The early days of gaming were tough – dozens of games on a shelf and it was up to consumers to make uninformed decisions about which were the ones worth spending their money on. All they could do was go by word-of-mouth and the back of the box to make the decision. Sometimes they were lucky and walked away with a classic like The Legend of Zelda. Other times they happened upon an LJN “classic” such as Friday the 13thand instantly came to dread that little insidious rainbow.
Out of necessity, video game reviews began to emerge. Finally consumers had a voice that could tell them whether or not to spend money on the newest game. Some of these voices may have been a little biased (I’m looking at you, Nintendo Power) but all in all, they made gaming a much more manageable thing for those looking to game on a budget.
Today, reviews are all over the place. With the advent of the Internet, any curious consumer can find a review for any game in the last ten, fifteen, even twenty years in about five minutes. Heck, they can usually find several. Quantity does not always make things easier, however. In the same time period, game reviews have changed almost entirely, carrying much more weight than they used to. It has evolved into something that doesn’t just inform consumers; it enrages and possibly even influences them.
I can’t possibly talk about game reviews without mentioning Metacritic. Over the last generation of console games, Metacritic has become something that any gamer that is even slightly “in the know” has heard of and understands. For those few of you that don’t happen to know, it is a review-aggregate site, a site that combines all the reviews (from chosen publications/websites) for a certain piece of content (movies, television shows, music, and video games are the current categories) into one combined score, allowing visitors to compare two things at a glance.
Of course, at first mention, that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. Who hasn’t wondered the overall impact of a certain movie or game and tried to average the scores themselves? (I admit, I’ve never done that, but I’m sure someone has!) It was certainly interesting at first, giving games one score instead of several. Of course, it has evolved into so much more than that, and in such a short time period.
Surprisingly, Metacritic scores are very interesting to game developers and publishers. You may be shocked to learn that some publishers have begun to base company bonuses and livelihoods on these Metacritic scores. A mere five points, from a 85 to a 80 perhaps, could mean the difference between a company making enough money to go on and make another game or failing miserably and being shut down by the publisher. It’s funny to think that company looks at the opinions of a few publications sometimes more than the amount of money the game actually makes.
Even a game as big as Battlefield 3 could suffer from this. Recently, producers on the game have said that the Metacritic score would absolutely affect how EA looks at the game’s success. There really doesn’t exist anything close to the immediacy of a Metacritic score; within about three days of the game’s release, it has pretty much finalized. Big companies like to know the overall success of a venture as soon as they can, so they can plan the next project that much more informed. Furthermore, is a consumer really going to look at the sales of game and go “Look how many copies! I should pick that up.”? Of course not. A review number is much easier to define “quality” from at a glance and that is really why Metacritic has taken off so heavily.
The introduction of Metacritic hasn’t just changed the developer side of things; it’s also started to affect those publications that write the reviews. One reviewer can sway a Metacritic score pretty significantly, if that person’s review is wildly different in score from the others’. Not only has it introduced a bit of collective behavior in that some reviewers don’t want to be “that guy that reviewed it differently” but it has also introduced a level of shame into the mix as well. How many people want to write a negative review if they know that their review may be the one that pushed the Metacritic score low enough to push the company into bankruptcy? Some may argue that that isn’t the fault of the reviewers but those individuals may feel actual guilt. I would like to hope that most game reviewers are enough of a journalist to write an honest review but who really knows in today’s world?
Another feature of Metacritic is the user review section where anyone with an account is welcome to submit their own review. These reviews are tallied into another average score, a different one from the publications’ score. Of course, giving something like this to Internet users usually leads to bad news. Recently, there have been a string of people randomly writing multiple negative reviews for games that had been receiving otherwise decent scores. They didn’t truly think the game was bad; they simply submitted a bunch of zeroes to bring the game’s score down for fun or whatever reason.
Two games that had this happen to them were Bastion and Toy Soldiers: Cold War. The developers of both games spoke out when this happened, using Facebook and Twitter to inform fans of the game that this was happening. Each knew the importance of Metacritic and knew that a lot of potential sales could be lost from these negative reviews. Signal Studios, developers of Toy Soldiers: Cold War, acted on their own, offering potential free copies of the game (in a raffle) to anyone willing to write positive reviews about the game on Metacritic. This incited a bit of skepticism towards the company, leaving many to wonder how they could take the company seriously. Metacritic itself stepped in eventually, deleting the negative reviews, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the problem is gone. To some, a bad review seems silly while others know the power it can now wield in the industry.
This insane level of importance for something so simple is just a testament to how the nature of reviews has changed over the years. Reviews have always had importance to publishers and developers but never to this amount in the past. Of course, that isn’t the only way that they have changed. We as consumers have come to look at reviews in a different light. In a way, it seems like we have become less trusting of them.
Simply look at the comments of any video game review in the last few years and you will see my point within a page of comments. The sheer amount of negativity that can come from rating a game slightly differently from another publication is mind-boggling, to say the least. One point (on a ten point scale) can seem like five and anything lower than an eight is called an outright festering pile of garbage. It has become so common that I hesitate to call it fanboyism or even people embracing the anonymity of the Internet – this is an outright outbreak.
Now, this paragraph is one that I probably shouldn’t even include. It might come off as a bit ranty and I was hesitant to leave it in the final article. It was the inspiration for the entire thing, however, so I feel it deserves a place. The most frustrating thing about these comments on game reviews has to be the people demanding that the score should be this or that. I don’t really mind it that much except when it’s on an article about a game that has not even come out yet! How can they form a valid opinion about something they haven’t played? It seems like the average gamer feels so entitled to an opinion that they forget when they shouldn’t even have one yet. (end rant)
Reviews are in a rather scary place right now. Game reviewers, at least the prominent ones, have taken on a more demanding role then they may have signed on for. Instead of being a simple buyer’s guide for new products, they are instead influencing things in a way that should be entirely in the hands of those creating the games. A review can now be a very powerful thing, particularly the score attached to the end (or the beginning, whatever). I’m personally of the mind that scores are most of the problem and getting rid of them would be a good start. The power behind a review score has ascended to a level where it can influence more than just an individual’s buying choices? Whose bright idea was that?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Importance of Ads?
Advertisements are a huge part of our lives. Every day we are bombarded by dozens if not hundreds of ads telling us to buy one product or another. Of course, video games are no exception. Over the last console generation, the amount of money a company is willing to spend to advertise a video game has gone through the roof. Activision with the Call of Duty franchise in particular has spent millions of dollars on them, even inserting ads into high-profile NBA and NFL games to sell their games to as many people as they can.
Call of Duty: Black Ops sold millions of copies on the first day of its release, making Activision over $300 million in one day. The game went on to make the company over $1 billion by the end of 2010. Today, it stands as the highest selling game of all time. Clearly, advertising worked out for them.
So why then didn’t they do the same with 2010’s Singularity? This FPS by Raven Software shared some similarities with Call of Duty games, mostly in the controls, but instead focused on a more intriguing and time-travel focused single player experience. It came out in the game-light month of June, months from the release of Black Ops. By targeting the same audience with ads, they might have roped a few gamers into a purchase, something to do during the doldrums of summer.
But they didn’t do this. In fact, advertising for Singularity was practically non-existent, aside from a few game trailers in the weeks up to its release. Anyone who wasn’t a game enthusiast most likely didn’t even notice it release and even some of them probably had it slip under their radar. Lack of word-of-mouth hurt the game’s sales; it barely broke 30,000 copies in its first month. It wasn’t necessarily because of the game’s quality either, as it boasts a respectable 76 on Metacritic (Xbox 360 version).
Why did this game tank so badly? Were all those reviewers wrong? Did the game’s summer release cripple its performance? Or was the lack of advertisement entirely to blame? As a video game enthusiast myself, I can’t always understand the importance of advertising, since I always know what is coming out and what I want to buy. Poor sales of games I enjoyed, like Singularity, always make me reevaluate the value of some commercials for a game’s well-being.
X-Men: Destiny is supposedly coming out tomorrow on each of the current consoles, published by Activision. I was surprised by this fact because I haven’t heard anything substantial about it for months, after being a bit excited when it was announced. A few trailers were released on the 23rd but they didn’t make much of a splash on the major video game news sites and surely haven’t gotten around to anyone who isn’t somewhat interested in the game. Sound familiar?
Is the situation with Singularity happening all over again? X-Men is certainly a brand name that is recognized by the average person but it seems like this game is being pushed out the door without a second thought. Early word of mouth seems shaky and developer Silicon Knights’ (makers of Too Human) pedigree doesn’t give me much confidence. All I know for now is I can’t wait to see the game sales numbers next month…
Call of Duty: Black Ops sold millions of copies on the first day of its release, making Activision over $300 million in one day. The game went on to make the company over $1 billion by the end of 2010. Today, it stands as the highest selling game of all time. Clearly, advertising worked out for them.
So why then didn’t they do the same with 2010’s Singularity? This FPS by Raven Software shared some similarities with Call of Duty games, mostly in the controls, but instead focused on a more intriguing and time-travel focused single player experience. It came out in the game-light month of June, months from the release of Black Ops. By targeting the same audience with ads, they might have roped a few gamers into a purchase, something to do during the doldrums of summer.
But they didn’t do this. In fact, advertising for Singularity was practically non-existent, aside from a few game trailers in the weeks up to its release. Anyone who wasn’t a game enthusiast most likely didn’t even notice it release and even some of them probably had it slip under their radar. Lack of word-of-mouth hurt the game’s sales; it barely broke 30,000 copies in its first month. It wasn’t necessarily because of the game’s quality either, as it boasts a respectable 76 on Metacritic (Xbox 360 version).
Why did this game tank so badly? Were all those reviewers wrong? Did the game’s summer release cripple its performance? Or was the lack of advertisement entirely to blame? As a video game enthusiast myself, I can’t always understand the importance of advertising, since I always know what is coming out and what I want to buy. Poor sales of games I enjoyed, like Singularity, always make me reevaluate the value of some commercials for a game’s well-being.
X-Men: Destiny is supposedly coming out tomorrow on each of the current consoles, published by Activision. I was surprised by this fact because I haven’t heard anything substantial about it for months, after being a bit excited when it was announced. A few trailers were released on the 23rd but they didn’t make much of a splash on the major video game news sites and surely haven’t gotten around to anyone who isn’t somewhat interested in the game. Sound familiar?
Is the situation with Singularity happening all over again? X-Men is certainly a brand name that is recognized by the average person but it seems like this game is being pushed out the door without a second thought. Early word of mouth seems shaky and developer Silicon Knights’ (makers of Too Human) pedigree doesn’t give me much confidence. All I know for now is I can’t wait to see the game sales numbers next month…
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A Unique Form of DRM
Demon's Souls is a game known amongst gamers as one of the most brutal and unforgiving games from this generation. Developer From Software created a game with the unrelenting difficulty of games from the early days, games meant to suck the quarters from you as fast as they can.
Their next game Dark Souls hopes to do the same thing. The game is out in just a couple more weeks and as usual, some people have already gotten their hands on copies of it. Even with the vast array of anti-pirating options available nowadays, From Software decided to do something even better.
In Demon's Souls, you are always online. Other players can jump into your game at any time, if you are connected. These players are defined as "Black Phantoms" and can be several levels higher than you, taking you out in one strike.
To teach the pirating players a lesson, From Software is jumping into games with extremely overpowered characters, essentially griefing them as a way to get them to stop. You have to hand it the developer for not just sticking an online code into the box. Instead, they just kick your ass if you try to play early.
Their next game Dark Souls hopes to do the same thing. The game is out in just a couple more weeks and as usual, some people have already gotten their hands on copies of it. Even with the vast array of anti-pirating options available nowadays, From Software decided to do something even better.
In Demon's Souls, you are always online. Other players can jump into your game at any time, if you are connected. These players are defined as "Black Phantoms" and can be several levels higher than you, taking you out in one strike.
To teach the pirating players a lesson, From Software is jumping into games with extremely overpowered characters, essentially griefing them as a way to get them to stop. You have to hand it the developer for not just sticking an online code into the box. Instead, they just kick your ass if you try to play early.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Why I Play Video Games
Like many game enthusiasts, I peruse dozens if not hundreds of news stories and forum posts a day. Anything that catches my eye or seems important in some manner gets read. The most important ones get bookmarked to go back and look at later. Every once in awhile, one of them makes me want to do a post of my own. Today, I read one of these posts.
It was a forum post on Giant Bomb and it discussed the repetitive nature of video games and the author’s complete inability (his words) to understand why we keep making and playing the same games over and over again. After I read it, I asked myself: why do you play games? I took a long, hard look at my reasons and this is what I came up with.
I like to play games with an interesting world. From the lush, sprawling expanse of Cyrodil to the desolate insanity of Pandora, game worlds can be a very different reality from our own. These worlds spring up entirely in the minds of their developers, writing out the history and designing every little nook and cranny for players to explore. Dystopian futures. Unbelievable fantasy worlds. A Japanese high school. These are worlds that I would never get to experience (at least, I certainly think not) but am at least able to get a glimpse of through video games.
When those worlds come with interesting storylines, I am even more pleased. Story in video games is admittedly still trying to find its way, trying to branch out from the standard “you’re an unstoppable badass who needs to save the world” mold. Giving players choices that actually have meaning in the story is a lot of work but I feel it is the next big step needed in storytelling. Even still, I have so much more investment in a story that I’ve taken a part in.
What good story would be complete without great characters? Video game characters are some of the most diverse and ludicrous characters I have ever seen. Where else would you get to meet characters like Mordin from Mass Effect 2, a singing alien who must come to terms with a nearly disgusting moral choice? An alien that also kicks ass and you get to fight alongside? Guiding a character to the destiny they have waiting for them, even if that destiny is defined outright by the developer, feels leaps and bounds better than simply watching them or reading them do it.
Another area where I feel video games shine is in their artistic merits. Movies and television shows can try to create a brand new world but the reality is always visible. There are literally no limits to what a world could look in a video game. Impossibly large insects or alien races that don’t look at all humanoid (as many in television and movies do) can be created with a bit of imagination and effort. Breathtaking landscapes can be crafted just for the purpose of making the player stop and appreciate it.
Also worth mentioning are the different art styles a game can incorporate, from the paint-brushed style of Street Fighter IV to the cel-shaded beauty of The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. Our reality is unchangeable; it will always look the way it does. As long as video game creators still have that spark of creativity in them, video games will always have the potential to look more interesting.
Music in video games has resonated with me more than music in any other medium. Whether it’s due to the emotional impact of the music paired with the particular moment in the game or the endless repetition of certain tracks burning them into my brain, some video game tracks are permanently locked away in some crevasse of my brain, ready to creep out at any moment. Just a few bars of particular songs bring back a rush of memories and a smile to my face.
How about the incentives? Leveling up, shiny new pieces of loot, or getting to the end of the game are all examples of incentives that video game developers use to make me endlessly addicted. I know I’m addicted but I don’t care; I just want the next piece of loot or one more level. Incentives in video games hit a pleasure zone in my brain unlike anything else. Leveling systems in particular are particularly tantalizing to me; when it’s done right, I’m right onboard.
Here it is. A few of the reasons I play games. Well, probably all of them. I hope this has been as interesting for you as it has been for me and I ask you to do what I did. Think about why you play games, especially if they’ve been getting you down lately (something I recently went through myself). Realizing why you play games can help you choose to give up and move to a medium without so much repetition (good luck). Me? I’m not stopping anytime soon.
It was a forum post on Giant Bomb and it discussed the repetitive nature of video games and the author’s complete inability (his words) to understand why we keep making and playing the same games over and over again. After I read it, I asked myself: why do you play games? I took a long, hard look at my reasons and this is what I came up with.
I like to play games with an interesting world. From the lush, sprawling expanse of Cyrodil to the desolate insanity of Pandora, game worlds can be a very different reality from our own. These worlds spring up entirely in the minds of their developers, writing out the history and designing every little nook and cranny for players to explore. Dystopian futures. Unbelievable fantasy worlds. A Japanese high school. These are worlds that I would never get to experience (at least, I certainly think not) but am at least able to get a glimpse of through video games.
When those worlds come with interesting storylines, I am even more pleased. Story in video games is admittedly still trying to find its way, trying to branch out from the standard “you’re an unstoppable badass who needs to save the world” mold. Giving players choices that actually have meaning in the story is a lot of work but I feel it is the next big step needed in storytelling. Even still, I have so much more investment in a story that I’ve taken a part in.
What good story would be complete without great characters? Video game characters are some of the most diverse and ludicrous characters I have ever seen. Where else would you get to meet characters like Mordin from Mass Effect 2, a singing alien who must come to terms with a nearly disgusting moral choice? An alien that also kicks ass and you get to fight alongside? Guiding a character to the destiny they have waiting for them, even if that destiny is defined outright by the developer, feels leaps and bounds better than simply watching them or reading them do it.
Another area where I feel video games shine is in their artistic merits. Movies and television shows can try to create a brand new world but the reality is always visible. There are literally no limits to what a world could look in a video game. Impossibly large insects or alien races that don’t look at all humanoid (as many in television and movies do) can be created with a bit of imagination and effort. Breathtaking landscapes can be crafted just for the purpose of making the player stop and appreciate it.
Also worth mentioning are the different art styles a game can incorporate, from the paint-brushed style of Street Fighter IV to the cel-shaded beauty of The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. Our reality is unchangeable; it will always look the way it does. As long as video game creators still have that spark of creativity in them, video games will always have the potential to look more interesting.
Music in video games has resonated with me more than music in any other medium. Whether it’s due to the emotional impact of the music paired with the particular moment in the game or the endless repetition of certain tracks burning them into my brain, some video game tracks are permanently locked away in some crevasse of my brain, ready to creep out at any moment. Just a few bars of particular songs bring back a rush of memories and a smile to my face.
How about the incentives? Leveling up, shiny new pieces of loot, or getting to the end of the game are all examples of incentives that video game developers use to make me endlessly addicted. I know I’m addicted but I don’t care; I just want the next piece of loot or one more level. Incentives in video games hit a pleasure zone in my brain unlike anything else. Leveling systems in particular are particularly tantalizing to me; when it’s done right, I’m right onboard.
Here it is. A few of the reasons I play games. Well, probably all of them. I hope this has been as interesting for you as it has been for me and I ask you to do what I did. Think about why you play games, especially if they’ve been getting you down lately (something I recently went through myself). Realizing why you play games can help you choose to give up and move to a medium without so much repetition (good luck). Me? I’m not stopping anytime soon.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Are Video Game Characters Perfect?
Alan Wake. Issac Clarke. Nathan Drake. What do these three characters have in common? They are ordinary guys that are thrust into crazy situations in their games, crazy situations that they just happen to luck through time and time again. They aren’t the only ones; dozens of video game characters, plenty of which are portrayed as average people who are thrown into a crazy predicament, people who seem to have a divine power watching over their every move. They can’t die, at least not permanently. They never fail to accomplish their goals. They always win (by the end of the game/series).
Games are rather unique entertainment in that they allow the person playing them to manipulate things as they choose. Unlike movies, television and books which have no interactivity, video games are entirely comprised of this interactivity. Because of this, games have a bit of a different agenda. They can’t just tell a story; they have to also be fun and challenging to play.
For a lot of games, part of this challenge comes from the risk of dying and losing some of your progress, a holdover from the days of arcades and developers wanting as many quarters out of you as they could possibly get. No matter how many times you die, at least in nearly every modern game, you get to come back within a few minutes of your death to try again. It doesn’t make sense but if the game were to just end when you died, no one would ever have fun with it. The Prince of Persia: Sands of Time excuse tends to work best, where the whole game is portrayed as someone recounting their story and saying “No, that isn’t how it went,” if the player happened die. This is the exception, not the rule. Most games just assume the player can suspend their disbelief and fill in the blanks themselves. True failure is something that is never allowed in video games.
L.A. Noire is a game that came along and tried to change some of that. Here was a game that allowed players to fail, at least in some aspects of the game, but still continue. Players can miss key evidence, lose suspects during a chase, and even arrest the wrong person for a crime, yet the game will still continue onward. Sure, the overall story of the game doesn’t change, just some small minutiae here and there, but it is a step in the right direction. The characters are that much more believable because the game will let them fail, just like real life detectives that probably make mistakes every day.
Failure in video games is a tricky beast, one I’m not quite convinced that can be solved. On one end of the spectrum we have games with Hardcore modes like Diablo II and Dead Space 2 that end your game with one death, as if the character was truly real. These modes tend to only be for masochists and achievement hunter. On the other, we have the 2008 Prince of Persia where any death through combat or a misstep is immediately corrected by Elika’s magic. This stripped the game of a lot of its momentum because there was never any penalty for making a mistake. Until an acceptable middle ground can be found, we will continue to have game protagonists that are essentially godlike super soldiers who can never die or make a mistake, forever making us feel like inept human beings in comparison.
Games are rather unique entertainment in that they allow the person playing them to manipulate things as they choose. Unlike movies, television and books which have no interactivity, video games are entirely comprised of this interactivity. Because of this, games have a bit of a different agenda. They can’t just tell a story; they have to also be fun and challenging to play.
For a lot of games, part of this challenge comes from the risk of dying and losing some of your progress, a holdover from the days of arcades and developers wanting as many quarters out of you as they could possibly get. No matter how many times you die, at least in nearly every modern game, you get to come back within a few minutes of your death to try again. It doesn’t make sense but if the game were to just end when you died, no one would ever have fun with it. The Prince of Persia: Sands of Time excuse tends to work best, where the whole game is portrayed as someone recounting their story and saying “No, that isn’t how it went,” if the player happened die. This is the exception, not the rule. Most games just assume the player can suspend their disbelief and fill in the blanks themselves. True failure is something that is never allowed in video games.
L.A. Noire is a game that came along and tried to change some of that. Here was a game that allowed players to fail, at least in some aspects of the game, but still continue. Players can miss key evidence, lose suspects during a chase, and even arrest the wrong person for a crime, yet the game will still continue onward. Sure, the overall story of the game doesn’t change, just some small minutiae here and there, but it is a step in the right direction. The characters are that much more believable because the game will let them fail, just like real life detectives that probably make mistakes every day.
Failure in video games is a tricky beast, one I’m not quite convinced that can be solved. On one end of the spectrum we have games with Hardcore modes like Diablo II and Dead Space 2 that end your game with one death, as if the character was truly real. These modes tend to only be for masochists and achievement hunter. On the other, we have the 2008 Prince of Persia where any death through combat or a misstep is immediately corrected by Elika’s magic. This stripped the game of a lot of its momentum because there was never any penalty for making a mistake. Until an acceptable middle ground can be found, we will continue to have game protagonists that are essentially godlike super soldiers who can never die or make a mistake, forever making us feel like inept human beings in comparison.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
A Different Look at Naoto
A few weeks ago, I happened to stumble upon a blog called The Border House, a site dedicated to looking at games with an objective, feminist eye. The post in question was “Did she just money-shot herself with his neck blood?” a title that I have to admit caught my eye with its striking title. I enjoyed the article thoroughly, a look at the new (at the time) Mortal Kombat DLC character, Skarlet. While I was finishing up the article, I noticed a word on the sidebar of the website that usually catches my eye – Atlus. The link was to a post entitled “It’s Time to Talk About It: Atlus, Naoto, and Transphobia” and it was this post that inspired me to write this post (link to it below).
In the article, author Mattie Brice looked into some of Atlus’ transgendered and gender-confused characters from their previous games, including Persona 3 and 4 and Catherine. The points on Persona 3 and Catherine were well-made and did nothing to raise my ire so we won’t bother talking about them. It was when I got to the part about Naoto that I started to think the author missed the point.
Naoto Shirogane is a female character from Atlus’ Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4. However, the character is at first presented to the player as a boy, when he comes to town to investigate the ongoing murder case as a special helper on the police force. The theme of the Persona games tends to be coming to terms with things you can’t admit to yourself and Naoto isn’t any different. The player learns at a late point in the game that Naoto is in fact a girl and hides her gender from everyone. She does this because being a female does not line up with her perfect idea of a detective, something she wants to be more than anything. She hides her gender so that the police force will respect her more than they would if she was more forthright.
These are the points that the game clearly tells the player but Brice’s article about Naoto gives me the impression that she didn’t understand this at all. The first thing she brings up is that the character is immediately referred to as she and her, as if the other characters are immediately forcing her to come to terms with herself. While this may be true in some cases, most of the time the characters still refer to her as Naoto-kun, “kun” being a Japanese honorific primarily used for males, not females. Whether it’s from the other characters being slow to change their ways or doing what they think would be most comfortable for Naoto is never discussed but the tone of the game certainly suggests the latter, this being a game about teenagers coming to terms with themselves, even the parts they don’t like.
The next point that caught my attention was Brice pointing out Naoto being grouped with the females on several occasions, the game’s obvious attempt to push her in with that group instead of the one she feels more comfortable with. While this does happen in some occasions, it usually tends to be the ones where a girl would NEED to be grouped in with other girls, like taking a public bath or sleeping in the same room. If Atlus had grouped Naoto in with the guys on these scenes, she would have been far less comfortable and much more objectified in the eyes of the character and the player.
Most importantly, it seems like Brice missed the whole point of Naoto’s character. In my eyes (and several others, according to wikis and others I have asked about the matter), Naoto is a girl who wished to be in a male’s body simply for the ease of it. Being an ace detective is all she had ever aspired to be but that is a job that, especially in Japan, is hard to move forward in as a girl. Not only that but her lack of experience and young age made it extremely hard for the adults to accept her for what she was. She hid her gender to get at least a tiny foothold to fall back on; the adults couldn’t reject her help just because she was young.
Over the course of the game, Naoto (through her Social Link in particular) learns and admits that she doesn’t truly want to be a man. All she wants is respect from others for her talents and respect for herself. It is my belief that Atlus didn’t mean for Naoto to be this questionable character who didn’t really ever say what she truly wanted (we have Kanji for that!) but someone, like everyone else, who discovers their true self over the course of the game.
Now, I don't disagree with everything Brice said. As I said above, the points on Persona 3 and Catherine are pretty much spot on. Also, the views on the romantic side of Naoto’s Social Link are in line with my own, forcing the character to go down a road that she doesn’t really seem to want to go down. Things like the beauty pageant and the Christmas Eve scene with Naoto as your lover are a bit disgusting but don’t ruin the work that the rest of the Social Link does (at least not entirely). I even don’t mind the author’s (seeming?) uncertainty as to what the true gender of Naoto really is. As in most good stories, everyone can see different themes and messages in the work; I, like Brice, just wanted to show the side of Persona 4 that spoke the most to me.
> Here is a link to the article I reference throughout this post.
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=6088
In the article, author Mattie Brice looked into some of Atlus’ transgendered and gender-confused characters from their previous games, including Persona 3 and 4 and Catherine. The points on Persona 3 and Catherine were well-made and did nothing to raise my ire so we won’t bother talking about them. It was when I got to the part about Naoto that I started to think the author missed the point.
Naoto Shirogane is a female character from Atlus’ Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4. However, the character is at first presented to the player as a boy, when he comes to town to investigate the ongoing murder case as a special helper on the police force. The theme of the Persona games tends to be coming to terms with things you can’t admit to yourself and Naoto isn’t any different. The player learns at a late point in the game that Naoto is in fact a girl and hides her gender from everyone. She does this because being a female does not line up with her perfect idea of a detective, something she wants to be more than anything. She hides her gender so that the police force will respect her more than they would if she was more forthright.
These are the points that the game clearly tells the player but Brice’s article about Naoto gives me the impression that she didn’t understand this at all. The first thing she brings up is that the character is immediately referred to as she and her, as if the other characters are immediately forcing her to come to terms with herself. While this may be true in some cases, most of the time the characters still refer to her as Naoto-kun, “kun” being a Japanese honorific primarily used for males, not females. Whether it’s from the other characters being slow to change their ways or doing what they think would be most comfortable for Naoto is never discussed but the tone of the game certainly suggests the latter, this being a game about teenagers coming to terms with themselves, even the parts they don’t like.
The next point that caught my attention was Brice pointing out Naoto being grouped with the females on several occasions, the game’s obvious attempt to push her in with that group instead of the one she feels more comfortable with. While this does happen in some occasions, it usually tends to be the ones where a girl would NEED to be grouped in with other girls, like taking a public bath or sleeping in the same room. If Atlus had grouped Naoto in with the guys on these scenes, she would have been far less comfortable and much more objectified in the eyes of the character and the player.
Most importantly, it seems like Brice missed the whole point of Naoto’s character. In my eyes (and several others, according to wikis and others I have asked about the matter), Naoto is a girl who wished to be in a male’s body simply for the ease of it. Being an ace detective is all she had ever aspired to be but that is a job that, especially in Japan, is hard to move forward in as a girl. Not only that but her lack of experience and young age made it extremely hard for the adults to accept her for what she was. She hid her gender to get at least a tiny foothold to fall back on; the adults couldn’t reject her help just because she was young.
Over the course of the game, Naoto (through her Social Link in particular) learns and admits that she doesn’t truly want to be a man. All she wants is respect from others for her talents and respect for herself. It is my belief that Atlus didn’t mean for Naoto to be this questionable character who didn’t really ever say what she truly wanted (we have Kanji for that!) but someone, like everyone else, who discovers their true self over the course of the game.
Now, I don't disagree with everything Brice said. As I said above, the points on Persona 3 and Catherine are pretty much spot on. Also, the views on the romantic side of Naoto’s Social Link are in line with my own, forcing the character to go down a road that she doesn’t really seem to want to go down. Things like the beauty pageant and the Christmas Eve scene with Naoto as your lover are a bit disgusting but don’t ruin the work that the rest of the Social Link does (at least not entirely). I even don’t mind the author’s (seeming?) uncertainty as to what the true gender of Naoto really is. As in most good stories, everyone can see different themes and messages in the work; I, like Brice, just wanted to show the side of Persona 4 that spoke the most to me.
> Here is a link to the article I reference throughout this post.
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=6088
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A Different Look at Violence
Today, I want to talk about a particular game. This game is something I appreciated for its artistic and gameplay merits when I first played it and more recently have come to appreciate for the amazing themes that run throughout its length. The game I am talking about is Shadow of the Colossus, Team Ico’s second game for the Playstation 2 released in 2005. I don’t want to discuss the gameplay, or the visual style, or even the unfortunate technical problems. This post will focus entirely on the (what I feel it is, at least) main theme of the game.
In Shadow of the Colossus, you play as a character named Wander who has travelled to a forbidden land to revive his lover Mono, chasing a legend that proves to be entirely true. A powerful being named Dormin inhabits the temple that he arrives at in the beginning of the game, a being that tells Wander he can return the soul to the one he loves. Of course, nothing so against the laws of nature can be accomplished without a price and the being even warns the protagonist against performing the task this feat requires, not being specific but stressing the dangers nonetheless.
Like any other fool in love, Wander can’t help but immediately set out on the task: kill the sixteen Colossi that inhabit the strange land. Several of these beings are entirely harmless, not attacking the player unless attacked first. It is the player inhabiting Wander that is forced to initiate combat against these more passive Colossi, taking their lives to return another’s. The game makes sure to show the player the results of their choice, making these moments sad and heart-wrenching when they should be feeling uplifted by the victory.
As more and more Colossi fall to the player’s blade, Wander begins to change. It is subtle at first but by the halfway point of the game, his hair and face grow darker as his skin gets paler. By the end of the game, he becomes completely pale-skinned and sprouts two dark horns from the top of his head. It is also at this point that Dormin explains the true meaning of the task the player has just undertaken; each Colossi was a piece of himself and by killing them all, Wander had absorbed the power into himself. Dormin is now able to inhabit Wander’s body, transforming him into a malevolent force, the embodiment of all the violence he had just performed to save the one he loved.
No game (at least that I know of) treats violence in the way that this game does. There are no fodder enemies for the player to mow down on their way to the bosses; there is nothing but the bosses. Each kill in the game is immensely meaningful both to the story and to the player. In any other video game, killing something has become a completely meaningless task, just another point or one step closer to the next level. Shadow of the Colossus manages to put such emotion and importance into each of its sixteen kills that it gives me hope for a future where games invest in putting meaning into death instead of just trying to rack up the body count.
In Shadow of the Colossus, you play as a character named Wander who has travelled to a forbidden land to revive his lover Mono, chasing a legend that proves to be entirely true. A powerful being named Dormin inhabits the temple that he arrives at in the beginning of the game, a being that tells Wander he can return the soul to the one he loves. Of course, nothing so against the laws of nature can be accomplished without a price and the being even warns the protagonist against performing the task this feat requires, not being specific but stressing the dangers nonetheless.
Like any other fool in love, Wander can’t help but immediately set out on the task: kill the sixteen Colossi that inhabit the strange land. Several of these beings are entirely harmless, not attacking the player unless attacked first. It is the player inhabiting Wander that is forced to initiate combat against these more passive Colossi, taking their lives to return another’s. The game makes sure to show the player the results of their choice, making these moments sad and heart-wrenching when they should be feeling uplifted by the victory.
As more and more Colossi fall to the player’s blade, Wander begins to change. It is subtle at first but by the halfway point of the game, his hair and face grow darker as his skin gets paler. By the end of the game, he becomes completely pale-skinned and sprouts two dark horns from the top of his head. It is also at this point that Dormin explains the true meaning of the task the player has just undertaken; each Colossi was a piece of himself and by killing them all, Wander had absorbed the power into himself. Dormin is now able to inhabit Wander’s body, transforming him into a malevolent force, the embodiment of all the violence he had just performed to save the one he loved.
No game (at least that I know of) treats violence in the way that this game does. There are no fodder enemies for the player to mow down on their way to the bosses; there is nothing but the bosses. Each kill in the game is immensely meaningful both to the story and to the player. In any other video game, killing something has become a completely meaningless task, just another point or one step closer to the next level. Shadow of the Colossus manages to put such emotion and importance into each of its sixteen kills that it gives me hope for a future where games invest in putting meaning into death instead of just trying to rack up the body count.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Post from the Past: Don't Take It Personally, Babe, It Just Ain't Your Story Impressions
> Time for another Post from the Past! I really wanted to write something up today but NOTHING has happened this weekend that I feel is really noteworthy. Therefore, I revisted my old posts today and found one of my favorites. It has to do with a game from Digital: A Love Story creator Christine Love and it blew me away so much, I immediately went and wrote something about it. Enjoy!
Don’t take it personally, babe, it just ain’t your story (yes, that’s what it’s called) isn’t exactly a game. It most closely resembles a text adventure from the infancy of gaming. It has two major differences from those games though; it uses visuals to help supplement the gameplay and it doesn’t actually have any form of input, other than checking your messages from time to time and clicking to advance the text boxes. Instead, Don’t take it personally chooses to focus entirely on its story, a very well crafted and meaningful look at privacy in our world today with the advent of social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook.
In the game, you play a new high school teacher who hasn’t had the best luck in life. Your hopes are to start a great new life here in this school and turn your life around. As part of the school, you are given complete access to the school’s built-in social network, the one all your students use. When I say complete access, I mean it. No message sent between students is hidden from your eyes and the game regularly makes you read every last one of them before you move on. The teacher must deal with these kids in class, secretly knowing all of the drama that happens outside of the classroom, and learn to deal with the friction that constantly erupts.
Along the way, you are treated to an amazing number of wall postings, private conversations, and forum posts from each one of your students. These are brilliantly written, feeling like they come from each character personally. As the game goes on and you learn more about these characters (mostly from the messages), each new message feels like it belongs and you never feel that the message doesn’t match the person. Each message feels like it came from a real person, the one who’s been writing them all along. Of course, the messages are also filled with typos, Internet slang, and memes that can really make you laugh if you know what they are. The author of this game clearly knew what Internet speak looked like and painstakingly recreated it in-game.
These posts aren’t all funny though. We’ve all been in high school and we know the drama that can create. During the course of the game, you see things like gay relationships unfolding, depression, and jealousy portrayed in a very realistic manner. The whole time, you as the teacher have to experience it all and still teach your class each and every day, even as your students cry out in pain online. Several times, your students come to you for advice and the teacher always finds himself in a tight spot. He always knows exactly why they are coming to him but never feels comfortable telling them that. Also, as time goes on, he feels more and more responsible for helping his students, no matter the pain it causes him. Even when the situation entails something he couldn’t possibly have advice on (for example, a lesbian relationship), he can’t help but feel guilty for not being able to help. It develops an interesting rapport between the teacher and his students and shows us something we may have never seen before.
The whole thing ties together in a truly shocking ending that reflects on the overall theme of privacy as a whole. It is an interesting look at the lack of privacy we have today and the game contemplates where it will go in the future (the game takes place about 15 years from now). Will we even know the meaning of the word when all of our messaging and posting shows up for all to see? Does giving a teacher the ability to oversee all of this really help students or would it just drive them insane seeing so many things they can’t help with? Kids today seem to post their deepest feelings online on a whim and don’t always think of the backlash they may receive. Is it the fault of the child though or of the others who post in response? This game looks at these points and many more like it over its length.
I downloaded Don’t take it personally, babe, it just ain’t your story on a whim today and played through the whole thing in one sitting. During its whole length, I was very engrossed in the story, absorbing every message and post, watching as the characters became more developed. The end of the game came at the perfect time and I was left thinking about the overall themes of the game. While a complete lack of gameplay (well, except for a few choices you get to make) may seem boring to some people, I still recommend it. Be prepared to sit there reading for a few hours before you reach the end but I promise that you will be thinking for a long time after finishing it. Look it up on Google if seems up your alley; it’s entirely free.
Don’t take it personally, babe, it just ain’t your story (yes, that’s what it’s called) isn’t exactly a game. It most closely resembles a text adventure from the infancy of gaming. It has two major differences from those games though; it uses visuals to help supplement the gameplay and it doesn’t actually have any form of input, other than checking your messages from time to time and clicking to advance the text boxes. Instead, Don’t take it personally chooses to focus entirely on its story, a very well crafted and meaningful look at privacy in our world today with the advent of social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook.
In the game, you play a new high school teacher who hasn’t had the best luck in life. Your hopes are to start a great new life here in this school and turn your life around. As part of the school, you are given complete access to the school’s built-in social network, the one all your students use. When I say complete access, I mean it. No message sent between students is hidden from your eyes and the game regularly makes you read every last one of them before you move on. The teacher must deal with these kids in class, secretly knowing all of the drama that happens outside of the classroom, and learn to deal with the friction that constantly erupts.
Along the way, you are treated to an amazing number of wall postings, private conversations, and forum posts from each one of your students. These are brilliantly written, feeling like they come from each character personally. As the game goes on and you learn more about these characters (mostly from the messages), each new message feels like it belongs and you never feel that the message doesn’t match the person. Each message feels like it came from a real person, the one who’s been writing them all along. Of course, the messages are also filled with typos, Internet slang, and memes that can really make you laugh if you know what they are. The author of this game clearly knew what Internet speak looked like and painstakingly recreated it in-game.
These posts aren’t all funny though. We’ve all been in high school and we know the drama that can create. During the course of the game, you see things like gay relationships unfolding, depression, and jealousy portrayed in a very realistic manner. The whole time, you as the teacher have to experience it all and still teach your class each and every day, even as your students cry out in pain online. Several times, your students come to you for advice and the teacher always finds himself in a tight spot. He always knows exactly why they are coming to him but never feels comfortable telling them that. Also, as time goes on, he feels more and more responsible for helping his students, no matter the pain it causes him. Even when the situation entails something he couldn’t possibly have advice on (for example, a lesbian relationship), he can’t help but feel guilty for not being able to help. It develops an interesting rapport between the teacher and his students and shows us something we may have never seen before.
The whole thing ties together in a truly shocking ending that reflects on the overall theme of privacy as a whole. It is an interesting look at the lack of privacy we have today and the game contemplates where it will go in the future (the game takes place about 15 years from now). Will we even know the meaning of the word when all of our messaging and posting shows up for all to see? Does giving a teacher the ability to oversee all of this really help students or would it just drive them insane seeing so many things they can’t help with? Kids today seem to post their deepest feelings online on a whim and don’t always think of the backlash they may receive. Is it the fault of the child though or of the others who post in response? This game looks at these points and many more like it over its length.
I downloaded Don’t take it personally, babe, it just ain’t your story on a whim today and played through the whole thing in one sitting. During its whole length, I was very engrossed in the story, absorbing every message and post, watching as the characters became more developed. The end of the game came at the perfect time and I was left thinking about the overall themes of the game. While a complete lack of gameplay (well, except for a few choices you get to make) may seem boring to some people, I still recommend it. Be prepared to sit there reading for a few hours before you reach the end but I promise that you will be thinking for a long time after finishing it. Look it up on Google if seems up your alley; it’s entirely free.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
New Add-On for 3DS, Don't Panic
Yes, I know it's been awhile. Yes, I know the first post of this blog states I wouldn't take a leave of absence. Let's just move past that.
Today, news started to leak about a new add-on for the 3DS. Famitsu scans are all over the Internet, showing us what this add-on looks like. The device is essentially something that snaps onto the current 3DS, giving it a second analog stick and an additional trigger. The announcement was bundled with another announcement: a version of Monster Hunter is coming to the 3DS, big news for Japanese gamers. People have been discussing this like mad ever since it started to spread across the Internet.
So, why is this a big deal? Nintendo has done this before, several times. Things like the Rumble Pak (neat, I'll admit) and the Vitality Sensor (thank god that never came out...) have boggled gamers before and I'm sure they will do it again. The major clamor seems to be over people worrying that Nintendo will include the dongle as a system update down the line, forcing users to buy a new one, probably at a higher price (and allowing them to recoup some of their losses from the recent price drop).
While this may happen, I have two main reasons why it probably won't. The first? Nintendo has done this many times (as I've said) and VERY RARELY does it work. Most of their dongles (Power Pad, Wii Speak, and countless more) failed very hard, only selling to the rich or the curious, so Nintendo doesn't develop them anymore. It is entirely likely that that won't happen again but it is equally likely that it will. The second reason is the conversion rate. How many developers will make games that need the second slide pad if only 5% of users have one? None of them, that's how many. Unless this thing takes off in a big way, no one will bother to develop for it, except maybe Nintendo.
The announcement of Monster Hunter for the 3DS alongside this supports my claims. Nintendo knows of the popularity of the series in Japan and knows they can sell a ton of these things there. Will the same thing happen here? Probably not, seeing as how Monster Hunter doesn't even have a fraction of the popularity that it has overseas here in the U.S. It will release here (potentially) and have maybe two or three games that support it before falling to the wayside.
So, don't worry Internet users. Nintendo has tried this many times in the past and failed nearly every time. While the idea of a second joystick on a portable device sounds good, the DS made its name on games that didn't need that second joystick, something I think the 3DS can do as well.
Today, news started to leak about a new add-on for the 3DS. Famitsu scans are all over the Internet, showing us what this add-on looks like. The device is essentially something that snaps onto the current 3DS, giving it a second analog stick and an additional trigger. The announcement was bundled with another announcement: a version of Monster Hunter is coming to the 3DS, big news for Japanese gamers. People have been discussing this like mad ever since it started to spread across the Internet.
So, why is this a big deal? Nintendo has done this before, several times. Things like the Rumble Pak (neat, I'll admit) and the Vitality Sensor (thank god that never came out...) have boggled gamers before and I'm sure they will do it again. The major clamor seems to be over people worrying that Nintendo will include the dongle as a system update down the line, forcing users to buy a new one, probably at a higher price (and allowing them to recoup some of their losses from the recent price drop).
While this may happen, I have two main reasons why it probably won't. The first? Nintendo has done this many times (as I've said) and VERY RARELY does it work. Most of their dongles (Power Pad, Wii Speak, and countless more) failed very hard, only selling to the rich or the curious, so Nintendo doesn't develop them anymore. It is entirely likely that that won't happen again but it is equally likely that it will. The second reason is the conversion rate. How many developers will make games that need the second slide pad if only 5% of users have one? None of them, that's how many. Unless this thing takes off in a big way, no one will bother to develop for it, except maybe Nintendo.
The announcement of Monster Hunter for the 3DS alongside this supports my claims. Nintendo knows of the popularity of the series in Japan and knows they can sell a ton of these things there. Will the same thing happen here? Probably not, seeing as how Monster Hunter doesn't even have a fraction of the popularity that it has overseas here in the U.S. It will release here (potentially) and have maybe two or three games that support it before falling to the wayside.
So, don't worry Internet users. Nintendo has tried this many times in the past and failed nearly every time. While the idea of a second joystick on a portable device sounds good, the DS made its name on games that didn't need that second joystick, something I think the 3DS can do as well.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Why Did Nintendo Fail With the 3DS?
As you have probably heard on numerous gaming sites today, Nintendo plans to drop its Nintendo 3DS price from $249.99 to $169.99, a whopping 80 dollars, on the very close date of August 12. Additionally, early adopters of 3DS will receive a whopping 20 games (10 NES classics and 10 GBA games), half of which (the GBA games) supposedly won't be sold at a later date to others (I'm calling bull on this already). Why would Nintendo do something like this when it never has in the past?
It's simple, really - the 3DS wasn't really doing too hot. Nintendo also reported earnings for its last fiscal year and they confirmed that sales were abysmal, losing millions of (projected) dollars. How did this happen to a company like Nintendo, a company that released the Wii, the nearly impossible to find system for over a year? There are a few reasons floating around the Internet that stuck out to me in particular.
The first idea floating around is the crappy marketing Nintendo did for its less-informed customers. Tell me, if you heard a new handheld called the 3DS was coming out with no other information, wouldn't you assume it was an add-on to the original DS? The other revisions to the original DS hardware all got fancy names - DS Lite, DSi, and the DSiXL - so why wouldn't the pattern hold? Nintendo barely even mentioned in its marketing that the system was actually a generational step up for the power of the handheld, only focusing on the new 3D elements in its ads. To them, the name was more important and they took a gamble on it, one that didn't exactly pay off.
Most troubling is the eerie similarities to the way the Wii U has been handled so far. When showing the new system at E3, there were several people I saw that thought the new controller was the whole thing! Would you really blame them? Nintendo didn't really show much of the small box running the games in the background, focusing entirely on the new controller and its capabilities. Add in the very similar name (an identical name grab) and the system could run into the same problems. Hopefully Nintendo pays attention to the earlier mistakes and markets this thing right.
The other, more obvious reason why the 3DS probably failed was the lack of quality games released for it in the four and a half months of its life so far. Other than a few stand-out games (Ocarina of Time and Street Fighter IV), most of the titles have been either terrible or inconsequential. Nintendo announced a very exciting lineup of games when they announced the date at E3 last year but have only delivered a few of those games so far. Most people I know who wanted a 3DS decided to wait for more games to come out before they got one, including me. A console won't sell without games to make it a worthwhile purchase and the 3DS's most promising title so far is a game that has been played to death already.
This sudden price drop was a surprising move from Nintendo but one I feel will help them the most in the long run. By lowering the price right around the time when games start to come out in droves again, they may lure a lot more people in on the promise of a new shiny toy.
It's simple, really - the 3DS wasn't really doing too hot. Nintendo also reported earnings for its last fiscal year and they confirmed that sales were abysmal, losing millions of (projected) dollars. How did this happen to a company like Nintendo, a company that released the Wii, the nearly impossible to find system for over a year? There are a few reasons floating around the Internet that stuck out to me in particular.
The first idea floating around is the crappy marketing Nintendo did for its less-informed customers. Tell me, if you heard a new handheld called the 3DS was coming out with no other information, wouldn't you assume it was an add-on to the original DS? The other revisions to the original DS hardware all got fancy names - DS Lite, DSi, and the DSiXL - so why wouldn't the pattern hold? Nintendo barely even mentioned in its marketing that the system was actually a generational step up for the power of the handheld, only focusing on the new 3D elements in its ads. To them, the name was more important and they took a gamble on it, one that didn't exactly pay off.
Most troubling is the eerie similarities to the way the Wii U has been handled so far. When showing the new system at E3, there were several people I saw that thought the new controller was the whole thing! Would you really blame them? Nintendo didn't really show much of the small box running the games in the background, focusing entirely on the new controller and its capabilities. Add in the very similar name (an identical name grab) and the system could run into the same problems. Hopefully Nintendo pays attention to the earlier mistakes and markets this thing right.
The other, more obvious reason why the 3DS probably failed was the lack of quality games released for it in the four and a half months of its life so far. Other than a few stand-out games (Ocarina of Time and Street Fighter IV), most of the titles have been either terrible or inconsequential. Nintendo announced a very exciting lineup of games when they announced the date at E3 last year but have only delivered a few of those games so far. Most people I know who wanted a 3DS decided to wait for more games to come out before they got one, including me. A console won't sell without games to make it a worthwhile purchase and the 3DS's most promising title so far is a game that has been played to death already.
This sudden price drop was a surprising move from Nintendo but one I feel will help them the most in the long run. By lowering the price right around the time when games start to come out in droves again, they may lure a lot more people in on the promise of a new shiny toy.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Mass Effect Movie
Today at Comic-Con, some of the people behind the "upcoming" Mass Effect movie discussed some first details about plans for the movie. They seemed really excited about the project and promised to not make the mistakes of other video game movies. Can they really promise such a thing? Video game movies are almost always bad (or at least middling) and there are only a few reasons I could see why this wouldn't follow that trend.
Quite a few video game worlds are somewhat dull and unbelievable. How many shooters (for example) are there with nondescript Eastern settings and predictable plots? Mass Effect at least has the advantage of being one of the most complex and interesting game worlds ever created, with plenty of room in the universe to expand new and different storylines. With the right writer and enough feedback from the producers at Bioware, it has one of the best chances at doing well I've ever seen.
The other main fault I see in game movies is the indecision the filmmakers have in their portrayal of the story from the games. Some crib heavily from existing stories while others choose to make entirely new ones, warping the fiction into something they think is more "marketable" for everyone. This rarely goes well, with disasters like Super Mario Bros. and Double Dragon. With Mass Effect, the story of the game is something that actually could be used to great effect (I kinda hope they don't though). Most of the strength of the games come from the amazing characters but a slightly more interesting story could be fleshed out from it.
We have to wait and see how this eventually turns out. The movie won't be out for years yet at least and has the distinct possibility of never coming out. So many game movies have fallen by the wayside in the last five years or so, disappearing into setback after setback. Mass Effect has a really good chance though, even if I think it doesn't really need to have a movie made from it.
Quite a few video game worlds are somewhat dull and unbelievable. How many shooters (for example) are there with nondescript Eastern settings and predictable plots? Mass Effect at least has the advantage of being one of the most complex and interesting game worlds ever created, with plenty of room in the universe to expand new and different storylines. With the right writer and enough feedback from the producers at Bioware, it has one of the best chances at doing well I've ever seen.
The other main fault I see in game movies is the indecision the filmmakers have in their portrayal of the story from the games. Some crib heavily from existing stories while others choose to make entirely new ones, warping the fiction into something they think is more "marketable" for everyone. This rarely goes well, with disasters like Super Mario Bros. and Double Dragon. With Mass Effect, the story of the game is something that actually could be used to great effect (I kinda hope they don't though). Most of the strength of the games come from the amazing characters but a slightly more interesting story could be fleshed out from it.
We have to wait and see how this eventually turns out. The movie won't be out for years yet at least and has the distinct possibility of never coming out. So many game movies have fallen by the wayside in the last five years or so, disappearing into setback after setback. Mass Effect has a really good chance though, even if I think it doesn't really need to have a movie made from it.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
A Cornerstone of Journalism
One of the hardest, and arguably most important, parts of being any kind of journalist is being objective. Each day we may see something that speaks to us a bit more personally than most and we may want to say something regarding it in that light. We have a responsibility as journalists to suppress that need and make sure to provide an unbiased opinion on things so as not to color that opinion with feelings and emotions.
One of the best examples I've ever seen of this is how Giant Bomb is treating coverage of Bastion. The four men who make up the core team over there are very good friends with Greg Kasavin, one of the leading men on Bastion. They managed to get him to convince others in his company to bring the game over during development and show the process in making a game with a smaller studio. Over five installments, viewers got to see a much more in-depth look at game development than they have probably ever seen.
Tomorrow, Bastion comes out. Giant Bomb has decided (they even said this back when they started this whole thing) not to run a review. Why would they choose not to, you may ask? They feel that their closeness to the product would only color opinions of the game and hurt their objectivity. This is a level of responsibility I rarely see from game journalists and I really appreciate their decision. Even if everyone else's opinion of the final product matches their own, they don't feel comfortable writing a review.
Objectivity is something game journalists have to fight each day. Someone who plays mostly mature games on their own time may feel an E-rated game is boring and beneath them, focusing on that instead of the actual quality of the product. Or a journalist may have a friend who works on a game and come review time, give the game a better score because they feel obligated. It is the mark of a true journalist when they are able to push their fears and objectivity aside and write something that speaks to the truth of the matter.
One of the best examples I've ever seen of this is how Giant Bomb is treating coverage of Bastion. The four men who make up the core team over there are very good friends with Greg Kasavin, one of the leading men on Bastion. They managed to get him to convince others in his company to bring the game over during development and show the process in making a game with a smaller studio. Over five installments, viewers got to see a much more in-depth look at game development than they have probably ever seen.
Tomorrow, Bastion comes out. Giant Bomb has decided (they even said this back when they started this whole thing) not to run a review. Why would they choose not to, you may ask? They feel that their closeness to the product would only color opinions of the game and hurt their objectivity. This is a level of responsibility I rarely see from game journalists and I really appreciate their decision. Even if everyone else's opinion of the final product matches their own, they don't feel comfortable writing a review.
Objectivity is something game journalists have to fight each day. Someone who plays mostly mature games on their own time may feel an E-rated game is boring and beneath them, focusing on that instead of the actual quality of the product. Or a journalist may have a friend who works on a game and come review time, give the game a better score because they feel obligated. It is the mark of a true journalist when they are able to push their fears and objectivity aside and write something that speaks to the truth of the matter.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Difficulty of Connecting Stories
Sequels are something we gamers (and moviegoers) see each year; why wouldn't a company try and make another of something that was really successful? Of course, game sequels are a bit more acceptable, seeing as how developers want to reuse the assets and game engines they develop, but the number of sequels is still astronomical each year, especially when compared to the original IP's of that year.
A sequel tends to be a more well-developed game (at least most of the time) since the developers understand the mechanics of what they have created better the second time around and can add things they missed out on. Hell, sometimes the sequel is what really kicks off a franchise, some examples being Uncharted and Assassin's Creed. Both second games in those series were phenomenally better than the first and pulled in a much larger crowd the second time around.
What's the point of all this, you ask? I remember Assassin's Creed II being the first Assassin's Creed game I really played. I mean, I did play a few missions of the first game but found it unbearably repetitive, like most people. When the second one came out, and I saw all the coverage of it, I knew that it was something I had to play. That shouldn't have been a problem but I encountered one that is very common with game sequels; I didn't have any idea what had happened in the first game.
What's a person to do if they want to play the second or third game in a series? Do they put the new game on hold and go back to play the first two? Doing so will fill them in on the story but if they are worse games, they could discourage the person from playing the better new one. It's also possible that they get tired of the style of gameplay, if it is very similar. Or do they simply go and read a wiki or forum summary of the earlier game's plot? Doing this will give the person the backstory but it most likely won't sink in as well as it would have from actually playing the game. I know that I personally can't care about or really remember the intricate details of a story from a game I haven't actually played. Still, if this is the only option, a dedicated player will do what they have to to understand the story.
This is an interesting conundrum, one that, thankfully, doesn't come up too often. Some solutions that have existed in the past are things like a "previously on" cutscene before they game that summarizes the events of the last game. This is a bit more meaningful to the player as it lets them see it in a venue closer to the original means. If the story is extremely important to the developer, they could even include a full series of cutscenes covering the entire details of the story (Yakuza 3 did this; not just for this purpose but because previous entries never made it over here). These are really the best things that a developer can do if the story from previous games is important.
Other franchises simply have self-contained stories that don't need all the background info to make sense. Sure, people who played the first Uncharted will have a bit more insight into Nathan Drake but it really isn't necessary to enjoy Uncharted 2. The Final Fantasy series or the Persona series are more great examples of this; both series have numbered entries but each entry is its own story - the world and characters are always set up at the beginning. This techniques ensures that the developer doesn't need to worry about new players of the series.
In the end, the responsibility falls to the player. If the story truly matters to them, they have no better option than going back to play the earlier games. The dedicated ones will be able to accept the gameplay or UI quirks and absorb the information they needed. As time goes on, this will only become more of a concern. Games are evolving as a storytelling device and developers are beginning to feel more comfortable telling their stories over an arc, not just as quickly as they can.
A sequel tends to be a more well-developed game (at least most of the time) since the developers understand the mechanics of what they have created better the second time around and can add things they missed out on. Hell, sometimes the sequel is what really kicks off a franchise, some examples being Uncharted and Assassin's Creed. Both second games in those series were phenomenally better than the first and pulled in a much larger crowd the second time around.
What's the point of all this, you ask? I remember Assassin's Creed II being the first Assassin's Creed game I really played. I mean, I did play a few missions of the first game but found it unbearably repetitive, like most people. When the second one came out, and I saw all the coverage of it, I knew that it was something I had to play. That shouldn't have been a problem but I encountered one that is very common with game sequels; I didn't have any idea what had happened in the first game.
What's a person to do if they want to play the second or third game in a series? Do they put the new game on hold and go back to play the first two? Doing so will fill them in on the story but if they are worse games, they could discourage the person from playing the better new one. It's also possible that they get tired of the style of gameplay, if it is very similar. Or do they simply go and read a wiki or forum summary of the earlier game's plot? Doing this will give the person the backstory but it most likely won't sink in as well as it would have from actually playing the game. I know that I personally can't care about or really remember the intricate details of a story from a game I haven't actually played. Still, if this is the only option, a dedicated player will do what they have to to understand the story.
This is an interesting conundrum, one that, thankfully, doesn't come up too often. Some solutions that have existed in the past are things like a "previously on" cutscene before they game that summarizes the events of the last game. This is a bit more meaningful to the player as it lets them see it in a venue closer to the original means. If the story is extremely important to the developer, they could even include a full series of cutscenes covering the entire details of the story (Yakuza 3 did this; not just for this purpose but because previous entries never made it over here). These are really the best things that a developer can do if the story from previous games is important.
Other franchises simply have self-contained stories that don't need all the background info to make sense. Sure, people who played the first Uncharted will have a bit more insight into Nathan Drake but it really isn't necessary to enjoy Uncharted 2. The Final Fantasy series or the Persona series are more great examples of this; both series have numbered entries but each entry is its own story - the world and characters are always set up at the beginning. This techniques ensures that the developer doesn't need to worry about new players of the series.
In the end, the responsibility falls to the player. If the story truly matters to them, they have no better option than going back to play the earlier games. The dedicated ones will be able to accept the gameplay or UI quirks and absorb the information they needed. As time goes on, this will only become more of a concern. Games are evolving as a storytelling device and developers are beginning to feel more comfortable telling their stories over an arc, not just as quickly as they can.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Games That Get Harder As You Die?
Today, on GameSetWatch, an indie game called GlitchHiker was discussed. In this game, each death of the player character introduces a glitch into the game world. As the player dies more and more, the world becomes filled with these obstacles. An unheard of idea for a game, it actually gets harder as you try again and again. Instead of rewarding the player for their death with knowledge of what is to come, the world changes to get in the player's way even more.
As I read this, I couldn't help but wonder if this could even work as a game today. Compared to some of the early NES games, today's games are fairly forgiving with checkpoints at nearly every turn and some games even offering to turn down the difficulty if you die too many times at one point. In the NES days, developers needed to make their games hard so players wouldn't get bored so quickly, since the games were relatively short (a lot of them, anyways). Nowadays, most games are 5-6 hours + and the focus seems to instead be on experiencing the world and the story over the actual challenge.
An extreme example is something like Prince of Persia, the 2008 reimagining of the franchise. In this game, any missed jump or failed encounter resulted in your female companion, Elika, saving you instantly. You then return to the point right before you fell, almost removing any penality to messing up. Some people thought it was an interesting move but even they admitted it made the game extremely easy. If the game had been any shorter than it was, many more complaints would probably have been lodged against the developer.
Quite a few games have a simple pattern; you try an area and you either succeed or fail. If you fail, the area tends to be easier the next time because you know what to expect (enemy placements in a shooter, boss mechanics in an RPG, etc.). The player either has the skill or luck to succeed the first time or learns from their mistakes. There are a few games out there that aren't so straightforward and have a bit of flow to their challenge. The Halo series is a good example, including enemy A.I. and placement that makes it possible for the same encounter to be different every time you play it. While it isn't radically different, it can be enough so that the player must adapt more on the fly instead of simply learning the right way to do it.
Would going all the way in something like this truly work? What if every time you died in a shooter, the level randomized its layout and more enemies appeared? Or what if dying in an RPG changed a boss' fight mechanics and gave him more health? Instead of rewarding the player for trying again, you instead make it less likely that they succeed in the game. This is why I don't think it could ever work. Most people aren't going to appreciate the ramp-up in challenge; they will simply stop playing the game and not buy any more like it. We depend too much on games being something we can learn to beat for a mechanic like this to be overly prevalent.
As I read this, I couldn't help but wonder if this could even work as a game today. Compared to some of the early NES games, today's games are fairly forgiving with checkpoints at nearly every turn and some games even offering to turn down the difficulty if you die too many times at one point. In the NES days, developers needed to make their games hard so players wouldn't get bored so quickly, since the games were relatively short (a lot of them, anyways). Nowadays, most games are 5-6 hours + and the focus seems to instead be on experiencing the world and the story over the actual challenge.
An extreme example is something like Prince of Persia, the 2008 reimagining of the franchise. In this game, any missed jump or failed encounter resulted in your female companion, Elika, saving you instantly. You then return to the point right before you fell, almost removing any penality to messing up. Some people thought it was an interesting move but even they admitted it made the game extremely easy. If the game had been any shorter than it was, many more complaints would probably have been lodged against the developer.
Quite a few games have a simple pattern; you try an area and you either succeed or fail. If you fail, the area tends to be easier the next time because you know what to expect (enemy placements in a shooter, boss mechanics in an RPG, etc.). The player either has the skill or luck to succeed the first time or learns from their mistakes. There are a few games out there that aren't so straightforward and have a bit of flow to their challenge. The Halo series is a good example, including enemy A.I. and placement that makes it possible for the same encounter to be different every time you play it. While it isn't radically different, it can be enough so that the player must adapt more on the fly instead of simply learning the right way to do it.
Would going all the way in something like this truly work? What if every time you died in a shooter, the level randomized its layout and more enemies appeared? Or what if dying in an RPG changed a boss' fight mechanics and gave him more health? Instead of rewarding the player for trying again, you instead make it less likely that they succeed in the game. This is why I don't think it could ever work. Most people aren't going to appreciate the ramp-up in challenge; they will simply stop playing the game and not buy any more like it. We depend too much on games being something we can learn to beat for a mechanic like this to be overly prevalent.
Monday, July 11, 2011
What's in a Name?
A good name can inspire images and feelings that a bad one just can't. Some people out there even buy games based solely on the game's name and its boxart. One of the first things you learn about any game is the name (except with sequels, usually). For some people, the name of a game is almost the more important thing about it. What impact does a game's name have on the first impressions of a gamer hearing about it and, as a result, the game's sales? This is something I've always wondered about the gaming industry.
Nearly every company that develops a game will go through testing to figure out which name they like best. Sometimes this just means an internal team that works on the most striking name. Other times, developers will ask gamers what they think the game should be called. Existing brand names are also a valuable commodity, with series like Medal of Honor and X-COM having new games published. An existing brand name can be of great use to a company, resulting in less need to publicize their game. If someone who really liked the first Medal of Honor games hears that a new one is coming out, they most likely will pick it up with fewer questions asked.
Of course, anyone who really cares about video games isn't going to mind a bad name if the game is great. Sure, we still laugh at silly names (Mindjack?) but they don't have as adverse an effect on us. Another example is the Wii U; most game journalists I read articles from after the name announcement thought it was stupid. Of course, Nintendo did it because they wanted the Wii name in the title for extra marketing and because the system isn't improved enough for the Wii 2. Game titles are still an interesting thing to me, able to inspire some very vivid images but not really mattering in the grand scheme of things.
Nearly every company that develops a game will go through testing to figure out which name they like best. Sometimes this just means an internal team that works on the most striking name. Other times, developers will ask gamers what they think the game should be called. Existing brand names are also a valuable commodity, with series like Medal of Honor and X-COM having new games published. An existing brand name can be of great use to a company, resulting in less need to publicize their game. If someone who really liked the first Medal of Honor games hears that a new one is coming out, they most likely will pick it up with fewer questions asked.
Of course, anyone who really cares about video games isn't going to mind a bad name if the game is great. Sure, we still laugh at silly names (Mindjack?) but they don't have as adverse an effect on us. Another example is the Wii U; most game journalists I read articles from after the name announcement thought it was stupid. Of course, Nintendo did it because they wanted the Wii name in the title for extra marketing and because the system isn't improved enough for the Wii 2. Game titles are still an interesting thing to me, able to inspire some very vivid images but not really mattering in the grand scheme of things.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Post from the Past: Nature or Nuture?
>While I do feel a bit bad at doing this, there isn't much to talk about today in gaming. As such, I am going to post one of my favorite pieces of writing I did from the last one of these blogs. I won't resort to this too often but don't be surprised to see more articles from my past.
Today, I finished Red Dead Redemption. Yeah, I know I'm behind the rest of the world, but I have a hard time finishing Rockstar games anymore. Too much running back and forth, picking up missions, starting over if you fail. I digress, since I'm not here to talk about my issues with Rockstar games. Instead, I'd like to give my views on the ending, the thing that drove me to actually finish the game. WARNING: I will be discussing the ending in detail here. It's been long enough. Don't read if you don't want to be spoiled.
At the end of 2010, Giantbomb.com did its annual Game of the Year awards, with several podcasts devoted to the discussion and choosing of the winners. During the Best Ending segment, Brad Shoemaker (and Ryan Davis to a degree) could not stop talking about the ending, saying it was one of the best gaming endings of the last decade. These people are some I have come to trust when it comes to video games, so I knew I would eventually have to power through to the ending.
In the game, you play John Marston, a man with a past he isn't too proud of. He'd like nothing more than to just forget his past and move on with his life. Unfortunately for him, our pasts have a way of catching up with us and his does just that. He is tasked with catching the members of the gang he used to run with and bringing them to justice. Over the course of the game, you chase down all three of them and kill them all. Finally, John is free from his duties and gets to return home to his family. All he wants is to live right and bring up his son to be a better man than he. In one of the cutscenes, he even says that his boy can be anything, except a gunslinger like him.
Sadly, the people that forced him to kill his former friends come back for him, whether because they truly felt he was still a threat or just because a promotion was in it for them if they did. Your main character, the one you've played for at least 25 hours or so, dies right in front of your eyes, albeit in a partial blaze of glory. You are given about 20 men to shoot without enough time to do so, failing at your task no matter how many times you try. It is John's fate to die and die he does.
Surprisingly, the game doesn't quite end there. After a few cutscenes, you take control of John's son Jack about 3 years after his death or so. No other story missions are given to you, no letters on the map to go out and chase. Instead, you can find a Stranger mission, basically a side quest, that allows you to go after John's killer. The game doesn't force you to do this, instead hiding the mission away. While the game isn't truly done (as in credits rolling) until you finish this side mission, it is the player's choice to do it.
If the player undertakes this mission, you duel Agent Ross. When the final shots ring out and Ross drops to the ground, you see Jack just look down at the pistol he is holding, almost confused at his actions. Why had he taken this act of revenge? Doesn't that ruin everything his father fought for, the future he brutally died to protect? He walks away and the credits roll (plus, the most awesome late title card ever!) Even more, the achievement that pops up for finishing the game is titled "Nature or Nurture?" perfectly capping the story and making the gamer think about the journey he or she just undertook.
All in all, I don't think it quite lived up to the hype (nothing ever does though) but I can safely agree that it was one of the best video game endings I have ever seen. Few games can capture such a poignant message, truly making us think about the actions we performed in the game instead of just being rewarded with a "You saved the Earth!" message. Leave it to Rockstar to spin a yarn of such amazing quality that you can't help but be blown away, finishing the game only to set the controller down, sit back, and go "Wow."
Today, I finished Red Dead Redemption. Yeah, I know I'm behind the rest of the world, but I have a hard time finishing Rockstar games anymore. Too much running back and forth, picking up missions, starting over if you fail. I digress, since I'm not here to talk about my issues with Rockstar games. Instead, I'd like to give my views on the ending, the thing that drove me to actually finish the game. WARNING: I will be discussing the ending in detail here. It's been long enough. Don't read if you don't want to be spoiled.
At the end of 2010, Giantbomb.com did its annual Game of the Year awards, with several podcasts devoted to the discussion and choosing of the winners. During the Best Ending segment, Brad Shoemaker (and Ryan Davis to a degree) could not stop talking about the ending, saying it was one of the best gaming endings of the last decade. These people are some I have come to trust when it comes to video games, so I knew I would eventually have to power through to the ending.
In the game, you play John Marston, a man with a past he isn't too proud of. He'd like nothing more than to just forget his past and move on with his life. Unfortunately for him, our pasts have a way of catching up with us and his does just that. He is tasked with catching the members of the gang he used to run with and bringing them to justice. Over the course of the game, you chase down all three of them and kill them all. Finally, John is free from his duties and gets to return home to his family. All he wants is to live right and bring up his son to be a better man than he. In one of the cutscenes, he even says that his boy can be anything, except a gunslinger like him.
Sadly, the people that forced him to kill his former friends come back for him, whether because they truly felt he was still a threat or just because a promotion was in it for them if they did. Your main character, the one you've played for at least 25 hours or so, dies right in front of your eyes, albeit in a partial blaze of glory. You are given about 20 men to shoot without enough time to do so, failing at your task no matter how many times you try. It is John's fate to die and die he does.
Surprisingly, the game doesn't quite end there. After a few cutscenes, you take control of John's son Jack about 3 years after his death or so. No other story missions are given to you, no letters on the map to go out and chase. Instead, you can find a Stranger mission, basically a side quest, that allows you to go after John's killer. The game doesn't force you to do this, instead hiding the mission away. While the game isn't truly done (as in credits rolling) until you finish this side mission, it is the player's choice to do it.
If the player undertakes this mission, you duel Agent Ross. When the final shots ring out and Ross drops to the ground, you see Jack just look down at the pistol he is holding, almost confused at his actions. Why had he taken this act of revenge? Doesn't that ruin everything his father fought for, the future he brutally died to protect? He walks away and the credits roll (plus, the most awesome late title card ever!) Even more, the achievement that pops up for finishing the game is titled "Nature or Nurture?" perfectly capping the story and making the gamer think about the journey he or she just undertook.
All in all, I don't think it quite lived up to the hype (nothing ever does though) but I can safely agree that it was one of the best video game endings I have ever seen. Few games can capture such a poignant message, truly making us think about the actions we performed in the game instead of just being rewarded with a "You saved the Earth!" message. Leave it to Rockstar to spin a yarn of such amazing quality that you can't help but be blown away, finishing the game only to set the controller down, sit back, and go "Wow."
Friday, July 8, 2011
Automatic Game Demos Coming to 3DS and Wii?
President of Nintendo Satoru Iwata brought up the idea of automatic game demos when talking to investors today. He proposes a system where users are asked if they would like to receive free demos when setting up online on their devices. Demos would then be pushed automatically to these devices when they are turned on next. He would love to try this on both the 3DS and the Wii U.
I can foresee two potential problems with this idea, however. The first would be the speed with which the demo could be downloaded. While the 3DS and the Wii U both have smaller games than the more advanced platforms, the file size of demos still keeps increasing. Demos over a gigabyte in size are commonplace nowadays and some people still don't have fast enough Internet to grab a file of this size. Developers would have to be more creative in compacting their demos or download speed would have to be increased in some way to make not an issue.
The other problem would be with the storage space itself. The Wii and the 3DS (and I'm assuming the Wii U?) have a fairly small amount of storage memory. On the Wii, Nintendo even encouraged users to delete some of their games to get new ones, instead of just having enough space for all of them. Microsoft and Sony have acknowledged the need for hard drive space and keep increasing the size of internal storage; Nintendo needs to follow suit or they are going to be left in the dust.
Even with these problems, this sounds like the next logical step in the demo chain. I have a deep love for demos, having both bought a game on a demo's merit and changed my mind after seeing it played. The idea of any demos I'm interested in just showing up on my device? Sign me up now!
I can foresee two potential problems with this idea, however. The first would be the speed with which the demo could be downloaded. While the 3DS and the Wii U both have smaller games than the more advanced platforms, the file size of demos still keeps increasing. Demos over a gigabyte in size are commonplace nowadays and some people still don't have fast enough Internet to grab a file of this size. Developers would have to be more creative in compacting their demos or download speed would have to be increased in some way to make not an issue.
The other problem would be with the storage space itself. The Wii and the 3DS (and I'm assuming the Wii U?) have a fairly small amount of storage memory. On the Wii, Nintendo even encouraged users to delete some of their games to get new ones, instead of just having enough space for all of them. Microsoft and Sony have acknowledged the need for hard drive space and keep increasing the size of internal storage; Nintendo needs to follow suit or they are going to be left in the dust.
Even with these problems, this sounds like the next logical step in the demo chain. I have a deep love for demos, having both bought a game on a demo's merit and changed my mind after seeing it played. The idea of any demos I'm interested in just showing up on my device? Sign me up now!
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Tricky Issue of DRM
DRM is a tricky business when it comes to PC games. Ever since the advent of PC gaming, there have been those people who find ways around pirate protection and crack it for the world to have. No company likes losing money so they have all inevitably come up with different ways to combat the pirates. Hackers, being the resourceful people that they are, always find a way around DRM plans, much to the chagrin of the publishers and developers. Who is more to blame for the increasingly annoying DRM rolling out on PC games: the companies or the pirates?
Probably the worst case scenario of DRM was when Ubisoft rolled out its "always online" requirement for several of its PC games a few years ago, including Silent Hunter and Assassin's Creed II. The company promised stable servers and argued that the change would be best for both Ubisoft and gamers. When the servers crashed only a few days after release, the only people who could play these games, ironically, were the pirates. EA's pre-Origin online store system is another one to blame. Any time you bought a game through EA you got to download it once. If you wanted to download it again, you paid an additional $5 for the "right" to download it again. How crazy is this? Doesn't buying the original game give you the right to download it repeatedly in the first place?
On the flip side, you have The Witcher 2. CD Red Projekt, developers of the game, announced before release that the game would be sold online with NO DRM. Plenty of games come out each year without any DRM but much-anticipated ones like the Witcher 2would usually never dare to do such a thing, fearing a high rate of piracy. To make things even more crazy, the game is still PC exclusive. CD Red Projekt took a high risk but one that I feel paid off. Publishers like Ubisoft who try to punish average consumers for piracy of their games is almost childish and only causes more bad press for them in the long run.
Unfortunately, games are something that will always be pirated. While totally justified, sixty dollars is a lot for some people to drop for the latest game. The very easy setup of pirated games and the speed with which they are cracked and released make it a very tempting thing for those people with tight funds. As a favor to me, if you ever consider pirating a game, don't. Support the games you like with money and positive comments and you will be rewarded with more from those developers. If we keep pirating games on the PC, we may reach a future where no one even bothers to try.
Probably the worst case scenario of DRM was when Ubisoft rolled out its "always online" requirement for several of its PC games a few years ago, including Silent Hunter and Assassin's Creed II. The company promised stable servers and argued that the change would be best for both Ubisoft and gamers. When the servers crashed only a few days after release, the only people who could play these games, ironically, were the pirates. EA's pre-Origin online store system is another one to blame. Any time you bought a game through EA you got to download it once. If you wanted to download it again, you paid an additional $5 for the "right" to download it again. How crazy is this? Doesn't buying the original game give you the right to download it repeatedly in the first place?
On the flip side, you have The Witcher 2. CD Red Projekt, developers of the game, announced before release that the game would be sold online with NO DRM. Plenty of games come out each year without any DRM but much-anticipated ones like the Witcher 2would usually never dare to do such a thing, fearing a high rate of piracy. To make things even more crazy, the game is still PC exclusive. CD Red Projekt took a high risk but one that I feel paid off. Publishers like Ubisoft who try to punish average consumers for piracy of their games is almost childish and only causes more bad press for them in the long run.
Unfortunately, games are something that will always be pirated. While totally justified, sixty dollars is a lot for some people to drop for the latest game. The very easy setup of pirated games and the speed with which they are cracked and released make it a very tempting thing for those people with tight funds. As a favor to me, if you ever consider pirating a game, don't. Support the games you like with money and positive comments and you will be rewarded with more from those developers. If we keep pirating games on the PC, we may reach a future where no one even bothers to try.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Streaming Game Footage to Become Illegal?
Odds are if you're a gamer who uses the Internet, you probably know what a "Let's Play" is. For those who don't, "Let's Plays" are when people film themselves playing various games while commentating on them. They became really popular in the last few years, especially with the rise of Minecraft. I personally have enjoyed several of these videos and even put some thought into some of my own.
Visitors of Youtube may know that some music videos (and just videos where the song plays) get pulled on a regular basis, usually by the distributor of the music. These distributors would rather host the video on their own channels and can argue copyright infringement. Unfortunately, there are some videos that get pulled without a replacement from the artists, making it harder and harder to track down certain things. Movies of course get the same treatment; people who post whole movies on Youtube usually have them pulled by the distributor. There must be people whose only job nowadays is to look for their companies' stuff hosted illegally.
Games have never really been persecuted in this way. Game footage and "Let's Plays" are everywhere and are very rarely pulled (usually only if the footage is under NDA or not released). This may change very soon. A Senate Bill is underway that hopes to make streaming any unauthorized content, including game footage, a felony. Music and movie streaming copyrights aren't quite a crime yet but if this bill passes, it will apply to music, movies, and games (and anything else, of course).
This would be a very harsh penalty for gamers just look to entertain or show others a cool game. Most game developers seem to be okay with game footage showing up on websites and I think it's for one simple reason: the point of a game is to actually play it. Companies could care less about streamed gameplay because it probably actually sells more copies of the game, showing potential consumers a game they may want to buy. I personally have bought more than one game from Giantbomb's Quick Looks (a 20-40 min playing of a new game) or "Let's Plays." For now, we just have to wait and see how the bill progresses. It is in a very early state right now, so there is plenty of time for change.
Visitors of Youtube may know that some music videos (and just videos where the song plays) get pulled on a regular basis, usually by the distributor of the music. These distributors would rather host the video on their own channels and can argue copyright infringement. Unfortunately, there are some videos that get pulled without a replacement from the artists, making it harder and harder to track down certain things. Movies of course get the same treatment; people who post whole movies on Youtube usually have them pulled by the distributor. There must be people whose only job nowadays is to look for their companies' stuff hosted illegally.
Games have never really been persecuted in this way. Game footage and "Let's Plays" are everywhere and are very rarely pulled (usually only if the footage is under NDA or not released). This may change very soon. A Senate Bill is underway that hopes to make streaming any unauthorized content, including game footage, a felony. Music and movie streaming copyrights aren't quite a crime yet but if this bill passes, it will apply to music, movies, and games (and anything else, of course).
This would be a very harsh penalty for gamers just look to entertain or show others a cool game. Most game developers seem to be okay with game footage showing up on websites and I think it's for one simple reason: the point of a game is to actually play it. Companies could care less about streamed gameplay because it probably actually sells more copies of the game, showing potential consumers a game they may want to buy. I personally have bought more than one game from Giantbomb's Quick Looks (a 20-40 min playing of a new game) or "Let's Plays." For now, we just have to wait and see how the bill progresses. It is in a very early state right now, so there is plenty of time for change.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Length /= Price?
I've been playing games frequently since I was five years old. That fateful Christmas where I got my own first gaming console, the SNES, triggered a lifelong love for this amazing form of entertainment. I can remember spending hours with games like Super Mario World and Donkey Kong Country, replaying them again and again. They weren't the longest games out there at the time but they were immensely fun to play over and over.
One thing I've noticed about gamers today is that there are so many more complaints about game length. If a game isn't long enough, some people feel it isn't "worth it." Developers have started tacking on multiplayer modes to just about every game, hoping to get people to hang onto their copies longer without selling them to a Gamestop. Where did this thinking about the value of a game come from? Some games from the SNES and N64 eras were just as short, if not shorter than the games coming out on current systems. There have always been RPG's with their dozens of hours, but for most games in other genres, complaints seem to be high about the "dollars to hours" ratio.
Limbo is a great example of this. Many people didn't think the 2 hour game was worth $15 and should have been $10 instead. On the other hand, quite a few gamers had a very powerful experience and felt it was worth the price. How do you price an experience that could vary greatly from one person to the next? In some people's opinions, a great story or powerful experience can even be worthwhile in a game with terrible gameplay, an example being Deadly Premonition. Deadly Premonition matches a fascinating world and story with some very shoddy gameplay but managed to entice a lot of people. Of course, the game was also $20 at launch, making it a much easier pill to swallow. It is a safe assumption that Deadly Premonition wouldn’t have been nearly as popular if it been priced higher.
Is this trend of valuing games’ worth due to games not impressing gamers enough nowadays? I can remember games like the ones mentioned above for SNES and how many times I must have played them over and over. I didn't care that they were that short because they were a great time each time through. Could one view this as a lack of truly memorable games from our generation? Or are we as gamers evolving into something new, expecting more innovations in story and gameplay for the money we pay for these games?
One thing I've noticed about gamers today is that there are so many more complaints about game length. If a game isn't long enough, some people feel it isn't "worth it." Developers have started tacking on multiplayer modes to just about every game, hoping to get people to hang onto their copies longer without selling them to a Gamestop. Where did this thinking about the value of a game come from? Some games from the SNES and N64 eras were just as short, if not shorter than the games coming out on current systems. There have always been RPG's with their dozens of hours, but for most games in other genres, complaints seem to be high about the "dollars to hours" ratio.
Limbo is a great example of this. Many people didn't think the 2 hour game was worth $15 and should have been $10 instead. On the other hand, quite a few gamers had a very powerful experience and felt it was worth the price. How do you price an experience that could vary greatly from one person to the next? In some people's opinions, a great story or powerful experience can even be worthwhile in a game with terrible gameplay, an example being Deadly Premonition. Deadly Premonition matches a fascinating world and story with some very shoddy gameplay but managed to entice a lot of people. Of course, the game was also $20 at launch, making it a much easier pill to swallow. It is a safe assumption that Deadly Premonition wouldn’t have been nearly as popular if it been priced higher.
Is this trend of valuing games’ worth due to games not impressing gamers enough nowadays? I can remember games like the ones mentioned above for SNES and how many times I must have played them over and over. I didn't care that they were that short because they were a great time each time through. Could one view this as a lack of truly memorable games from our generation? Or are we as gamers evolving into something new, expecting more innovations in story and gameplay for the money we pay for these games?
Monday, July 4, 2011
The Insanity of Valve
Like many gamers, I have succumbed to the amazing summer Steam sale, buying up tons of games already. My purchases so far are:
- BIT.TRIP.RUNNER
- Might and Magic Pack
- Everyday Shooter
- Garshasp
- Just Cause 2
- Mount and Blade: Warband
- Singularity
- Transformers: War for Cybertron
I would have easily bought a few more games but my funds are tight and I'm trying to buy only a few things each day so I can check out each of the daily sales. Picking up gems like Just Cause 2 for $5 is amazing and is definitely worth it. I'm always amazed at how many sales Steam is able to offer to its customers, not to mention some of the deals are unbelievably good.
I haven't really been up to much lately, just playing some of my new Steam games while listening to some older episodes of the Giant Bombcast (from Giantbomb.com). I got back in to Team Fortress 2 as well, after having only played about 7-8 hours at some point back in 2009 (when I bought it). Seeing all the changes Valve made to it really shocked me; they seem to be one of the few developers left out there acting like PC developers of old. By releasing free updates frequently, they keep their gamers happy and coming back week after week. The only slightly shady side may be the microtransactions.
Of course, I can't fault Valve for trying to recoup some of the development costs of all these updates (even more so, now that the game is free to play). They even offer options to make the weapons you don't have with the ones you have multiples of, ensuring that those who play enough and are patient never have to spend a dime. With random chests dropping that require keys to open (keys that must be bought with real money) and vanity hats going for extremely high prices, there is a twinge of uncomfortableness to the level of the microtransactions.
Hopefully, I'll have a more in-depth post tomorrow. Waiting for a good idea to come along and inspire me to write something more interesting. I know that the last one wasn't too hot and wanna make it up to myself. Enjoy the last bit of your weekend! And get TF2 if you haven't already!
- BIT.TRIP.RUNNER
- Might and Magic Pack
- Everyday Shooter
- Garshasp
- Just Cause 2
- Mount and Blade: Warband
- Singularity
- Transformers: War for Cybertron
I would have easily bought a few more games but my funds are tight and I'm trying to buy only a few things each day so I can check out each of the daily sales. Picking up gems like Just Cause 2 for $5 is amazing and is definitely worth it. I'm always amazed at how many sales Steam is able to offer to its customers, not to mention some of the deals are unbelievably good.
I haven't really been up to much lately, just playing some of my new Steam games while listening to some older episodes of the Giant Bombcast (from Giantbomb.com). I got back in to Team Fortress 2 as well, after having only played about 7-8 hours at some point back in 2009 (when I bought it). Seeing all the changes Valve made to it really shocked me; they seem to be one of the few developers left out there acting like PC developers of old. By releasing free updates frequently, they keep their gamers happy and coming back week after week. The only slightly shady side may be the microtransactions.
Of course, I can't fault Valve for trying to recoup some of the development costs of all these updates (even more so, now that the game is free to play). They even offer options to make the weapons you don't have with the ones you have multiples of, ensuring that those who play enough and are patient never have to spend a dime. With random chests dropping that require keys to open (keys that must be bought with real money) and vanity hats going for extremely high prices, there is a twinge of uncomfortableness to the level of the microtransactions.
Hopefully, I'll have a more in-depth post tomorrow. Waiting for a good idea to come along and inspire me to write something more interesting. I know that the last one wasn't too hot and wanna make it up to myself. Enjoy the last bit of your weekend! And get TF2 if you haven't already!
Saturday, July 2, 2011
You Know, "Those Games"...
One of the questions I feel I can always ask just about any gamer out there is "Remember that game that everyone liked that you absolutely hated?" Whether you hated every part of it or saw the merit in it but still didn't want to play it, it seems we all have those few games that boggle our minds with their popularity. The two that came to mind for me when I started thinking about this post are Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II and Red Dead Redemption. Both had gameplay systems in place that really turned me off: Warhammer's RTS-ness (not my favorite genre) and the very archaic mission structure of Red Dead.
I have always been really bummed out by my dislike of these two games in particular because so many people are so positive about the experiences they had with them. As an aspiring game journalist, I feel the need to play everything that I feel has merit, needing to know where newer games are coming from. Because of this, I actually have finished Red Dead and am in the process of finishing Warhammer. In the case of Warhammer, I am really struggling to get through it. Even with the interesting universe and the neat concept of loot in an RTS, it's still an RTS. The prospect of finishing it and getting it off my "games to beat" list is all that is sustaining me at this point.
On the other hand, I truly enjoyed the narrative and character development in Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar's stories always shine through the somewhat shoddy gameplay and make me truly enjoy the experience. Of course, to reach the finale of this story, I had to play repetitive mission after repetitive mission in order to achieve my goal, something that nearly drove me mad. I had this same experience with Grand Theft Auto IV, taking about five restarts until I set my chin and charged straight through. Rockstar's brand of open-world irritates me but I can do it for the story.
Old games are another tricky beast; if you haven't played older PC games (in particular), it can be really hard to go back to that. They are much more brutal in difficulty, don't explain much, and can look really ugly (not the biggest issue, by far). However, some of these experiences are defining in video game history and need to be known about. Deus Ex constantly tops best game lists and can be extremely challenging for a new player to hop in to today, expecting a long tutorial and waypoint objectives. It is really a sign of just how much games have changed.
My advice to you is if you don't like a game, just don't play it. Most of the time the experience you MAY get out of it, if the game doesn't just piss you off to no end, is not worth the hassle. Weigh the value of what you want from the game (gameplay, story, etc.) and determine if it is something you might want to to do. As I said in my last post, games are meant to be fun, and just because a game is highly praised it doesn't mean you will necessarily like it (or vice-versa).
I have always been really bummed out by my dislike of these two games in particular because so many people are so positive about the experiences they had with them. As an aspiring game journalist, I feel the need to play everything that I feel has merit, needing to know where newer games are coming from. Because of this, I actually have finished Red Dead and am in the process of finishing Warhammer. In the case of Warhammer, I am really struggling to get through it. Even with the interesting universe and the neat concept of loot in an RTS, it's still an RTS. The prospect of finishing it and getting it off my "games to beat" list is all that is sustaining me at this point.
On the other hand, I truly enjoyed the narrative and character development in Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar's stories always shine through the somewhat shoddy gameplay and make me truly enjoy the experience. Of course, to reach the finale of this story, I had to play repetitive mission after repetitive mission in order to achieve my goal, something that nearly drove me mad. I had this same experience with Grand Theft Auto IV, taking about five restarts until I set my chin and charged straight through. Rockstar's brand of open-world irritates me but I can do it for the story.
Old games are another tricky beast; if you haven't played older PC games (in particular), it can be really hard to go back to that. They are much more brutal in difficulty, don't explain much, and can look really ugly (not the biggest issue, by far). However, some of these experiences are defining in video game history and need to be known about. Deus Ex constantly tops best game lists and can be extremely challenging for a new player to hop in to today, expecting a long tutorial and waypoint objectives. It is really a sign of just how much games have changed.
My advice to you is if you don't like a game, just don't play it. Most of the time the experience you MAY get out of it, if the game doesn't just piss you off to no end, is not worth the hassle. Weigh the value of what you want from the game (gameplay, story, etc.) and determine if it is something you might want to to do. As I said in my last post, games are meant to be fun, and just because a game is highly praised it doesn't mean you will necessarily like it (or vice-versa).
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Remember: Games are Fun
Everyone plays video games for different reasons. Some play to escape the reality of the world. Some play for money, whether it be as a professional gamer or as a journalist. Most, however, play games simply because they are fun. Unlike a movie or a book, by playing a game, a person is able to fully step into a world completely different from our own, by being an active participant as a character. It really is no wonder that video games have grown to such a huge audience, since they have become magical (and accessible) enough for people of all types and ages to become enthralled by them.
Why do I bring this up? I've been reading a lot about game journalism lately, trying to soak up everything I can. By hearing about so many stories, I am starting to build my view on the world of video game journalism and understand what it truly is. One thing that really started sticking out to me is how many of these journalists talked about a video game fatigue, a point where they just don't enjoy playing games anymore.
It makes perfect sense when you think about it; game journalists are often given games to cover that they don't wish to even look at but are forced to for work. Even the games they play because of actual interest must be broken down and analyzed intently, something that can possibly take the fun out of even the best games. It's a sad thing to think about and one I'm trying to take a stand against right now.
Currently, I play games in a very particular way. I own maybe 30-40 games that I want to complete at some point, that list ever growing as new games come out (something that makes me move that much faster through a game). As each game is finished, the next one on the list is selected and I play it. Sometimes, I'll play some old games for a change of pace (just did Mass Effect 2 on Insanity, for example). Unfortunately, this has led me to a very irritating and boring pattern in which I complete goal after goal in each game, almost asleep from the autonomy with which my body moves through them. A deep-seated urge to reach the end of my list of games to beat constantly pounds in the back of my head and I find it very hard to silence sometimes.
So, starting today, I am going to (and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same) find the true enjoyment in every game I play. Instead of rushing my way through game after game, I will take the time to savor the looks or the music of a particular game, finding what speaks to me about each particular one and, most importantly, enjoying it. Of course, I will still look at each game with a practical eye too (what kind of "future" journalist would I be if I didn't?) but I want to stop and have a good time with each of them. Each and every game is an amazing accomplishment that took a dedicated group of people thousands of manhours to make; don't they deserve more attention for the games they've created?
Why do I bring this up? I've been reading a lot about game journalism lately, trying to soak up everything I can. By hearing about so many stories, I am starting to build my view on the world of video game journalism and understand what it truly is. One thing that really started sticking out to me is how many of these journalists talked about a video game fatigue, a point where they just don't enjoy playing games anymore.
It makes perfect sense when you think about it; game journalists are often given games to cover that they don't wish to even look at but are forced to for work. Even the games they play because of actual interest must be broken down and analyzed intently, something that can possibly take the fun out of even the best games. It's a sad thing to think about and one I'm trying to take a stand against right now.
Currently, I play games in a very particular way. I own maybe 30-40 games that I want to complete at some point, that list ever growing as new games come out (something that makes me move that much faster through a game). As each game is finished, the next one on the list is selected and I play it. Sometimes, I'll play some old games for a change of pace (just did Mass Effect 2 on Insanity, for example). Unfortunately, this has led me to a very irritating and boring pattern in which I complete goal after goal in each game, almost asleep from the autonomy with which my body moves through them. A deep-seated urge to reach the end of my list of games to beat constantly pounds in the back of my head and I find it very hard to silence sometimes.
So, starting today, I am going to (and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same) find the true enjoyment in every game I play. Instead of rushing my way through game after game, I will take the time to savor the looks or the music of a particular game, finding what speaks to me about each particular one and, most importantly, enjoying it. Of course, I will still look at each game with a practical eye too (what kind of "future" journalist would I be if I didn't?) but I want to stop and have a good time with each of them. Each and every game is an amazing accomplishment that took a dedicated group of people thousands of manhours to make; don't they deserve more attention for the games they've created?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Were Deadly Premonition's "Quirks" Intentional?
If you're one of those people who likes cult games, you've probably already heard about Deadly Premonition. For those of you who haven't, it is an interesting little game. Essentially, it is a game that mixes the survival-horror elements of Resident Evil (and I mean the original few games) with the crazy setting and characters of the television show Twin Peaks. It married a crazy but endearing story and setting with some ugly graphics and shoddy gameplay (two things that CAN be dealt with, if a person cares to). This world really intrigued people and EVERYBODY was talking about it for awhile, causing popularity in the game to flare up heavily. Giantbomb also did an Endurance Run, playing through the whole game on camera (twice even, with two sets of people), which added to its popularity even more.
As for the point of this post, I was reading through my feeds today, as I usually do each day. I stumbled upon an article titled "Love GTA, Heavy Rain and Resident Evil? Well Deadly Premonition is better than all of them. Here's why" on GamesRadar and, having already played through the game and kind of understanding why this may be a valid point, I had to read it. The main thing I have to say about is that it is a brilliant article, dissecting what most people dismissed as poor implementation and design and showing the game for what it more likely was (although I don't exactly imagine that every little mistake that Deadly Premonition made was intentional).
The article looks at the town, the characters, the gameplay, and manages to perfectly justify each part of the game's shortcomings. When I first read it, I didn't necessarily need to be convinced. After viewing Giantbomb's Endurance Run, I went out and bought my own copy of the game, eager to play through it for myself. Even with the muddled textures and odd UI choices (the map in particular), I truly enjoyed my time with the game. I didn't even know how much I had dismissed little things about the game, making excuses in the back of my mind for some of the problems I had with it.
Each one of those excuses was verified by this article. David Houghton did an astounding job explaining why these choices were probably made, why these characters are so strange at first glance and more. If you've ever had any interest in Deadly Premonition, give it a look. If you've never heard of the game, you should read it too; it may describe a gaming experience unlike any you've heard of and give you something new to play.
As for the point of this post, I was reading through my feeds today, as I usually do each day. I stumbled upon an article titled "Love GTA, Heavy Rain and Resident Evil? Well Deadly Premonition is better than all of them. Here's why" on GamesRadar and, having already played through the game and kind of understanding why this may be a valid point, I had to read it. The main thing I have to say about is that it is a brilliant article, dissecting what most people dismissed as poor implementation and design and showing the game for what it more likely was (although I don't exactly imagine that every little mistake that Deadly Premonition made was intentional).
The article looks at the town, the characters, the gameplay, and manages to perfectly justify each part of the game's shortcomings. When I first read it, I didn't necessarily need to be convinced. After viewing Giantbomb's Endurance Run, I went out and bought my own copy of the game, eager to play through it for myself. Even with the muddled textures and odd UI choices (the map in particular), I truly enjoyed my time with the game. I didn't even know how much I had dismissed little things about the game, making excuses in the back of my mind for some of the problems I had with it.
Each one of those excuses was verified by this article. David Houghton did an astounding job explaining why these choices were probably made, why these characters are so strange at first glance and more. If you've ever had any interest in Deadly Premonition, give it a look. If you've never heard of the game, you should read it too; it may describe a gaming experience unlike any you've heard of and give you something new to play.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D's One Save Slot - Is It Really That Bad?
Everyone is talking about Capcom's newest 3DS release, Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D. Wow, it must be really good, huh? Not many 3DS games have been getting any amount of buzz. Unfortunately, this buzz isn't good at all.
It was revealed very close to release (maybe even after it came out) that the game only offered one save slot. Okay, that isn't so bad. Games like Pokemon do it (albeit still at an annoyance). The main grievance that consumers are having is that the game's save file CANNOT be reset. This essentially means that any progress made in the game can never be erased and will make any copy of the game that has been played an obviously used copy.
People are really up in arms about this, arguing that their purchase of a game entitles them to do whatever they like with it. Capcom argues that this is to prevent people from selling the game to retailers like Gamestop or Amazon and "encouraging" buyers to keep the game instead. Of course, this means that owners of Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D can't even lend the game to a friend, unless that friend just wants to mess around with it.
While I can understand some of the hate, this isn't really all bad. The game seems to be built around replayability (from what I've seen), having stages where the only goal is to try for the high score again and again. Sure, if someone has unlocked everything in the game, the next person would only get to play a file with everything on it, but is that really so bad?
Reports are surfacing that some Gamestops aren't even taking used copies of the game, since the replay value is so low. Game rental service Gamefly also revealed that they aren't even renting the game out to customers, which I can understand. Why rent a game that would be in various states of completion?
The main issue people seem to be having with this whole debacle is that they are very limited with what they can do afterwards. So many gamers out there finish a game and immediately sell it to a friend or at a Gamestop and that isn't really an option now. I ask you is this really such a bad thing? Sure, I've sold my fair share of games to Gamestop but it pains me every time. I dream of having a massive game collection, one I've built up over the years. It is always the promise of a shiny new game that tempts me from this. Is a game that I can't sell back (kinda like a PC game really) really so bad?
The bigger problem could be if more and more companies start this trend. Being that the 3DS (and DS) are the only cartridge based systems, this is the only set of games it could affect but that is still a rather large group. Some people are arguing that this will just lead to more and more systems put in place like this one, more encroachment on the freedoms of gamers. While that may happen, I really can't fault company for trying to slow the tide of used games sales; seeing how much money a company can lose to them really makes me understand why they try these radical new ideas (Ubisoft's always-connected DRM for PC comes to mind). For now, we just have to watch and wait for the continued reaction to this news.
It was revealed very close to release (maybe even after it came out) that the game only offered one save slot. Okay, that isn't so bad. Games like Pokemon do it (albeit still at an annoyance). The main grievance that consumers are having is that the game's save file CANNOT be reset. This essentially means that any progress made in the game can never be erased and will make any copy of the game that has been played an obviously used copy.
People are really up in arms about this, arguing that their purchase of a game entitles them to do whatever they like with it. Capcom argues that this is to prevent people from selling the game to retailers like Gamestop or Amazon and "encouraging" buyers to keep the game instead. Of course, this means that owners of Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D can't even lend the game to a friend, unless that friend just wants to mess around with it.
While I can understand some of the hate, this isn't really all bad. The game seems to be built around replayability (from what I've seen), having stages where the only goal is to try for the high score again and again. Sure, if someone has unlocked everything in the game, the next person would only get to play a file with everything on it, but is that really so bad?
Reports are surfacing that some Gamestops aren't even taking used copies of the game, since the replay value is so low. Game rental service Gamefly also revealed that they aren't even renting the game out to customers, which I can understand. Why rent a game that would be in various states of completion?
The main issue people seem to be having with this whole debacle is that they are very limited with what they can do afterwards. So many gamers out there finish a game and immediately sell it to a friend or at a Gamestop and that isn't really an option now. I ask you is this really such a bad thing? Sure, I've sold my fair share of games to Gamestop but it pains me every time. I dream of having a massive game collection, one I've built up over the years. It is always the promise of a shiny new game that tempts me from this. Is a game that I can't sell back (kinda like a PC game really) really so bad?
The bigger problem could be if more and more companies start this trend. Being that the 3DS (and DS) are the only cartridge based systems, this is the only set of games it could affect but that is still a rather large group. Some people are arguing that this will just lead to more and more systems put in place like this one, more encroachment on the freedoms of gamers. While that may happen, I really can't fault company for trying to slow the tide of used games sales; seeing how much money a company can lose to them really makes me understand why they try these radical new ideas (Ubisoft's always-connected DRM for PC comes to mind). For now, we just have to watch and wait for the continued reaction to this news.
Monday, June 27, 2011
No Fines for Violent Game Sales to Minors
As you may have known, the Supreme Court finally revealed its final ruling on the California vs EMA case, the one discussing whether or not selling a violent video game to minors would be fineable in California. Citing the First Amendment as the main reason, the Supreme Court defended gamers by saying that games are under protection by the Constitution and could not be fineable under law.
I will admit that when I first read this, I really had no idea why it was such a big deal. Violent games not being able to be sold to minors (at least more strictly then it already is)? Sounds like a good idea. It took me awhile of really thinking about it (and a bit of research) to understand; why should video games be fined like this when books and movies aren't?
I had no idea that the only medium that could incur fines for selling to minors was pornography. The thought that a group of individuals was trying to say that video games are as harsh as pornography both angered and amused me. Of course, the anger came from the idea that video games should be penalized because they are interactive, something that really doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things. The laughter came from the thought that a video game rating is SO MUCH MORE STRICT than even an R-rated movie and that these people believed a violent video game, one that isn't even on the level of some R-rated movies, is equivalent to porn.
Of course, the biggest surge of anger came from Senator Leland Yee's comments after the case, the senator behind the whole thing. He is upset that violent game sales to minors don't have stricter penalties (something I undestand but don't believe should happen unless it happens to every medium). He argues that since this law didn't pass, more violent games can be sold to children.
Wait, huh? Doesn't he know that most stores that sell games WILL NOT sell M-rated games to children under 17? Sure, there isn't a fine, but most retailers will come down hard on any employee that does happen to break the rule. Even if, what about the parents? Any time someone brings up this issue I wonder why no one blames the parents. The ratings system is there for a reason and parents should KNOW what their kids are playing. No one should have to regulate video games except parents.
I will admit that when I first read this, I really had no idea why it was such a big deal. Violent games not being able to be sold to minors (at least more strictly then it already is)? Sounds like a good idea. It took me awhile of really thinking about it (and a bit of research) to understand; why should video games be fined like this when books and movies aren't?
I had no idea that the only medium that could incur fines for selling to minors was pornography. The thought that a group of individuals was trying to say that video games are as harsh as pornography both angered and amused me. Of course, the anger came from the idea that video games should be penalized because they are interactive, something that really doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things. The laughter came from the thought that a video game rating is SO MUCH MORE STRICT than even an R-rated movie and that these people believed a violent video game, one that isn't even on the level of some R-rated movies, is equivalent to porn.
Of course, the biggest surge of anger came from Senator Leland Yee's comments after the case, the senator behind the whole thing. He is upset that violent game sales to minors don't have stricter penalties (something I undestand but don't believe should happen unless it happens to every medium). He argues that since this law didn't pass, more violent games can be sold to children.
Wait, huh? Doesn't he know that most stores that sell games WILL NOT sell M-rated games to children under 17? Sure, there isn't a fine, but most retailers will come down hard on any employee that does happen to break the rule. Even if, what about the parents? Any time someone brings up this issue I wonder why no one blames the parents. The ratings system is there for a reason and parents should KNOW what their kids are playing. No one should have to regulate video games except parents.
Welcome!
This is it. This blog will exist as long as I need it to practice my writing (essentially forever) and I will post on it multiple times a week. I will not stop writing for a month and delete this blog, starting over yet again.
Sorry about that. I'm sure most blogs don't start with such a statement but I felt it necessary to drive the point home in my head. See, this is probably the fifth or sixth time I've done this blog. Each time, I fall out of habit and stop writing, causing me to return to it later with a nagging feeling in my head about the absence. That feeling usually leads to me deleting it and starting over. That WILL NOT happen again.
Now that that's out of the way, welcome to my blog! As you've probably already guessed from the name, this is a blog about gaming, my greatest passion. Nothing else can bring a smile to my face, fill my body with excitement and enjoyment, and sometimes even move me deeply like a video game can. Having been a gamer since I was about 4 or 5, I've been playing them constantly ever since, my main hobby and my passion.
To be a little more specific, this is a blog for me to practice writing about games. Why would I need to do such a thing, you may ask? Well, there is one job in the world that fills me with envy every time I think about it. In this job, a person gets to play all the games they could want and get to talk about them constantly. Of course, this job is a video game journalist. As a kid, I read gaming magazines religiously and followed every bit of gaming news I could. As I matured, I started to delve deeper into the actual articles, trying to find out what these men and women were really writing about.
I know what you may be thinking. Oh, great, another kid who loves to slack off and play games and wants to do it for a living, getting free stuff while sitting on his ass. I am not that person. I truly understand the challenges (like low pay and no job security) that game journalists must face and none of that bothers me; it still sounds like the perfect job for me.
So I'm here to try and crack that code, the code that determines what makes a video game journalist successful. My name is Justin Davis and I'm a 21 year old college student sitting at home for the summer, trying to determine what major to declare for my third year of college. Nothing in this world inspires more passion from me than video games so I have to at least give this a shot. Hop on for the ride and maybe you and I can find out a few things about the gaming industry we didn't know before!
Sorry about that. I'm sure most blogs don't start with such a statement but I felt it necessary to drive the point home in my head. See, this is probably the fifth or sixth time I've done this blog. Each time, I fall out of habit and stop writing, causing me to return to it later with a nagging feeling in my head about the absence. That feeling usually leads to me deleting it and starting over. That WILL NOT happen again.
Now that that's out of the way, welcome to my blog! As you've probably already guessed from the name, this is a blog about gaming, my greatest passion. Nothing else can bring a smile to my face, fill my body with excitement and enjoyment, and sometimes even move me deeply like a video game can. Having been a gamer since I was about 4 or 5, I've been playing them constantly ever since, my main hobby and my passion.
To be a little more specific, this is a blog for me to practice writing about games. Why would I need to do such a thing, you may ask? Well, there is one job in the world that fills me with envy every time I think about it. In this job, a person gets to play all the games they could want and get to talk about them constantly. Of course, this job is a video game journalist. As a kid, I read gaming magazines religiously and followed every bit of gaming news I could. As I matured, I started to delve deeper into the actual articles, trying to find out what these men and women were really writing about.
I know what you may be thinking. Oh, great, another kid who loves to slack off and play games and wants to do it for a living, getting free stuff while sitting on his ass. I am not that person. I truly understand the challenges (like low pay and no job security) that game journalists must face and none of that bothers me; it still sounds like the perfect job for me.
So I'm here to try and crack that code, the code that determines what makes a video game journalist successful. My name is Justin Davis and I'm a 21 year old college student sitting at home for the summer, trying to determine what major to declare for my third year of college. Nothing in this world inspires more passion from me than video games so I have to at least give this a shot. Hop on for the ride and maybe you and I can find out a few things about the gaming industry we didn't know before!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)