On Difficulty in Video Games...

10 years ago, I wrote an angry rant on ScrewAttack about gaming difficulty. To say it was poorly-received is an understatement. To say the backlash scarred me is an even bigger understatement. Yet I’ve been meaning to re-write that rant for years, being held back by life and my inability to say anything. Since the urge hasn’t dissipated, I guess it’s only fair to write it now.

I’m sure this is no surprise by now, but I’m not good at video games. I’m, honestly, quite terrible at them. Part of that’s because of my learning disability, and part is because I struggle with everything. And while my struggle with gaming varies, that struggling part remains consistent.

I mention this because gamers can be pretty gatekeeper-like. GamerGate, for example, was about keeping games out of the hands of women and “casuals”, despite what you may have heard. But long before that, video games fitting a specific challenge level had been floating around as an idea for decades. It was propagated when I was young, it flourished when I was a teenager, and it finally reached a head as an adult. Even now, 10 years later, the idea that “all games have to be hard” is one that persists. If anything, it’s gotten worse.

It’s always bothered me, too. Why does every video game need to be challenging? Video games aren’t a science, they don’t have to conform to one difficulty. Some games, like the Ninja Gaiden series, might revel in challenge, but others don’t. And there’s a spectrum to challenge in video games, with many varying depending on their objectives.

I know some of you aren’t convinced, and I get it: why would I play a game that isn’t testing me? Why wouldn’t I want to exert that effort? Isn’t half of the reward knowing I’ve persisted? Well, yes…but difficulty’s also subjective. What might be easy for you will probably be difficult for someone else. I should know, I find every video game challenging!

The complaint about every video game these days being “too easy” is based in a lie. There are games out there that are still really challenging. But the claim’s also based in a misunderstanding of older games. You know those classics that gamers always tout as being “incredibly hard”? Most were based on the video game arcade model: they were short, and they were designed to eat quarters. A good arcade game can’t be a cakewalk, it’d disguise its limitations, so it was forced to be difficult. Early console games, therefore, followed suit.

This approach doesn’t work anymore, as video games are big spectacles now. They have in-depth worlds filled with lore, so designing challenge around limitations is no longer feasible. But even if it were, would you want that? You can beat a classic video game in less than a half an hour, assuming you know what you’re doing. The same can’t be said now.

Besides, so many early video games don’t hold up anymore. Remember how I said that older games were short because of their technical limitations? A lot of those limitations also impede their playability now. The Legend of Zelda and Metroid, both ground-breaking in their heyday, have been called “virtually unplayable” because of how unfriendly they are to newcomers. Super Mario 64, one of the most-influential games of the 3D era, is touted as having a similar problem. We can debate this forever, but that doesn’t make the complaints disappear.

I’d much rather a game be “easy” and fun than hard and unenjoyable. So many difficult games push me to my limit and make it hard for me to enjoy them, hence I stop playing them once I beat them (if at all). Conversely, many breezy games, like Yoshi’s Story, I find myself routinely returning to, as their lack of challenge is what makes them welcoming. I know it varies from person-to-person, but for me this approach works!

I think gamers need to stop touting a “perfect difficulty”. I remember that term once being tossed out as a response to my rant, and I strongly disagree. I don’t think a “perfect difficulty” exists. It’s way too subjective, as everyone’s different. What works for one person may not work for another, and that’s okay.

Another claim that needs to be phased-out? “Holding the gamer’s hand.” This gets thrown around a lot now, and it’s misleading. For one, video games are more complex than they used to be, introducing mechanics that weren’t possible in the 80’s and early-90’s. And two, gamers are a bigger group than they used to be. When you factor in both points, it’s inevitable that more information would be needed for new games.

Finally, complaining that gamers “use cheat codes” and “online hints” to help beat modern games is hypocritical. This existed in The NES days too, let’s not kid ourselves! I remember the Game Genie, and how I’d play around with it to get different results. I also remember Nintendo Power, and how that’d give hints and tricks for games you couldn’t beat otherwise. Online might be more readily-available now, but don’t think you can get away with lying about the past!

If it sounds like I’m all-over the place, it’s because I want to be thorough. Yes, a game should be challenging to an extent. Yes, old games were notorious for being hard. But no, that doesn’t mean every game has to follow a uniform standard of difficulty. Insisting that they should is classic gatekeeping, and it makes you sound old. And no one wants that!

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Review

On July 5th, 2016, I posted my review of Paper Mario on Infinite Rainy Day. Toward the end of it, I mentioned the following:

“Fans can argue as to whether or not this is a true successor to Super Mario RPG, or even if this game’s sequel is superior, but for my buck you can’t go wrong.”

Having offically played through Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, I can verify that claim. But for now, I want to discuss this sequel and see if it’s the masterpiece many exposit.

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door begins the same way as its predecessor: with a Lakitu delivering mail to Mario and Luigi. Princess Peach has again invited Mario to visit her, this time in a place called Rogueport. She’s left him a mysterious-looking map in this letter, suggesting it might lead to treasure. Sadly, Mario arrives at Rogueport to not only discover that Peach has gone missing again, but that a group known as The X-Nauts are trying to resurrect an ancient evil. Together with his map, an archeology student named Gombella and an elderly professor, it’s up to Mario to stop these X-Nauts and rescue Princess Peach yet again!

In my review of Paper Mario, I threw shade at the franchise’s willful refusal to craft a compelling narrative. This still holds true. The game does fill in the cracks with fascinating lore and character interactions, but that doesn’t compensate for the lack of a meaningful narrative. Like the title itself suggests, this game’s story’s paper-thin. So don’t go looking for too much.

Fortunately, like its predecessor, story isn’t the focus. The mechanics and presentation are. Like Paper Mario, the game utilizes a paper-like aesthetic, even taking it to an extreme. The game also brings back the battle mechanics, this time changing them from a movie reel to interactive theatre. This means that not only do you battle opponents, you also have to appease your audience. This allows for an additional layer of strategizing.

And give it credit: the game looks and plays beautifully! The paper aesthetic not only holds up visually, but it’s so well-matched to gameplay and controls that it’s easy to pick-up-and-play. It all goes to show that when it comes to turn-based RPGS, which are known for being complex, simplicity’s key. Bless it for that!

Musically, the game’s pretty solid. Like its predecessor, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door utilizes memorable tracks that it loops constantly. The tunes repeat over and over, yet never feel boring to listen to. I’m not sure if it’s because they fit their locations, but I never once got tired of them. And I spent a long time with this game!

So yes, I dug this game. But that begs the question I posed earlier: is it better than its predecessor?

Well, no, for three reasons. For one, the game has copious amounts of backtracking, particularly in later sections. This is most-apparent in Chapter 7, where Mario revisits places he’s already been to for an in-game objective. It feels like shameless padding for an otherwise short game. The game also has minor side-objectives that should feel unnecessary to beat the game, but indirectly punish you for not doing them. Try beating the final boss without first double levelling-up your party members, for example. It’s not quite as fun.

Speaking of, the final boss is a three-part battle that succeeds a two-part battle. It’s unbelievably difficult, as the boss has an unfair amount of health. I’m not sure who decided to make the fight this hard, but I’m unimpressed. Even the final battle in Paper Mario, which wasn’t a cakewalk, was more reasonable than this! What gives?

Finally, the Bowser levels are really repetitive and annoying. They take inspiration from the original NES Mario games, hence they’re side-scrollers. They’re cute at first…until you realize that there are three of them. And while not terribly long, that doesn’t make them any less-frustrating.

There are also minor annoyances that lessen the experience: the game still doesn’t let you exit to the title screen. You still need to pay to replenish health. Your Star Power’s dependent on how entertained your audience is. In-battle stage hazards are frequent and annoying. And the audience themselves are often irritating, occasionally throwing damage-inducing items at you. That last one isn’t too bad, but every-so-often it can be hard to see a hazard incoming.

That’s not to diminish from the improvements, because there definitely are several: the game allows you to level grind with worlds and enemies you’ve already beaten. The Crystal Stars have far better powers than the Stars from the previous game. There are more side-quests. And the game has actual content post-final boss, including a masochistic challenge known as The Pit of 1000 Trials. All of this is a welcomed upgrade from the game’s direct predecessor.

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door isn’t better than its predecessor, unfortunately. It takes one too many over-ambitious risks that don’t pay off. But what it does well, it does exceptionally! Perhaps even, dare I say it, better than its predecessor! So while I don’t like it as much as Paper Mario, I still really like it. And who knows? You might end up liking it too!

20 Years of The Matrix: Preposterous, or Masterful?

The Matrix is a 1999 film directed by The Wachowski Sisters. Released to acclaim, the movie changed action filmmaking completely in the decades that’ve followed. It currently sits at an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 147 reviews, a 73 on Metacritic, based on 35 reviews, and an 8.7/10 on IMDb, based on 1510339 reviews. It’s also at #18 on IMDb’s Top 250 List. Yet despite its legacy, I remain incredibly-divided, with its strengths and flaws on-par with one-another. And while I recognize that whatever I say will inevitably anger someone, I feel it’s time to air my dirty laundry once and for all.

(By the way, there’ll be spoilers. And I’m focusing exclusively on the original film.)

What works?

Enough that counts.

This is a brilliant story. The idea of a world controlled by outside forces, yet ones you can escape from, is a tired trope now, but back in 1999, during the dawn of the digital world, it was new and exciting. Given the tedious, 9-5 mentality with little reprieve, “break free from the powers that be” is an everyman’s dream. That you can come back and manipulate it as well is a bonus.

Give it credit: for all the issues I have, more on that later, The Matrix speaks to a lot of marginalized individuals. For gay, bisexual, transgender or other queer people, who’ve long felt trapped in a world that doesn’t accept them, connecting with a movie that challenges and counters norms feels refreshing. This is reinforced by Lana and Lily Wachowski both coming out as transgender women in the 20 years since. And it’s further strengthened by their filmography having queer-positive elements in it.

If that’s too esoteric, The Matrix also has allusions to several allegories and theologies. It has ties to Judaism, apparent in the “first Matrix” referencing Eden, it has ties to the crucifixion, and it has pagan symbolism. It also has callbacks to 1984 and Blade Runner, as well as Dante’s Inferno and Faustus. And it lifts from neo-classist, Buddhist and post-modern philosophy, the latter particularly in its “dessert of the real” line. There’s so much hidden meaning that even now, 20 years later, I’m picking up new themes and points.

The Matrix also feels really personal, especially considering the directors. One scene in particular, where Neo is faced with an oncoming subway train, parallels Lana Wachowski’s brush with suicide as a child. You can feel the passion and love that went into writing and directing this movie, as each frame oozes both. It’s not often a studio movie’s given this much room to breathe, especially in this day and age.

I like the character of Neo on paper. I like how rogue-like he is. I like how he feels like an outsider until he breaks free. I like how he cares about his destiny. I even like how he adapts to bizarre situations not within his control.

I also like several of the supporting characters. Not all of them are great, more on that later, but Morpheus, Trinity and Tank stand out. (It helps that not much is asked of them.) I also like Agent Smith, what with how much scenery he eats with his acting. And I like The Oracle, a character with little screen-time who makes every second count.

I love the action in this movie, and how it feels weighty and stylized simultaneously. The Matrix took inspiration from Eastern action films and the living arts with its fights and choreography, and it shows. The movie blends that with Hollywood sensibilities, most-notably incorporating then-ground-breaking CGI and filmmaking techniques. (This was the movie that made bullet-time famous, after all.) And while so many movies would copy it in the years that followed, there’s still no denying how cool it is.

I like the sound design and music. The former feels really weighty. And the latter’s expertly-composed by Bill Pope, being a combination of synth and orchestral that fits to a teat. There’s no way around it: The Matrix sounds like, well, The Matrix.

Finally, I like how re-watchable this movie is. Even after 20 years, it feels like it could’ve come out today. Not many movies, even late-90’s movies, can attest to that. I still watch this movie at least once every few years, simply to make sure that I still like it. And I still do!

However, I know what you’re really here for…

What DOESN’T work?

Again, enough that counts.

On April 20th, 1999, mere weeks after The Matrix debuted, The Columbine Massacre occurred. Two high school students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, walked into their school and shot 12 students and a teacher. Shortly afterward, they shot themselves. In the years that followed, it was revealed they were fans of Neo in The Matrix, even adopting his choice of clothing and weapons.

It’s unfair to pin the blame directly on it, but Columbine represents a snippet of the ripple-effect The Matrix has had. Remember how I said this film helped many isolated youth? It also became a rallying cry behind the MRA (or Men’s Rights Activism) movement who took the “red pill” scene too literally. The term “red-pilled” is now so synonymous with hate that it’s been mocked and meme’d online.

Perhaps the best example of this ripple-effect in full-swing is the lobby shoot-out, where Neo and Trinity gun down security. The scene, while fun, is gratuitous, ending with the lobby exploding and catching fire in slow-motion. In context, it makes perfect sense. On its own, however, it’s excessive.

Even outside of those questionable undertones, The Matrix has lots of little issues. Ignoring the racial coding of Morpheus and Neo’s relationship, the movie’s incredibly-unsubtle with its themes/writing. Neo’s an anagram for “One”, Trinity’s a reference to The Holy Trinity and Morpheus is synonymous with “morphing”. Even Cypher, the character who betrays the heroes, is supposed to be “Judas”. Yes, that Judas.

It doesn’t help that most of side-characters, save Hugo Weaving’s Agent Smith and Gloria Foster’s The Oracle, have little to work with outside of constantly expositing plot details. They’re boring, two-dimensional and can easily be switched around without much change. It’s a shame because they’re played by likeable, charismatic actors, many of whom have proven that they have range.

This issue is best exemplified in Neo, played Keanu Reeves. I have nothing against Reeves, he seems like a lovely man in real-life, but while he might be great at physical acting, he can’t emote beyond quiet, flat whispers and the occasional scream. Neo, therefore, is unbelievably boring and hard to take seriously. His character is likeable on paper, but he can’t sell his serious moments.

You know what doesn’t help? The dialogue. The dialogue is 85% exposition, 10% questions and maybe 5% emotion/bad jokes. And most of it is spoken to boring backdrops with little happening. I’m sure there’s a reason for this, Lana and Lily Wachowski were mimicking anime, but it doesn’t mesh with a Hollywood action film. Especially one as ambitious as The Matrix.

And, like I said, the humour is awful. There’s a dated reference to the Life cereal commercial that makes my ears bleed when I hear it. The conversation about tasty wheat, which I’m sure was supposed to be cute, is painful and uncomfortable. Neo’s line about the restaurant he used to eat at doesn’t even register a giggle. It’s a shame because the movie’s attempts at seriousness are the moments that are actually funny, are they’re trying way too hard.

Finally, not every philosophical moment lands. Some do, like the “there is no spoon” interaction, but that’s because they come back. Others, like “welcome to the dessert of the real” feel more profound in theory than practice, which is unfortunate. This movie has lots of lore and great ideas, but doesn’t juggle them well.

The verdict?

I feel awful for calling out The Matrix. The movie means a lot to so many, even me! But I can’t ignore the gaping, glaring flaws. They’re too big and too glaring.

I understand if you feel differently. I understand if your queer or non-queer identity was shaped by it. Who am I to judge what a piece of art does for you? Considering I’m the weirdo who likes Avatar, it’d be hypocritical for me to do that. But I have to be honest about my experience with The Matrix. Which is disappointing, as there’s a lot to like!

In the end, whether or not The Matrix holds up is subjective. For some people, it does, no questions asked! For others…not so much. Me? I’m in the middle, finding as much to love as to not love. And if I can still engage in the conversation, then isn’t that what matters?

Batman, Schmatman!

Let’s get this out of the way: Batman’s a boring character.

I’m sure many of you are sharpening your knives and pitchforks, aren’t you? But I say this as someone who was a Batman fanatic growing up, having dressed up in my cousin’s gear on several occasions. Because while there’ve been interesting stories with him, the “brooding loner who beats up people to distract from his absence of parental figures” archetype isn’t compelling, even for a superhero. Besides, if a Batman-like character existed in real-life, he’d probably be an amoral psychopath.

Batman, like Superman’s “boy scout” and Wonder Woman’s “feminist warrior” stock caricatures, isn’t meant to be deep, though. He’s the embodiment of a trope, and when done well he can star in great stories. It helps that, of DC’s comic book IPs, Warner Bros. gets him best, with most of his movies ranging from decent-to-great in quality. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t leave a lot to be desired, given the contrivances and unanswered questions that arise from a recluse billionaire not spending time actually improving Gotham City after 80+ years of existence.

I mention this in lieu of yet another Batman being cast for Warner Bros. This time, the role has gone to Robert Pattinson, former star of the Twilight movies and everyone’s current punching bag. This sort of backlash isn’t anything new, but Pattinson’s casting has garnered so much ire that it’s gotten to be irksome. Besides, is it worth complaining? No, for several reasons.

For one, the Twilight films are bad, but they don’t define Pattinson’s career. He was Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire prior to Edward, and he’s had roles since. And no one in the Twilight movies gave a great performance anyway. The source material was awfully-written, and no salvaging could’ve changed that. Simply look at the A-listers involved, including Dakota Fanning and Anna Kendrick, to see how doomed it was.

Two, Robert Pattinson isn’t a bad actor. Ignoring the aforementioned film prior to the Twilight franchise, he’s starred, like I said, in a string of indie dramas since. He’s also slated to appear in a Christopher Nolan movie for 2020. Simply look at his IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes profile to see how he’s been doing fine. And given that he has the right build for Batman, I’m actually intrigued.

Three, even if he were a bad actor, that doesn’t mean he can’t pull it off with the right director and script. I don’t think Keanu Reeves is all that great an actor, but he’s done fine in The Matrix and the John Wick films. I also think Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t a good actor, yet he was perfect under James Cameron in the Terminator films. Sometimes, a performance is less about range and more how well-suited the performer is to the role. Given how even good talents can be squandered under the wrong directors and writers, it’s not so clear-cut that Pattinson won’t do Batman justice.

Four, I’ve seen more out-of-left-field casting work before. Remember when Heath Ledger was announced as The Joker in The Dark Knight? We remember the late-actor’s performance fondly, since he stole the show, but people were skeptical. So much so, in fact, that when his casting was first announced, there was tremendous backlash and anger:

"Heath? let's reminisce on the days of A Knight's Tale and Ten Things I Hate About You. Heath? The Joker? Bad casting. Bad joke."

"And now begins the second downfall of the Batman series... I hope this is all a joke"

"The Joker is a character that needs an actor with gravity. Not some little twerp who got lucky."

The above comments, and much more, can be found here. Hard to believe, isn’t it?

And five, the movie isn’t out yet. Why are we all being critical of something we don’t know that much about? I know the internet likes to jump to conclusions, because it’s the internet, but it’s a waste of energy to throw a hissy fit over a casting call. It’s really silly. And besides, the time to be angry is after the movie comes out.

But even outside of the aforementioned points, it’s ridiculous to be this up in arms over Batman. Batman’s had many incarnations on the big and small screens. Some of these were amazing. Some were awful. And some were in-between. On the whole, the character’s been done justice more than he’s been failed. If that’s not reassurance that this might work, then I don’t know what is!

I’m also burned out on Batman. I normally don’t cry “superhero fatigue”, but I’m definitely sick of Warner Bros. falling back on Batman as their first choice. Why not focus on Superman, a character who hasn’t had a great film in almost 40 years? Or Wonder Woman, someone who’s only had two movies in her history as a superheroine? Why not even focus on lesser-known DC characters, like Booster Gold and Blue Beetle? That’s how The MCU became successful, after all!

I’d like Warner Bros. to be more risk-taking with DC’s IPs. There are so many fit for a theatrical adaptation, as we saw with Shazam!, and not taking advantage is like sitting on gold and not digging it up. I know it’s scary, but how will we know what works if we don’t try? That’s, again, how The MCU became successful! And doesn’t DC want that?

So yeah, I’m interested in Robert Pattinson as Batman, but not enough to be angry at his casting. Even if he turns out to be a dud, there are still numerous, previous incarnations of Batman to fall back on. And isn’t that more important than Edward Cullen being Bruce Wayne/Batman?