Game Review: Dragon Quest IX

As a gamer, I don't like JRPG's. Reasons include linearity, random encounters, rigid turn-based combat, and constant, tedious grinding. That's not to mention the other Japanese aesthetics that are inherently alien to me (pretty boys with way to many belts, etc.). To put it short: the JRPG is an inherently rigid genre of videogame compared to their western cousins which allow non-linearity and a more open form of playing.

I am, however, not immune to a good game. My favorite JRPG's include the Golden Sun series, the Pokemon series, and Chrono Trigger, possibly the greatest JRPG to date. Dragon Quest represents the apex of the JRPG: compared to their former rival and now second cousin Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest has stayed stable and traditional over the years which has appealed more to the tradition minded Japanese as opposed to the more change minded American audiences which Final Fantasy is more popular since each subsequent sequel is radically different from its predecessor. Riding the success of Nintendo and realizing that the JRPG was on the eve of a revolution, Dragon Quest IX was released on the DS and can be best described as a cross between Dragon Quest proper and, of all things, Elder Scrolls IV.

The story is straight forward: you play a Celestrian, a member of a vanguard of like-minded supernatural beings dedicated to the protection of humanity in the name of the Allmighty. Switch out "Celestrian" with "angel" and the "Almighty" with "God" and you can see where this is going. Thankfully, to those who adverse to the...ahem...interesting Japanese interpretation of Christianity as a whole like myself (Evangellion, et all), the "Almighty" is portrayed less as a benevolent and faceless Judeo-Christian Jehova and more like a fickle and vengeance-minded Classical Zeus, and they throw in the world tree Yggdrasil for proper distance. After an unforseen attack upon the Observatory (read: heaven), your character falls down to earth and finds himself in limbo: not human and yet not a Celestrian. With no direct way to regain your Celestrian status, your mission now is to regain the 7 lost Fyggs of the World Tree which are practically like Kryptonite as they grant the wish of whoever eats it, but corrupts it as per the wisher's corrupted nature. Yes, your character is a Messiah and for those of you who grew up in the church or at least have a basic knowledge of the Bible, I'll give you two guesses who the main villain is...

Let me get the worse part of the game out of the way: the graphics. I'm not much one for graphics: as long as it looks great and plays better, I'll play it. I'm not a stickler for "next gen" graphics or hi-def worthy graphics. However: I will balk at when the design choice crosses the uncanny valley. Let me explain: the game uses full 3D, albeit limited to the DS specifications which look more like N64-era graphics. What ruins it for me is the fact that I'm not playing a N64: I'm playing a DS which isn't a home console and shouldn't really be handling straight 3D graphics as they just look ugly. Compare the 3D capabilities of the DS in IX to the 2D capabilities in any of the Castlevania games and you can see that the DS works far better 2D or even 2.5D as seen in New Super Mario Bros. than straight 3D. Another flaw in the design is the creator: Akira Toriyama, the creator of the classic Dragon Ball anime series and designer behind Chrono Trigger and the Dragon Quest series to date. He's a accomplished 2D designer, and for him developing 3D graphics is a step backward. If the DS was used to its full potential, it'd be in beautiful 2D. Unfortunately, the trend is full 3D, and because of that we've got ugly, N64 era graphics.

Now on to the gameplay. The battle system is standard JRPG fare with the option to go AI options on your characters (heal, all-out, defense, etc.) You're better off going full manual: micro-management is the way to go. The class system and skill system are the best parts of the gameplay. A thankful deviation from the JRPG norm is no random battles. Rathter, similar to Paper Mario or the Tales series, monsters appear on the battlefeild and engagement starts teh moment you bump into them. The main drawback is that some dungeons (particularly the endgame ones) where the corridors are so narrow that you're bound to bump into one despite wearing repellent. Both elements are inspired by the best in Western RPG's. You recruit and choose class and appearance your party members as opposed to recruiting set characters and classes. The skill system is similar to Final Fantasy V, in that skill points are given at level ups and can be allocated to class and weapon skills. The problem is that they're permanently set, and when you can actievly change character classes which revert to Lv. 1, it gets frustrating. The worst elements are the Alchemy and sidequest systems, as they've failed in their Elder Scrolls emulations. The alchemy system is a straight-foward item/equipment upgrading where raw materials and weapons are combined in the Alchemy pot to produce better ones. Unfortunetly, the ingredients are too sparse to make it an effective system, as drops and environment finds are few and far between. You're better off having a full-time Thief on your party to fully take advantage of the system. The sidequest system is inadequate at best. On one hand you can keep track of them easily thru a special menu option. The objectives are the typical MMO fare of item/creature kill quotas. Unlike MMO quests, however, there's no XP awarded on completion: just weapons or equipment. If only the alchemy system was more robust and streamlined and sidequests awarded XP, IX would've been an exceptional East/West blend, not seen since Chrono Trigger. Instead, these elements come off as awkward and unwieldy, all way too dependent on grinding for their own good. The uncanny valley is in effect, as the more apparent the Western elements are, the more wrong they appear.

In summary, IX is a solid yet inadequate game. The Western-inspired elements are unrealized and under utilized in a game that defines a genre and would've meant an incredible step forward for the JRPG. Instead, we've got ugly 3D graphics and weak sidequest and alchemy systems which are all too tied down to the grind. JRPG fans will enjoy this game despite the flaws, but those looking for a more inviting and newbie friendly JRPG should look elsewhere.

Final rating: B- (genre fans and the adventurous need apply): Dragon Quest IX tries to put JRPG peanut butter in my Western RPG chocolate, but there's too much peanut butter in this mix and not enough sugar in the chocolate, leaving a bitter mix that sticks to the roof of your mouth. Those with an acquired JRPG taste will eat it up, but those of us with more sensitive palettes will have to look elsewhere.

Other Recommendations: Tales of Symponia (Gamecube), Paper Mario and the Thousand-Year Door (Gamecube), Chrono Trigger (DS)

You Heard It Here First: Possible EA-Activsion Proxy War

Now on to Video Gaming news. I'm a fan of League Of Legends, which is what's considered a "Multilayer Online Battle Arena" in the vein of the wildly popular Warcraft 3 mod Defense of the Ancients which invented the genre. Spin-offs incude the disappointing Demigod and the newly released Heroes of Neverwith. The game is a mix between RTS and RPG in which two teams of five heroes, each with specific abilities assigned for a specific role, work in conduction to smash the other team's base and defend their own. Strewn across the map are three "lanes" each with three levels of towers and minions that spawn out of the respective base. Players gain an advantage over each other by leveling up thru killing minions and enemy heroes and gaining money to buy better equipment.

The original map was designed in '03 by modder Steve Feak AKA "Guinsoo", which was then taken over by modder "IceFrog" who's variant became the official version offered for free off of the official site DoTA All-Stars. Back in '06 Feak and site admin Steve “Pendragon” Mescon teamed together to found Riot Games and develop their own DoTA inspired game: League of Legends. IceFrog, the last remaining devoted developer of DoTA, was hired on by Valve back in October of '09, the same month League of Legends was released to the general public. Now Valve is developing their own DoTA varriant and seeking a trademark on the term DoTA, which has prompted Riot Games to file a lawsuit against Valve on the grounds that the term shouldn't be trademarked and remain, like the original game, a free property for the gaming community at large, thus protecting hundreds of players from possible copyright infringement.

I've played both DoTA and LoL, and I can say with full certianty that LoL is the superior game. Both are free-to-play, but the former has a very dedicated and hardcore fanbase that doesn't suffer new players at all. Every time I played I was heckeled by other players for being a noob and out-right ordered to just leave. Playing LoL, I may play bad and get heckled for it, but I've never been ordered by another player to leave. Riot Games provides regular updates, new characters, and a streamlined system deveoloped for new players to jump right in. Compare that to DoTA with its confusing characters, no real FAQ's on how to use them, and the confusing item system that requires you to visit separate shops to complete a single item. Already hosting its first official tourtament, LoL has proved itself to be superior in every concept of the word. Valve developing their own DoTA inspired game with its former regular developer can only mean good things, as it provides Riot Games with a clear and present competitor, and competition is ultimately a good thing. Only time will tell how the pricing and update structure will look like, but since it's being developed by the creators of Steam and Team Fortress 2, the best online distribution game service and the best multilayer FPS with the best characters and art style respectively, Valve's project can only be nothing short of epic, and just might upend LoL as the rightful heir to the DoTA throne.

On the surface, this is a cut and dry case. Riot Games co-founder and developer of the original DoTA Mescon holds claim to the trademark, plain and simple. Why Valve trademark it in the first place? Let's take a look back for a minute. Valve is owned by Electronic Arts and Warcraft III, the game DoTA was based off of, was developed by Blizzard who are owned by Activsion...get the picture now?

It's now secret that both developers are heated rivals as the two biggest third party developers in America and possibly the world today. Also take into account the Infinity Ward debacle, where after the huge success of Modern Warfare 2 the lead developers and executives Vince Zampella and Jason West not only left their Activsion-owned developer but filed lawsuit against Activsion on the grounds of unpaid royalties. Both West and Zampella have left Infinity Ward and founded their own studio Respawn Entertainment...hired on by Electronic Arts. Activision was slapped again by current Infinity Ward employees over charges of withholding bonuses as an ultimatum to develop Modern Warfare 3. Also thrown into the mix are claims that West and Zampella wanted to maintain the integrety of the Call of Duty name by forcing Activsion to stop developing yearly sequels by alternating between them and other devlopers such as Treyarch and Sledgehammer Games. While I can't substantiate those claims, they do sound legit as current Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is that kind of boss: a man who cares nothing more than profit, who wants to "...take out the fun of making games..." and exploit IP's for all their worth. Oh and FYI, for my fellow anime fans, Kotick was former CEO of 4Kids...kinda puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

So what does this have to do with the DoTA trademark? Simple: Blizzard would have the final say over the DoTA trademark since it was developed thru their game. Valve filing trademark sounds less like something of their doing and more of EA firing the next shot in the ongoing Activision-EA proxy war. EA won previously with securing Zamella and West and oppening a studio for them. The next step is to fight an indirect battle thru an obscure license and see how Activision/Blizzard bites. By drawing Blizzard into anugly lawsuit battle thru Valve, EA ensures another long and drawn-out debacle for Activision which will force them to spend time and resources that could be spent developing games and using said wasted time in their favor. Yeah, this is petty on a chickenshit level, but that's what happens when corporate rivals and huge sums of money come together: proxy wars and frivilous lawsuits to stick it to the next guy. Fox was the one who sued the rights to the Watchmen film from Warner Bros. who were developing it while they sat on their fat asses waiting for them to finish so they could snatch it out of their hands and gain easy profits after all.

You heard it hear first: a possible proxy war between Acivision/Blizzard and EA/Valve over the DoTA trademark. Stay tuned for more news and commentary from your friend and blogger, Benny Ortiz. Oh, and to all major gaming news sites (1up, Escapist, Kotaku, et all), I called it first.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a betting pool to open. I've got 5-1 odds on Activision/Blizzard: place your bets, people!

My 2 cents: Prop 8 overturned

Well it's official. As of 8/4/10, Proposition 8, a California proposition that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, has been overturned in San Fransisco (natch). For the LGBT community and their representatives and allies, today marks a historic victory in the fight for Gay rights. For religious types and conservatives, today is a dark day in the fight against homosexuality. Would it kill them to be gracious and concede defeat? No, but righteous indignation is so much sexier these days.

I think it's time I finally made my peace on the subject. Express my views and justify them: thru clear, logical discourse. Before I begin: Yeah, I know this issue is polarizing, and most likely I'll be called either a homophone or a gay-lover. I respect your opinion if you disagree or agree with my opinion. I will not, however, be intimidated, shouted down, or bullied out of it. I have to put up with enough of that crap in real life, and I'll be damned if I'll put up with it in the virtual world.

Fellow blogger Moviebob has nicely pointed out that the old "I don't hate gays but..." defense won't fly, especially if you're a fan of Ayan Rand. Well Bob, I'll be happy to say that 1) I won't be using that defense and 2) I'm not a fan of Ayan Rand, the pretentious, fascist, git. No, I'll get straight into it: as a California native, I voted yes on Proposition 8. Why? It wasn't for religious reasons, as I'm practically agnostic on the grounds of indifference. No, I voted for it for something bigger than that: separation of church and state.

Under the first amendment, we have religious freedom here in the US. The catch? Neither religion nor politics can interfere with each other. Birth control is legal and religious displays on a public courthouse are not because of the separation of church and state. By repealing Prop 8 and deeming Same-Sex marriage legal, we have an interesting conundrum here: what about the churches who refuse to recognize/do gay weddings? I'm talking Mormons, Catholics, and a few of the other more conservative denominations out there. Worst case scenario: they'll get their tax-exempt status removed and face lawsuit after lawsuit until they're bled dry.

I can hear them now: "But Benny, if this is a constitutional matter, why are so many people in favor?" Simple: money and politics. Wedding planners get more commissions, divorce attorneys get more cases, lobbying groups get more clout and clients, the state gets more tax income from marriage silences, and Hollywood can look LGBT friendly while using gay stereotypes as a lazy way of characterization (see every effeminate villain, character, etc.). As for the churches like the Lutherans who accept gay clergy/members and host said weddings? I'm not one to get into the semantics of theologies, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible is explicit in that homosexuality is a sin, and that they're to love the person, but disagree with the lifestyle. But to each their own: after all, as a private institution, a church/denomination has the right to accept or not.

And that's the point of it all: you can't force a private institution into accepting a certain group or identity. That's imposing. A recent case on a Christian club not allowing gay members was ruled in favor of the club, since they're a private entity and have the right to accept/decline members as they see fit. Why aren't churches the same way? See the above. The less churches involved, the less tax income. The affiliated groups who are not explicitly LGBT are in it to exploit. There's money/power to be had, and what better way than to exploit a minority cause in the name of human rights? Because it's the churches who are discriminating, not them.

As for the LGBT community, I'll say this: I understand to a certain degree why they want gay marriage. Power of attorney is one of the most important and sought-after rights within couples, especially gay couples who can't get it thru traditional means: marriage. Oh, wait: domestic partnership already does! Why, then, should the LGBT community push for gay marriage when domestic partnership is already does grant many if not the same rights that traditional marriage does?

Because marriage is sexier. Nothing says "acceptance" or "progress" like having your enemy "accept" you thru the law. After all, Atheists could not recite the pledge, but trying to get "Under God" out of the pledge grants more attention. Gays have come a long way from the dark days of HIV where Gays were seen as carriers of an incurable disease during the 80's. They've become a successful minority group with real, effective advocacy. Unfortunately, like every group, there's a point to where advocacy turns to imposing. On the right we have the Westboro Baptists who claim our current conflicts in the Mid East is God's punishment of our tolerance towards gays and regularly protest military funerals. On the left: the playing field has been leveled to the point where Affirmative Action isn't really needed, but opportunists claim its still needed. There's a fine line between expression and imposition. Two wrongs don't make a right, and imposing yourselves upon Christians and other religious types looks petty.

Oh, you don't think that Christians are being imposed? Explain, then, how after Prop 8 was passed, how the local Mormon Church was protested, despite the fact that 69% of Black people voted in favor. Now, by that fact, why didn't the LGBT community and supporters initially make a bigger effort to reach out to the Black community instead of protesting Mormons in the wake of it being voted in, and still protest Mormons such as recently announced documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition? Two reasons: First, and most justifiably so, Mormons where the primary backers and financiers for the Prop 8 Campaign. But secondly, it's not PC to protest Blacks. It's so much easier to go after the Mormons because they're a natural target: White, middle-class, and conservative. Now, protesting them is more acceptable then, say, protesting a local predominately Black church in which its members voted for Prop 8.

To be fair, conservatives and backers of Prop 8 haven't been completely blameless. There's plenty of homophobia to go around the Prop 8 supporters. Most of the dialogue on their side has been morality: how marriage is a sacred institution that must be defended, and such. While that's a valid claim, black-and-white indignation sucks all the air out of the conversation, and only widens the gap, undermining any hope for compromise. Yeah, nobody gets exactly what they want in compromise, but at least both sides can come to an agreement. If the dialogue was changed to how there's a definite concern over the separation of church and state, how they feel that if Prop 8 is overturned, the state might impose that every church should observe gay unions. Maybe if the dialogue was done that way, Prop 8 would still be instated, or at least it'd be modified to say that Churches have the right to refuse to host or participate in gay unions. Again: righteous indignation is so much sexier.

So, in short: a private institution can't be forced into recognizing something they refuse to. The law can't impose on religion, just like how religion can't impose on the law. Denominations like Catholicism, Mormonism, and the like can't be forced by the law to recognize what they feel isn't morally right, even if morality can be subjective, or if it seems "homophobic". If gay marriage should be recognized on a state-wide basis by the will of the people, then so be it. The recent repeal was against the will of the people since the law passed with 52% of the vote: a slim but valid majority. However, maybe Prop 8's repeal isn't a bad thing: maybe it'll give Prop 8 proponents time to go back to the drawing board. Prop 8 should be redefined as a Separation of Church and State issue as opposed to a morality issue. If, however, Gay Marriage should pass with a clear majority, then there should be a rider attached that individual churches and denominations have the right to refuse to participate. If homosexuals should want to have their vows done by a church, there's plenty that will accommodate by their own choosing, such as the Lutheran Church which recently made efforts to welcome Gay clergy and members.

Let's hope that someday we'll come to an agreement, and the will of one group won't impose upon another.

Well that's it for my Devi's advocate part. I'll be doing this again in the upcoming weeks. Until then, to those who agree/disagree, I respect your opinion. You can't change a person's opinion, but maybe hope to persuade them thru discourse.