E3 2013 - Bayonetta 2 Trailer

It's time for me to get caught up on E3 and by extension, start posting and commenting on trailers on demoes.

First up is Bayonetta 2, the upcoming sequel to what I consider to be the finest 3D Hack-n-Slash ever made. The first game had a near perfect balance between style, in-depth mechanics, pick-and-play ability, difficulty, and fun. It's story was batshit insane but its title character was surprisingly likable and well-developed (not like that) and its mythology was memorable and unique.

The gameplay trailer has been released and it looks fantastic, with the same over-the-top and epic gameplay and sequences as the original. I'm unsure how well it will control on the Wii-U but I'm hoping there's a demo so we can hear more from those actually at E3 later on.

It also looked like it had multiplayer, which has been confirmed by Nintendo. I'm guessing it's a co-op system with one player as Bayonetta and another as Jeanne. But that's just what I gathered and I could be wrong.

While Super Smash Bros. is great, this is currently the game that will most likely drive me to purchase a Wii-U. I can't wait.

Something Fragile Needs Kickstarting

Sometimes you need to take risks to make progress. That's essentially what Kickstarter is about, the little guy taking a risk in order to potentially move forward in this medium and it's also the primary theme of a current game that needs funding from Kickstarter, Something Fragile.

Dubbed as a poetic puzzle game for PC and Mac, Something Fragile is being developed by Happy Badger Studio, an indie development team out of St. Louis, Missouri. It is meant to be a game of symbolic meaning to present its themes of love and risk.

The game's design is meant to be both challenging and inspiring at the same time. All of the in-game graphics are made from real-world items, brought to life through stop-motion animation. The game's evokes some feeling of a more light-hearted Limbo in my mind, going for a minimalist approach but with an obvious amount of effort behind it.

Your character in-game is meant to protect a heart, but in order to progress properly, you need to place the heart down, which also puts it in danger of environmental hazards. It's an interesting concept that brings the cult classic Ico to mind.

The game needs $18,000 to get the necessary funding, and is currently at $1,835. The campaign ends on April 25th.

If you want to see more information and potentially back this project, here's the link: Something Fragile Kickstarter.

New Arkham Game Set for 2013 and Why I'm Worried

In 2009, Batman: Arkham Asylum shocked the gamers, myself included, who thought it would be just another over-hyped licensed game. It had absolutely incredible quality, with superb gameplay, an enjoyable story, interesting ideas, great atmosphere, and a great deal of respect for the source material.

In 2011, Batman: Arkham City, was released to even greater acclaim and was my Game of the Year of 2011. It was a remarkable experience all the way through with an excellent opening and a haunting ending that still gives me chills when I get to it.

Yes, I am a huge Batman fan so I've been loving the absolutely incredible time that he has had for the past eight years. Speaking of which, today the last issue of Scott Snyder's spectacular story arc, Death of the Family got released. Pick it up now (DC, contact me to know where to send the check for that plug).

Gaming bliss!

So you can imagine my excitement when Time Warner announced this week that a new Arkham game was marked for release later this year. Then I started getting rumors.

Now keep in mind that these are just rumors and therefore I'm not completely despairing yet. These are just worried thoughts from a fan of both the Arkham games and Batman in general, who REALLY wants a strong follow-up to the two greatest superhero games in history.

#1. A Prequel

In 2012, a piece of DLC was released as a follow-up to the shocking ending of Arkham City titled Harley Quinn's Revenge. For those who didn't see my short review of it, I was not a fan. The main problem with the DLC was that it introduced some interesting new story threads and didn't follow through on any of them.

I was not a fan of Harley Quinn's Revenge and I want some damn resolution on its threads.

Batman was more emotionally closed off than ever after the events of Arkham City and the effect that the ending had on the series as a whole was only scratched on the surface. Harley got great development but so little closure over all.

I was hoping that they would go into these threads and give resolution in the sequel...which they have apparently decided not to make. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with the idea of a prequel as long as we have closure to what's already there.

#2. The Joker

SPOILER WARNING: I will make mention of the end of Arkham City below so be careful.

This is basically an extension of my argument against a prequel, but one of the rumors is that the prequel will be about the first meetings between Batman and the Joker. This worries me on many levels as both a fan of the series and a fan of Batman.

First, the series already seemed to be going on my favorite idea of the Joker's origin, namely the one from the classic Alan Moore story, The Killing Joke, arguably the greatest Joker story ever written. The idea is that the origin is ambiguous, it is one that not even he fully remembers and the details of it change every time he thinks about it with Batman being the only consistent element in it.

Good ideas can come from either showing or calling back to the first meeting between Batman and the Joker. The Dark Knight from Christopher Nolan showed him having to adjust to having to fight an opponent who was so different from the mob thugs he generally took on, both in unpredictability and in  his psychological mind games with Batman.

Or how about the recent storyline by Scott Snyder, Death of the Family? Sure, it's not a retelling of the Joker's origin but it does make many callbacks to his and Batman's first meetings, using that to confuse Batman about what he's going to do.

The point is that you really need to have an interesting idea to make this work. And also the end of Arkham City was such an appropriate sendoff to the Joker in this universe. I would rather not see him in this series again but see the lasting impact he has left on Gotham, another reason I would prefer a sequel.

The Joker (and Mark Hamill) had a brilliant sendoff in Arkham City, one that shouldn't be spoiled.

Also Mark Hamill has retired from the role. There have been other good Joker voices such as John DiMaggio in Batman: Under the Red Hood and Michael Emerson in The Dark Knight Returns. But you've already established Hamill as the Joker in this universe and he is unquestionably THE definitive Joker voice. Anyone else who comes in is likely going to fall short.

#3. Silver Age Tribute

For those who don't know, the Silver Age of Comics was a period in comics from 1950s to the 1970s. It is nowadays well known for its utter insanity with storylines that made no logical sense, goofiness and utterly unrealistic situations (even for superhero comics). It generally regarded as ending in 1973 when Gwen Stacey was killed by the Green Goblin in Spider-Man #121.

Batman was no exception to this as we saw the lightening of his rogues gallery which nowadays is considered one of the most violent and psychopathic group of rogues in all of fiction. It affected another medium too with the 60s Adam West series which gave us the infamous Shark Repellant Bat Spray.

The Silver Age was appropriate for the times given the world atmosphere. Keep in mind that the world had just gone through the most devastating conflict in human history, World War II, which was preceded by another World War a few decades before. The world was also facing the fear of nuclear annihilation from the Cold War. In the meantime, the Comics Code Authority was gaining power and was increasingly cracking down on what they considered to be "offensive" content.

Now, I have nothing against the Silver Age. It's good that it eventually ended to allow the maturing of the medium (though the Dark Age brought that back), but the Silver Age itself is still a guilty pleasure. It was fun and wacky and didn't take itself seriously in the slightest. I earlier made quick mention of the animated series, Batman: The Brave and the Bold which was itself a great tribute to the Silver Age.

The problem is that the Arkham games are about as far from the Silver Age as you can get. Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are DARK. These are games that are so dark that I still wonder how they got past the ESRB without an M rating. This game managed to make Calendar Man terrifying. Outside of The Long Halloween, he's always been one of the biggest jokes in Batman's rogues gallery.

Scarecrow in Arkham AsylumYeah, this is not the Silver Age.

The problem here is that the kind of tonal shift rumored here is not good. It brings inconsistency to a series that has been so respectful to the source material, more specifically, the modern, gritty Batman. If you want to make a tribute to the Silver Age, fine. In fact I would probably enjoy it, but don't lump it into the same universe that saw a man attempt genocide against all criminals.

#4. No Rocksteady

Rocksteady Studios deserves massive credit for the work they've done on this series. And the rumor that they won't be on this game is one of the most worrying rumors I've heard for it.

They've made two near perfect action-adventure games with the first two. They've shown incredible respect for the source material and have really made you feel like Batman. I'm worried about the ability of another developer to pick this up.

This isn't automatically a death sentence to the next game if it's true. Halo 4 (haven't played it just yet) was apparently a very solid addition to the series despite being made by a different developer. But there are so few studios that have actually made a solid superhero game that it really worries me.


Keep in mind, that for the moment these are rumors. Even if they turn out true, I'm an optimist if you haven't noticed in past blog posts and will still hold out hope for the game to be a worthy addition to this fantastic series. None of these problems are absolute game-killers.

I'm just here giving my worries on the subject. I love these two games. Second to the Mass Effect series, this might be my favorite new series of this console generation. I just want to see good execution so that I can continue to love the series as a whole.

Senator Leland Yee on Violence in Video Games

California State Senator has been a long time opponent of the video game industry and the amount of violent games there are. Every year he writes about games for parents NOT to buy their children at Christmas, has written several bills to bring government regulations against the industry, etc.

He may be best known for being the man behind AB1179, better known as Schwarzenegger v. EMA which was the biggest push that he made for government regulation. It passed the California legislature and the governor's office but was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The bill would have made it a crime to sell a game of a certain rating to minors and would have brought a fine and possible prison time for repeat offenses. No other entertainment industry, other than pornography, has such restrictions which was hypocritical and frankly, wrong.

However, this time the Senator has really pissed me off. He states,

Gamers have got to just quiet down. Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.

Where to start with this quote?

• Let's start with the fact that this is an absolute strawman's argument of the highest order. Gamers are apparently only protecting their rights to play these games, not because of a wealth of reasons whether fun gameplay, enjoyable stories, etc. No, they do it simply because they love violence and can't get enough.This is not the way to get people to listen to you Mr. Yee. You are not strengthening your argument but trying to denigrate those who are against you. People play games for multiple and it is very rarely just because of the violence. A game needs much more than violence in order to succeed which already debunks this idiotic statement.

• The game industry only cares about money. You could that argument about almost ANY industry. "This is about their self-interest." Well of course it is. But it's also about getting the same protection of any other entertainment industry. I could argue that the entire reason that you are going after video games is to only build up your political career and influence. You can say no but so can the gaming industry which means that entire argument has no basis here.

• And finally, the most insulting point of all, that us gamers need to be quiet and let you do what you want. We need to shut up and "let the grown-ups talk" so to speak. The average gamer Mr. Yee is between around 25-35 years old. I myself am 21 and will be 22 in March. We have a voice and we deserve to be heard as that is what being a part of a democracy is all about. You don't think we have credibility and don't want us in the argument? Well either you need to deal with that Mr. Holier-Than-Thou or get the hell out of this country.

The saddest thing is I would be willing to listen to Senator Yee if he would be fair and reasonable. People have different views on how the world works and I want to know them so we can work out a compromise of some kind. But Mr. Yee is not being fair or reasonable. He creates strawman arguments and belittles those who he disagrees with.

And worst of all, especially from a senator who should know better, he feels that gamers should not have a voice in this argument. KISS! MY! ASS! I will not shut up on this and you can not do a thing about it. This country is not about making YOUR ideal world but making one that works as best as it can for all. As long as you keep speaking on it, so will we.