Spore

 Don't Panic!

I arrive on a meteor, chucked from the heavens to this lowly rock on the furthest wisp of it's celestial spoke-wheel. All from there, in some way or other, will be a brutal duel from utmost simplicity to advanced sciences, the hounding of 'survival of the fittest' will dog me and others every solitary step of the way until it's rough iron creases out only the final victor. Never perhaps the toughest, nor the meanest, but certainly the most resourceful among us. And ever as we toil, evolving and distending into ugly bizarre fishes, then colourful mammals, and onwards to vicious tribals, the question hounds of 'what comes next', where will be our zenith. Of course how are we to know then, that zenith will obviously be when everything melds and coalesces into a bad Star Trek The Next Generation episode, complete with a faux 'borg' copy and paste job. So perhaps not the preordained 'rulers of creation' we had hoped for, but we'll make do.

I talk a lot about 'scale' and 'scope' whenever it comes to talking about games that I respect from a conceptual level, which I suppose just goes to show right and clear how I feel about titles that try something incredible when other titles that stay relatively safe. (Although that being said, Persona 4 Golden is one of my favourite games of all time for the express reason that it simulates everyday life, so what does that say about me?) And how much more grand can a game possible get, then literally trying to tell the story of evolution from microscopic unicellular amoebas to rulers of the cosmos. (Well, I say rulers; you actually more just end up as desperate freedom fighters struggling against a pre-laid out Stellaris endgame sceanrio) does it get any more sweeping than that? Probably not, which is why I and quite a few others fell for the once unbelievable charms of Maxis' Spore.

Yes, Maxis sometimes made games other than the latest malformed and malnutritional Sims entry, packed with just enough empty promise to fuel hundreds of dollars worth of DLC and DLC for that DLC. (Still can't believe they did that) To say that my respect for Maxis has dropped significantly since the days of early Spore would be a tad of an understatement. When I spied the first trailers for this game I was beside myself, certain to my core that Maxis were visionary geniuses capable of things that no other developer would ever dream off. I drooled over the prospect of the one, true, forever game; wherein you'd tell over and over the simple greatest story in creation; that of creation. Is there any more pure a conclusion for those who lean towards the god game ecosystem, then literally playing a god of evolution? And in many ways little me was right, because simply no developer has tried anything nearly as insane as this concept in the 13 years since. Not even Maxis, who have since gone on to being slave drivers for their Electronic Arts masters. (I miss when games companies got better with time, even though I think I'm starting to realise that never was the case)

In many ways the very idea was like, and I'm sure this was bought up in the planning stages at one point, directing your very own show on the discovery channel. And that is the sort of overarching destiny-shaping power and world-altering manipulation that control freaks out there yearn for. (even if, I suppose if you were actually filming some sort of discovery channel show, you'd be tethered by crappy rules such as: having to depict actual reality) Of course, any game even attempting something like this was going to have some distinct conceptual limitations, and framing those as positives, when the entire concept of the game was about turning oneself into a god of this world, would be the prevailing challenge of the marketers. And considering how far they sold me, hook line and sinker, I'd call that a total success on Maxis' part. (although they were selling to a child, so take that for what you will.)

Spore starts with you as a germ on a space rock full of bacteria, and trying as hard as possible to survive a total underwater free-for-all battle for survival. Countless other gross single-cell monstrosities are trying to mindlessly eat their way to victory, and over millions of years you have to contend with that. Where it becomes clever is in the building system menus, wherein you get to build your cell to look how you want, but also to have the 'parts' that you want. Parts are addendums to the body, eyes, tails, vicious spikes, et cetera, which improve stats and shape how you look. As you slay more creatures and earn more 'DNA points' you can put better body parts on your creature, and already I'll bet you're starting to see the way in which the core concepts of evolution are going to work squashed into a video game economy. Works better than I thought it would, truth be told.

Whilst the chaos of cell mode is a lot of people's favourite stage, I was always further drawn in the creature mode, when your cell grows big enough to wiggle onto land and start a 3d adventure across the face of it's home planet. This is a part of the game that represents a more advanced version of the cell stage, with a little more flexibility to it other than 'kill everything and don't die'. There's food bars to have to deal with, influenced by the type of eating implements you've fitted your creatures' mouth with, a rudimentary diplomacy system where you get to play interpretive dances with other species and a Pokémon 'gotta catch 'em all' draw to it, in the way that new body parts are 'unlocked' by scouring skeletons for bones. It's in this stage that the creature you're making forms it's final look and ends as the mostly dominant species on the planet.

From there most people fell off the game, and it makes since because the promise of creativity sort of falls off too. Tribal and Civilisation mode are kind of like dime-store strategy game rip-offs, with Tribal stage being a simple RTS and Civilisation stage playing like your prototypical 4X game. Neither are particularly bad, it should be said, but neither offer the sort of appeal you could easily get from other specialised titles in their respective genres. This goes especially true for Space Stage, which was meant as the ever lasting endgame but often ranks as people's least favourite stage. Sort of juggling a 4X framework over a third person explorer gameplay. Imagine playing Stellaris, but you have to manually fly to each world in order to micromanage, then carve out a lot of the complexity so that most of the worlds can operate themselves but still need personal intervention sometimes, and you'll pretty much have the Space Stage in a nutshell. Oh, and there's Borg in that mode as well. Spore calls them Grox, and they guard the core of the galaxy. I guess they're pretty much what counts as 'main antagonists', if this game needed that. Apparently is does, and the Grox are it.

Before Maxis decided to perfect it's craft at draining the Sims fanbase dry, I think that Spore marked the very last step in their experimental teenage years, and that alone makes this worth a wisp of attention. It tries for too much at times, and falters, but I'd rather have a game that goes to be more than it can be, then one that purposefully neuters itself out of fear. My only shame for the game comes in the fact that, since Maxis are cash cows now, we'll never get the polished and refined sequel that a game like this could have definitely had. Or if we do get it now, we'd be inundated with creature part DLC packs ad nauseum for the next 8 years. So let the ambitious, flawed, masterpiece that was Spore persist as a relic of a crazier, freer, time for the gaming industry. (You'll never evolve into creature stage, poor Spore.) Oh, and I have absolutely no idea what Darkspore was, maybe I should look it up some time...

Video Game jobs

Workung 9 to 5, what a way to make a living!

In the world of fictional story telling, we are all ruled by our desires to be something extraordinary. Whether that be a particularly skillful individual or particularly lucky one, a great many of wish to shirk our more mundane daily duties and embark on some epic, life-changing adventure. In particular, one thing that none of us want to deal with is the responsibility and effort that comes with a soul-crushing nowhere job. (Unless you're one of the lucky ones doing what they love. In which case, god speed to you good sir.) With that in mind, isn't it a little bit funny when those power-fantasy driven video games that we play enforce some dull job upon us?

I'm not talking about being tricked into doing various repetitive task, or rather not just that, I mean the times in which the developers thought it apropos to simulate a real-life job within their world and have players slog through it. Of course, some games are built around such a premise and those I take no issue with. Classic video game 'Paper Boy', for example, has players simulate the life of a bicycle-bound newspaper delivery boy who has the worrying tendency to smash the front windows of everyone too cheap to subscribe to his service. (Sounds like this kid has a future in the Mafia.) Other games, however, are clearly focused around other endeavours and yet take time out of their 'save the world' schedule to have you waste time in exchange for chump change.

One set of games which made an absolute habit out of this practice throughout it's entire main-lineup is the Fable series. These games are based around the well-worn concept of a born hero struggling to save the, very English, kingdom of Albion from the baddie of the week. Of course, such campaigns are hardly cheap for an aspiring hero. One needs to keep themselves flush with a stead supply of healing potions, new armours and weapons, and the latest fashionable haircut (and I'm just listing the essentials) none of which is handed to the player for free. Thus, in every game there comes a time wherein the hero must take to the streets and perform 'jobs' in order to fund their adventures, at least until they can get into more profitable endeavours. (Like real estate. I'm serious.) In Fable 3 your Hero is given the choice of being a blacksmith (fitting enough), Lute player (okay...), and Pie Maker. (How many pies does this society realistically need?) Not only is this the best way to raise income in the early game, but it is the most direct source of capital for the late game too, meaning that even once the Hero raises to the highest office of the land, (as they do in every game) the citizens of Albion can still enjoy the presence of their reigning monarch at the local pie stand.

Another title that approaches the concept of 'jobs' in a manner that is a little more fitting, would be American highschool simulator; Bully. Just as with most Rockstar games, Bully is full of side activities for the player to embark on to various ends; some confer respect with particular factions, most award some sort of collectible upon their completion and a few give cold hard cash. But unlike other Rockstar games, In Bully the protagonist is a highschool kid, meaning that the side jobs available to him are suitably- part time. In Bully, players are given the choice to join a paper route in order to make some extra pocket money, or take to mowing lawns to get what they need. Both tasks are as tedious as they sound but offer enough consistent cash to make them worthwhile pass-times. Plus, unlike in real life, you rarely have to wait for new cash-in-hand opportunities as the grass seems to magically grow the second before you go to cut it. Bully is kind enough to award money for completing quests too, meaning that one isn't forced to subject Jimmy Hopkins to such vivid glimpses of his future careers if they don't want to. (Choice is nice.)

Looking towards other Rockstar games, The Grand Theft Auto franchise is full of side jobs throughout their titles. (Especially in the 3D era) In 3, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories and both Vice cities, you can assume the role of a taxi driver in a makeshift version of 'Crazy Taxi'; San Andreas and Vice City both have prominent meta game threads whereupon you run a chop shop in order to be rewarded with unique vehicles and one can even find a rare job in Los Santos wherein you become a part-time pimp. (Okay, that might just be exact clone of the Taxi mini-game in a different vehicle but I'll count it.) In the same vein, the Saints Row series also had a decent number of jobs for the player to partake in, although the tended to get more outlandish as the games did. In Saints Row 2 you could become a reality TV cop or a Demolition derby driver, whilst in Saint Row 4 you ended up trafficking weapons and starring in a murderous version of Takeshi's Castle.

Seeing as how things are threatening to get a little too exciting, let's tone things down to the most sedate level possible; namely, the jobs of Skyrim. As this is a title that take place in a fictionalized version of the dark ages, it is only fitting for the daily life of Tamriel to reflect that- simpler time. And, as this franchise is a lot more poe-faced than Fable, that means you won't be getting any 'guitar hero' style lute mini games. (Maybe in TES6.) In Skyrim, one can make an honest living by partaking in three peaceful job opportunities, lumberjack, miner and farm hand. All of these activities are mostly automated and just require the player to have the right tool for the job, (Except for farming, in which there is no requirement) and they are all excessively boring for a player to partake in. Whatsmore, the 'living' you make from these jobs is hardly enough to keep fed all day, let alone support you throughout the game. This is a key example of a video game job that literally exists for nothing more than role play potential.

Okay, this next topic may not have a one-to-one comparison to a real job, but it's still a game concept formed around the work of manual labour, so I'd be remiss to disclude Death Stranding from my list. In Kojima's latest art-house thriller,(?) the protagonist is thrown into a post-apocalyptic sci-fi world in which his assigned task is the transporting of key materials all across America. (Think U-haul, only without the trucks.) This mean that aside from all of the weird supernatural goings on and bigger than life characters, the meat of the gameplay is essentially just the act of walking from one point to another for hours on end. In that way, Death Stranding does truly capture the tedium of cross-country courier work. (I assume Couriers have to fight off bandits and other worldly ink monsters too.)

There is one game out there that is notable for the way how it features 'going to work' as one of the key game play features. It simulates finding a job, keeping a job, and trying to keep your sanity in the moments in between. And no, it's not some psychological horror game, (Although that description I just made up did sound like a cool indie title)I'm talking about 'The Sims'. As a game that attempts to simulate the going-ons of everyday life, to varying levels of success, it only makes sense that the working life is represented within the gameplay. Throughout the years Maxis have adapted the way that they've presented jobs, but since Sims 3 they seemed to have hit a sweet spot between having players act out some jobs and having them plain disappear for 8 hours for others. (That's how you tell the difference between boring jobs and jobs so boring that game developers can't even figure how to pretend it's fun.)

At the end of the day the inclusion of real life jobs in video games can seem perfunctory, but I like to see the situation as one of perspective. In these adventures wherein the lionshare of time is spent robbing banks or fighting dragons, it's nice to take a step back now and then and appreciate the slower moments. (Even if your appreciation is marred by the fact that your character is currently partaking in back breaking labour.) At that point is because a question of pacing, which I think is a discussion that is very unique within the world of games compared to other forms of creative media. Although I will say, at least one of the jobs I mentioned today does very little to calm my nerves and instead invokes vivid spikes of hypertension akin to PTSD. But that's just me.

The Sims: a depression killer?

Citation needed.

I had a blog planned for today, as I usually do, which got thrown out the window the second I happened upon an interesting article on my Google suggestions. (Good job, Google algorithm, you've figured out which kind of articles I'll click on.) So what could have driven me off of my course, you ask. What article was so attention grabbing that I immediately scrapped everything else on the spot the moment I saw it's potential? "Playing the Sims makes you 'healthier and happier', scientist reveals." Published by the Sun with a byline dedicated to one Becky Pemberton. Oh Rebecca, what absolute drivel are you feeding the public today?

For those unfamiliar, The Sun is a shameless tabloid who became so desperate to offload physical copies that they started a trend of slapping pictures of half naked girls on page 3. (You can thank the tireless entrepreneurial mind of, professional creep, Rupert Murdoch for that particular evolution to journalism.) In the modern day such doesn't translate so well to the Online space, so The Sun have secured their relevance the same way that any online tabloid does; clickbait. (Hey, it works.) With all that in mind, I can't say that I'm surprised to see such a frivolous story make it to their pages, but I still feel compelled to respond when the subject is a matter that I am infinitely more familiar with than Miss Pemberton is.

"From the sounds of it, you seem to refute the claim that the Sims makes one happier and healthier." You're damn right I do. And matters are not helped by the fact that someone (likely the Intern that Becky choose to edit all this together whilst she argued with the Starbucks waiters about the creaminess of her cappuccino) decided that the best accompanying image for this article would be from 'The Sims: Freeplay'. Now, I'm not going to pretend to be the most objective person in the world, especially not in an article where I'm poised to rip apart other people's opinions, but I speak with unchallengeable certainty when I say that 'The Sims: Free Play' is neither healthy for you nor emotionally enriching.

At the cusp of EA's decent into the rapacious pit of Mobile games, they heralded their arrival with the aforementioned 'The Sims: Freeplay'. This was a game which practically pioneered time-gating technology to such an abhorrent degree that it genuinely revolutionized the way that countless Mobile game Devs fleece their consumer base. So of course, that means they had actions that were tied to a stamina bar which would regenerate once every hour, (Letting you experience the heart-stopping action of watching your Sim catch their breath for 60 minutes) actions for your Sim to undergo which would last for the real time equivalent, (Wanna see a Sim watch TV for half an hour? Got you covered!) and certain actions which, inexplicably, could only be activated at a certain time on a certain day of the week. (Oh, did you miss that Friday deadline? Wait until next week. That's a real world week, by the by.) All of this could be avoided by kicking papa EA his dues and earning the right to have fun. Not too much fun, however, because at the end of the day you're still playing the Sims. Is that game the face of 'happy and healthy' gaming experiences? If so, I might as well just hang myself now because that's the most grim future for gaming that I could possibly imagine.

Am I getting hung up on what is likely a misplaced image planted by somebody who doesn't care about their job? Sure. But I must it does put an absolutely foul taste in my mouth as I go into the meat of the article. (Good job, Becky!) Firstly, Ms.Pemberton starts off with a hypothetical asking the reader if they spent hours creating the dream home in The Sims 'back in the day'. Before informing us that such could benefit our mental and physical health according to a scientist. (There's so much to unpack here.) Firstly, how narrow of a perspective must you have of the Sims to assume that people played the game purely to make their dream house? The Sims isn't a building game, it's a life simulator wherein the bulk of the gameplay is about steering fake people for an, often satiristic, fictional life. Once again, I'm being nitpicky so I'll move on. Secondly, The Sims isn't a 'back in the day' franchise but a very active one which put out a major expansion earlier this year (Island life) and has another planned for the very near future. (University life.) And Thirdly, doesn't the phrase usually go "according to Scientists?" What, this guy couldn't get any of his colleagues to proof read his work?

Steven McKeown, a Psychoanalyst, proposes that playing games can "serve as a healthy escape to everyday life." Following up that it "is a better alternative to other vices like alcohol and drugs." (Oh really, Steve? What an enlightening discovery you've made there, truly worthy of the scientific annals. We'll stick that right next to the mapping of the human genome, shall we?) 'Games= better than drugs', you can understand why we needed a scientist to come to that conclusion. "The suggestion that we may spend more time in a virtual world than the physical one has been developing speedily over the years and has fast become a way in which we can live an alternative life in exactly the way we want." Stevie's implications as to the immersive on video games and the reality of it replacing real life seem to verge on abstract, but I have seen similar ideas expressed in my research into Trasnhumanism (And, you know... in the Matrix) so I'll give him the benefit of doubt here.

He then goes on to bring the Sims into this by claiming that it "can allow a person to escape social normality, its pressures and chronic stresses that are so prevalent in the real world, it allows the gamer to create a perfect reality in which they play the main character and have full control over the outcome." Okay once again, classic 'I've never played this game' syndrome. Part of the key facet of The Sims (heck, any video game with replayability value) is that you don't have full control over the outcome. In fact, your efforts to influence the outcome is what we call 'the gameplay'. What makes this more appealing than the real world is the way in which the consequences are artificial and can be waved away, just like with any game. Usually I wouldn't be so harsh on phrasing like this, but most Scientists that I've spoken to or read about are almost neurotically specific about wording. I suppose that makes Steve a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

Stevie Wonder then goes on to tell us (or rather a representative from media conglomerate Unilad, with whom the interview was being conducted) that people without a means of escape face the risk of suffering from "Burn out." The reason why The Sims is particularly good for this, in Steve's eyes, is because it allows players to explore lives or personality in a way they hadn't done so previously. Welcome to games, Steve, they're all kinda like that! I know it may be surprising to hear, but before DOOM I had never spent time curb stomping demons under my space boots, before Fallout 4 I'd never engaged with everyone I ever speak to in mildly sarcastic tones and before Skyrim I'd never slain a dragon, absorbed it's soul and used that power to defeat a World Eating primordial Wyvern. (I may have been lying about one of those.)

From this point on I have to admit, I may not quite know what it is that our psychoanalyst is getting at “Our consciousness is very adaptable and allows us to create an opening to different paradigms of reality every time we focus on alternate versions of life through our thoughts. With the assistance of life simulation games such as Sims we can enhance our inner experience." Honestly, Steve sounds like a really trippy guy to hang around as he is the only person I know to use the word 'paradigm' un-ironically outside of a TED talk. As for the rest of his claims, I honestly can't help but wonder where the 'This message is sponsored by EA' label comes into it.

The reason I say that is because if there is one game, of all games, that is likely to heighten your sense of vivid despair, it's the Sims. This is a game in which the primary antagonist that the player spends the majority of the game fighting is themselves, and everything you want to accomplish and/or achieve is dependant on you satisfying your requirements to be fed, clean, relieved and happy. It's a microcosm for the issues that we face everyday and, just like when it comes to maintaining a real human being, all it takes is for you to fall behind on one aspect for your Sim's balance to go spiralling out of control. So perhaps one could argue that this game does a good job in teaching folk how to better organize their life, but I've been playing these games all my life and I'm a god damn shambles. (That particular gripe might be a little personal.)

None of this is to even take into account the way that The Sim's pimp, EA, manages to squeeze it's player base's wallets clean every release. It may be a distant memory today, but I still remember when The Sims 3 was discontinued and Maxis announced Sims 4 with a fraction of the features and twice the price. It has been half a decade since that release and the community are only now receiving 'University Life'. (An aspect that was present in Sims 3.) EA have managed to make a mint by overcharging for these 'expansions' at anywhere between £17.99 to £35 per pack. When these expansions number around about 29, (Not counting University life) you can see how the price for the whole package grows ridiculous. Want to know the worst part? The game itself isn't even worth any of that. Honestly, none of the Sims games are and I will debate any two-bit EA scrooge who insists otherwise. You may think that this paragraph is a bit beyond the point but ruminate on this; would you feel happy and healthy after taking stock of your Sims spending habits and realizing that you've put 3 digits behind it?

Okay, so I've established that Stevie boy is talking out of his ass, but just who is this guy and why does his opinion matter? Well, he's a psychoanalyst and hypnotherapist who's claim to fame is that he has had a number of celebrity clients over the years.(I'm not going to start judging the hypnotherapy profession, but I will acknowledge that there a vocal group of medial professionals who very much do.) Also, he's one of those people who proclaims himself "The UK's number 1 coach and psychoanalyst", without detailing what metric he is comparing himself too. (Also, 'Coach'? Does this guy work with junior football teams or something?) He is also very proud of an 'Interational Mental Makeover Retreat' that he created which looks to be run out of a picturesque villa/compound in Italy and costs around £3000 for a six night stay. (Not sure about you but I can't read anymore of this for all the red flags waving in my eyes.)

So, is this whole news story just ill-informed gibberish spouted by a pretentious hack who looks like the kind of guy who'd wear sunglasses indoors? No, it's not just that. It's also a necro-story dug up by the Sun which I've seen bought up by other outlets as early as April of this year. Apparently The Sun are having a slow News week. But what more do you really expect from Becky Pemberton, given that her usual content includes many deep diving articles such as; The Queen wrote a furious note to one of her top chefs after she found a SLUG in her salad, (How improper!) Bride’s wedding gown roasted for looking like a swimsuit, (Gosh, so embarrassing!)and Mum saves time by putting her daughters to bed in tomorrow’s clothes. (What an inspiration.) Not that I'm much better, writing about all this crap in order to provide myself with content, but what do you want for nothing?