video game and visual novel. It doesn't matter. Making this argument when there is still SOME gameplay is absolutely stupid.
How about a Sleeping Simulator? Happy now?
When people make this complaint, what they really mean is that the gameplay sucks (which is very subjective) or that there is not "enough" of it. Enough of it? I don't even know what that means? Did you want a combat section? The type of people who make this complaint tend to do it exclusively on games without combat, or at least traditional puzzles. Life is Strange has plenty of puzzles, most of which are far more cerebral than traditional puzzles. I'd argue LiS's puzzles are more cerebral than Portal and I LOVE Portal. I found out that I NEEDED the journal at times to make sense of things. This game made the journal a part of gameplay way more than any RPG's codex.
For those reading that don't know, this is Quiet...
I know right? She really should throw those tights away. They are RIDDLED with holes.
Possible mice and/or bug infestation in Quiet's wardrobe aside, she is the controversial sniper support in Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. As you can imagine, she is controversial because of her design. She goes into battle wearing a sexy soldier Halloween costume. Yes, this is very stupid, but most of Metal Gear Solid is pretty stupid anyway* so just by looking at her with no context doesn't really mean anything. I've instead been interested in what other people have to say about her and how this controversy was overblown.
*In case you are reading only this post and not my overall review, I love MGS for the record. So don't fly off the handle at me calling MGS stupid, okay? It is stupid, but I love it anyway.
So here I am being topical a month late. This is my opinion on Quiet in numbered form. 10 points.
"Or 10 points to shoot and kill you!!"....thanks Quiet.
1. As a heterosexual white dude, her design doesn't bother me in the slightest! It's like I'm being catered to!....Wait a minute.
2. Anybody who doesn't want to play the game JUST because of her design is totally justified. I don't get it when people get upset about this. Like, what, do you own Konami stock or something? MGS isn't going to die because of low sales, it's already dead because Kojima will no longer be involved. I'm sure there is something that you refuse to play/watch/read/do JUST because you didn't like the look of a certain part, even if the rest of the parts look fine.
3. The reasoning behind her wearing a bikini is dumb as hell. It's a spoiler but revealed pretty early in the game, highlight to read (she breathes through her skin). Why? Well, that's actually kinda fun and, also, stupid as hell as revealed late in the game. In fact....
4. ...It looks just like the same stupid reasons directors use so they can have naked women in their grindhouse B-movies. MGS has ALWAYS had a B-movie plot but with a bloated budget. All of the stupid shit in MGS mirrors those same shitty B-movies that I have a soft spot for. Yes, some of those B-movies have naked women in them for no reason whatsoever, but the better ones try to justify it with a plot point that is something completely stupid, over-the-top, convoluted, or all of the above. Doesn't Quiet's "justification" for her almost nude-ness mimic this? Again, yes, it's dumb, but it's kind of the point.
This was all MoCap BTW.
5. I know Kojima said something along the lines of "you will all feel ashamed when you find out why she dresses that way" or whatever. I don't know or care. I refuse to take one tweet by the man as gospel when everybody was hammering him on one design choice at the time. That said....
6. Maybe Kojima is trolling us. Maybe he knows perfectly well that MGS is stupid and his public remarks about Quiet (along with the "waiting for the cosplay" remark) is in jest. This dude has always been Mayor of TrollTown anyway. I'm not sure he believes what he says.*
Don't be a perv breh.
*Obviously, there is no way to know for certain. I don't personally know the guy, obvs. But he has always came across as one of those developers who really cares about the fans and doesn't want to offend anybody. I'd wager a bet that he was responding to the negative tweets about Quiets design defensively as human nature says we are likely to do. Who hasn't said stupid shit on Twitter/Facebook/whatever, raise your hand?....If you raised your hand, you're a liar.
7. That said, I wish Kojima would have just said, "I want a naked chick in my game, fuck ya'll" and been done with it. Anybody who claims Quiet is not dressed like that for sex appeal is full of shit. Common. In what way is this NOT played up for sex appeal....
This is high art apparently.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There is a heartbreaking reason for this scene and maybe by itself it could stand up to scrutiny. The rest of the game, oogles her with the camera, sometimes when you don't even want it too. There were more than a few times when I pulled up my iDroid to do work when she is doing this in the background....
Y U Always Doing Things?
If you want to claim that she is not played off as sex appeal, fine. Evidence says otherwise.
8. It's distracting because IMO, she was a pretty interesting character. Not GREAT or anything, but good. There is a mystery around her most of the game and the payoff is that B-movie cheese I love so much. I'm amazed the controversy around her character isn't about something else. LATE GAME SPOILER (she has a torture scene). The second half of this game's story is pretty bad but the plot regarding Quiet was actually good. It's not for everybody but I like well done greasy cheese.
9. Her character for gameplay is a mixed bag. Self promote for Reviewwwwww
10. If you are one of those weirdos who comment on Jim Sterling's video or Angry Joe's review whining about artistic integrity or freedom of speech or SJW's are feminazing games into a new world order just stop. Realize you're fucking toddlers who need their bottle mmkay? Just because mommy didn't love you enough doesn't mean you need to hate everybody who gives the slightest of shits what women feel. Maybe try to give them the benefit of the doubt sometimes? No, that doesn't mean they are always right, but respect their opinion even if it's wrong and maybe you'll see we are all human....you idiots.
There will ALWAYS be a game for you BTW. First rule of business, and video games are a business unless you forgot, "if there is a market, somebody will cater to it". Besides, mobile games have done FAR more damage to your worldview than any SJW.
"BUT THIS IS MALE OBJECTIFICATION". Cause women dig dudes covered in blood, I guess.
And for the SJW's, please regard context. Quiet making you angry? That's fine. Not everything is going to be catered to your taste. May I recommend Mass Effect or Dragon Age? I agree that we need better female/non-white/gay/trans/Krogan representation in video games and not just as sex symbols like...Quiet? Even though, it's possible, the most interesting thing about her was not her boobs. Let's tone it down a bit. The Internet makes us look one dimensional, but that is rarely the case.
In conclusion, Quiet is whatever. Good character with a stupid design. And hey, you know what, that is just my opinion. If you are angry at anything I said, maybe stop taking every review of everything as THE OPINION OF EVERYBODY. That....is the root of YOUR problem. There is no such thing as an "objective review" you fool.
Likewise, my review of you is I love you. Thank you for reading!
Note: I plan on writing a full review of this series once all 5 episodes are out. I've played through the first 3 as of this writing.
I've been playing Life is Strange recently, an episodic story-driven game with minimal gameplay in the traditional sense. It's pretty awesome, but it reminds me of a debate among gamers about what these games are. Should these types of games be classified as "video games"? Should they be called something else? It's a grand debate that any human that plays video games will always have....although they fucking shouldn't because it's the dumbest debate of all time.
Here is how dumb this debate is. Regardless of how minimal the gameplay is, the gameplay is still there, so yes, these are video games. End of debate.
Whoa. Shortest blogpost ever. That was easy.
YEAH! Time to celebrate with tons of potassium and water (SCIENCE JOKE).
Okay, I'll explain myself. I have two arrogant points.
Point the first:
This whole debate seemed to arise after TellTale's The Walking Dead won game of the year in many outlets, followed by Gone Home winning game of the year the following year (although The Last of Us may have won in more places). I haven't played either of those games although I know Life is Strange is very similar to TellTale games. These are games that are more interactive than a visual novel, but less so than The Last of Us or Grand Theft Auto 5 which was also released (on consoles) the same year as Gone Home. I can see why the debate is brought up but....why do you care?
Nobody gives a shit about the Grammys, the Golden Globes, the Tonys, or the Oscars. Okay, people SORT OF care about the Oscars but not enough to riot if a black and white silent film wins best picture in one...which almost happened in 2011. Why do gamers care if Gone Home wins Best Game of the Year by whatever publication? It's just another version of these same awards that nobody really cares about and doesn't really mean anything.
What the hell am I looking at?
Is it about money? Sort of, yes, but it's complicated. Movies that win an Oscar have been known to receive a bump, but even then, most of the bump is for whoever worked on an Oscar winning movies' NEXT movie. The Grammy bump has the opposite effect where the bump is there for existing work, but not for the next. Winning a Tony can apparently single-handedly save a Broadway Show, but how often do people see Broadway Shows outside of elitist culture snobs? The Golden Globes however, do fuck all. Video Games lack a single award show that has unanimous approval. Does anybody really want to buy a game solely off of what Geoff Knightley says is really good?
Award shows are pointless. Movies that win Best Picture are rarely the best picture. TV shows that win a Golden Globe are rarely the best. Musicians who win a Grammy are NEVER the best because that award show is ridiculously corrupt. Why does anybody care what game wins a pointless Game of the Year award? Seriously....leave a comment. I don't understand these people.*
*Before I go on to the next point, I only realized this first one when talking with members of the infamous #Gamergate. They seemed weirdly annoyed at Gone Home and thought it shouldn't win a Video Game award because it isn't a video game. I counter that with, who fucking cares? Awards, are, pointless. Point the Second:
The other issue that is brought up about these video games needing to be called something else is because people get hung up on the "game" part of the title. Doesn't a video game need to have something resembling a fail state, a way to lose so to speak, for it to be a "game"?
I sort of agree with that argument, except that I've always thought the term video game was kind of dumb. A great video game is "just a game" the same as a great movie is "just a movie". Both statements are technically correct even though something feels off about them. Video games feel like they can be more than just a game and I think getting too hung up about being a game can restrict what the medium is capable of.
Like, references and shit. That movie is awful BTW.
In the end, this whole argument boils down to a stupid semantics debate and what the definition of words are and my eyes are glazing over. You know a debate gets good when two sides start debating the philosophical meaning of the word "game". It's the same type of people who would debate whether or not that last sentence was sarcasm.
Life is Strange, the game I've played recently which inspired this blogpost, doesn't have a traditional fail state (although I wouldn't be surprised if one appears near the end of episode 5). Your character, Max, cannot die. However, I have ABSOLUTELY failed in this game, as anybody who has played through the end of episode 2 can attest. Unlike other games, you have to continue on with that failure as a part of the game sort of like real life. You don't just respawn like nothing happened (unless you went back and replayed the scene you coward). Without getting into spoiler territory, the end of episode 2 can significantly change the way you see the rest of the story even if most of the changes in episode 3 are in dialogue only (there is a couple of minor visual changes too).
eeeyyaaa....EEEYYAAA.....AHHHHH *starts sobbing*
As for other frequently accused non-games. I know characters can die in Tell Tale games, even if it's not the main character, due to player choice. Heavy Rain, one of the first games to start this stupid debate, the main character can die if you fail certain quick time events (dumb yes, but still a fail state). The other David Cage game, Beyond:Two Souls might be the best example as it is impossible to die, or at least I think it is from the tiny amount of gameplay and Let's Play footage I've watched. And despite the lack of a fail state, there is still gameplay.....OH SHIT! The "game" word is back!
Anyway, dumbest video game debate ever. These types of games are video games until otherwise re-defined. If they are still lumped in with every video game, and video games as a whole are re-defined, that is what they are. If they are separated from video games, and are defined something else, Life is Strange is still a great "interactive game-movie thing visual novel weird dream". Semantics are for whiners. People who persist can get the fuck over it.
