"Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 Portable" review

Imagine my surprise when I had found out that what I did in my 200+ hour save file for Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 FES was only half of the experience.

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 Portable is Atlus' third iteration of [the] (now increasingly more mainstream) Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 for the PlayStation 2. Does the game really need a third revision?

---------------------

Story:

You star as a silent protagonist (male or female) who has recently transferred to a new school; Gekkokaun High. As one would guess, complications ensue. The protagonist quickly discovers the “Dark Hour”, a hidden hour that occurs on a daily basis every midnight. During this time, people are transmogrified into coffins and monsters known as “shadows” roam about. The only ones who aren't transmogrified are the individuals who hold the power to combat the shadows; this power allows one to summon a manifestation of their psyche, known as “Persona”. Naturally, you happen to be one of those individuals.

You are swiftly inducted into the Specialized Extracurricular Execution Squad - S.E.E.S. for short. The S.E.E.S. consist of Persona-users (who all live in the same dorm as you) who actively battle the shadows. The game introduces you to Tartarus: Gekkokaun High, which turns into a monolithic tower filled with shadows during the Dark Hour. Your goal? Climb it, obviously. Unfortunately, this premise constitutes for the majority of the first half of the game's plot, and you may find the whole affair pretty bland. Rest assured, though, it picks up during the second half.

---------------------

Gameplay, and changes from Persona 3/FES:

This is Persona 3, revamped with the improved gameplay mechanics of its successor, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, which is a fantastic game in its own right (insert shameless plug here).

Basically, Persona 3 divides itself into two wholly different, yet equally fulfilling parts. During the day, you live the life of an average high school student: attend classes, take tests, eat ramen, sing karaoke, form friendships, etc. That last one is quite important – forming friendships with your peers establishes “Social Links” with them. The closer you become to someone, the higher you raise their Social Link. In turn, this grants your personas power. Being social is critical to surviving Persona 3's other half, which is more of a traditional dungeon crawling, monster-battling experience.

During the night, you are able to visit Tartarus with your group of Persona-users. As mentioned before, Tartarus is a very tall tower, and your single-minded goal is to reach the top. Every floor of the tower is randomly generated each time you visit it, with shadows roaming the halls. When you come into contact with a shadow – either by you hitting it, or it hitting you – you enter a battle. Battles are turned based, and the main gameplay revolves around exploiting your enemies' weaknesses. Enemy weak to fire? Hit it with a fire spell, knock it down, and get an extra turn. After knocking all enemies down, you are able to execute an All Out Attack, which deals severe damage to each enemy. Battles are quick, strategic, and enjoyable. One of the biggest changes from the original Persona 3 is that you are now able to directly control your allies. This saves a great deal of frustration, believe me.

Another important change from the original game is the way you navigate the map during social hours. Instead of walking around the world with an in-game sprite, you are now a dot that moves around the screen. It's very much a point-and-click affair. While it's a little jarring at first, being a simple cursor significantly streamlines Persona 3's gameplay. You are able to go wherever you want in the blink of an eye, and complete things faster than ever before. The game still retains its slick sense of style, as well; backgrounds are rendered as stylized portraits.

The biggest change, however, comes in the form of Persona 3's brand-new female protagonist. Although the main story is largely a cut-and-paste affair of male protagonist's route, the social interactions have been drastically changed. Although some fans may have been offended by Persona 3 Portable's lack of Persona 3 FES's bonus chapter, “The Answer”, the game easily makes up for it with a far more substantial and fulfilling female route.

---------------------

Sound:

A very subjective topic, but one still worth mentioning anyways. In short, Persona 3's soundtrack is fantastic. The town themes fill you with a serene calmness while the battle themes get you pumped up for, well, battle. The dungeon themes – mainly Tartarus' – need some work, though (and that's an understatement). For the most part, the game is very well acted, with VA's brimming with emotion. The sound effects are both unique and silly. You won't regret playing this game with headphones.

---------------------

Graphics:

Persona 3 Portable looks very nice on a PSP screen. As mentioned before, the social side of the game is very stylish. Characters are represented by well-drawn portraits during dialogue scenes. Even a few miscellaneous characters have their own unique portraits, to help better identify who is speaking and what is happening. In terms of battle graphics, Persona 3 Portable has been slightly downgraded from its predecessors, and I do mean slightly. Battles are filled with dozens of unique personas and some nice visual effects. In short, the game looks great. It also has blazingly-fast load times. Who doesn't like that?

---------------------

Closing Comments:

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 Portable is an excellent game, and a worthy – if not superior – follow up to its predecessors. It makes several significant changes that vastly improve the game, without compromising any of Persona 3's deep gameplay mechanics. The story and character arcs are filled with moments of genuine sadness, hope, and warmth. And I didn't even mention how addictive elements like persona fusing and quest completing can be.

This is a game that needs to be judged by its own merits. If you're interested in a great portable experience (which is the point of this game) or the new female protagonist, pick this one up.

tl;dr version: change = good.

FINAL SCORE: 9.5/10

Originally Posted: 07/21/10

Key Elements of Good Game Design - The Dichotomy of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivators

Intrinsic motivators provide the basis of fun, addictive gameplay.

As with many videogames, intrinsic motivators come in the form of visual or audio cues (for example, when one chainsaws an opponent in Gears of War, he is rewarded with satisfying images and sounds that depict his opponent being eviscerated). Motivators aren't relegated to being solely intrinsic, however.

Satisfaction may also be derived from extrinsic motivators. Ostentatious examples of such would be the "high-score" mechanic many arcade games have. Recent examples of extrinsic motivators would be the "Achievements" and "Trophies" systems found on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, respectively. Relying on a player's incentive to collect these extrinsic rewards, game developers hope to extend the life and playability of their games, while at the same time, encouraging players to experiment with new playing styles. You, as a player, are provoked to continue playing a game due to the way it subtly nudges you forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In actuality, though, motivators may be detrimental to certain videogames. Loss of a motivator is not necessarily the end of the fun in a game. One can easily see the benefits of the loss of such. Vexing though it may be for the developers, the loss or exclusion of extrinsic motivators can be beneficial to the player. Examining the nature of some achievements, we can see that the player must go through great lengths to obtain them. You may regard some as tedious, time consuming, or just flat-out difficult. One could also call them, "total bullshit". Unless these "difficult" achievements don't exist in games, people may be unwilling to play them. Although some determined individuals may enjoy going to extreme lengths, the average "Achievement Whore" probably won't. Looking at past trends, we can see that many of these people simply pick easier games (from which to obtain achievements). Extrinsic motivators, although "motivating", can actually erode one's will to play. Xenomorphic blessings come in unexpected forms, no?

Procedural Rhetoric in Classic Videogames - Perspectives, Challenges, Ideas

Videogames have been an important part of our culture for several decades. In this day and age, videogames (hereafter referred to as simply "games") are able to utilize advanced technology in order to craft stories that are -- or have the potential to be -- emotionally engaging. The time when electronic gaming was in its infancy, however, was one where games were ostensibly made for a sole purpose: entertainment. This statement is, to put it bluntly, false. Although games had no way to properly convey a story back when they were a budding medium, they instead expressed themes and ideas through gaming's centrifugal force: interactivity. Stories and messages were told through gameplay. Drawing on Bogost's (2007) theory of procedural rhetoric, this study analyzes the relationship between the disparate styles of gameplay mechanics (ludic) and stylistic (thematic) elements of Pong, Pac-Man, and Tetris. Videogames are a complex medium worthy of insightful analysis.

Pong is a classic example of adversarial battles. The premise is simple: two blocks repeatedly hit a ball back and forth until someone misses. Its sheer simplicity is what makes it so brutal: the game is a stark analysis of the human desire to compete. In actuality, the ball that the two blocks continuously hit back and forth doesn't exist: it is merely a physiological axiom of everything. Pong attempts to express an analysis of the human condition; it presents anything and everything as a field of competition. The "ball" (or bullets, or technology; however you wish to interpret it is fine) is bounced back and forth endlessly, or until someone loses. It's a critical view of the world in its perpetual state of conflict. Us humans view everything as a field of competition: the Cold War was a war fought through bullets, espionage, technology, and sports.

The story of Pac-Man is the textbook definition of a tragic hero. In this scenario, the desire of the avatar, Pac-Man, and the player are one in the same; one may have noticed that Pac-Man had made its fortune around the theme of addiction. The game represents the epitome of drug abuse: the mechanics are centered around collecting all the pellets -- or drugs -- in order to proceed to the next level. All pellets must be collected in order to advance -- the same is true for drug abusers who can't have enough. Finally, collecting a power pellet allows one to eat the ghosts who are chasing him, symbolic of how too much drugs can lead to one going on a rampage and harming those around him. In this case, the ghosts -- or rather, the police -- are harmed. However, there is an endless stream of ghosts who will chase after the player, ensuring that justice will always prevail in the face of crime.

As one might have guessed, the game Tetris, which was made by a Russian developer, is all about Communism (no offense to Russians out there, just making a joke!). The game involves dropping variously constructed blocks in a way that will form a straight (horizontal) line across the screen. Doing so will clear the blocks and prevent the player from filling up the screen, in which case the game is over. As one may have inferred, the blocks are representative of people, who come in all shapes and sizes. Individually, each piece is unable to do anything; however, when working together, a line is cleared and points are earned. If one doesn't clear lines and adds blocks vertically, the game ends. What Tetris is trying to suggest is that standing on top of one another -- Captialism -- will lead to failure, while standing beside each other -- Communism -- will lead to success. A political agenda could not be more apparent.

Videogames are complex, yet simple; a strange paradox, but a paradox nonetheless. Games which are heralded as some of the pioneers of modern gaming are done so not only due to their well-crafted gameplay, but also because of the deep meaning that each possessed in its ludic elements. Pong, Pac-Man, and Tetris are all fine examples of this. Videogames have the power to entertain and educate through procedural rhetoric, and that's what gives the medium its complexity.

"Gears of War 2" Review

Review for: Gears of War 2

By: Jonathan Tay

(Originally posted January 13, 2009)

Just a few months ago, Microsoft released Epic games’ much-anticipated magnum opus, Gears of War 2. Following the immense success of the original Gears of War on the Xbox 360 and PC, Gears of War 2 continues to chronicle the adventures of Marcus Fenix and Delta squad in humanity’s battle against the invading Locust horde.

The Gears of War games are third-person squad-based tactical-shooters (Try saying that three times fast). The games’ claim to fame is it’s cover system, which enables players to “stick” to walls, granting them protection from enemy gunfire and allowing them to pop out and return fire. This mechanic has been used in many games preceding Gears of War, including the likes of Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter and Rainbow Six: Vegas, to name a few. Using the cover system is essential for survival. Assisting in the players’ survival is Gears of War 2’s plethora of weapons. The classics from the first installment return, such as the now ammo-limited Hammer of Dawn, or the patented chainsaw-bayonet, the Lancer. A handful of new weapons make their appearance as well, such as the Mulcher, which is essentially a portable Troika, Smoke Grenades, which (obviously) release a cloud of obscuring smoke, and the Hammerburst, which fires as fast as one can pull the trigger. There are more weapons, of course. You may love some and hate some, but all are powerful tools of destruction and add layers of strategy to the game.

Strategy, of course, is a critical component to the game, especially in Gear’s multiplayer games. In the main campaign mode, you are assisted by varying numbers of AI controlled squad mates. You can no longer issue orders to them (which you won’t care about, anyway), but they do a fair job of handling themselves, always dispatching enough enemies to carry their weight. Teamwork and communication is essential to surviving multiplayer, though. Launching coordinated attacks and defending chokepoints are a necessity when facing clear-thinking human opponents. The more you play, the more your skills will sharpen. It’s a good thing too, considering how addictive Gear’s multiplayer modes are.

There are flaws, of course. Gears of War was notorious for it’s numerous problems, and it’s sequel, which fixes most, doesn’t quite nail the formula perfectly. Most of the flaws are attributed to multiplayer, like it’s predecessor. If you want to battle it out online with nine other players (yes, they have increased the lobby count from eight to ten), be prepared to face insanely long matchmaking times, which can run for well over a minute. Once you get into games, be prepared for occasional lag when a lot of stuff goes down. Shots won’t register properly at such times, and movement becomes severely limited. It’s rather disappointing to see this hamper the excellent multiplayer modes.

Gears of War 2 is an excellent sequel, building upon it’s predecessor on nearly every avenue. I could go on for pages talking about everything new this game brings to the table, such as the Horde mode, or the multiplayer maps, or the enemies. Sporting improved graphics, tighter sound quality, refined gameplay, and an epic story, Gears of War 2 will not disappoint fans of the original.

Score: 8/10

"Valkyrie" Review

Review for: Valkyrie

By: Jonathan Tay

(Originally posted January 13, 2009)

At last, the much delayed and much anticipated movie, Valkyrie, has arrived in theaters. Directed by Bryan Singer and starring Tom Cruise, Valkyrie chronicles an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler during World War II by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.

At the beginning of the movie, Stauffenberg loses his right arm, two fingers on his left hand, and his left eye during an attack on Tunisia. Realizing that Hitler's reign will destroy Germany, Stauffenberg enters a group of conspirators - comprised of some of the most prominent and influential men in Germany - to kill Hitler.

The majority of the actors in the film are British, and speak English throughout the movie. It's not German-accented English (such as in Hogan's Heroes), it's just plain, old English. Tom Cruise himself doesn't even try to sound British, and comes off as thoroughly American. Not even Hitler speaks in German. Add that to the fact that all the notes and signs in the movie are written in German, and you get the sense that the movie lacks cohesiveness. It comes off as terribly awkward.

Speaking of cohesiveness, what happens in the movie and what actually happened in real life are slightly different. Certain aspects of history were changed for cinematic effect. The base idea is still there - Stauffenberg and his associates try to kill Hitler using a timed-suitcase bomb. The attempt fails epically. Singer attempts to spice up the planning and execution phases of the assassination attempt using dramatic music and extreme close-ups of characters frowning. This gives the audience a false impression of psychological intensity that isn't really there, and the whole movie ends up rather dull until the ending.

The ending is just what anyone expects. Everyone who's taken a history lesson on World War II knows how Valkyrie ends. I mentioned it earlier - the attempt fails. Sorry for spoiling it for you, but you knew that, right? Foreknowledge of what happens is the film's critical flaw. You may want to root for the protagonists, but you know it's useless - the end of the movie is set in stone. There are no entertaining twists or surprises.

The film has some merits, though. The set, the score, the uniforms and the guns come off as wonderfully crisp. Crisper than the script, in fact.

Singer's attempts at increasing the intensity of the film and Cruise's mediocre acting fall flat. It makes the entire film pointless. You're better off reading what happened on Wikipedia. You'll save money and get far more out of it.

Score: 4/10