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.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)