Having too many games to finish, of course, I picked up another one, Silent Hill – Shattered Memories. I never played the original [because I was purely a PC gamer then]. But even just playing Shattered Memories for an hour, I’m really pulled into this game. Yes, the graphics are part of that draw [notice I didn't say 'for a Wii game' although the animations, the textures, the details all put to shame many Wii games]. As the darkness looms all around, the flashlight creates some stark contrasts while also throwing up shadows to make me doubt sometimes what I think I see.

And so far, the story has pulled me in with a similarly appealing ambiguity. The question of what is real is an old one, going back to the pre-socratics at least and treated well by the likes of Philip K. Dick and many others. Yet, I still find it appealing in this game so far.

Games like this are thoroughly enjoyable, as much as frenetic jumping and action. Yet, some reviewers apparently have attention issues and can’t handle the slow pace, which adds to the game. Does it have ‘dull pacing’? I guess, if you expecting Modern Warfare pacing. Yet, I don’t expect a drama to have the pacing of a summer blockbuster. [Needless to say, I find the Game Informer review way off in its assumptions about what a good game should be, as well as in its assessment of the controls, which I've had no problem with.]

I think the assumption that games have to have X, Y, and Z is a problem because it assumes that we’re homogenous. So, some might not like this game, but that hardly means that it is a bad game. I return to roguelikes as an example of this–if you accept the premises and conditions of a roguelike, you’ll enjoy titles in this genre. But if you don’t accept them, then that doesn’t mean that such games aren’t fun . . . they’re not fun for you.

I find a slower paced game that isn’t driven by combat to be extremely appealing. I accept such a premise for a game. However, some might not. That doesn’t mean that Shattered Memories is therefore a good game . . . I’ll have to play more to judge that. [And it's possible that the game could indeed fail, even on its own terms. But that does not mean the GI review is vindicated . . . you can be right for the wrong reasons.]

Magazines like Game Informer contribute to an aesthetic, to definitions of games. Unfortunately, it’s one largely drawn from about a handful of gaming experiences. They remind me of the Talking Heads’ ‘Once in a lifetime,’ where the character doesn’t know how he arrived where he is. The dogged pursuit of one thing, of one aesthetic, means that we relinquish other aesthetics and pursuits.

Note: I had already drafted this post when I came across gnome’s comments on gaming, art, and industry. I think there’s some overlap between our posts, as it regards some fundamental forces that shape current games.

Sometimes, I feel the neighborhood cat lady . . . except that I’m a dude, not a lady. And I don’t take in stray cats with all kinds of afflictions and scars. Instead, I take in stray games [which at least don't literally stink up my house].

Such a game is Fable 2, which this review well captures the game’s defects:

• A rather blah story
• A game that is hardcore in its size and other features but lacks the depth we’d expect from an RPG of this size
• A game world that is huge and offers vistas of places that you can’t get to [or at least easily]
• A lack of a good map tool that allows you to visit the world easily or even relate the different areas to each other
• Too few baddies to fight, unless you just want to get a whole town mad at you
• Lots of linear play with the appearance of openness

To which I would add:

• A really clunky interface with almost ability to customize
• Way too easy to make money
• Dreadful job mini-games that become mind numbing after a short time

I admit that all of the above is true, only to say that I still really enjoy the game. I do wander around the world, even though it’s not completely open. Even though you might not discover a place that doesn’t have a quest attached to it at some point, you can still explore the world and find surprises. When I happened across what seemed like a large, abandoned mining camp, I was still fascinated, although I never saw anyone to fight. But I didn’t know for sure . . . and I had that experience of wondering what happened there, why was everyone gone.

In a way, too, my expectations weren’t for another Oblivion thanks to the fact that Fallout 3 fulfills that expectation. I had played Fable and knew what to expect. And that’s what I’ve gotten, but better. I can do much more in Fable 2 than in Fable, like buying all sorts of properties. In the original, I could not spend that much time outside of the main quest and story because there wasn’t that much to do. But in Fable 2, I can . . . I’m maxing out those job skills with the minigames, and I’m investing in property, just my pa advised me.

The other thing is that the game is light-hearted, even for its seemingly dark main story. From item descriptions, to quotes during the load screen, to NPC chatter, there’s usually something in every game session to make me smile just a little. I think it’s the kind of game that shows why itemizing the faults can be so very misleading and how a game can be fun without being the most complex or sophisticated game in a genre. The game has enough relationships among player actions and the game world to make it the kind of sandbox game that doesn’t overwhelm you and make you feel you’ll be playing it for months.

Plus, any game that provides stories like the two in this forum thread can’t be that bad.

* Image from the gamersinfo.net WOW blog