Gears is an acceptable game in terms of construction. Simply put, it creates a visceral system of encounters that are enjoyable in the sense that they create tension due to their proximal mature(Locusts are close and ruthless, therefore dangerous). Your AI allies, while stupid at the worst times, add a sense of 'realism' to the surroundings and accentuate the struggle of the game. And, most importantly, the new cover system allows you to battle enemies(perhaps in the same grimy corridors) in a brand new fashion. Old game play conventions and concepts, tweaked a bit every now and again, makes relatively stale ideas seem fresh. Gears is about reinvigorating old ideas--numerous pop culture dredging supports this--and the game play works well in this capacity.
However, there are issues with the game that are strange. The main plot focuses on the Locusts(the "unseen enemy") suddenly appearing on E-Day, stealing all the worlds resources and almost wiping out humanity in one fell swoop. The good guys(conveniently speaking English and swaggering Patton style through the world) escape and begin mapping their tunnels to deliver the final blow(the 'Imulsion' fuel ignites easily and would kill the 'hive' of them easily enough).
It takes almost no stretch to compare Locusts with terrorists(different skin color only starts the comparisons). We never knew they were coming until they hit us(9-11), they have all the resources(Imulsion=Oil) and will not stop until we are all dead(Jihad). The game reduces humans, however sinister some might be, into animals to be slaughtered. They are stupid and ruthless(the manual says so), and are easily dispatched by the Gears. They, the Gears, might not be perfect, but they are much more intelligent(and humane) than the Locusts(Biblical, I should think so) they battle.
Fortunately enough, we have four walking man-things that will save the day. They are guided by a female(not Cortana from Halo, but an amazing facsimile) who has only one real scene in the game. Giant Dicks save the day while female characters sit at home and occasionally yell things out through the telephone--I am not sure what to make of that. Gears creates a world where men of all types(ogre, giant or behemoth) are respected and given the privilege of killing anything they need to become even manlier. Chauvinism(whether implicit or expounded) is within this text, that much is hard to deny.
The game might very well wish to create a situation where war is seen as hell on all sides(there are sections that would seem to support this), but the very nature of its game play--creating visceral and enjoyable shooting segments(not to mention multi player)--would seem to detract from this. Virtual violence, related at the hip through the game's metaphors, is a necessary step for realizing the true potential of the (manly)individual(Fenix is an interesting name). The game does not just have these elements passively in the game--many texts could be accused of this--it actively promotes ideas of militarism, sexism and domination of other races that attacked us 'without provocation'. The game values simplicity in design(one click does everything!) and though--a dangerous combination.
One can only, I think, support this game on one level: abstracted away from its core themes and ideas. If one were to take it at face value, I should think(or hope) most would be repulsed by it. The game becomes a sick fantasy for blood letting(those of 'the enemies'), and should be viewed(derided) as such.
However, there are issues with the game that are strange. The main plot focuses on the Locusts(the "unseen enemy") suddenly appearing on E-Day, stealing all the worlds resources and almost wiping out humanity in one fell swoop. The good guys(conveniently speaking English and swaggering Patton style through the world) escape and begin mapping their tunnels to deliver the final blow(the 'Imulsion' fuel ignites easily and would kill the 'hive' of them easily enough).
It takes almost no stretch to compare Locusts with terrorists(different skin color only starts the comparisons). We never knew they were coming until they hit us(9-11), they have all the resources(Imulsion=Oil) and will not stop until we are all dead(Jihad). The game reduces humans, however sinister some might be, into animals to be slaughtered. They are stupid and ruthless(the manual says so), and are easily dispatched by the Gears. They, the Gears, might not be perfect, but they are much more intelligent(and humane) than the Locusts(Biblical, I should think so) they battle.
Fortunately enough, we have four walking man-things that will save the day. They are guided by a female(not Cortana from Halo, but an amazing facsimile) who has only one real scene in the game. Giant Dicks save the day while female characters sit at home and occasionally yell things out through the telephone--I am not sure what to make of that. Gears creates a world where men of all types(ogre, giant or behemoth) are respected and given the privilege of killing anything they need to become even manlier. Chauvinism(whether implicit or expounded) is within this text, that much is hard to deny.
The game might very well wish to create a situation where war is seen as hell on all sides(there are sections that would seem to support this), but the very nature of its game play--creating visceral and enjoyable shooting segments(not to mention multi player)--would seem to detract from this. Virtual violence, related at the hip through the game's metaphors, is a necessary step for realizing the true potential of the (manly)individual(Fenix is an interesting name). The game does not just have these elements passively in the game--many texts could be accused of this--it actively promotes ideas of militarism, sexism and domination of other races that attacked us 'without provocation'. The game values simplicity in design(one click does everything!) and though--a dangerous combination.
One can only, I think, support this game on one level: abstracted away from its core themes and ideas. If one were to take it at face value, I should think(or hope) most would be repulsed by it. The game becomes a sick fantasy for blood letting(those of 'the enemies'), and should be viewed(derided) as such.
1 comments:
i love this game. its one of the first games where i felt that technology actually mattered since aboooout the n64/middle-age-playstation era.
it's finally a new version of the old shooter idea, albeit not by very much, but enough for me to be thankful.
it's environment and characters are engaging and outlandish to the point where they make the game seem more real without seeming excessively in need of disbelief suspension.
that being said, im really glad that you've taken a shot at it's mentality. as much as violence is something i think si valuable and every perspective, even the jock fuck-em-cause-i-wanna-win, deserves mediation, this particular attitude is something that absolutely saturates not only gaming audience mentalities but national cultural ones.
i don't think it's a problem as an issolated idea. it's fun to be big dumb guy with a gun shoot em cause theyre bad. but we do that A LOT! it's easy to do because it comes naturally. it's the solution which requires least restraint and least thought. and it's one of the reasons video games aren't taken seriously.
i like this game, but you're right. the attitude that it represents is lazy and destructive.
Post a Comment