insane

SOMA Game Review

GR5

 

Like many a nerdy dreamer I to have found myself caught up in the excitement of starting a let’s play channel (thegreatowl). For the uninitiated, that’s a Youtube channel where you upload playlists of games you are playing through or any other content as it relates to games: reviews, reviews of items in games, commentaries as you play, stuff like that.

I’d been away from gaming for some time as I have focused on writing but saw this as a way to get back into it without it feeling entirely indulgent. Basically I finally had an excuse to play games and call it work. Thank the gods.

One of the greatest things about getting back into it has been observing the world of video games as it has evolved so much over the past half decade or so that I have been away. One particular genre of games, of which this piece of writing concerns itself with, is survival horror.

Yes, we’ve seen earlier iterations of this kind of game before, such as the original ‘Resident Evil’ or ‘Silent Hill’ but let me tell you, have they ever come a long way. These new games make the old ones, unsurprisingly, look dated beyond compare.

The game I picked up off the Playstation online store goes by the name of SOMA. This is not the first game of this kind produced by the company ‘Frictional Games’. Their original was a game called ‘Amnesia’. While I intend to dedicate most of this writing to SOMA, Amnesia as well deserves a nod, and was a staggering achievement in terms of what can now be accomplished in a game setting that must have suspension of disbelief or fall apart utterly.

I should say first as well I am not usually a fan of horror movies, or having the shit scared out of me. Which makes even further the point that this game performed an incredible feat to draw my interest. Now on to what makes this game so great in my opinion.

I’ve already mentioned in passing the first reason: suspension of disbelief. When creating a survival horror environment game designers are faced with a monumental task: make what is entirely safe and harmless, seem like it’s going to kill you. It is then paramount that the player be completely immersed in the game world. Snap out of the immersion for even a moment and what you are doing and all your feelings towards it become laughable. Herein lies SOMA and its predecessor’s basis for success. At ever level they achieve this and it is more nuanced than you might think.

GR2

Setting: SOMA takes place on the ocean floor. By choosing such an ominous and obviously claustrophobic backdrop for the game’s wonderfully written narrative the player is already primed for immersion – quite literally in this case – pardon the pun. You are in Pathos, a hilariously named underwater city. I say hilarious because Pathos among its many meanings means tragedy. Who the hell named this place! It is beautiful in all its dark and rusted horror. Frequent power outages and the remnants of those who live their show rather than tell the story you’ve been dropped into. The additional detail, should you choose to explore more, is worth discovering. I could continue more here but suffice it to say the level design is exceptional and although largely linear still rewards the player for searching out rooms that have no other purpose than fleshing out the plot.

GR3

What is a world without sound? I would recommend if you play a game like this that headphones are a must. You won’t truly appreciate the efforts that went into SOMA’s sound design unless you do so. They are jaw dropping. Doors open with a visceral metallic snap, your boot-steps thud weighted with foreboding, as you run hard your heart-beat picks up in your ears creating urgency, gore and all things bloody or squishy have the appropriate amount of… squishiness? I was particularly impressed when you are outside the city and walking on the ocean floor. I can tell you from my times diving they’ve nailed this perfectly. Here like in no other game does the sound matter and draw you in. It is easy to forget that that light flickering just so as you enter a room setting your nerves on edge is done so with purpose and forethought. I can assure you all throughout SOMA you will find examples of the design teams unending mission to make every new corner, one that you hesitate to look around.

The villains: They are perhaps the greatest challenge in a game of this nature to get right. How, do you get a player to actually feel threatened by a pile of pixels? We, the jaded citizens of modern society, usually after getting a look at what is scaring us say, “oh, I’ve seen that before. Boring”. Thankfully the game designers of SOMA have quite elegantly solved this problem.

GR$

They’ve simply and brilliantly added the game mechanic that looking directly at these foes will cause as much damage as coming in direct contact with them. I nearly clapped when I heard this portion of the gameplay explained by your lone companion that follows you along in your mission. It’s success was two-fold. First, and most importantly, the mystery of that which stalks you is maintained in a natural way . Without mystery, without wondering what this thing is, we quickly lose our fear. Imagination is always so much more terrifying than reality. Second they implemented the game mechanic in a way that made sense for the story. It is always truly impressive when an apparent weakness is subverted and made instead into a strength. The final characteristic of your would be killers I want to mention is their frequency. As opposed to scare after jump scare which would quickly numb the players senses, these monstrosities are used at carefully timed increments, again usually at plot points of particular interest to heighten you immersion.

GR6

The last aspect I will discuss and one which I credit survival horror games with reviving, is plot. When you cannot rely so much on action or bright flashy graphical flourishes you must have a wonderful story. And in no way is SOMA’s weaker than any of its other well executed components. I’ll be careful here as it is so good I would hate to spoil any of its delicious details. They really did hit it out of the park. Sci-Fi lovers will swoon, and horror fans should be just as satisfied. The overall arc as revealed by one character specifically is impressive enough with its scope and philosophical considerations, let alone all the different occasions the designers us in world features to reveal other points. Everywhere, as I’d already mentioned, is show not tell. Molding pictures of loved ones gone, a bloody razor blade, sealed off pathways with warnings, all show the player what has happened here and the imagination quickly sets off on a million suppositions of what could have transpired in this haunted tragic place.

So in conclusion. If you can stomach, the churning of your own, play this game. I don’t really liked being scared but I will forgo that feeling for something so well crafted. SOMA is excellent and if Frictional Games continues on this trend, gamers should look forward to each and every one of their releases.

I give this game a rating of… Thirty Unicorns!

Advertisements

Til Death Do Us Part: How Modern Marriage Has Failed

sitting_te

Marriage, the word is a demonstration of our language’s ability to evoke and provoke some of the strongest emotions possible. These range from the worshipful to cynical. It is simultaneously sought after and hated, not uncommonly by the same person. Is it broken? Was it ever right? I’ve been thinking about these questions a lot lately. I find myself at that time in my life (early thirties) where those inevitable questions start to arise, as though I perceive a door slowly closing. It’s my conclusion, after a good deal of thought, that I’ve been fooled, we’ve all been bamboozled, tricked, whatever you want to call it, into thinking that the oft referred to (holy) institution of marriage is something we should care and obsess over.

Let’s dig into this where I enjoy it most: its history. Marriage has not always been interpreted through its current incarnation. Now what do I mean by that exactly? Well most obviously would be this idea of marriage for eternal love. This modern consideration is an incredibly recent advent. Marriage in the not so distant past was carried out pragmatically: for family interests. The mewling protests of those involved, should there be any, were silenced quickly as selfish prattle that had better shut the hell up, or risk the wrath of their elders, and when I think about it, rightly so. Life and survival are difficult enough in an old world without youth bemoaning that they don’t get to love the person they are with. We’d have been far better off if marriage were actually referred to for what it was at its inception: duty.

But we are a forward thinking species. How dare the wisdom of the old be inflicted on the young. Better we let them decide who they should marry, and then divorce shortly after. This has led us to marriage’s current state. The mass majority of marriages end, it’s indefensible to suggest otherwise. Growing up my parents were in the absolute minority that they remained together through my youth. Their staying together was the exception not the rule.

Which leads me to my next point: the language of modern marriage in its aftermath. Having moved away from the more ancient form of marriage, we have landed ourselves in an existential hell. We’ve exchanged the mild grumbling of a couple learning to be with each other for the impossible ideal of eternal love. We even hold this lofty standard so high above our heads that if a marriage were to fail in this context we have no shortage of cruel descriptors for it: broken home and failed marriage leap to mind. We describe something so obviously natural—the falling out of love of those together for an extended period of time—as something abhorrent, hateful, and shameful. This I believe is madness.

Life in the last hundred years has changed so rapidly when compared to the previous it has left our older social constructs outdated and staggered, barely able to bear the weight of keeping up. I think fondly on my father’s joking description of the problem, “When they said till death do us part, that’s what it used to mean!” This albeit dark humour summarizes what I am trying to say. A progressive step was needed to reinvent the dated survival-style of marriage, but caught up in our solipsist view of the world we failed to see that we’d set out for ourselves an impossible standard. Couples rejoiced at the idea of marriage for eternal love, but soon found the reality was not quite what they imagined. It never is.

Now I’m not suggesting a return to the old style. We do live in a time when choosing who we wish to partner with is a luxury we can more or less afford. What I am suggesting is that we face a more difficult reality: we live long enough to have deep meaningful relationships with multiple people, and should allow ourselves to do so.

I’ll anticipate the soft soul’s argument who will cry, “What about the children? You blind fool,” and say this: we can, and already do, leave behind marriages with children yet to grow. All I’m suggesting is if we do so, let’s do away with all the weight of this crazy guilt. Good parents exist, lots of them, who are not in “wedlock,” another great term I enjoy. As long-lived human beings whose lifespans are continually stretching we must throw off the shackles that the ideal of eternal love has bound us in. We need a new love renaissance, one that correctly acknowledges both our strengths and weaknesses: Yes we can love, yes we fall out of love, there is no one single love of your life, there are many.

I cannot help but relate this to a series of books written by one of my favourite authors ‘Peter F. Hamilton.’ In his wild sci-fi imaginings he’s created a world wherein people can potentially live forever. Not only that, he considers the profound social repercussions of this world. The obvious question that comes about from eternal life is: do I eternally marry? He would suggest no. Instead, people spend as much time as they want with each other. Some raise children, some don’t. The norm of the citizens that inhabit his world is to marry many over the hundreds of years that they are alive. This to me seems natural.

And before those dissenters start screeching at the computer screen, allow me to clarify what I mean by natural. Natural is the world we have grown up in. I’ll borrow from ‘Aubrey de Grey’ to clarify what I mean. When people object to his suggestion—that we should be able to live forever—and say it is unnatural to have such long life-spans, he immediately counters with a very sound argument. When you say natural, whose natural do you mean? If you had grown up in the colonial era a natural life-span was far less than it is now. Eighty to a hundred is the natural life-span if you were born in recent memory. To cement what I am saying vicariously through Aubrey’s point: “natural” changes depending on where you are looking at it from. In effect, it is always changing given your perspective. And that is now what we need for marriage and the way we pursue it. A new perspective.