The many discussions one can find surrounding titles like Gone Home, Dear Esther, The Novelist, or The Wolf Among Us, inevitably bring forth the argument that these shouldn’t be called “games” but “interactive fictions” instead. In more extreme debates, even games like The Last of Us and BioShock Infinite are criticized for the simple fact that they contain… a story!

It’s not a matter of defending that all games need to be driven by narrative. Games can be good whether they have a story or not, and a good story doesn’t necessarily imply a good game. But video gaming, as a medium, has proven over and over again that it is a powerful platform for storytelling, and has been doing so for decades.

The real problem here lies in a distorted and pre-conceived notion of “gameplay”. The function of gameplay, some will say, is to establish barriers upon the player. By overcoming these barriers, you progress in the game, and if you beat all these obstacles, you win.

This notion, which might have suited the definition of “video games” several decades ago, is completely inadequate for what the gaming medium has become. It is regrettable that in this day and age we often feel compelled to be apologetic about games such as Gone Home, pejoratively labeled by some as little more than a house simulator, a good manifestation of the prejudices that encircle this particular genre.

Beyond: Two Souls is another example of this pathology. If it is a good game or not is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is: does it not qualify as a “game” for the fact that (for the most part) you can’t lose, or die. What many people fail to understand is that the function of gameplay has evolved to incorporate many different dimensions. With Beyond: Two Souls, as with Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit before it, Quantic Dream has been exploring new interface solutions to engage the player with the action on screen. The primary function, then, is not necessarily to “win” but to “feel”. The input is there to draw your empathy and make you connect.

Despite the particularities of all the games I’ve mentioned, they all confront the player with their own challenges and rules, with conflicts, choices, and outcomes. It may not be the kind of interactivity you enjoy as a player. And that’s okay. But that doesn’t mean they don’t qualify as games as well. To disregard their qualities because they don’t fit into the narrow template of what someone considers a game is to express a poor understanding of the medium. The potential of gaming as an evolving and valuable form of storytelling and artistic expression deserves better than that, particularly from those who claim to be gamers in the first place.

The controversy surrounding the campaign that saw YouTube content producers make additional revenue for showcasing Xbox One games is a misleading issue. As much as I don’t want to defend Microsoft (or EA) there is a difference in paying for positive feedback and paying to promote playthroughs of their games.

This was not a campaign to “buy positive feedback”. The point of the campaign was to generate buzz – and plenty of Let’s Play videos, neutral reporting and, shock horror, actually genuinely positive videos for the products in question would have been able to utilize a bonus on their advertising payout for the video – a feature that Machinima actually uses for their affiliates very frequently, for all kinds of campaigns. Also, regarding the “illegal” non-disclosure agreement, it should be noted that it referred to disclosing the terms of the contract and promotion details, not to disclosing whether you were participating or getting paid at all. In the end, if anyone actually published a video with a contradictory opinion to their own for the sake of a tiny CPM boost (the equivalent, while being generous, of a few dollars at best), that’s on them.

Now, I would agree that YouTubers who want to establish themselves as valid opinion makers should stay away from these campaigns or at least disclose when they take part of them. But this controversy, fueled by several mainstream gaming websites, has been a cheap shot to put independent YouTubers in a negative light as non-credible sources of information, because of these supposedly “shady practices” that are apparently going on.

So you get this deceiving dichotomy: the untrustworthy, unchecked YouTubers, versus the sacrosanct game journalists checked by their ethically driven editorial guidelines. Sorry to say, this is a manipulation and we all know it. These pressures exist in all media, and have existed for a very long time. Game journalists aren’t directly paid from corporate PR but such close-relationships exist and give certain journalists an edge. Get friendly with the right people and you’ll have privileged access to exclusive content, get invites for important venues, doors open for interviews before everyone else. Is it illegal? No. Is it ethical? Depends – are you withholding your real opinions not to damage those privileges? And is this going on in official gaming news websites, or in all other forms of press? Yes. Why isn’t that in the news?

Why are we targeting teenage letsplayers that got a few extra cents per view when journalists don’t disclose their interests either? Have we forgot the sad spectacle of witnessing professional gaming journalists promoting a game for the chance of winning a console? Are journalists disclosing every time they get paid travels or free games and merchandise? And which of these do you find more relevant? The 15yr teen that made a few extra bucks playing Battlefield?

Bottom line is that these pressures, that have always surrounded journalism, are now in motion towards independent media sources like YouTube. It’s up to the viewer to judge and choose who it is they find more believable and ethical and serious. As it’s always been.

Tomb Raider opens with a majestic view of the Endurance, the research ship captained by Conrad North, a hardened and charismatic freelance treasure hunter. His crew, which includes the young and promising archeologist Lara Croft, is headed for the Devil’s Triangle, a dangerous area of the Pacific also known as The Devil’s Sea. They hope to find the lost kingdom of Yamatai, once ruled by the mythical shaman queen Himiko, a legend in Sino-Japanese culture.

Gamers with a passion for History will recognize the Endurance as a direct reference to Sir Ernest Shackleton’s Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition of 1914. Shackleton’s ship came across a tragic fate as it was crushed in the ice of the Antarctic, leaving a crew of 28 men stranded on the frozen landscape for nearly two years. Although the expedition failed to accomplish its objective, it is recognized as one of the most remarkable epic stories of survival in human history. Roth’s crew faces a similar misfortune. Upon entering the troubled waters of the Devil’s Sea the ship is caught in a severe storm and crashes near the shore of a mysterious island. Here begins Lara Croft’s personal journey, from a brave but fragile young woman to a strong-minded and intrepid adventurer…

There are two main reasons why I love video games. They are a powerful platform for storytelling and an unparalleled medium to experience virtual environments. In great games, story and physical setting are inseparable realities. The landscape is the fabric that brings the experience together. The original Tomb Raider was probably one of the first games to seamlessly blend narrative and conceptual design, proposing a cohesive architectural approach to game-space. It was truly original in the way it integrated aesthetic influences to convey dramatic substance to the experience. The series, however, for different reasons, eventually lost some of its relevance in the context of other rising franchises. Most of all, Lara Croft never became a real, believable person. The sketchy iconography of the character, which was acceptable in the nineties, failed to evolve and develop a more profound human texture.

The new Tomb Raider is, in that regard, an extraordinary achievement. Lara is no longer the impenetrable super-hero seen in the past and is now presented as realistic human being, vulnerable and even afraid, facing terrible circumstances. It’s quite a delight to see her respond to the adversities that stand in the path of her journey through the mysterious island of Yamatai.

As in the series greatest moments of the past, the scenery is once again a wonder to discover. The island is beautifully rendered with varied locations, complemented with dynamic weather, impressive visual details and sound effects. Although the gameplay environment is not entirely open-world it provides the right balance of progression and exploration to keep the story focused. The explorable areas are also multi-layered, becoming more accessible as Lara gets new skills and climbing abilities, which in turn makes revisiting them a refreshing experience.

On the negative side, if I may say so of a game I’m loving so dearly, is the fact that the game seems to favor urgency at the expense of a more profound presentation of the character’s background and motivations. That sense of urgency makes the game an exciting experience but it may also disappoint those who preferred the slow paced exploration seen in previous titles. Balancing this fact, the organic structure of the island allows you to go back and explore previously visited areas at your own rhythm for a more thorough examination of the surroundings.

For the most part Tomb Raider remains faithful to the nature of the original series but it also emphasizes combat to extremes. Tackling human opponents was always rare and difficult in earlier games, making such encounters significant. This time Lara is faced with a myriad of combat situations, meeting multiple enemies at once. Such confrontations are well constructed in terms of gameplay: enemies are intelligent and make a clever use of the environment. Still, while these provide an immediate thrill, the fact that halfway into the game the body count rises to Max Payne levels may trivialize the narrative significance of killing – which contradicts the powerful and emotional scenes presented in the early moments of the story.

Having said that, it should be noted that Tomb Raider is an excellent origins story, balancing fantastic playability with precise and usually short contextual cut-scenes, punctuated by ambitious climactic sequences that look nothing short of a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s in balancing those grand-scale moments with the intimate hero’s journey that the game truly shines, successfully portraying the evolution of Lara in a convincing, beautiful and memorable way. As someone who’s been following in the footsteps of Lara Croft since the first game, I confess, I can hardly wait to see where adventure will take her next time…

Let's face it, Shepard is Mass Effect's Captain Kirk and always will be. Still, while we wait for the return of the Commander in Mass Effect 7 (ETA 2017?) we might as well accept the fact that there's a wide universe out there to explore. With that in mind, and regarding the next chapter in the series, here are my thoughts...

Mass Effect Next should play out several decades (or even a couple of centuries) after the Reaper War. References to the past should be minimal but I believe the most interesting setting would be an extension of the Destroy ending (not that it should ever be referenced that way). Keep in mind that only Shepard knew what happened inside the Citadel chamber in those final moments. As far as the galaxy knows, there were no alternate options.

I believe that the destroy scenario is the most appealing, not for being a personal favorite, but because it has interesting implications.

It would be nice to see a future where the Relay network is still being reassembled. That implies that not the entire galaxy is open for exploration right from the start.

Also, in the first trilogy, the Relays were open for everyone. But now it is being rebuilt as a joint effort of the most technologically advanced species - Asari, Turian, Salarian and Human. So the Alliance and the New Council have full control of the rebuilt Relay network.

What I'm saying is that this should be a new, less free universe. Whoever has control of the Relays controls the Galaxy. And there are great tensions now, in the aftermath of the Reaper War, with poverty and rebellion throughout the galaxy. So only Alliance approved ships (military and civilian) are allowed to travel through the Relays. But there are rogues and mercenaries out there trying to find a way to avert the system.

The Enemy? First, it would be interesting if in this new reality the Alliance is both good and bad. The Alliance is making an effort to maintain peace in the galaxy and control the tensions. But it is also an absolute power that wants to maintain control of the galaxy, even if that means reducing liberties among non-Council species.

Also, I think it would be interesting if the greatest enemy is human. Cerberus being reconstructed, but now as an even darker organization that actually controls the Human councilors of the Alliance. Humans are the bad guys now.

The story should depart from The Reapers but it would be interesting to establish some connections with the original trilogy. One of the concepts that was never addressed was the idea of a Dark Citadel - something that was mentioned by a few people on the BSN forums, especially during ME2. The Dark Citadel is the Relay on Dark Space, the point of origin of the Reapers. As we know, the link between the Citadel and the Dark Space Relay was disconnected by the Protheans. That's why Sovereign needed Saren, to reestablish that link which he failed, as we know, because of Shepard.

But there is still something out there. What if this new Cerberus, avid for power, made a clandestine jump to the Dark Citadel and found an ancient source of power that gives it the ability of indoctrination. The possibilities are endless.

The hero?

Lots of people are asking for an origins story, where you can choose the race. I think that's very complicated in terms of resources - multiple VAs, etc.

So I would go for a human character, but I also think the Mass Effect universe is begging for a rogueish kind of character, the Han Solo type. So this time we would have an anti-hero - the kind of gal (or guy) that is a reluctant hero but ends up doing whats necessary for the greater good.

Still, despite featuring a new main character, it would be fundamental to maintain certain connections with the past. Maintaining a few cameos with popular characters - of species that have a longer lifespan. It would be great to meet Liara or Garrus in that future. And, regarding the fact that they could be killed in ME3, I don't think that would be a problem. First, it's probably something that happened to a minority of players (that didn't invest in EMS). Also, that's the kind of thing that a few lines of dialogue can fix.

Hero: I heard you died during the Reaper War.

Garrus (older): I heard that too. I lost many friends during the war, so I decided to lay low for a while.

Hero: Why are you here, then?

Garrus: Well let's just say you remind me of someone...

I intended to write a formal and architecturally solemn review of Dead Space. With the second title in this popular sci-fi horror series released just a few days ago, I figured this might be the perfect opportunity to introduce myself to Isaac Clarke's outer space misadventures, right from the start. Now, still heavily fueled by adrenaline after a 14 hour playthrough of hell, I'm back to tell you all about it. Welcome aboard the U.S.G. Ishimura, the place where video game nightmares come true.

The U.S.G. Ishimura is a massive interstellar spacecraft created with the purpose of mining entire planets and moons. One of the first things you'll notice about Dead Space is the designer's effort to provide a strong feel of authenticity. The Ishimura's internal architecture is detailed and consistent, with plausible locations and dusty corridors that convey the sense of being in a believable heavy mining space station.

Needless to say, things have gone terribly wrong by the time you set foot on the ship. Following a complete communications breakdown during an expedition to the remote planet Aegis VII, a small rescue vessel is dispatched to investigate the situation. Engineer Isaac Clarke is part of the rescue team, eager to meet his girlfriend Nicole Brennan, a Senior Medical Officer aboard the Ishimura. Unfortunately, what appeared to be a simple maintenance mission soon becomes a desperate fight for survival as the mining station has become infested with all kinds of horrific, seemingly alien creatures referred to as necromorphs.

Dead Space is undeniably influenced by a number of iconic sci-fi horror films. The storyline follows a similar premise to Event Horizon but it's the atmosphere of the spaceship, with its eerie corridors, multiple decks and subsections that will remind you of masterpieces such as Alien (the Nostromo) and Aliens (the colony). The soundtrack is also evocative of Jerry Goldsmith's score composed for Ridley Scott's '79 movie. As for the creepy monsters, they are clearly inspired by Rob Bottin's gruesome creations for John Carpenter's The Thing, meaning they're ugly, scary, and are always happy to see you.

Great as it is, Dead Space is not without its flaws. Despite featuring a compelling main character, the strong emphasis on action means you don't get to know him in greater depth. Isaac Clarke never talks and the interaction with other humans is minimal. The game's mechanic is also somewhat contrived, with a couple of supporting characters telling you what to do as you progress through a series of chapters or levels – an unnecessary segmentation of an otherwise continuous experience.

Several elements come together to make Dead Space such a tense and disturbing experience. The visuals are excellent even by today's standards and they benefit greatly from the meticulous lighting and sound effects that enhance the dark and unsettling atmosphere of the ship's interiors. There are enough cheap horror movie scares to keep you on your toes but it's the finer, more subtle passages that provide the most memorable moments. Sometimes, the simple shadow of a passing necromorph or the startling sound of a metallic object falling nearby is enough to make you go paranoid for an entire section. You never feel safe or in control of the events that surround you, a disquieting sensation that is augmented by the fact that the main protagonist isn't your regular video game super space soldier but an ordinary man.

In the end, Dead Space may not be the most original piece of sci-fi fiction but it provides an unforgettable thrill-ride and a well balanced emotional experience. If you have an interest in sci-fi horror and the stomach to deal with an overload of shocking graphic violence, this is the game for you. And as long as Dead Space 2 fixes a few minor issues and provides better character development and interaction, it may just be one of the greatest gaming experiences of the year. I'll be playing it in the near future and I'll share my thoughts here on the blog. If I survive, that is…

This article was originally posted on Nowherescape.

The selection of the Game of the Year is always a source of intense debate on the internet. Gamers are passionate people and will fight for the games they love without restraint. It's only natural. But maybe this is also an interesting moment to question the substantial reasons that should support such a title. I'm not going to pick a game for you. In fact, I will argue that the Game of the Year is not a matter of passion or favoritism. Instead, I propose that we take a look at the reasons that make certain games stand out. Games that are not just entertaining but truly important.

There are two reasons that make Mass Effect 2 a significant contender to the title of Game of the Year. They are reasons of structure and game-play. The first is the innovation brought by the integration of saved data from ME1. It allows the player to continue with an unfolding story, carrying through the features and plot choices of their character from the first game.

The second reason has to do with the conversation device developed by BioWare: the dialogue wheel. It's one of those revolutionary things that most people don't really seem to value for its true worth. It basically kills the traditional cut-scene, the conventional narrative system that pulls the player away from story development. The dialogue wheel turned the cut-scenes into an active part of the game-play, radically transforming the nature of storytelling as we've become accustomed to observe in most video games. These are features that I believe will become standard for many games in the future and the main reasons why I consider the Mass Effect series such an outstanding achievement.

Heavy Rain is a game that sets the foundations for a new genre. It is somewhat reminiscent of the early point-and-click adventures from the early nineties and develops some ideas that were already taking shape in the remarkable Fahrenheit / Indigo Prophecy, also by Quantic Dream. But it evolves into a revolutionary new concept of dramatic interaction, providing a visceral emotional experience unlike any other.

The most intriguing and innovative element of Heavy Rain is that it's a game without game over. It doesn't lead the player into a specific storyline, right or wrong. What we know is that each choice has its consequences, and because we choose, and because those decisions will determine the story we are about to see, everything becomes tense and definitive.

Red Dead Redemption is a game beyond narrative. It presents an entire landscape inspired by the iconography of the American Old West. It's a micro-realistic environment with dynamic weather and smooth transitions between night and day, allowing free exploration through thousands of square miles of virtual territory, from the populated towns to the hostile wilderness teeming with wildlife.

The wide open vistas, with vivid sunsets and sunrises, provide some of the most memorable moments ever seen in a video game. You can journey from the highest mountain, East of the map, and ride all the way into the desert, out West, and do so in a single continuous play-through, without transitions or loading screens. It's an amazing technical achievement that provides an unparalleled sense of place, revealing the full scope of video games as an extraordinary setting for storytelling and conceptual creativity.

This article was originally posted on Nowherescape.

Tomb Raider? 1996? Look, I was there, okay? It was pretty remarkable. And it wasn't Indiana Jones meets the Spice Girls generation. I mean, sure, Lara Croft is the gaming version of Harrison Ford's icon hero. But the first Tomb Raider was much more than just a pretty face. It did things we had never seen before. It revolutionized the platform genre and turned it into a fully 3D experience. It presented some of the most unique videogame environments anyone had ever seen. Plus, it had a giant freakin' dinosaur.

By the time Tomb Raider II was launched I was running out the door to get the ultimate 3Dfx Voodoo graphics accelerator card, the most powerful beast known to man. TR2 stands to this day as my favorite game in the series and one of the most memorable gaming experiences I ever had. Several sequences are quintessential, like the opening chapter at the Great Wall of China, the Venice channels, the nocturnal incursion into the Opera House or the mystical Temple of Xian where the final stage takes place. But the single most extraordinary part of that game, and the best Tomb Raider moment ever, is 40 Fathoms, where Lara dives into an underwater ship wreck lying at the bottom of the sea. The colors, the sounds, the amazing atmosphere of that journey, remain unforgettable.

So what happened to Lara Croft since then? Well, nothing bad, really. The Tomb Raider games remained decent for the most part. I mean, I enjoyed playing them, but it's kind of like going through pre-Daniel Craig's Bond movies. You were being fueled by your own nostalgia more than anything else. The main problem, really, is that along the way they forgot to develop Lara into a fully grown character. And I'm not talking about her breasts. Let's face it, the movies could have provided just that, but instead revealed a complete neglect for storytelling and character development. And if you're going to reproduce the videogame dynamic, I want to be the one with the controller instead of Jan de Bont.

Of course, it's only natural that the news of a radical reboot will upset some fans. Fans are, naturally, defensive of what they love and are likely to fear the changes to come. But when you think about it, Lara never had a plausible background. She was never a real character. The new Tomb Raider game seems to want to do just that. To turn Lara into a vulnerable, believable individual. Not just a super-hero, but someone we honestly care about. And that can only be a good thing.

This article was originally posted on Nowherescape.

Back in the days of the old Xbox I bought a game called KOTOR. I was mostly motivated by the Star Wars setting and had no previous experience in Role Playing Games. Although I found it to be quite enjoyable, my absence of skills eventually got the best of me. Somewhere half way through the game I got stuck, my team of characters killed repeatedly due to my evident lack of expertise. And so it was that I eventually left KOTOR unfinished. Hélas…

RPGs, you see, are the stuff heroes are made of. It's the turf of gaming ninjas, people devoted to long hours of codex reading, tactics configuration, item customization, weapon upgrading and potion management. For an action gamer like me, well, it felt like hostile alien environment.

A few years ago I bought the X360. A friend of mine, a big Gears of War fan, told me to purchase the console packed with Gears of War 2. And so I did. I played it and finished it. I was happy. Then my friend asked me if I could lend him the game. I did, and he was happy too.

In a strange twist of events, this friend of mine asked me if he could keep GOW2 for himself. He was basically begging at this point and wanted to trade the game for one of his own. Among them was the original Mass Effect. He told me it wasn't his kind of game; he had hardly made any progress on it. I was curious about ME. I'm a big sci-fi fan and there was something about it that seemed really appealing. But I had my doubts. ME seemed to have mixed reviews… I remember watching Gamespot's video review focusing on all these problems with Thresher Maw's instant death and stuff. I ended up thinking that Thresher Maw bashing was probably a big part of Mass Effect. How silly.

So there it was that I became an owner of Mass Effect. As I started to walk the Normandy, chatting with the crew, I experienced a true sense of awe. Everything about it seemed fascinating to me. And then the first mission comes along and wow this combat mechanic is really weird. What's this power wheel thing for. Ignore it. Go for the action… No, wait, I'm doing something wrong. What was that again?...

Needless to say, it took me half way through the game to figure out all the gameplay dynamics and make a proper use of the Biotic talents of the crew. But I was completely drawn into its universe by then. The first arrival at the Citadel made it for me, definitely one of the most extraordinary futuristic environments ever designed for a video game. And so Mass Effect became my favourite game of all time. Never have I replayed a game so much… Until Mass Effect 2 came along, that is.

ME2 was my first pre-ordered game. I love everything about it… Well, there was this initial moment when even I questioned the oversimplification of some of the customization elements in the game. How about that? An old fashioned action gamer like me aching for customization. I must be getting indoctrinated by BioWare. But, seriously, Mass Effect blends the two things I find most fascinating about video gaming: alternate forms of storytelling and the experience of speculative physical environments. It has inspired a new iconography of sci-fi fantasy, unparalleled to anything ever seen in video game format. The Mass Effect series is the first true sci-fi epic of the 21st Century.

This article was originally posted on Nowherescape.

The reproduction of complex architectural physical realities has been made possible through the technological evolution of video games. The journey into fictional landscapes – buildings, cities, planets – has often become a central element of its conceptual design, the very fabric of both gameplay and narrative experience. It's a new media that is broadening the realm of architecture.

Permanence, beauty and function are critical elements in the foundation of a sense of place. But what are these new places? What do we call this emulation of the real whose single purpose is to serve the events within the game? Recent titles have expanded the frontiers of virtual environment, revealing wide territories and even entire cities. The reproduction of urban and suburban realities then becomes a main component of the very experience beyond the narrative that sustains it. Games now transcend the mere attainment of objectives to penetrate into the realm of inhabitance.

Architecture is establishing itself as a central component of video game design. It is an architecture that is no longer defined as support to the real, its artistic possibilities therefore becoming endless. Space and time serve to immerse the player in alternate, micro-realistic universes; vehicles to sustain alternate ideas of reality, projections and sceneries of simulated, subjective experiences, where anything can happen.

This article was originally posted on Nowherescape.

Architecture is conventionally defined within our physical reality. Real space, however, is not neutral. It establishes a relationship between the external world and its natural laws. Therefore, the territory of architecture defines its own set of rules that determine a sense of reality, materiality, time and space. If our planet had the gravity of the Moon, the lightness of the materials would make the construction of colossal structures possible. Buildings could be much taller, the bridges infinitely longer.

When the physical context is removed, as in dreams or in a virtual environment, the conditions that bound us to reality disappear. Without gravity, rain or wind, architecture no longer needs to obey its impositions. To fly, to walk through walls, to manipulate space in previously impossible ways, then becomes possible. We no longer talk about architecture in the terms we knew before and even space becomes a metaphor for itself.

This article was originally posted on Nowherescape.