Review: "Never Alone and the Need for American Indian Narratives in Games" by Daniel Starkey, Polygon

Original article here.

This is a particularly difficult article for me, since I'm Alaskan Native. As the author says, it's often up to Natives to prove they are what they claim to be, but suffice it to say I get money from my regional corporation. So, there, I guess that works?

Here's the thing: I get the point of this article. I really do. When I saw Never Alone I sort of felt obligated to buy it as a form of showing support to my heritage or something.

Well, on to the article. After his introduction, which I didn't really see much issue with, he says this:

And that brings us, somewhat laboriously, to Never Alone. I reviewed the game for Eurogamer last year, awarding it a 10/10. This was before that publication dropped scores altogether. At the time, my choice was somewhat controversial. I caught flak on Twitter and other social networks; people thought that it wasn't fair for me to praise a game that had some admitted technical issues so highly.

Okay. If the game has highly publicized flaws and issues with the game, why in God's name would you award it a 10/10? You have a responsibility when reviewing to let your readers/audience know the quality of the game, and clearly this game is good, great even, but hardly perfect. So, let's see how he defends this.

But that choice came from my experiences as someone that constantly struggles to balance the traditional and the new. I've always loved technology and the distractions that they provide. One of my Elders, before she passed away, often chastised me for texting when I should "be still," for spending too much time on the internet, and not enough time "walking the land."

He didn't defend it at all, instead tossing out a Red Herring in the form of his Elder passing away. Why did he award a perfect score to a flawed game? He tries to explain after a long and heart-felt story about his experiences with an elder who passed away.

While I was writing my Never Alone review, I was struggling with my own past. I was grappling with my own loss, and desperately searching for some way forward, some kind of peace that I could hold onto and walk with. Balancing that fatalism, against the optimism that a game like Never Alone demands from its audience, took time for me to internalize and understand.

But still, no explanation. He had issues and it resonated with him, I suppose, but that doesn't excuse giving a very flawed title a perfect score.

I had the opportunity to speak with a few of the folks on the team for a bit in person a couple months ago. They said they were grateful for my review. Not for the high score I gave their game, but for the way in which my words touched and inspired the team. Knowing that they could have such a strong impact on someone else's life gave them their own hope to keep making these sorts of games.

Then give it an 8 or 9 out of 10, but include those wonderful praises. Giving it a high score is worse than buying it out of "obligation" like I felt I had to. I'm not informing my readers that the game is perfect, because it isn't. Instead I'm just playing it on my own and supporting the developers in that way. I get that you want people to play it. That's fine, I do as well. But don't pretend like it doesn't have flaws.

What I took from Never Alone is my own experience. It meant more to me than just about any game I've ever played. Nothing had ever spoken to me like that, or tapped the struggles of modern Native life.

Yeah, I get that. It meant a lot to you to see something similar to your culture expressed on screen. Only it's closer to my culture, but even then not exactly. I can feel an obligation to play it because they're fellow Alaskan Natives, but the Inupiat differ from my own Athabaskan roots. I can feel a connection to them and an obligation to play and purchase their game, but the culture is their own and I'm just an observer. I can share it and share in it, but it doesn't have the same meaning to me as it does them. To them, it's a very personal thing, but to me I can only tell that it's personal.

He speaks to a developer named Renee Nejo about the game, and it's very interesting. If you don't know much about native history, I would check it out. But then he says this:

Never Alone was never intended to be purely an act of preservation, but to give hope to a people in the face of centuries of oppression and colonialism.

Okay. You lost me. Is it stupid that Russians can pass off the land that doesn't belong to them to the United States, who it also doesn't belong to? Sure. But why would you mention colonialism and oppression? Is it to bolster an otherwise meaningless article that had given me no reason to read it until that line? Tommy Wiseau gives readers/audiences more reason to care. Tossing in a reminder to the white readers that they should care because we've had crappy stuff happen to our ancestors does nothing to help your article.

For the most part, the conversation about Never Alone has been dominated by non-Natives that have misinterpreted the game as a sort of digital museum piece, instead of what it is — a clarion call for Natives to stand up and be proud of who they are.

No, that's one interpretation, which is just as valid as mine that it was an attempt to share a culture with people who know nothing about it.

(Oh and to the non-native moron in the comments complaining about the term "Indians"... just stop. It makes you look ignorant. Most natives who count as "American Indians" don't mind the term.)

Is Never Alone a good game? If you don't mind slow pacing and a somewhat empty environment. But this isn't my review of the game, this is my review of the article. All in all, Starkey doesn't do a bad job at Polygon, but he never fully explains the reason for the perfect score. It seems like he gave Never Alone a 10/10 because he's a native and it's a native game. If that's the case it's an injustice to Eurogamer's readership. But, I suspect it was more innocent than that. I suspect he gave it a perfect score because he genuinely liked the game, and if that's the case it should be fine.

I may have been a bit hard on him. I think it's because his article touched a nerve with me, and it's that my kin hardly ever get recognized outside of Alaska (where many a redneck treats natives like crap). The culture is unique and something so interesting. Maybe I just get jealous that so many other Americans seem to love Japanese culture and foods, but pays no attention to the natives in their own land? I'm not sure.

The Problem with the Metroid Prime: Federation Force Petition

A petition on Change.Org is nearing towards 20,000 signatures, as of this writing.

I don't normally review petitions, instead sticking to the premise of this blog (game journalism), but in this case I'll make an exception. This story is going around and the news sources are painting games as entitled, whiney children petulantly seeking their own self-worth. I think that's not fair. So, let's look at this petition in detail, and see what the problem is:

Metroid Prime: Federation Force was announced at the Nintendo digital event on June 16, 2015. For almost a decade, long time Nintendo fans have been waiting for a true Metroid game. Metroid is one of Nintendo's most beloved and respected franchises spanning almost 30 years of legacy. The foundations of isolation, atmosphere and exploration in unknown planets are what made Metroid great. With the release of the Wii U and its greater technological capabilities thousands of fans were expecting a new and improved Metroid game. 

So the opening paragraph sets up what the author's argument is, in two parts: (1) Metroid has historically been dark, a game of isolation (except maybe Hunters?), and (2) players were expecting a new actual Metroid game. Fair enough, let's go on.

What we got however is a disgrace of a game with the name "Metroid" slapped on the title. It has no elements at all of what Metroid is about and its a disrespectful manner to old and new fans of the series of showing them that the Metroid franchise is not dead afterall. This is not the Metroid we asked Nintendo to make.

And here's the realization of the two arguments in the first section. This new game is not about isolation, because it's a multiplayer game. It's not dark, it's colorful. It's hardly got any elements of what makes a Metroid game a Metroid game.

Or does it? The argument fails to address that the controls and the look of the game match closely with the Metroid Prime series. While it is a multiplayer game, it still has the look of the series, and while not matching with the Metroid series as a whole, it is in the same universe as that series.

I think Nintendo is able to do this well, and the game is probably going to be fun (not so sure about Blast Ball, but whatever).

We should let Nintendo know what we really think of the game and make them actually LISTEN to their fans for once. Help us stop this atrocity of a game from bearing the beloved Metroid franchise name and make Nintendo halt production on it.

I was on board with you for most of this petition. I think this isn't the Metroid game fans of the series wanted, and it's a universe multiplayer game fans didn't want to be involved in. So who was this game made for? Obviously, it's a gap-filler. What I mean is it's like Link's Crossbow Training, where it's in the universe (kind of) but not really a game in the series. It fills a gap because Nintendo isn't currently developing a title in that series, so they just use the assets they have to make something fun and cheap.

The problem I have with this petition was that is asks Nintendo to "halt production on it". No, this isn't fair. I may dislike the game and think it's a crappy replacement for a good game, but I'm not going to ask Nintendo to halt production of it. I'll just vote with my wallet like a normal gamer.

Just Nintendo gamers hanging out in a creepy white room.

Do I think the petition's creator and signers are entitled? Absolutely not. They're justifiably angry at Nintendo for seemingly cutting corners. I don't see a problem with that anger other than their demanding Nintendo halt production on something they've already showed off at E3.

So, these are my problems with the petition. I'm not sure it really addresses what the game is, and why Nintendo's making it. I would hope the petition creator would remove the language demanding Nintendo halt production of a game that's already mostly complete. It just seems petty.

Buzzwords in Game Journalism - June 2015 Edition

So it's that time, fellow kids. Time to talk about issues of game journalism beyond simply reviewing their articles and doing a "State of Game Journalism" at the first of the month. Let's talk about over-used buzzwords.

These are words that need to stop being over-used. Try to use a thesaurus and find a different word, or fully explain yourself without relying on these words.

Toxic - this is one creeping up more and more recently from the social sciences and gender studies classes. This word has basically lost all meaning, but originally meant "something that taints or is tainted". It's over-used in certain political circles, and I think that's part of the reason it's being used so much in game journalism now.

Example: "The toxic violence in Call of Duty is training our children to be killers."

Problematic - Another word over-used in certain circles. It's supposed to mean something like, "this thing causes people problems." Unfortunately, the reason why the thing is problematic, and the reason why it is actually an issue are never explored. This word needs to stop being used. It's problematic.

Example: "The avatars for female characters, in particular, are problematic."

Entitled - This is often used for gamers themselves, and said by the journalists to say that the gamers think they deserve something from the industry. Well, yeah. Of course they do. They're the ones paying for everything in the industry. It makes perfect sense that they'd want to get a good quality product, or get something they like. To complain about entitlement is to basically project your own self-worth issues onto your audience.

Example: "Gamers are entitled, they want BioWare to change the ending of their game."

Open World - This game type is no longer what we think it is. Sometimes it refers to exploration-type games, immersive experiences, or sandbox environments. It needs some explaining, especially in what players can expect. Think about it: if every other game that comes out uses the words "open world", players won't understand what that means anymore, or have a faulty understanding. Is this Grand Theft Auto, Skyrim, or Minecraft?

Example: "The entry in The Witcher series is an open world environment with a vast map stretching to twice the size of Skyrim's."

Cinematic - I'm guilty of this one on my YouTube channel. Basically, it means the game feels like a movie. Often this is used ni action movie experiences, but can be used for more dramatic flair. The game Life is Strange is an example to the contrary. It's well-written, has interesting characters, and a great concept. But I don't think it's exactly what people mean when they say "cinematic". I'd say cinematic experiences in games are those that are linear, where a story unfolds the same way every playthrough.

Example: "Uncharted 3 was a wonderful cinematic experience that placed the players in Drake's shoes."


Well those are this month's buzz words. I will join you again soon to discuss the same old article reviews, but I hope to have something on my YouTube channel soon. Thanks for reading you entitled, toxic gamers!