Review: Dead Island: Riptide - ¡Viva la sangre!

Publisher: Deep Silver
Developer(s): Techland
Platforms: PC, PS3, Xbox 360

Dead Island is an easy series to criticize. A resolutely B level zombie game from relatively little known European developer, Techland, it only made it's way into the average gamer's radar thanks to a head turning zombie-attack-in-reverse cinematic trailer going viral. Up until that point, the only other console offering from Techland had been the middling Western shooter, Call Of Juarez. The trailer for Dead Island was a huge stroke of luck for a game that likely would have come and gone without making much of a ripple. It also raised expectations to an absurd level given the developers previous output.

Reviewers slapped it for it's graphics, it's clunky interface, a plethora of bugs, uninteresting characters, laughable dialogue and a nearly non-existent story. I even heard people complaining that the game wasn't like the trailer which boggled my mind because... how would that even work? (Does anyone think that the live action trailer for Call Of Duty: Ghosts means you're going to be able to play as an aborigine warrior? It was just a cinematic trailer, guys.) The game was carried mostly by it's melee-focused action/RPG combat. Guns and ammo were very hard to find and almost useless to anyone who wasn't playing the gun specialist character, Purna. Hitting zombies in the face with electric sledgehammers and poison katanas was a surprising amount of fun, even if the charm started to wear off by the last fourth of the game. This was enough, however, to carry the game onto being a modest hit.

I wasn't at all surprised when they announced Dead Island: Riptide last year. Careful to frame it as more of an expansion than a sequel, with a slightly lowered price point to match, it seems meant to serve as a place holder until a proper sequel can be released down the line. It features the same cast of character, with one new character who specializes in fist fighting, on a new island fighting the same zombie threat.

Most of the criticisms of the game are, in fact, pretty accurate and not much has changed for Riptide. The story is still very silly and the plot is advanced mostly through your characters being very, very dumb. There's still plenty of bugs to be found including glitchy weather effects that stop and start at random, very hinky frame rate drops when things get crowded, weird collision detection moments and a mini-map that has regressed into near uselessness whenever you're out in the forest or boating.

Techland hasn't completely ignored our pleas, though. We now have a proper reticule. Importing your character allows for a raise in your level cap to even further buff up your character. There are also additional leveling you can do in each of the weapon types, hand-to-hand, blunt, sharp, and firearms, that will increase the more you use them, meaning finding that sledgehammer when you wanted a machete doesn't mean it has to be completely useless. Co-op play scales so that your level 66 Xian can play with someone else's level 10 John with no ill effects. Something you can't even do in a snazzier, higher profile co-op game like Borderlands 2. Guns and ammo are more plentiful and once you level them up a bit you can explode heads with your shotgun like a champ no matter which character you play. They've also added Dead Zones which are separate areas ruled by a much-tougher-than-normal mini-boss. These mini-bosses all have roughly the same abilities, though, so it would have been nice if Techland put a little more effort into giving these mini-bosses some extra flavor.

As is becoming the trend, the game also introduces a number of different holdout sequences with options like electrified fences, minigun placements and environmental hazards to slow down the horde. They game also introduces mines as a grenade type for some additional defense. Unfortunately, after the first couple, it starts to feel like a chore. It doesn't help that there are never enough zombies at one time for you to feel like you're in danger. Even on single player I never lost an NPC. Siege sequences like this need stronger direction so that it feels like you're barely keeping everything together as you rescue NPC's, erect new barriers or lay down some covering fire with a minigun. Without that, they feel kind of tepid and overlong.

That said, if you liked the first game, Riptide is an ever-so-slightly more streamlined expansion of the original. The quality I like the most about it is precisely the thing that keeps it's Metacritic rating in the mid-60's. While recent games like Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon trade on silly 80's nostalgia, complete with ironic homophobia and sexual encounters of questionable consent, the Dead Island games are what Blood Dragon tries so hard to be: the modern video game equivalent of a grindhouse movie.

As someone who grew up on weird cult movies, the one trait that they all share is the earnestness with which they were made. It's the difference between Evil Dead and House Of 1000 Corpses. Dead Island wants very badly to be a tense, gripping action/horror game. It isn't. From Sam B's omnipresent one hit wonder "Who Do You Voodoo, Bitch?" to the frighteningly cross- and dead-eyed woman in the makeshift hospital who drones her sad life story every time you pass her by, it lures you into it's absurdity so often that it's impossible to take it seriously.

However, just when you think the whole thing is a joke, you take a trip through some pitch black sewer or sparsely-lighted building that surprises you with some real tension. You can hear the zombies moaning and your flashlight is almost dead, so you hurl a flare ahead of you to see a small squad of zombies standing there, staring at nothing and just waiting until you get close enough for them to lurch at you. Then it's back to the comedy as you pop it's head like a grape with a shotgun blast and kick it's still teetering corpse to the ground as it's arms weave around where it's head used to be, as if asking itself "wait, it was just here a second ago..."

I'm not sure if the debt Dead Island and Riptide owe to Italian horror movies by guys like Umberto Lenzi or Ruggero Deodato (or even Lucio Fulci if we're feeling generous) are deliberate but the parallels are certainly there. Other franchises base their zombie games firmly in the early George Romero model as far as clarity of tone and the simplicity of the concept. In Italian horror, the result is the thing. Whatever it takes to shock or appall, that's what they'll do. Slow zombies? Fast zombies? Big, hulking monsters in straightjackets? Sure, throw 'em all in. Left 4 Dead has the same approach but the setting and the atmosphere is vintage Romero.

Dead Island, on the other hand, is total Eurosleaze. The severed torso special edition that the gaming commentariat got so incensed over a few months ago is straight out of something like Cannibal Ferox or one of Sergio Martino's Giallo films. They can't go nearly as far as a Fulci movie without getting slapped with an AO rating but the basic components are all there: boobs, blood, bad acting, sub par design and copious gore wrapped around a little nothing of a story. And that final scene? Straight out of something like Nightmare City.

If you've been on the fence about the Dead Island series, that's all you really need to know going in. It's purely cheap thrills and low brow fun. If you can revel in the B movie cheese of it, you'll have a blast... especially with a team of four friends and a couple of beers. Riptide, in particular, cuts the fat that weighed down the first game so that it never wears out it's welcome. If Techland continues to release Dead _____ games of roughly this length at this slightly reduced price point, I think they could really be on to something.

If that sounds like damning with faint praise, it's genuinely not. The slightly sleazy Euro edge to the series is what makes it stand out in a crowded field of zombie games. I hope Techland delves further into that end of the pool for it's inevitable next gen sequel. I can be moved to tears by something like Telltale's The Walking Dead and still appreciate smashing a zombie's head into paste with a giant sledgehammer in Dead Island. The game is critic-proof, really, because it does exactly what it says on the tin. So long as Techland keeps the series fresh, they can have a perennial hit on their hands. It may never win awards but it can certainly be satisfying.

PCG Media To Gamers: Stop Projecting Rape Onto Lara Croft

Today I found an interesting, if wrongheaded, take on the "Lara Croft attempted rape" controversy from a few months back. I wrote a blog post about it then, so I figured it was worth checking in.

Here's the link:
http://pcgmedia.com/why-is-everyone-obsessed-with-projecting-rape-onto-lara-croft/

And here's the trailer that got everyone worked up (the grope happens at about the 2:18 mark):

The author's overall point seems to be that if you saw anything rape-y in that trailer or the comments by the executive producer at E3 then YOU are a rape-obsessed sicko. Which is facile and ridiculous. I'm all for bashing Kotaku now and then but they weren't the only people covering the story. I found it initially through Digital Spy and Eurogamer, which eschewed the rape innuendo for some generally creepy quotes about the character from the executive producer. (I see what he was trying to say but, man... gah! He sounds like a mouth-breather.)

My gripe with the scene has always been the utter laziness of using a sexual assault against a woman as a cheap shortcut to building character. For one thing, it's the kind of trope that would ONLY be used on a female character. Rape as a trope in fiction is entirely fair game, it's just not for beginners. How many times have you seen a movie or read a book where a woman overcomes sexual assault to become a stronger person? Now how many times have you seen a male character overcome molestation or sexual assault the same way? There's no comparison. It's a giant, neon-lit double standard: women in fiction can only be strong because of men.

The only instance in a video game they can bring up involving dudes is the attempted prison rape in Mafia II, which you can see here (and try not to laugh when you see a bunch of guys in a prison showering in their boxers):
 

I understand that some outlets saw a headline and leaped at the Tomb Raider story. ("Lara Croft In Island Rape Hell" is kind of a funny title.) I even understand people being genuinely angry. I'm just annoyed that people still haven't learned how to tell a story with a strong female character. I find this comparable to the annoyance I felt at Metriod: Other M for utterly neutering a strong character like Samus by making her dependent on a male character she had a crush on. It utterly and completely misses the point.

The "torture porn" label, while not entirely accurate, does kind of fit. Seeing a woman get shot, stabbed, beaten, bloodied, cut, groped, tortured, and fall from great heights has an inherently different context then a guy. Especially if she's being portrayed as a young, naive girl going in. Unfortunately, there is a dance to writing a strong female character you have to do. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's reality. Christ, in America we still can't decide if a woman should legally have control of her own body. Jumping straight to "felt up by a creepy dude in a video game" is just a fundamentally bad idea.

Writing a strong female character can be done without pandering. It's actually not that hard and it doesn't have to be entirely the work of female writers. Comic writer and novelist Greg Rucka is pretty great at it. My rule of thumb about writing strong female characters in video games still stands: when in doubt, look at Naughty Dog. Uncharted is still the high water mark for strong female characters in video games. They aren't the lead, but they are strong through their words and actions, not because of their proximity to a guy.

I understand the argument that this is her origin story and you need to build her up but there's ways to do that which don't involve torturing the living hell out of her. It can be done with something as simple as a look... instead of, y'know, throwing her off a great fucking cliff or stabbing her with big stick in the torso or something.


The bottom line is: female characters, particularly in games, are coming from a weak position. There's not many of them and most developers don't want to take the chance on them for fear of losing their young, male audience. They are still very much the princess who needs to be rescued or the girlfriend/wife/mother/child you are avenging. With more and more women joining the gaming community, more emphasis is put on the few remaining heroines we have to give them some sense that they are being represented. Female protagonists don't need to be broken down and built back up again, they just need to be built up. That means a lighter, smarter touch... and Crystal Dynamics haven't exactly given us reason to believe that they are the people for the job.

This is all a shame because Tomb Raider looks, in a visual sense, like a really good game. The idea of a female Nathan Drake has amazing potential. It's just that, from a storytelling standpoint, everything I've seen about the game makes it look like it was plotted by a hyperactive twelve year old boy. In the trailer, she actually says "I hate tombs." Which was maybe intended as an Indiana Jones "I hate snakes" moment if the line delivery sounded like it had a sense of irony about it. Instead, it just sounds obvious and groan-worthy and forehead-slappingly inane. And it's that impression that makes me leery of dropping sixty bucks on it.

Dishonored

It's kinda crazy how many dudes I've choked out while they took a pee. Don't get me wrong, it was fun. Still: lots of dudes were waking up in dark corners with their pants around their ankles. I try to rationalize that their confusion and sense of violation was earned by the fact that the clockwork heart I've been carrying around keeps telling me that they are violent, fascistic douchebags. They kind of deserve it.

These are the kinds of thoughts you might have during the course of Arkane Studios excellent stealth/action game, Dishonored.

As stuffed with ideas as the game is, they never overwhelm you with exposition or cut-scenes. It's a world absorbed through books, visuals and overheard conversations. This allows for people like me, hiding in nooks and crannies, to develop my own story as I play. For instance, I used an item given to you towards the beginning of the game as a way to track down collectibles, the aforementioned clockwork heart, as a way of weeding out the people just doing their jobs from the willfully evil and visiting bloody retribution upon them. As events in the game turned and I got more invested in the fates of certain characters, I found myself getting more and more unhinged and violent, silently wiping out anyone and everyone until the entire level was empty except for me, blinking across the rooftops in search of more prey.

Keep in mind, this narrative was entirely in my own head. The clockwork heart spits out a series of canned responses whenever you click it on someone so you'll hear the same phrase repeated over and over again. It just seemed like a neat way to approach a game that offers so much freedom in how you approach it. Once you enter a stage, there's no hand-holding whatsoever. You can explore and find optional side missions and collectibles that enhance your abilities or you can beeline right for your target. The game becomes whatever you want it to be. I chose to create my own story-within-a-story to go along with my "avenging angel" playstyle. By the end, my desire to burn down the entire dying, corrupt city and everyone in it was reflected by increased guard patrols, plague-infected Weepers and swarms of carnivorous rats. Once I became conscious to how my approach to the game was changing, I embraced it. I did a completely non-lethal second playthrough but damned if the game didn't give you plenty of good reasons to murder everything in your path.

That's not a coincidence either. Morality is a very important aspect of the game. As Lord Protector Corvo Attano, framed for the murder your Empress, you are always given a choice on how to go about achieving your vengeance. People are watching you and some react to you differently depending on how much death you deal out. Every main target has a non-lethal option, usually fates worse than death, if you can find out how. I knew how far down the rabbit hole I had gone when a young girl I talked to told me that she wanted people to fear her the way they feared me. From that point on, I knew there was no going back.

The game allows a bit of leeway between, as they call it, Low Chaos and High Chaos. You only have to do a completely non-lethal route if you want the 100 point/Platinum achievement. Otherwise, a couple of deaths here and there, by accident or necessity, can be tolerated, so you don't have to worry about absolutist morality. Between the overarching story and some of the things you read and overhear, you'll probably find it hard to avoid wanting to toss these people screaming into the Void. A minor complaint would be that the High Chaos route feels more fulfilling, not in the sense that YOU are acting as an agent of their death but that the characters who have wronged you meet ends more appropriate to their levels of ego and hubris. (It didn't slip by me that my initial attempt to kill only those I felt deserved it was eventually twisted into something much darker, making for an excellent symmetry at the end.) The final scene of the Low Chaos path has a nice, well-acted monologue about what you lose in pursuit of what you think is right when you stop considering the consequences of your actions but it felt comparatively anti-climactic when compared to the more brutal High Chaos route. Seeing the people responsible for your misery and betrayal implode and destroy themselves felt more appropriate. Being a witness to other people's well-earned self-destruction might have made a better ending than the people involved just sort of... giving up.

Another complaint about the game is some very hit or miss voice acting. Dishonored boasts a very high powered cast of actors that, unfortunately, reinforce the idea that great actors don't necessarily mean great voice actors. John Slattery (Mad Men's Roger Sterling) does an excellent job as the resistance leader Admiral Havelock and Chloë Grace Moretz (a/k/a Hit-Girl from Kick Ass) does the unthinkable by making a child character in a video game likable and someone you actually want to save. Others don't fare so well, including Susan Sarandon badly miscast as the insane Granny Rags. There isn't a whole lot for her to do, so she doesn't do much of anything. A professional voice actress might have given the doddering yet dangerous character a little more... well, character. Compare that to voice actress April Stewart (one of the go to cast for South Park) who gives a chilling performance as both the Empress and the clockwork heart and you wonder why people would rather hire "name" actors versus people who do this for a living. However, in a world so fully realized, it's pretty small quibble.

I've seen some criticism about the game being too overstuffed with ideas but I think they're coming from the wrong point of view. The Steampunk-ish setting, the magic, the whale oil, virulent plagues, the capricious demigod figure, teleporting assassins in death masks, the stilt-waking robot men firing explosive arrows... it can all be a little too much but it felt more to me that Arkane Studios are trying to world build here. Any one of those aspects could be central to another game in the series. Given that even surefire concepts can fail once the game is in stores, throwing every single fucking thing they can think of at you given them plenty to build on in sequels. The game even goes out of it's way to tie off Corvo's story with a big red bow, so they aren't forced to use him as a protagonist in any future games. (He's treated as a player avatar and not an actual character, so there's no great loss there.) Arkane now has a very interesting world to revisit depending on it's success.

The gameplay itself is solid but has some curious choices. The game is presented in the first person so you are unable to lock into cover and rely mostly on leaning in and out of cover to get a sense of your surroundings and enemy routes. There's a designated stealth/crouch button but the game gives no clear idea as to whether you're able to be seen. Twitchy enemy AI has led to multiple situations where I can either sidle right up to someone from a position where I should be in their line or sight or others where an enemy spots me from behind cover from across the room. It doesn't occur very often but using the convention of a blue screen tint or on-screen prompt to designated being in stealth mode would have solved a lot of problems. When stealth fails, combat holds up pretty well. Put a couple levels into stopping time and you'll easily slice through any unfortunates who catch you creeping around before they can raise an alarm or call for reinforcements. You'll probably rely on your sword and crossbow more than anything else but there's also proximity devices and a pistol for more desperate encounters.

The actual set pieces are never less than strong. You have multiple points of entry and lots of variety in how you approach your targets. Usually, you aren't just restricted to a lethal or non-lethal option. Many stages have varying modes of dispatching your target. Sure, you can creep up behind him and slit his throat but maybe you can sneak into his room and trick him into drinking poison or possess a guard and get him to do your dirty work for you. I was partial to siccing a swarm of rats on them and letting them get eaten to death while screaming for help that never arrived. (I did warn you about my propensity for bloody retribution.) One standout moment was during a mission where you infiltrate a costume party. You're dressed as yourself, the creepy killer terrorizing the city, but the nobility at the soiree simply compliment you on your provocative costume. After doing my dark business, I sauntered back in, signed the guest register in my own name, and walked casually out the front door. Much evil cackling was had.

Little moments like this, things you could easily never catch, make the overall experience that much more fun. All missions are available from the stage select screen at the main menu after completion. The only thing the game is really missing is a proper New Game+. I didn't have much trouble on Normal difficulty. Enemy AI is dumb enough that you usually only have yourself to blame for mistakes. You can decimate an entire barracks worth of guards and the last remaining guy will just note that more people should be patrolling and never change their routine. This is something I wish more stealth games would rectify on harder difficulty levels. Having your enemies react to squadmates who disappear would promote better situational awareness, planning and quicker, more decisive action or just force you to not engage anyone at all.

Taking my time and exploring everything I could means my initial run took me almost twenty hours, including restarts. Having a firm idea of enemy placement means my non-lethal speed run took me less than eight hours but I've heard people have been able to beat it in as few as five. The length of the game will be entirely dependent on your approach.

I keep coming back to the worldview of Dishonored when I think about it. The writers managed to hit just the right notes. It doesn't matter what political views you have but throwing such sharp criticism onto the idea that the kinds of people who actively seek power being the ones least qualified to hold it is an idea I think a lot of people can rally behind. Not only is the world of Dishonored very full and fleshed out, the ideas behind it work just as well.

Ultimately, this is an odd game to review since so much of it's story is dependent on whatever is going on in your head (which was pretty fucking fantastic, thanks) and your patience for waiting around for the best time to strike. If you approach this as an action game and stealth elements, you'll likely find it short and unsatisfying with a perfunctory plot. As a stealth game, minus some small issues easily ironed out in a sequel, it offers a lot of very satisfying sneaking and combat. Dishonored might very well be the best new IP of the year.

Splatterhouse (2010)

I've always been fascinated by what people consider a "bad game." As a guy who grew up watching shitty horror flicks interspersed with weird foreign movies on Cinemax and chasing down any music I could find in the pre-internet to pre-Napster era, usually by watching MTV after midnight (hey, it was suburban/rural Pennsylvania... we didn't get an "alternative rock" radio station until nu metal came along), I quickly learned that the best stuff wasn't necessarily the best-looking. To this day, I have as much love for something like Critters 3 or Cyborg 2 as I do bigger budget megaplex fare.

In the gaming world, I love tracking down the weird stuff. Buying a new copy of Deadly Premonition without having read a single thing about it or heard anything from anyone and diving into all it's terrible awesomeness has been a highlight for me in this generation of gaming. Grasshopper Manufacture's Shadows Of The Damned was a gleefully cheesy homage to B movies and cult horror classics mixed with a liberal dose of machismo that, despite some dated controls, was an absolute blast to play. It was also widely ignored by fans. There's also Atlus' demented dating sim from Hell/puzzle game Catherine. Hell, most of the games Atlus puts out have a wide streak of weirdness in them. And that's just off the top of my head. If you're willing to take a risk, there's plenty of rough diamonds out there to find.

That said, does Namco's remake of the gore classic Splatterhouse series fall into the category of "cheesy cult classic" the way the previously mentioned games do? Eh. Not really. But it's still worth playing.

Splatterhouse started as a blatant Friday The 13th rip-off done in the style of a side-scrolling beat-'em-up. It was cheap, crass, gory and tough. Like a lot of games of it's generation, the plot was largely incidental: boy meets girl, girl gets kidnapped by evil doctor, boy puts on cursed mask that turns him into a hulking monster and goes on a monster-killing rampage. It spanned a few different games that found their way to different systems with varying degrees of success. I have a lot of fond memories of smacking shambling monsters with a two-by-four but the series holds a sentimental place in my heart more for it's willingness to go for the gore in an age of very kid friendly platformers.

The remake stays the course with a fleshed out re-telling of the original story in the form of a 3rd person brawler. It's got boobs, blood and a surprisingly killer heavy metal soundtrack. On paper, it was a game designed perfectly for me. I mean, as a collectable, you pick up torn photos of your kidnapped girlfriend topless. Yes, goofballs like me were certainly the target audience.

Things got lost in the implementation, though. Most notably, combat. Most of it is a standard 3rd person brawling with a leveling system a la Devil May Cry or God Of War. However, weapons are rare and degrade quickly so you're going to be fist fighting through a majority of the game. Therein lies the problem. There's a wealth of different moves to buy but a lot of them seem superfluous and not as effective as I'd have liked. I found myself using the same five or six moves throughout the game.

Also problematic were the context-sensitive finishers. The game doesn't have a ton of enemy variety and all enemies have only a maximum of two finishers. Ripping a giant creature's asshole out might be worth a giggle the first couple of times but tedium sets in fast. By the time you hit the last third of the game, you've seen just about everything and merely repeat the same fights over and over again.

Creature design is so-so. Mostly they are variations of the enemy types you'd expect, right down to the evil clowns. Some of the enemies seem to be based on the original Splatterhouse designs and feel too generic. The levels also feel a bit too familiar: creepy mansion, creepy junkyard, creepy circus, etc.

The game picks up in other areas, though. The gore is fantastic. Without hyperbole, this is possibly the bloodiest game I've ever played. Everything is soaked in it. It's even the in-game currency for leveling up your character.

The biggest surprise was the story itself. Not necessarily the characters, they're very much archetypes. Rick, the hero, is metal nerd and a college student. Jennifer, the inexplicably hot girlfriend, is a screaming plot device with no personality. The villian, Dr. West, is a Lovecraft character dialed up to eleven. Though they were stuck using the thinly drawn characters from the original games, there was still room to play around with the characterizations to make things feel more interesting. Particularly Jennifer, who exists only to be kidnapped. They probably would have been better off making her either more nerdy hot (with the nude pictures you collect during the game showing a racier side of her) or a more righteous modern chick that doesn't enjoy being forced into a victim role. As a generic blond hottie, Jennifer is a character archetype better off updated for the times.

However, working within the confines of the original story, writer Gordon Rennie (a former writer for the legendary UK comic magazine 2000 A.D) improves on things admirably. The Terror Mask that saves Rick from a bloody death is given a gruff, profanity heavy personality (voiced by Jim Cummings, who you might remember as Darkwing Motherfucking Duck) that taunts and teases the freaked-out and panic-y Rick throughout the game. Because they are symbiotically connected, the Terror Mask can comb through the dark recesses of Rick's mind for all his dirty little secrets and happily uses that information to make Rick more and more miserable and, as a result, more pliable and easy to manipulate. The mask has it's own history and it's own reasons for saving Rick and fighting Dr. West. The interactions between the two are your primary source of dialogue and as the game reaches the conclusion, the roles have shifted a bit. Rick grows more comfortable in his new reality and the Terror Mask doesn't like it. They may need each other to survive but a stronger and more assertive Rick is detrimental to the Terror Mask's plans and they both know it.

There's also the obvious similarities between the goals of Rick and Dr. West. Ultimately, both just want their loved one back. When the game starts introducing elements of time travel, it all ties together neatly in a way I won't spoil other than to say that West's centuries long acts of hubris had damned him from the start. It's a neat and unexpected bit of nuance in a game you would not expect any nuance from. Naturally, West is now completely bugfuck and would rather invoke Lovecraftian Old Ones to destroy everything than live without his Leonora. And without a sequel to look forward to (as you'd expect, the game bombed pretty bad), the game broadly hints that Rick may end up going down the same path as West, starting the whole thing rolling all over again.

It's not Shakespeare, as the hoary old cliche goes, but in a game mostly about boobs and blood, it's a damn sight more thoughtful than you'd expect... and with the combat such a let-down, it's good to have something to look forward to.

When you're done with the single player, the game offers an arena mode that, honestly, isn't worth the time unless you're achievement hunting. The real bonus is that all of the previous Splatterhouse games are unlocked once you finish the game, allowing you to go back and re-live the magic of reducing monsters to mush in 2-D. (Of course, you could always skip ahead and just get the original Splatterhouse for your iPod/iPad as well.)

You can chalk up this remake as a noble failure. Maybe if it had an extra six months or a year in development it would have been a game worth remembering but for a niche title like this, that was probably never in the cards. Unless you're die hard about owning the original games, Splatterhouse is the definition of a "rental" but if you're looking for something a little obscure and rough around the edges, you could do a lot worse.

Mass Effect: Controversy, Failures and Hope

(I'll try to keep the spoilers here as vague as possible but you can't talk about the subject without details so if you haven't beaten the game yet, your best bet is going elsewhere. In fact, don't read any gaming news sites at all. Go into a full blackout until you finish the game to really get the full effect so that you won't be unnecessarily swayed in one direction or the other.)

Part 1: This is going to take a while...

The biggest thing in gaming so far this year has been Mass Effect 3, the conclusion of an epic space opera trilogy that allows the gamer unprecedented choice in how the story of the game proceeds. It builds on the events of the first two games and the choices you've made, all of which comes together into what everyone hoped would be a giant, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink conclusion. Who you loved and who you hated, who you killed and who you saved, all of it coming together in an effort to save a universe you have created. To anyone who played all three games, you're looking at a total time investment of over a hundred hours of gaming.

The biggest thing in gaming news has also been Mass Effect 3. Longtime fans are up in arms about an ending to the series that they perceive as too brief, too ambiguous, as well as illogical and in direct conflict with the themes Bioware has nursed throughout the series. It crumbles under even a brief application of their own internal logic. Worse, it breaks the illusion of choice that was a centerpiece of the series by offering three endings with no real difference other than a color choice. It also effectively renders the universe you've created broken and suggests that you are responsible for the deaths of billions of innocent people. (Hardly the heroic sacrifice fans had girded themselves for.) These disappointed fans have started a campaign to change or expand the ending of the series. You can find them on Facebook, on Twitter, on the web, and on every gaming site's comment threads and message boards. They've already raised 80K for charity, which has become a controversy of it's own, and a new one started a few days that has, at the time of this writing, raised over $3000 in only a few days. Their backlash has a backlash of it's own, from developers, fans, and nearly every major gaming news site in existence.

Those who take the time to scroll through the user comments on the 50,000+ strong Demand A Better Ending To Mass Effect 3 Facebook page will note that (excusing the occasional troll or conspiracy theorist) they are an unusually earnest and well-behaved group. It really is like watching people find solidarity through mutual disappointment. Stick around long enough and you can see new members actually going through the different stages of grief. They have their own memes, their own rallying cry ("Hold The Line!") and their own mascots like the very funny Marauder Shields, Harby The Reaper, and BetterME3Ending Twitter accounts that mine the touchy topic for comedy. Overall, they're organized, polite and motivated.

Not that you'd be able to tell from the news coverage.

One of the most fascinating things about the controversy has been the disconnect between the fans and the media coverage surrounding it. The Retake Mass Effect crowd has been derided as "whiny," "entitled," "idiots," they've been compared to the psychotic Annie Wilkes in Stephen King's Misery, they've been laughed at, condescended to, misrepresented and dismissed. IGN in particular has been nearly Fox News-ian in it's negative coverage. It seems been lowered to a simmer now in light of most outlets not wanting to insult their own readers any more than they already have. "Passionate" seems to be the term now.

The argument against Bioware changing the ending is largely about "artistic integrity." You're welcome to dislike it, you're welcome to outright hate it, but that was what they created and you're stuck with it. It's a subject worthy of a lively debate, which I'll address in a bit, but that debate has never happened. Instead, we get dismissive, condescending or insulting articles based on little or no research which play to to prejudices of the writer. The disconnect throws an intense light on the breakdown between gaming journalists and gaming fans.

It's not hard to understand. Find an article on IGN or G4 or GameSpot and go into the comment thread. You will inevitably find trolls, condescending assholes and that special kind of douchebag who mistakes cynicism for maturity. Everyone has an opinion and everyone seems to think that they honor-bound to tell you exactly what it is. It's easy to imagine that, if I were some kind of paid gaming journalist and I had to wade through the unrestrained id of a comment thread or message board supposedly populated by "fans," I'd get very cynical and very disenchanted very fast. (It's part of the reason why I have comments here turned off.) I think it's a prime factor in why gaming sites reflexively beat the drum of the "whiny, entitled fanboy." And that's saying nothing of the day in, day out job of playing games and the emotional distance you get just out of sheer repetition. More than anything Retake is in search of a sense of closure that wraps up the series in a logical but emotional way that pays off the work they've put in. The gaming media, I think, can't allow themselves the emotional attachment that fans have.


The Retake movement is by no means perfect. Bioware's Twitter feeds have been awash in angry, disappointed and downright mean fans venting at the people they see as responsible. Message boards and comment threads have as many people who hate the endings and the equally immature people who hate the people who hate the endings. (I've been called a "faggot" more than once in the few times I tried to weigh in on the subject publicly.) Metacritic and Amazon.com user ratings for the game are in the toilet, first from the homophobes railing against the possibility of a gay male relationship in-game, then by the people up in arms about the day one DLC, then finally by the people protesting the ending. As much as Retake denounces those actions on their Facebook page and in the comments, there's always someone new coming along to kill the possibility of an intelligent discussion, regardless of which side they're on.

The thing that got the ball rolling, a poll on the Bioware message boards with tens of thousands of votes, had fully 98% of voters in favor of a "brighter" ending. You could give up a full 20% to trolls and ballot stuffing and you still have 3 out of 4 people unhappy with the ending. Whatever they intended the ending to be, that's an unmitigated failure on Bioware's part. Unfortunately, the poll was also kind of a misnomer. The reporting of the poll stuck to the idea that fans wanted a happier ending but if you read enough of the comments, that's not exactly the takeaway. Most people seemed fine with the concept of a heroic sacrifice (in fact, it was expected) but for those who maxed out every possible stat only to be confronted with three abrupt endings with no real difference... well, that was too much. Sacrifice is fine if you get to see what you sacrificed for. Die hard fans never got that closure. A lot of people who wanted a brighter ending only wanted it for the people who worked the hardest to get there. This seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people but, in a game that is supposed to reward you for your choices, not having a range of different endings goes against the fundamental concept.


The initial press blitz about the Retake movement used that "brighter ending" line almost exclusively and that attitude towards reporting has followed the group going forward. When one angry fan reported Bioware to the FTC, Retake denounced him even though that fact wasn't well reported. Others have tried to lump Retake in with the douchebag homophobes angry about the possibility of an in-game gay relationship. When Retake organized a charity drive through Child's Play that netted $80,000, some sites responded by calling it "cynical" and claiming to be "disgusted." Even the most cursory glance at the comments from Retake and you'll find that they're just trying to find a constructive use for their disappointment or were using it to show Bioware by example how committed they were to the idea of a new ending. Child's Play eventually shut down the charity drive after it reached their cap due to being "buried under mail" by people who thought "that they were paying for a new ending to Mass Effect" with "a high number of people asking for their donations back." Proof of those claims has not been provided but Retake denounced those asking for their money back to little fanfare. (And, seriously, asking for a refund from a charity? What the hell is wrong with you?) In response, they've started their own charity, Full Paragon. They've also organized a cupcake protest, sending Bioware's Edmonton offices 402 vanilla cupcakes with red, blue and green frosting, a cheeky dig at the three interchangeable endings they were given. Even this very clever use of "killing them with kindness" managed to get reported with snark in most cases.

And so it goes. Cynicism in the face of what seems like an endless series of trolls making personal attacks is one thing but it's no excuse for lazy journalism. There is a damn good conversation to be had about whether or not art is malleable and who really controls a work of art once it's presented to the masses. When game journalists feel like tackling that argument, I'll be happy to read it. Until then, I'm choosing where I get my news very carefully.

Part 2: Now would be a good time to get a sandwich or a drink. Maybe take a nap.

My reaction to the ending was like everyone else I know. My best friend and I both took a few vacation days so we could dive right into Mass Effect 3 without delay. We had done the same thing with Mass Effect 2. We ended up beating the game within twenty minutes of each other. When he heard the ending theme playing, he knocked on my door and asked me what I thought.

"Um..."

He agreed with the sentiment. He chose Control, I chose Synthesis. We compared notes and realized that our endings were almost entirely the same. For the rest of the night and into the next day, we both thought about it. We both got progressively angrier. He was able to find the energy to play the multiplayer and continue another save he had. I put the game away. I haven't touched it since. I understood absolutely what they were going for. The Synthesis ending was essentially a creation myth and, out of the choices given, it was the one that made the most sense as a definitive ending. But what about the plot holes? What about the fact that I was forced to choose only the options given to me by the enemy I'd been fighting for three games? Why, at the last second, was I forced abandon any hope of reconciliation between synthetics and organics when I had spent my entire playthrough brokering a fragile peace? Didn't destroying the mass relays make my Shepard a galactic mass murderer and cripple any future games in the series? How could this be the complete and definitive ending they promised? What the hell were they thinking!? And so on.

Rather than lengthen this article even more by going into the fans' complaints about the ending, I'll instead link you to an article passed around a lot as a comprehensive list. It's as spoiler heavy as you can get, so reader beware: Mass Effect 3 Ending-Hatred: 5 Reasons The Fans Are Right

I did some research. I found that the original ending to Mass Effect 3 had leaked. It was a strong ending and a fantastic set-up for another trilogy with a new character. Unfortunately, Bioware blinked and had the ending changed. That was their first mistake. While not being nearly as story-driven, the ending and details to Modern Warfare 3's story leaked early as well. No changes were made. Rather than allow a small number of basement dwellers to be content in the knowledge that they knew the ending of a video game prior to release, something that would have been quickly forgotten, Bioware went ahead with a new ending. An oddly specific message board post by someone claiming to be a writer for the game got attention and was quickly tamped down by Bioware and the writer himself as a fake. It painted a picture of a developer worried more about a leaked ending than a good one. It could be an elaborate hoax or just damage control but it was enough to get people talking, feeding the idea that this was a top down decision brought on either by EA giving Bioware a hard deadline or a Producer and Lead Writer assuming direct control, presumably for security purposes. There's also the very popular and slickly produced Indoctrination Theory:

Personally, I don't buy it. It's nice. With a little tweaking, it could absolutely be an excuse for DLC with a "real" ending. But I still don't buy it. Most of things it mentions as proof were accidents or necessary design choices, not cleverly hidden clues. The bit with the kid is genius, though. Bioware has stated, however, that it's not true and I believe them. Which leaves us the last option floated as a possible alternative: refusal. At the finale, the game gives you three options that break the illusion of choice because they are all provided to you by your enemy. You're told that it's the only way. Why? To use a line repeated several times of the course of the games: "There's always another way." Any moment in the previous games would have allowed you an opportunity to make a renegade choice and go your own way. Take your chances. It's an elegant choice that requires little tweaking. If your Galactic Readiness is too low, you succeed in firing the Crucible and you die with it. If it's high enough, they re-use the "Shepard takes a breath" scene. Simple. And it allows for the one thing almost everyone related to Retake wants: an epilogue. A chance to see the results of three games worth of hard work. Even just a montage of scenes showing you the results of your actions in the short-term. If your Shepard lives, maybe a scene with your love interest. If not, a funeral with friends (if you have any left). Or, if you suck at universe saving, a scene of a dead, empty universe and the burned out husk that's now Earth. Nothing Bioware can do will please everyone, but at least a proper send off and a sense of closure will get most of the fans off their back and playing the game again.

That is the part that boggles my mind the most. With all the work you've done crafting a universe, the game forces you to destroy it. Not because you want to, just as an inevitable consequence of whichever decision you make. As the ending of a trilogy and the set-up for another series with a different lead character, it's baffling. Either the next game is a prequel, which are never as satisfying because it's always in the back of your head that everything has been decided before you got there. Or the next game takes place so far in the future as to make all of your previous choices moot. Which is fine as a start for a new series but presents an entirely different set of problems. For a story-focused game that shipped 3.5 million copies in the first week, I'm not sure they can get away with the Final Fantasy approach. Producer Casey Hudson wrote a press release after the initial fracas saying that he wanted the endings to be "polarizing" in order to get people talking. However, having your most ardent fans questioning your ability to tell a story and the wisdom of your choices is not the conversation you want people to have. It's a conversation that leads to people not wanting to play your games anymore. To fans, the narrative of the game has already been changed to either "great game, crap ending" or "SHUT UP!" and that is not helpful at all to the health of the series going forward, financially or creatively.

This is all wildly optimistic. Bioware has announced "content initiatives" to give "clarity" and "closure" but we have no idea what form those will take. If the story about Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters writing the ending of the game in secret is true and they've gone back to using their greatest resource, their team of writers and the checks and balances they provide, we might well get an ending that maintains their their original theme of sacrifice but gives the games the sense of closure they're after and doesn't ignore the other themes of friendship and unity. This is where the big question comes in: should they?

Who are we to even ask this? Video games are art and Mass Effect specifically falls into that category, if only for the emotions it manages to provoke. (Up until the last minute, anyway, where the emotions take a drastic turn.) What right do the masses have to charge or alter the art someone else has created? And what about the people who are okay with the ending? Should their experience be changed to suit a faction of disgruntled fans?

That's the argument. The idea that if a creator's work can be changed due to fan outrage, it sets a precedent that forces everyone down a slippery slope. The more hysterical journalists and commenters predict a future of compromised integrity and crowd-sourced games where developers are too scared to go with a tough, uncompromising ending for fear of alienating their audience.

It's a fair point. Bullshit, but a fair point.

Video games are still a young form of expression. In most cases, they require an entire team of people to create them, not just the vision of a single writer. Moreover, they exist to interact with a user. You are never a passive observer and that is the most important thing to remember in why people feel like they are within their rights to ask for a better ending. Between patches and bug fixes and DLC, what you get out of the box is no longer the entire experience. Mass Effect 3 is a unique case even within video games. It's a game about choices and their ramifications. It's never been entirely successful in maintaining the illusion of choice and you can see the puppet strings being pulled from time to time but overall, it's a fantastic success. It's got a fascinating history, interesting characters and alien races, excellent design and visuals, and a whopper of a story. In the end, however, we didn't fail the art, the art failed us.

The notion of artistic integrity is a nice sentiment but expecting it to hold fast over the wishes of the people paying to experience that art is more naive than those who want to change it. All art is a compromised. The end result is always distilled through multiple drafts, editing, input from people who finance it or publish it. It's not even safe after the fact. Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, Stephen King, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott... all of them have retroactively changed their works of art either by their own choice or due to a fan outcry. Comic books kill and bring back characters regularly and makes retroactive changes without anyone crying about the artistic integrity of the original creators. Musicians used to sample other artists liberally before that was regulated. Artists cop corporate logos and pop art and twist them to their own ends on canvases and the sides of buildings all over the world. A few years ago, Fallout 3 released a downloadable pack expanding the bleak ending of their game to general acclaim. It allowed people to not only continue the story of their character but to continue to explore the world inside the game. The sky has yet to fall.

The thing that ties all of those examples together is popularity and the money that comes from it. Mass Effect 3 shipped 3.5 million copies in the first week. That's a pretty big fucking deal. They have books, comics, merchandise, a movie being planned and an anime series being created as we speak. We're looking at a series that could be (or already is) the next big thing in sci-fi. The next Star Trek or Star Wars. Both series opened the door for work-for-hire writers and fans to expand the universe they created and in both cases it improved the health and longevity of the series. In some cases even eclipsing the work the original creators. Mass Effect is on the cusp of the same thing but if fan sentiment turns against them, they have a long way to fall and a lot of money to lose. This situation represents more than just an angry faction of fans, it represents the future of the series. If Bioware doesn't handle this issue carefully, they'll damage the brand in ways they can't fix. And they may never get those fans back.

Under different circumstances, I can see how repugnant it would be to have a group of people demanding change. But this isn't ignorant villagers with pitchforks we're talking about. We're talking about the combined brainpower of over 50,000 angry nerds. And those are just the ones who joined the Facebook group. Neither side of the argument can logically claim ownership over the silent majority but who needs it when you're talking about more than 50,000 angry nerds? That's a lot of emotionally invested, mildly obsessive and dangerously smart people. The biggest tragedy to the schism between Retake and those vocally against it is effectively nerds eating their own. Claiming that it's all just needy children who don't want to stop playing with their toy does not hold up to scrutiny.

In a later press release, Bioware alternately touted the litany of terrific reviews from gaming journalists and the idea that devoted fans were always a part of the creative process. Fans wanted more of Liara in Mass Effect 2, so they gave us the excellent Lair Of The Shadow Broker DLC. Fans wanted more RPG elements, so they introduced the weapon upgrading in Mass Effect 3 and branching skill paths. Bioware has tenuously opened the door to a compromise. It'll be up to the calm, level-headed people on both sides to fix things. Fans to suggest changes for the betterment of the series, developers to listen to what the fans really want and to hopefully patch some of the holes in their own storytelling. Bioware has a duty to maintain their relationship with the people who genuinely liked the original endings but they also have to address the people with legitimate concerns. That's just smart business. And the people who just want to start some shit or wag their fingers from the sidelines? Well, they'll never be happy anyway.

Part 3: Ending this thing right...

The hope is out there. For all the conspiracy theories about Bioware and EA as the Great Satan and how this was all planned from the start to charge fans for vitally important content before and after the game's release... well, unless Deep Throat surfaces and releases some e-mails, we'll never know. In the meantime, we know for a fact that Mass Effect is created by a lot of people... most of whom just want to make a good game. Game development is not a job you just happen to fall into. Whatever the corporate structure is and whatever decisions get made at the top, it's still a legitimate labor of love for a lot of people. Big, blockbuster movies can make a lot of money on a mediocre product. Games don't have that luxury.

That goes to for the flipside as well. Intense, motivated fans are not necessarily immature, broken man-children looking to escape their lives. It's an easy and lazy generalization. For every internet troll, there's five people able to hold a real conversation with you. For every arrogant, posturing, overcompensating douchebag, you can find plenty of well-adjusted people with lives, jobs, friends and loved ones.

Bioware, if they're smart, will be able to fix this in a way that may not make everyone happy but will at least address the legitimate concerns of their fans. Not for nothing, but they gave us an entire universe to play with... and provided they didn't blow the whole damn thing up for the sake of a "arty" ending, we'll come back to hang out with old friends as often as we can. Good fiction enhances reality, it doesn't replace it. You may be able to escape into it but it will always follow you home. Most of us, we just want the satisfaction of knowing that there was a universe that needed saving... so we saved it. And, as trite as it might sound, maybe apply some tiny part of that to our own lives.

However, I think we can all agree that gaming journalists are miserable sons-a-bitches.

Keelah se'lai.