Is Changing a Video Game a Smart Idea?

That is a question that has boggled many gamers for a long time now. Now when I say changing people can interpret that many different ways. Some people might see it as updating the video game and giving it better higher quality graphics. That’s okay. But what I mean by changing is really changing it. Almost to the point of being unrecognizable and it upsets many gamers. Let’s look at an example…

This is Spyro the Dragon:

Spyro the Dragon debuted in September of 1998 and was developed by Insomniac and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. He was a small, cute purple dragon who was sent on an adventure to save the dragons from a spell cast by Gnasty Gnorc. Spyro was in the homes of many children during the late 90’s and early 2000’s. He had two more successful sequels released on the Playstation; Spyro the Dragon: Ripto’s Rage, and Spyro: Year of the Dragon. In 2002, Insomniac decided to let go of Spryo and develop more new games while Universal Interactive continued with the series. 10 games and too many publishers and developers later, Spyro the Dragon was a destroyed series. He seemed to have lost his touch after Insomniac gave him up.

This year it was announced that Spyro would come back to the more recent consoles in a brand new game, Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure. This video game introduces a new way of gaming. Players will have to buy different action figures of the characters, “Skylanders”, they want to play (there are 32 in all). Players will place the skylander on a dock and that character will show up on the screen and play.

Along with a brand new of playing comes brand new character design! Meet the new Spyro the Dragon:

So many people were upset with the new design. This new Spyro looks so much more ferocious than what 90’s kids grew up with. So why change the game? Why change something when it is already a known fact that the original worked? Perhaps it’s because developers and publishers want to try a new demographic. In the 90’s people that were playing this game were probably young, around the age of maybe 7-10. As the game went on further the original fans went along with it. When developers saw that the fans were not taking to the newer games for the PS2 and GBA, they decided a new tactic. Let’s add toys to our game. By adding collectible figures that are needed to get through the game it focuses it’s appeal on younger kids of this generation. Perhaps the developers are expecting to gain a whole new following of fans this way and there games will sell once again. I am 21 years old and a die hard Spyro fan. I am not impressed with the new concept. My brother, who is 8 years old, is super excited about this game because of the new action figures. See, it’s already working. This is just a theory. It has not been proven or researched even. There isn’t any article online where this comes from. This is just my straightforward opinion and observation. I guess for children of the 90’s it is time to let go of Spyro the Dragon. We had our fun with him and it’s time to let others have their turn.

There have been plenty of other video games that have went through a major character change. Not all have upset fans. Some were for the better (Cloud Strife), but some were for the worst. Examples include:

Dante from Devil May Cry

Ethan Thomas from the Condemned series

Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII

Lara Croft from Tomb Raider

A quick note about Lara Croft’s change. The one on the left is supposed to be her at a younger age therefore the game is set a bit of time before any of the other games. However, in the trailer Lara has a smartphone as well as Beats by Dr. Dre earbuds which were not sold until 2009. In this game Lara is supposed to be 21 years old. She was born in 1968 meaning that the year is at least 1989 when she is supposed to be in this game however she has a smartphone and technologically advanced earbuds. So this timeline has now been severely shattered.  If you’re going to change a game, at least try to do it in the right span of time…

Sexualization in Video Game Characters

For many years now there has been a constant controversy with the sexualization of characters, and those characters that get caught in the fire are typically female characters. So how much sex is too much in a video game? There are many people that believe it fits in right with the story and gameplay, and then there are many people that find it to be completely pointless and degrading. Some of the earliest video games have introduced sexuality into gaming such as Duke Nukem and Tomb Raider. As time went on more games were developed that took it to a whole new level such as beach volleyball.

In 2008, Fox News did a report on how the popular video game, Mass Effect, depicted pornography. Talk show host, Cooper Lawrence said that it gave young boys the wrong idea about women and that it was, and that the video game showed full on nudity. Spike TV’s Geoff Keighly rebutted saying that it was nothing like that. Lawrence admitted that she had never played the game, but rather based her information off what someone told her just minutes before the show. Mass Effect in fact is not full of nudity and sex. There is barely any nudity at all and sex is just a small 30 second deal out of the whole game, and you can choose to not have your character engage in it.

Let’s look at a character that is widely criticized for her appearance: Lara Croft.

She has always wore the same style of outfit throughout her whole career; small shorts, a tank top, hiking boots, and her hair in a long, neat braid or ponytail. A lot of people feel that her outfit is a bit too revealing and that she is a disgrace to women. Because women don’t really climb mountains with no rope looking for treasure, and wield guns all while wearing comfortable clothing for such an occasion. The thing about Lara Croft is that she was never made to be over sexualized. She was created and portrayed to be a strong woman. How is it wrong for a woman to be able to defend herself while searching for the next big archeological find? She has always been one of my favorite female characters to play because she is so strong and smart. She doesn’t use her sexuality to get what she wants.

In 2007, a game came out with a female character that gave some women a small glimmer of hope for the portrayal of women in games. That game was Mirror’s Edge and the character was Faith Connors.

She wears a simple black tanktop with white pants that go to her ankles and red sneakers. People have described her as not being very attractive, but that was a positive. Then they compare her with Lara Croft and say that she is a much stronger character because she doesn’t dress like Lara. But look at these two characters; both are strong women fighting for what is right. Neither of them use sex in any way to advance in the game.

And then there are the bad game characters that do portray women incorrectly.

Personally I don’t judge these characters for looking this way. Mileena is my favorite fighter in the Mortal Kombat series. In Hollywood sex sells and gaming is no exception. Creators feel that they must create busty attractive characters in order to gain a profit by appealing the public masses. Since 60% of gamers are males then attractive female characters are going to be a high selling feature. It’s not wrong to give characters a strong role and if they are wearing a tank top and shorts what is the big deal? It’s probably hard to climb a mountain in jeans. But it is wrong to make them appear as submissive and not having minds of their own like most video games (Mileena is an exception of this since she is one of the top fighters).

So which side are you on?