10) Flora and Aura

In trying to develop a case of how some video games can become popular over others, I have come across an example of a game that is an exception to the trends in the current electronic market. This missing piece, surprisingly, is what makes this game a unique masterpiece.

The missing piece I'm referring to is a story. Although there is little explanation for the setting of this game, it is open to whatever interpretation you want to slap on it.

I am talking about NEOTOKYO(http://www.neotokyohq.com/index.html). A Half-Life 2 modification with more than 4 years of development put into it. It tells the story of a future dystopian Tokyo, in which a shadow war is being fought in the back alleys of the capital of Japan. It depicts a conflict between the future Japanese GSDF against the NSF, a special counter-terrorism unit under the command of the prime minister.

So we have a setting. What we do not have is a centralized plot to what we are playing. And that's just it. We don't need a story. This future Japan we are playing in is filled with a unique visual style that encompasses everything, from billboards to cars.

I draw attention to this because I have decided to document some of the real life aspects that have been put into this game. The images seen that make you believe you are actually THERE. I'm referring to some of the advertisements. I've added their real life counterparts into the following images for comparison purposes:

(I'm guessing this last one was in the interest of not getting sued.)

My point is that some games can be better than others, even if they are missing an element of what would easily define them as a 'video game'. However, the developers of such a game must execute this style correctly and carefully.

If you have Steam, and a copy of Half-Life 2, I urge you to check this out. If not for the gameplay or graphics, then for the visual style not seen in recent years.

http://www.neotokyohq.com/index.html

9) The Wonders of Democracy.

With the United States in economic turmoil, everyone I know likes to question how we got here. They trace their steps back to when George Bush was first elected for president.

We can remember how close the 2000 and 2004 elections were. I personally remember the 2000 presidential election quite well. I was eating dinner with my family when the results were coming on. I saw how FOX news was reporting Bush the winner. When my parents changed the channel and I saw differing election results, my cousin audibly yelled: "What the ****?"

Watching episodes of The Young Turks (http://www.theyoungturks.com) brought me to thinking about how close that election was. How It MIGHT have gone the other way. So comes the controversy that gave me a blast from the past.

It was when I saw the video regarding FOX news's battle with the White House did I realize how big an issue this is. What a lot of people do not realize.

The news is important. You tune in every day or so to check the weather and the new developments around your community. But did you ever stop to wonder how much of it you actually believe? How much of it is true? Whether or not you question the validity of what you are hearing?

Cenk Uygur, Youtube spokesman for The Young Turks, was talking about the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. Because Bush's cousin told FOX news that Bush had won, FOX was the first network to publish results. This started a domino effect with the other networks. Nobody bothered to sit and wait for it to be completely over and official. They just cared about being the first to report it. They rest as they say, is history.

I'm not going to speculate on the what ifs this brings up. I accept the fact that George Bush became president. And as much as I disapproved with his polices and actions, I have no doubt that he and his administration had the best intentions.

What really scares me is the fact that a news network MIGHT have completely influenced the election of a president. How could such a thing happen?

Then again I might be paranoid. I'm pretty sure that I will never know most things about the U.S. government. The administration might be controlling the media, or the media might be controlling the government.

Either way, I honestly think there is something really wrong with the system.

8) I'm playing the movie. Literally.

Are video games a good narrative for telling a story? Most would tell you that it depends on the game. It would also depend on the characters, the plot, the action, etc. Well doesn't that sound like a movie you and your friends would see? Or how about a good book you would read?

Those who have played video games in the past year will know of the popular Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. As of May 2009, it has sold over 13 million copies. That's more than Halo 3.

So what makes this game so popular? Some would argue that the graphics, physics of the game engine, or the franchise's fame is what makes CoD4 the best of the best.

Want to know what I enjoyed most about the game? Why I kept replaying it?

As odd as it may sound, the story is what makes this game strong. CoD4 is one of the very few games that immerses you in the story. This happens thorough multiple perspectives in different levels. I'll try to explain what I mean to the best of my ability (SPOILER ALERT!):

The game starts you off as a member of the SAS on a routine Hollywood movie mission. As you get a feel for the controls, you infiltrate a tanker in the Bering Sea. You don't know what you're looking for until your teammate opens a cargo container. With radiation symbols all over it. Then the tanker gets attacked by MiGs. So starts your one minute dash to fumble with the newly learned controls to retrace your path (provided you can remember) off the ship before it sinks. Even as you watch the tanker go down from your helicopter, you feel relieved. Why? The character you're playing is a newbie on the team.

Your perspective switches to President Al-Fulani of an unnamed middle eastern country. You watch from his eyes as you are executed during a coup.

You then play as Sgt. Paul Jackson during an American invasion. You pursue Al-Asad, the coup leader, in his city. Just as you get whisked away on your helicopter, a nuclear weapon goes off, blacking you out. Even as you play through his last moments, you see and feel his pain as you arch up to look at the mushroom cloud before you die.

You explore the past history of your squad leader, Cpt. Price, as you control him in a flashback. A flashback that takes place in Prypiat, Ukraine, near the Chernobyl disaster site.

As you pursue Imran Zakhaev, the main antagonist, you fight into his missile base in the Russian Mountains. As you are about to open the gate, you see two missiles leaving the silos. As the game loads, you see the casualty projections: 43 million on the East Coast of the U.S. It's no longer business. You feel the character's anger. It becomes personal.

And even as you and your team are incapacitated in the final seconds of the game, Zakhaev arrives with his two bodyguards. When an explosion happens nearby, distracting them, you turn to Cpt. Price, clutching his wounds. He is about to die before he takes the pistol off his belt and slides it over to you. You take it, and kill Zakhaev in cold blood during a slo-mo sequence.

My point is that the story is what makes this game exciting and interesting. Executed correctly, any game can immerse you into the plot, and make you associate yourself with the characters. If you think that story was interesting, check out the trailer for the sequel, Modern Warfare 2, slated for release in Nov. 10, 2009. The trailer by itself is another story begging to be told:

I'm going to play CoD4 again. See you in awhile.

Quote of the Day - Tatum Article

"(10.) Prejudice is one of the inescapable consequences of living in a racist society. Cultural racism—the cultural images and messages that affirm the assumed superiority of Whites and the assumed inferiority of people of color—is like smog in the air. Sometimes it is so thick it is visible, other times it is less apparent,[9] but always, day in and day out, we are breathing it in. None of us would introduce ourselves as “smog-breathers” (and most of us don’t want to be described as prejudiced), but if we live in a smoggy place, how can we avoid breathing the air? If we live in an environment in which we are bombarded with stereotypical images in the media, are frequently exposed to the ethnic jokes of friends and family members, and are rarely informed of the accomplishments of oppressed groups, we will develop the negative ideas about those groups that form the basis of prejudice. […]"

I think that this is the most important paragraph in the article because it actively defines what prejudice is. It also provides a good analogy to help us better understand the concept. I drew attention to the smog analogy because it is the one thing all different cultures and races can understand. The author claims we always breath in the smog, and it surrounds us all the time. I also underlined the last line of the paragraph, because I think it is true that we are bombarded with negative stereotypes rather than the achievements of these groups. Unless we can focus on "breaking the cycle", we can never get rid of racism.

7) Reimagining the Jetsons.

I want you to imagine a 1950's suburbia, with a hardworking successful businessman coming back home after a long day at work. There to great him is the subservient wife, the respectful children, and the family dog. They sit down for a family dinner, all sporting smiles on their faces. As the camera zooms out, we see that this household mirrors all the others in the community, all lined up in good little rows.

This image I describe is no longer the norm that is either appeasing, attractive, or politically correct. With the onset of advances in humanity, we can never revert back to those days. I want to tell you about one consequence of such progress.

I draw your attention to this 50's scenario because it was a time before we made the shift of our psychological health reliance to be based on people rather than technology.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Look around you. You either have a cellphone in your pocket, credit cards in your wallet, and most importantly, you are reading this on a piece of technology.

These things we have come to rely on has not only made our lives easier, it has made it a bit harder. We can no longer talk to people face to face, or have conversations that don't get interrupted by a sports game on TV, or have to step outside for a cellphone call.

This has led us down a dangerous road of extremely easy technological isolation. We have come to trust strangers halfway across the world on the internet rather than trust the people who live with you.

The consequences? Rising teen suicide rates, higher rates of stalking, more people in the prisons.

You think I'm exaggerating? Try not using a single technological device for one week. I dare you.