Latest Blog Posts

by G. Christopher Williams

6 Apr 2011

Nearly a year ago, the Moving Pixels podcast considered why so many video games are preoccupied with war as a central topic.  One of the more obvious answers is that war is one of the simplest ways of representing recognizable conflict.  Games, like stories, thrive on conflict in order to justify the meaningfuless of narrative or—in the case of games more specifically—to create stakes for plot (or play) itself. 

Death seems a pretty high stake, even if it is just a virtual representation of such.  But that may be the point of games.

by Kris Ligman

5 Apr 2011

Note: This article contains spoilers for the Arrival DLC.

Ah, the batarians.

No species save humanity seems exempt from being a “racial spokesman” in the Mass Effect franchise, a problem when each species tends to get painted with a broad brush and rarely permitted to overcome that characterization. The asari are defined by their sexuality. The krogan are savages. The quarians are gypsies. The volus are Jews. But onto the batarians Mass Effect‘s writers have granted the special distinction of space Arabs, whose narrative role seems to consist almost entirely on their depiction as religious and/or political extremists who hate humanity and the American-dominated Alliance Navy in particular with bombastic fervor.

This has been evident in the games since their introduction in the Bring Down the Sky DLC, in which their codex entry first appears alongside a mission that has Shepard recapture a hijacked

plane asteroid from terrorists attempting to ram it into the World Trade Center

a human-colonized planet. In doing so, we’re repeatedly waylaid by the caveat, “not all batarians are like this.” But all the ones we see are.

by Aaron Poppleton

5 Apr 2011

There are an awful lot of games out there that allow you to play for free these days.  Microtransactions, once derided as an idea for online business, have suddenly become almost distressingly common.  One need look no further than Fallen London or Lords of Ultima to see examples of fairly successful games built upon nothing but the idea of microtransactions (although tellingly Fallen London has added the option to become an “exceptional friend” and subscribe rather than submit to microtransactions).  The problem is that a lot of people who are more concerned with the art of making games than the profits that can be gained by making games (like most critics, for example) regard these games, perhaps rightfully, with a deep sadness.  How cynical, they say.  This game severely restricts what you can do, slapping timers and a limited amount of actions per-day on things, dangling the promise of Extra Time!  Extra Moves!  Special Items! in front of the player, when very often it seems as if the real problem is that playing the games without these perks renders them almost unplayable—or so the thinking goes.

I’d heard about the Facebook game Dragon Age Legends through my brother, whose stubborn refusal to shut the hell up about anything remotely connected to Bioware is invaluable, and after reading Alec Meer’s review over on Rock Paper Shotgun, I decided to finally give the thing a whirl and see how it stacked up to the other two microtransaction-based games I already play on a regular basis—namely the aforementioned Lords of Ultima and Fallen London.  What I’ve come away with after spending a few days of playing Legends is that it is far more aggressive in its attempts to take the player’s money, and the game is the poorer for it, especially when you look at the promotional game for the first game in the series, the excellent Dragon Age Journeys (which I have continued to play despite the unfortunate fact that the unlockable content that the game offered can no longer be accessed).

by G. Christopher Williams

4 Apr 2011

Dungeons & Dragons might be its low tech form, but video games have not strayed far from the formula of getting some friends together, killing some monsters, and collecting loot.  From Gauntlet to Diablo to Torchlight, the hack and slash game is an experience both social and individualistic, steeped ironically in both greed and co-operation.

This week the Moving Pixels podcast looks at the evolution of the dungeon crawl from its social aspects and etiquette to its mechanics and playstyle.

by Nick Dinicola

1 Apr 2011

On Monday the Moving Pixels podcast crew, myself included, talked about how old games compare to modern games. I mentioned my experience with the classic adventure game Maniac Mansion and said the game was practically unplayable by today’s standards despite the interface update provided by the fan-made deluxe edition. As a fan of adventure games, I was dismayed at my total dislike of this supposed classic, so when Chris Williams suggested that I missed a lot of information by not having the instruction manual, I resolved to track one down to see what I was missing. It was actually quite easy; there are a surprising number of websites dedicated to providing documentation for older games that have scanned the whole book and posted it online. After reading through the manual, I don’t think that it makes the game any more playable, but despite this, the more that I learn about the history of Maniac Mansion, the more impressive it becomes.

//Mixed media

Oz Is Not Down Under As Everyone Thinks It Is

// Re:Print

"Frank L. Baum's Oz isn't in the land of Aussies, as one might think, but in a far more magical setting.

READ the article