The rogue-like FTL: Faster Than Light was an uncompromisingly difficult game, where playing up to two hours at a time could be undone by one moment of chaos. So many times I ploughed through that game only to declare the universe as being intrinsically unfair as a simple mistake cost me a good hour of careful planning, only to have to start over again. The illusion is that next time I'd get it right. I'd shield the doors earlier, or make sure to stock up on extra missiles, or avoid saving the crew of a ship on fire.
The futility of the game combined with the (somewhat illusory) sense that I was in control kept me coming back. It was only when I could get through to the end of the game regularly that I finally lost interest.
Which brings me to Frozen Cortex.
Frozen Cortex is what you get when you cross American Football with Frozen Synapse - which is in turn what you get when you cross chess with guns. I really enjoyed the idea of Frozen Synapse, but I never could fully immerse myself in it (Hell is Internet multiplayer...) I haven't had that trouble with Frozen Cortex, already rocking up close to 30 hours of game time.
The funny thing is that there's really not a lot to Frozen Cortex. The entire game consists of short matches, with each player controlling 5 robots on rectangular arenas populated with various obstacles. It's simple enough to grasp, simple enough to control, and a tiny mistake can undo hours of meticulous planning. Any given match can be thrown away from incorrectly guessing what an opponent would do, and that makes knock-out mode all the more difficult.
Because the games are so short, minor mistakes have those major consequences. Screw up on your own offense, and it's virtually guaranteed to be game over. Misread your opponents and it can be similarly difficult to come back during your own. The game's annoying habit to "pause" the turn halfway through a touchdown pass can often be just rubbing it in that you didn't realise the opponent had that option open, and there's nothing to do but slam the PRIME button and hope there's still enough time to recover.
And there are many ways it can cost you. A slightly mistimed run means a key player is knocked out. Throwing to a player too close to an opponent gives them no time to act before they are tackled. Passes that get intercepted. Having your player slightly mistime an interception. Moving to the wrong side of an obstacle. And of course, all these are compounded with scoring pads littered throughout the arena. They are only worth 2 points (compared to a 7 point "touchdown"), but a good run can cross several pads at a time. One particularly bad example was a robot that could just sneak around an obstacle for an unguarded heavily-padded run to the end-zone.
It's that futility that like in FTL: Faster Than Light keeps me coming back. I didn't see that play. I'll be mindful of that next time. It's with that attitude I've been able to beat the game on season mode (and opened up interesting variations), but haven't quite gotten through a knockout comp yet. The game is cruel, uncompromising, punishing, and that's what makes it such a rewarding experience.
Showing posts with label Gaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaming. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 March 2015
Saturday, 19 January 2013
The Shift To Digital Sales
I was disappointed to read that Green Man Gaming - a digital games website - has decided to join the list of online retailers that support the Australian publishing industry's price-gauging of Australian consumers. It did so, it claims, because the publisher was put under pressure by an Australian retailer.
The thing is, the more that I see the possibilities of digital distribution, the more I wonder what the need for physical distribution is any more. It seems that I'm not the only one wondering this, and that its enough of a concern for the physical distribution chain to manipulate the market to justify its own existence.
There are two different ways in which this practice seems unfair. The first is that we as consumers are being punished for choosing differently to the status quo. The retail chain cannot compete in the retail market as it stands, so instead of shifting to cater for the new demand, it is manipulating the market to make it the least unattractive option for buying an attractive product. The second is that by doing this, it perpetuates the high prices that Australians are forced to pay for games.
I want to support gaming, and as a consumer my way of doing this is to pay for products. If I want to see more games being made, I need to pay for existing games. Yet local publishing rights and retail chains are relics of a pre-Internet era; I no more need them than I need Australian book publishers if its going to be cheaper to get books sent from the UK than to buy locally. They are just a price-gauger between me and my gaming.
A long article was recently published on why it is game prices won't go lower for Australians. It's a good read, but what struck me was this line from an anonymous source:
I'm happy to pay for games, I'm not happy to be ripped-off because I need to support an outdated distribution model. People using Green Man Gaming (as opposed to acquiring the games illegally) was a legitimate way of expressing displeasure at the current state of retail in Australia. For me, the hunt is on for another GMG equivalent until the eventual (yet sadly prolonged) death of those archaic retail chains. I'm just glad that I was able to pick up XCOM Enemy Unknown when I did off GMG, as its a great game and well worth supporting.
*Fallout New Vegas, Civilization V, RAGE, Diablo III, Max Payne 3, and Farcry 3 are all AAA titles that have been lost sales due to price-gauging. I've been happy to wait until they're bargain bin and on massive discount before purchasing.
Hi - we have had a number of enquiries about price increases on Borderlands 2 and XCOM Enemy Unknown in Australia and New Zealand. This was done at the request of the publisher based on local retailer feedback. We would rather not have had to do this but we really value the relationship with our publishing partner.I'm not faulting Green Man Gaming for this (though it will mean that I won't be getting BioShock Infinite from them given it's a 2K title), but it is disappointing that once again the Australian consumer is being punished for choosing an alternative option to physical product. Especially, too, that the move is in response to a physical distributor putting pressure on the publishing company.
The thing is, the more that I see the possibilities of digital distribution, the more I wonder what the need for physical distribution is any more. It seems that I'm not the only one wondering this, and that its enough of a concern for the physical distribution chain to manipulate the market to justify its own existence.
There are two different ways in which this practice seems unfair. The first is that we as consumers are being punished for choosing differently to the status quo. The retail chain cannot compete in the retail market as it stands, so instead of shifting to cater for the new demand, it is manipulating the market to make it the least unattractive option for buying an attractive product. The second is that by doing this, it perpetuates the high prices that Australians are forced to pay for games.
I want to support gaming, and as a consumer my way of doing this is to pay for products. If I want to see more games being made, I need to pay for existing games. Yet local publishing rights and retail chains are relics of a pre-Internet era; I no more need them than I need Australian book publishers if its going to be cheaper to get books sent from the UK than to buy locally. They are just a price-gauger between me and my gaming.
A long article was recently published on why it is game prices won't go lower for Australians. It's a good read, but what struck me was this line from an anonymous source:
"People complain so much [about game prices in Australia] but they still go out and buy the games. It's a lot of noise but very little action. If consumers got fed up with paying so much for games in this country, they'd stop buying them altogether, both at retail and digitally. But that hasn't happened on a mass scale yet."There's no question that games are an in-demand product. Yet stores like Green Man Gaming are a way for people to have their displeasure recorded as more than just noise. If it weren't that people were looking for cheaper online alternatives, then why would retail chains and publishers be worried about the online presence? Otherwise voicing our displeasure is all we can do. And as one who has stopped buying games when they are being price-gauged*, it's disappointing that an alternative to abstaining altogether is being taken away.
I'm happy to pay for games, I'm not happy to be ripped-off because I need to support an outdated distribution model. People using Green Man Gaming (as opposed to acquiring the games illegally) was a legitimate way of expressing displeasure at the current state of retail in Australia. For me, the hunt is on for another GMG equivalent until the eventual (yet sadly prolonged) death of those archaic retail chains. I'm just glad that I was able to pick up XCOM Enemy Unknown when I did off GMG, as its a great game and well worth supporting.
*Fallout New Vegas, Civilization V, RAGE, Diablo III, Max Payne 3, and Farcry 3 are all AAA titles that have been lost sales due to price-gauging. I've been happy to wait until they're bargain bin and on massive discount before purchasing.
Dishonored Hornets' Nest Achievement
This isn't really much of anything, but since this blog is my online dumping ground, I thought this is as good a place as any to link to a brief instructional video I made on how to get a particular achievement in the excellent game Dishonored.
Still playing through the game (nearly finished), and still very much enjoying the experience.
Still playing through the game (nearly finished), and still very much enjoying the experience.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Brainstorming Session At Bethesda
"Look what we've done with the Fallout franchise. We've turned an existing franchise into millions of sales. Can we do that again?"
"If we're taking franchises that were big in the late 90s, I wonder if there's a way we can reboot the Thief franchise?"
"Eidos still owns the intellectual property rights to that game."
"Besides, rumour has it that they are working on a new game."
"Still, I really think we could have a go of doing a Thief game well. What if we took the general idea of Thief and changed a few of the mechanics?"
"Like what?"
"Well, instead of slowly sneaking up on people and clobbering them over the head, how about we sneak up on people to stab them?"
"That's a start, but it doesn't sound like enough."
"We could change the focus away from stealing. Stealing would be there, but it wouldn't matter as much."
"So what would the goal be?"
"Remember in Oblivion where we assassinated the Emperor at the beginning? Imagine if the Emperor's guards were in on it and could frame the protagonist."
"And from there, the protagonist seeks revenge... I like it. What else?"
"What if, too, we take away the punishment for not being stealth? We make it so stealth can be there for those gamers who crave stealth, but also allow gamers to play it like an FPS."
"But won't that discourage people from using stealth? Why make a stealth mechanic if it's only optional?"
"I know, we'll reward players who use stealth with a different ending - a good ending. And punish players who just kill everyone by giving them a bad ending."
"That sounds a little like Bioshock."
"Bioshock also did cool magic powers, perhaps we can use them too."
"Oh, and we should include zombies because they're the in-thing right now."
"Yes, this is sounding more and more like a game. Let's get on this quick before Thief 4 comes out."
Perhaps Bethesda weren't going out on a limb conceptually, but what's not to love about a game that combines Thief, Bioshock, and the Elder Scrolls franchise?
"If we're taking franchises that were big in the late 90s, I wonder if there's a way we can reboot the Thief franchise?"
"Eidos still owns the intellectual property rights to that game."
"Besides, rumour has it that they are working on a new game."
"Still, I really think we could have a go of doing a Thief game well. What if we took the general idea of Thief and changed a few of the mechanics?"
"Like what?"
"Well, instead of slowly sneaking up on people and clobbering them over the head, how about we sneak up on people to stab them?"
"That's a start, but it doesn't sound like enough."
"We could change the focus away from stealing. Stealing would be there, but it wouldn't matter as much."
"So what would the goal be?"
"Remember in Oblivion where we assassinated the Emperor at the beginning? Imagine if the Emperor's guards were in on it and could frame the protagonist."
"And from there, the protagonist seeks revenge... I like it. What else?"
"What if, too, we take away the punishment for not being stealth? We make it so stealth can be there for those gamers who crave stealth, but also allow gamers to play it like an FPS."
"But won't that discourage people from using stealth? Why make a stealth mechanic if it's only optional?"
"I know, we'll reward players who use stealth with a different ending - a good ending. And punish players who just kill everyone by giving them a bad ending."
"That sounds a little like Bioshock."
"Bioshock also did cool magic powers, perhaps we can use them too."
"Oh, and we should include zombies because they're the in-thing right now."
"Yes, this is sounding more and more like a game. Let's get on this quick before Thief 4 comes out."
Perhaps Bethesda weren't going out on a limb conceptually, but what's not to love about a game that combines Thief, Bioshock, and the Elder Scrolls franchise?
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Digital Solipsism: A Skyrim Review
There's a lot one could say about The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and a lot of it good. Bottom line about the game, if you enjoyed its predecessor Oblivion, and Fallout 3 then this game should similarly peak your interest. Given I easily racked up 200 hours on both games, and the 72 hours I've so far dedicated to exploring the land of Skyrim, I can safely say that the game has more been worth the Australian retail price I paid for it.
Perhaps it's that I've effectively played this game twice before, or that I have a dread about encountering more giant spiders, that the time I've spent playing is more to do with the sheer scale of the game than anything else. There is a lot to do, though each "quest" seems to follow the same pattern. Someone gives you a quest, you run off halfway around the map to discover the new place, clear the dungeon, then return to get a reward. By the time I've done this for the 50th time (marked with a Steam achievement) the whole process was getting tiresome.
In Oblivion, the gradual progression in the storyline was marked by gates opening all over the world. In Skyrim, it's marked by dragon attacks. This gets a little tiresome for a couple of reasons. First is that it can get in the way of any actual quest being undertaken. Unlike Oblivion gates, dragons can't be ignored. Any kill of a dragon comes with very valuable and very heavy dragon bone, which meant for me needing to stop whatever it was I was doing in order to take the dragon bone back to where I could store it. Second is that the dragon souls that are absorbed accumulate at a faster rate than what they can be spent on. Much of my recent gameplay has been solely in search of shouts to spend the dragon souls on.
The leveling system has been tweaked slightly, taking away the annoying (or useful, depending on how you played Oblivion) task of managing how you progressed your character. I'm now levelling up from selling all the loot that pours out of Skyrim dungeons - speech is my 3rd or 4th highest skill without even trying, meanwhile Destruction magic is barely level 50 despite how often I use fire spells. Lockpicking is similarly a skill that goes up very fast out of pure necessity, so it does seem a little odd that more difficult enemies are generated on the basis of being better with one's tongue and fingers. Skillpoints do help with that.
It does seem odd, as well, that the shopkeepers will turn their nose up at the very idea of something being stolen, yet you're largely dealing with stolen goods anyway - it's just that you've normally killed a bunch of people first. It seemed strange in Oblivion, and still seems strange now, that shopkeepers can tell the difference between bought, stolen, looted off a dead corpse, or taken from a dungeon. The difference, it seems, is a marker in my inventory, which could be avoided by not labelling stolen goods as stolen. Can people really distinguish between which skooma I found in someone's house and in a bandit-filled cave?
Before I go on too long, I should probably mention the quests. Like any sandbox game, there's more than enough to keep you busy beyond the main storyline. My list of unfinished miscellaneous quests is quite high, as is the various quests from the various factions. In the 72 hours I haven't decided which side to take in the war (given that the main quest has the potential of the world ending, what importance is it over who controls Skyrim?), but as Dragonborn I suppose the events of the civil war can't happen without me. Likewise, I'm sure the end of the world is going to wait until I do enough of the main questline. If a tree falls in Skyrim and you're not around to play an integral role in that event, does it even occur?
It is probably a bit much to ask for; a world where events unfold over time isn't in the spirit of sandbox gaming nor in the economic interests of the developers. While it would be cool if the thieve's guild didn't just sit there waiting for me to restore it to their glory, I'm not sure whether or not they'd really put up with the amount of time I've spent at the mage's college. Would they be so understanding that I'm fighting a dragon in Riverwood while they're sitting in the sewers pining for the good ol' days?
That's the problem with the sandbox experience. As much as it's trying to create an immersive world, it can't create a world that's alive - only one that's alive so far as you interact with it - a sort of digital solipsism. Yet how to progress? With so many things to do and possible means of exploration, at times the question of what to do next is a vexing one. Have I neglected the main quest for too long? Is it finally time to go visit a Daedric shrine? What's actually in this blank part of my map?
In this, as much as anything else, Steam achievements play a role. They're meaningless rewards, but they are a good indicator of what to do. And when I only need to read 2 more skill books to get an achievement, it seems as good a reason as any to dive into more dungeons in search of what I've mostly done anyway. Need 4 more places to get the explorer achievement? Time to go exploring. It's probably a lot of stuff that I'd do anyway, only giving a reason to go through with it. As I race towards level 50 I'm trying to make sure at least one skill gets to level 100.
With so much to do, but limited gameplay mechanics in which to do it, a large part of the sandbox experience is quite tedious. I found this same problem with GTA IV, where by the end I was just doing the story so I could have a sense of completion. I'm not quite there yet with Skyrim, even after 72 hours, because the world is still exciting and interesting - even if at times it gets bogged down by repetitious gameplay.
Perhaps it's that I've effectively played this game twice before, or that I have a dread about encountering more giant spiders, that the time I've spent playing is more to do with the sheer scale of the game than anything else. There is a lot to do, though each "quest" seems to follow the same pattern. Someone gives you a quest, you run off halfway around the map to discover the new place, clear the dungeon, then return to get a reward. By the time I've done this for the 50th time (marked with a Steam achievement) the whole process was getting tiresome.
In Oblivion, the gradual progression in the storyline was marked by gates opening all over the world. In Skyrim, it's marked by dragon attacks. This gets a little tiresome for a couple of reasons. First is that it can get in the way of any actual quest being undertaken. Unlike Oblivion gates, dragons can't be ignored. Any kill of a dragon comes with very valuable and very heavy dragon bone, which meant for me needing to stop whatever it was I was doing in order to take the dragon bone back to where I could store it. Second is that the dragon souls that are absorbed accumulate at a faster rate than what they can be spent on. Much of my recent gameplay has been solely in search of shouts to spend the dragon souls on.
The leveling system has been tweaked slightly, taking away the annoying (or useful, depending on how you played Oblivion) task of managing how you progressed your character. I'm now levelling up from selling all the loot that pours out of Skyrim dungeons - speech is my 3rd or 4th highest skill without even trying, meanwhile Destruction magic is barely level 50 despite how often I use fire spells. Lockpicking is similarly a skill that goes up very fast out of pure necessity, so it does seem a little odd that more difficult enemies are generated on the basis of being better with one's tongue and fingers. Skillpoints do help with that.
It does seem odd, as well, that the shopkeepers will turn their nose up at the very idea of something being stolen, yet you're largely dealing with stolen goods anyway - it's just that you've normally killed a bunch of people first. It seemed strange in Oblivion, and still seems strange now, that shopkeepers can tell the difference between bought, stolen, looted off a dead corpse, or taken from a dungeon. The difference, it seems, is a marker in my inventory, which could be avoided by not labelling stolen goods as stolen. Can people really distinguish between which skooma I found in someone's house and in a bandit-filled cave?
Before I go on too long, I should probably mention the quests. Like any sandbox game, there's more than enough to keep you busy beyond the main storyline. My list of unfinished miscellaneous quests is quite high, as is the various quests from the various factions. In the 72 hours I haven't decided which side to take in the war (given that the main quest has the potential of the world ending, what importance is it over who controls Skyrim?), but as Dragonborn I suppose the events of the civil war can't happen without me. Likewise, I'm sure the end of the world is going to wait until I do enough of the main questline. If a tree falls in Skyrim and you're not around to play an integral role in that event, does it even occur?
It is probably a bit much to ask for; a world where events unfold over time isn't in the spirit of sandbox gaming nor in the economic interests of the developers. While it would be cool if the thieve's guild didn't just sit there waiting for me to restore it to their glory, I'm not sure whether or not they'd really put up with the amount of time I've spent at the mage's college. Would they be so understanding that I'm fighting a dragon in Riverwood while they're sitting in the sewers pining for the good ol' days?
That's the problem with the sandbox experience. As much as it's trying to create an immersive world, it can't create a world that's alive - only one that's alive so far as you interact with it - a sort of digital solipsism. Yet how to progress? With so many things to do and possible means of exploration, at times the question of what to do next is a vexing one. Have I neglected the main quest for too long? Is it finally time to go visit a Daedric shrine? What's actually in this blank part of my map?
In this, as much as anything else, Steam achievements play a role. They're meaningless rewards, but they are a good indicator of what to do. And when I only need to read 2 more skill books to get an achievement, it seems as good a reason as any to dive into more dungeons in search of what I've mostly done anyway. Need 4 more places to get the explorer achievement? Time to go exploring. It's probably a lot of stuff that I'd do anyway, only giving a reason to go through with it. As I race towards level 50 I'm trying to make sure at least one skill gets to level 100.
With so much to do, but limited gameplay mechanics in which to do it, a large part of the sandbox experience is quite tedious. I found this same problem with GTA IV, where by the end I was just doing the story so I could have a sense of completion. I'm not quite there yet with Skyrim, even after 72 hours, because the world is still exciting and interesting - even if at times it gets bogged down by repetitious gameplay.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
When Price Fixing Goes Wrong
The regional price fixing on Steam is frustrating; my general way of dealing with it is to not buy a game until it's reduced to nearly nothing and make a complaint on the Steam Facebook feed.
In any case, it's funny when there's a loophole in the price fixing, where the game is available cheap by getting it through a package that isn't marked up for the privilege of living in Australia. On the Steam sales today (10/07/2011) this happened with Dead Space 2:
Buying the game on its own, with the 50% discount comes to a total of $35USD. But if you buy it in a bundle with the original Dead Space, it comes to $20USD. You can save $15 and get an extra game too!
In any case, it's funny when there's a loophole in the price fixing, where the game is available cheap by getting it through a package that isn't marked up for the privilege of living in Australia. On the Steam sales today (10/07/2011) this happened with Dead Space 2:
Buying the game on its own, with the 50% discount comes to a total of $35USD. But if you buy it in a bundle with the original Dead Space, it comes to $20USD. You can save $15 and get an extra game too!
Monday, 25 April 2011
Game Review: Portal 2
Back in the final days of my computer science degree, I was introduced to the game Narbacular Drop; a student-made game made. As a concept it was really novel, and as a computer science student it was amazing to see what a group of students were able to come up with.
I really enjoyed the original Portal, it's very clever in its execution and kept a dark sense of humour throughout the game to keep it interesting. The only problem I found with it was how short the game was and how immediate its finish. Playing through the game last week it took less than an hour from start to finish and I wasn't really trying. But in terms of the concept and what to do with it, Portal is a very remarkable game.
Portal 2 was a worthy sequel, taking what was great about Portal and expanding it. It added enough new features to the environment to make for a variety of puzzles (there's only so much you can do with two portals and the first game had that covered) and gave much more of a story. Possibly the best way to describe it would be to say that Portal was the tech demo and Portal 2 was the proper execution.
But what I think was its stand-out element was its dark, sometimes morbid, humour that was present throughout the story and in a variety of ways. From a psychotic AI with a penchant for personal insults, to an entrepreneur with a reckless disregard for anything (including money or safety) getting in the way of results, there's always something to laugh at in the process.
The game, unlike the original, was long enough. It kept its novelty the whole way through, and only at a few points did it feel like there was no obvious direction to go and I had gotten myself into a dead end. If there was one quibble about this game compared to the original, it's that the ending song was better in the original. The co-op mode is also a welcome addition. When your mistakes kill others, it's comedy. But when their mistakes kill you, it's not very funny at all!
In a year which promises Duke Nukem Forever (finally), Elder Scrolls 5, and possibly Diablo III, Portal 2 has made a very compelling case for Game Of The Year already. If you loved Portal (who didn't?), then Portal 2 is a must buy.
I really enjoyed the original Portal, it's very clever in its execution and kept a dark sense of humour throughout the game to keep it interesting. The only problem I found with it was how short the game was and how immediate its finish. Playing through the game last week it took less than an hour from start to finish and I wasn't really trying. But in terms of the concept and what to do with it, Portal is a very remarkable game.
Portal 2 was a worthy sequel, taking what was great about Portal and expanding it. It added enough new features to the environment to make for a variety of puzzles (there's only so much you can do with two portals and the first game had that covered) and gave much more of a story. Possibly the best way to describe it would be to say that Portal was the tech demo and Portal 2 was the proper execution.
But what I think was its stand-out element was its dark, sometimes morbid, humour that was present throughout the story and in a variety of ways. From a psychotic AI with a penchant for personal insults, to an entrepreneur with a reckless disregard for anything (including money or safety) getting in the way of results, there's always something to laugh at in the process.
The game, unlike the original, was long enough. It kept its novelty the whole way through, and only at a few points did it feel like there was no obvious direction to go and I had gotten myself into a dead end. If there was one quibble about this game compared to the original, it's that the ending song was better in the original. The co-op mode is also a welcome addition. When your mistakes kill others, it's comedy. But when their mistakes kill you, it's not very funny at all!
In a year which promises Duke Nukem Forever (finally), Elder Scrolls 5, and possibly Diablo III, Portal 2 has made a very compelling case for Game Of The Year already. If you loved Portal (who didn't?), then Portal 2 is a must buy.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Morning Scepticism: Video Games As Art
Are video games art? It's a question of what makes art. Certainly games can be visually and aurally stunning, very artistic in manner. But that does not make art. Certainly games can inspire emotion and wonder. But that does not make art. Certainly games can be intricately designed and crafted down to the tiniest detail. But that does not make art. So are games art? I don't know. But if games aren't art, then art is certainly diminished for not including them!
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Price Gauging
I was a big fan of the first Bioshock game, it wasn't quite System Shock 2 but it still offered a good story and gave enough hair-raising moments that I hit F6 more often than needed. So on February 9th comes the release of Bioshock 2, something which I'm looking forward to playing. I've held off buying a physical copy because, well, I knew it would be on Steam. And that it was, retailing at a mere $80USD for us Australians.
While that's about the same price I would pay retail, I was a little confused. Steam usually gives good prices on games. They don't have to worry about packaging, distribution, retail surcharge. Basically the advantages of Steam is that all you are paying for is data and data distribution (which is essentially nothing), which should save costs. And this is the sacrifice to have a permanent non-resellable item. Unlike my physical copies, I can't just give away unwanted Steam games.
So what do I find when I get on the UK and US stores? That it's retailing on both those stores about $30 cheaper than it is in Australia. What the?!? For decades Australian gamers had to pay more for games than their American counterparts, so finally when we have a global distribution network systems are put in place to keep the same region-locking anti-competitive practice in place. It's exactly the same product, it's exactly the same distribution, yet we're still locked into the pricing practices that may have been an excuse back before online distribution.
When it's buying in a retail store, fair enough. I can and do buy games at that price when need be. But when it's blatant price gauging like this where I'm being in effect charged extra for the same product just because I live in the wrong country.
While that's about the same price I would pay retail, I was a little confused. Steam usually gives good prices on games. They don't have to worry about packaging, distribution, retail surcharge. Basically the advantages of Steam is that all you are paying for is data and data distribution (which is essentially nothing), which should save costs. And this is the sacrifice to have a permanent non-resellable item. Unlike my physical copies, I can't just give away unwanted Steam games.
So what do I find when I get on the UK and US stores? That it's retailing on both those stores about $30 cheaper than it is in Australia. What the?!? For decades Australian gamers had to pay more for games than their American counterparts, so finally when we have a global distribution network systems are put in place to keep the same region-locking anti-competitive practice in place. It's exactly the same product, it's exactly the same distribution, yet we're still locked into the pricing practices that may have been an excuse back before online distribution.
When it's buying in a retail store, fair enough. I can and do buy games at that price when need be. But when it's blatant price gauging like this where I'm being in effect charged extra for the same product just because I live in the wrong country.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Keeping Fresh A Classic
Retro-gaming is fun, but it does have one drawback. Graphically, games tend to look dated very quickly. So while the gameplay stays great, one can't help but notice that what was shiny and new a few years ago is now bordering on the unpalatable.
Enter Serious Sam HD
For those unfamiliar to the gaming world, Serious Sam was one kickass game back in 2001. While Duke Nukem Forever was still delayed and everything had suddenly become about multiplayer deathmatch, Serious Sam was a reminder that mindless violence can be done so well. And it wasn't some big budget enterprise, but a team from some obscure country. And it kicked arse. Serious Sam and its quasi-sequel Serious Sam: The Second Encounter meant hours of fun and some great visuals and technology all rolled into one. Could a sniper rifle work in a fast-paced action shooter? Evidentially yes.
Fast forward to a couple of months ago, after a disappointing real sequel I had moved away from such games and into the darkside of online multiplayer or into an RPG hybrid - depending on the day. So imagine my surprise when browsing Steam one day I come across the following trailer.
I was sold, well not then and there on the spot. I waited until Steam's holiday special and took advantage of the low low price. After all, it's an 8 year old game... Gah, I'm distracted. Anyways, back to what I was saying. I finally got a chance to sit down and give it a spin today. And what was it? Exactly the same game I remember playing 8 years ago, only it looked better. Looked much better. Not photo-realistic, not some weird hybrid , but still Serious Sam only in HD!
And this got me thinking, there are so many more games I'd love to play again if not for the off-putting graphics. I'd be all over System Shock 2 if it looked like its spiritual successor. Just glad that Blizzard is doing this next year, hopefully deviating as little from the original as possible.
Overall I applaud this effort, and look forward to playing the HD version of the superior Serious Sam: The Second Encounter due out next year.
Enter Serious Sam HD
For those unfamiliar to the gaming world, Serious Sam was one kickass game back in 2001. While Duke Nukem Forever was still delayed and everything had suddenly become about multiplayer deathmatch, Serious Sam was a reminder that mindless violence can be done so well. And it wasn't some big budget enterprise, but a team from some obscure country. And it kicked arse. Serious Sam and its quasi-sequel Serious Sam: The Second Encounter meant hours of fun and some great visuals and technology all rolled into one. Could a sniper rifle work in a fast-paced action shooter? Evidentially yes.
Fast forward to a couple of months ago, after a disappointing real sequel I had moved away from such games and into the darkside of online multiplayer or into an RPG hybrid - depending on the day. So imagine my surprise when browsing Steam one day I come across the following trailer.
I was sold, well not then and there on the spot. I waited until Steam's holiday special and took advantage of the low low price. After all, it's an 8 year old game... Gah, I'm distracted. Anyways, back to what I was saying. I finally got a chance to sit down and give it a spin today. And what was it? Exactly the same game I remember playing 8 years ago, only it looked better. Looked much better. Not photo-realistic, not some weird hybrid , but still Serious Sam only in HD!
And this got me thinking, there are so many more games I'd love to play again if not for the off-putting graphics. I'd be all over System Shock 2 if it looked like its spiritual successor. Just glad that Blizzard is doing this next year, hopefully deviating as little from the original as possible.
Overall I applaud this effort, and look forward to playing the HD version of the superior Serious Sam: The Second Encounter due out next year.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
The Humble Controller
Gaming has come a long way in the last 20 years or so. As technology has gotten better, games have become more complex in order to handle them. As someone who mainly games on PC, I've been largely protected from the change in design that has come from the change in controllers. Now this is set to come to an end apparently. There's a push towards more interactivity, revolutionising the interface between game and user and thus revolutionising gaming. Project Natal sure does look promising, but will it really revolutionise the way we game, or is it just another gimmick?
Novelty over substance
A few years ago, my youngest brother got the Eye Toy for Christmas. Great, it was so much fun... for about a day. Then it didn't get played with much after that. The novelty had worn off, and it turned out there was no substance behind the game at all. A new, revolutionary way of gaming? Yes. It just wasn't that fun beyond the initial gimmick. But sown in that product were the seeds of the future, one only has to look at the success of the Wii to see this. But again it seems the novelty is getting in the way of substance. I found not long after getting my hands on a Wii I rarely touched it.
And that's where Project Natal seemed to suffer as well. Is this new controller going to offer substance gameplay? I hope so for its sake. It seemed to me that it was just novelty over substance, though only time will tell. Then again, it may just be that I'm not the right audience for such a product. This might be the means to get gaming mainstream, or at the very least make parents feel that their children at getting at least a bit of exercise. But as far as that announcement went, it was all gimmick with very little in the way of indicators that it can really bring a revolution with it.
Novelty sells, there's no denying it. And it can bring about innovation in the industry so even the most jaded gamer would not deny its importance. But there is somewhat of a concern that by putting so much focus on novelty that it detracts from the substance. The way we interact is what sets the games apart from other mediums of art, the control is vital for immersion. Yet making the interface more life-like does not necessarily mean a more immerse experience. There may actually be a purpose for having so many buttons after all.
Irreversible complexity
One thing that sets humans apart from our ape brethren is the fine motor skills between eyes and hands. Our dexterity comes at a cost (such as weakened wrists), but it cannot be denied how useful hand-eye coordination is to us today. The point is that using our hands as an interface is already very natural, having a controller that takes into account the complexity and dexterity that comes from the fingers is essential.
To use an analogy, think of the way you learned to type. If it were anything like me, first it was a matter of key hunting with just the index fingers. Then slowly other fingers became involved in the process, and soon there became zones. Eventually it led to being able to type a few hundred meaningful keystrokes a minute without so much as even looking down. Half the keys have worn off my keyboard yet it doesn't matter in the slightest. Practice makes perfect.
In this sense, for the beginner picking up a controller Spielberg may be onto something when he says that a controller is intimidating. And maybe there moving towards more humble beginnings in order to get them more used to gaming could be like having them learn to type one finger at a time. But as for those who are skilled, using a controller really can't be bested. And for gaming, there is a necessity to put in enough complexity into an interface because games need complex input. Because humans have a finite memory and but a few buttons, this requires creativity to map the interface between different actions.
The necessity for precision
It remains to be seen just what optical or aural input will add to the gaming landscape. In terms of efficiency, a hand-oriented controller is both natural (well as natural as any artificial device could be) and precise. Getting into the world of heuristics will only decrease precision, losing the accuracy of input is detrimental to gaming. I think of all the times I tried to do a simple tap-in on Wii Sports Golf where the ball ended up on the other side of the green, or when I tried to frantically draw a star in Black and White which the pattern-recognition identified as a house.
Maybe Project Natal will be revolutionary, maybe we are finally at the stage where we have sufficiently advanced hardware to take on the complexity of what is being promised. After all, only a few years ago the Wii promised to do the same thing, and in my opinion under-delivered. Controllers may be restricting, but they have been designed and redesigned for the last 20 years to give an optimal experience. It may not be interactive, but it does the job it was made for and does it well.
Novelty over substance
A few years ago, my youngest brother got the Eye Toy for Christmas. Great, it was so much fun... for about a day. Then it didn't get played with much after that. The novelty had worn off, and it turned out there was no substance behind the game at all. A new, revolutionary way of gaming? Yes. It just wasn't that fun beyond the initial gimmick. But sown in that product were the seeds of the future, one only has to look at the success of the Wii to see this. But again it seems the novelty is getting in the way of substance. I found not long after getting my hands on a Wii I rarely touched it.
And that's where Project Natal seemed to suffer as well. Is this new controller going to offer substance gameplay? I hope so for its sake. It seemed to me that it was just novelty over substance, though only time will tell. Then again, it may just be that I'm not the right audience for such a product. This might be the means to get gaming mainstream, or at the very least make parents feel that their children at getting at least a bit of exercise. But as far as that announcement went, it was all gimmick with very little in the way of indicators that it can really bring a revolution with it.
Novelty sells, there's no denying it. And it can bring about innovation in the industry so even the most jaded gamer would not deny its importance. But there is somewhat of a concern that by putting so much focus on novelty that it detracts from the substance. The way we interact is what sets the games apart from other mediums of art, the control is vital for immersion. Yet making the interface more life-like does not necessarily mean a more immerse experience. There may actually be a purpose for having so many buttons after all.
Irreversible complexity
One thing that sets humans apart from our ape brethren is the fine motor skills between eyes and hands. Our dexterity comes at a cost (such as weakened wrists), but it cannot be denied how useful hand-eye coordination is to us today. The point is that using our hands as an interface is already very natural, having a controller that takes into account the complexity and dexterity that comes from the fingers is essential.
To use an analogy, think of the way you learned to type. If it were anything like me, first it was a matter of key hunting with just the index fingers. Then slowly other fingers became involved in the process, and soon there became zones. Eventually it led to being able to type a few hundred meaningful keystrokes a minute without so much as even looking down. Half the keys have worn off my keyboard yet it doesn't matter in the slightest. Practice makes perfect.
In this sense, for the beginner picking up a controller Spielberg may be onto something when he says that a controller is intimidating. And maybe there moving towards more humble beginnings in order to get them more used to gaming could be like having them learn to type one finger at a time. But as for those who are skilled, using a controller really can't be bested. And for gaming, there is a necessity to put in enough complexity into an interface because games need complex input. Because humans have a finite memory and but a few buttons, this requires creativity to map the interface between different actions.
The necessity for precision
It remains to be seen just what optical or aural input will add to the gaming landscape. In terms of efficiency, a hand-oriented controller is both natural (well as natural as any artificial device could be) and precise. Getting into the world of heuristics will only decrease precision, losing the accuracy of input is detrimental to gaming. I think of all the times I tried to do a simple tap-in on Wii Sports Golf where the ball ended up on the other side of the green, or when I tried to frantically draw a star in Black and White which the pattern-recognition identified as a house.
Maybe Project Natal will be revolutionary, maybe we are finally at the stage where we have sufficiently advanced hardware to take on the complexity of what is being promised. After all, only a few years ago the Wii promised to do the same thing, and in my opinion under-delivered. Controllers may be restricting, but they have been designed and redesigned for the last 20 years to give an optimal experience. It may not be interactive, but it does the job it was made for and does it well.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
DNF? Did Not Finish
I suppose this event was inevitable and has been for about a decade now. What began in April 1997 has ended on May 8th of this year, Duke Nukem Forever has been cancelled. 12 years of development on a single game and in the end there are but a few screen shots and leaked gameplay videos to show for it. 12 years to develop what was a sequel to a First Person Shooter that was great because of novelty. I remember playing the shareware of Duke 3D back as a 12 year old and it was fun. Wasn't the greatest FPS even at the time, but it was still an enjoyable experience. Combine Duke's action-hero persona with 2.5d gore and pixelated stripper boobies and there's recipe for success. A sequel would surely be on the cards, possibly leading to a great franchise of games.
A lot has changed in first person shooter gaming since 1997. The Quake engine revolutionised 3D, as did the Unreal Engine. Half-Life showed the quality of story and gameplay that could be achieved in the genre, while the mod Counterstrike changed online FPS gaming. Deus Ex and System Shock 2 brought RPG elements to the FPS world and again brought about change. Then there were the likes of Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament ushering in the idea of multiplayer. As network costs came down, then the likes of Battlefield 1942 brought about even further changes. Now consoles are a target market, taking away the monopoly that PCs had on the genre, and online multiplayer is pretty much a standard part of gaming experience.
12 years, so much has changed. The gaming landscape is radically different. I wonder how much the initial design has changed to accommodate the shift in gaming standards? Was DNF envisioned to be a revolutionary shooter for it's time? What did it lose? What did it gain? It would be hard to imagine that the only thing that got an upgrade in that time was the graphics engine, DN's core audience has moved on, and there's a whole new gaming audience out there with different expectations and experiences. Action heroes on the screen these days aren't in that mould anymore, he would be an anachronism by today's standards.
Though this event was inevitable, there was still a part of me that wanted to play this game. And there was a part of that which secretly hoped that this game would blow me the fuck away. It can't not, a developer puts in a decade and millions of dollars into a production and there's inevitably going to be the hype that this would be the event to end all events; that Duke would come and rock our socks off. Maybe the developers knew this hype too, maybe that hype got to them. If they released it any time at all, if it wasn't the greatest gaming event in the history of FPS then it would be considered a waste of effort.
The reaction of the gaming community seems to be one of slightly disgruntled apathy, those few gameplay snippets have emerged were encouraging enough that the game had potential, but the game itself has been nothing more than an in-joke amongst gamers for about a decade now. This event has finally come to be, and I guess in a way its eventual demise is better than playing a stock-standard FPS that lost its cultural relevance a decade ago. It might have been great, it could have blown us away. But all that we are left with is speculation and claims of incompetence among staff at 3D Realms. Was it over-ambition? Technical incompetence? Competitors releasing genre-changing products? I guess we will never know, short of a Gamasutra post-mortem on the whole experience.
So goodbye Duke. I couldn't wait forever, and neither could it seem the gaming community or those funding the enterprise. Maybe in a parallel universe, quantum physics means that in that alternate reality a copy was released and maybe it really was the best gaming experience of all time. But in this reality, we now will never know.
A lot has changed in first person shooter gaming since 1997. The Quake engine revolutionised 3D, as did the Unreal Engine. Half-Life showed the quality of story and gameplay that could be achieved in the genre, while the mod Counterstrike changed online FPS gaming. Deus Ex and System Shock 2 brought RPG elements to the FPS world and again brought about change. Then there were the likes of Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament ushering in the idea of multiplayer. As network costs came down, then the likes of Battlefield 1942 brought about even further changes. Now consoles are a target market, taking away the monopoly that PCs had on the genre, and online multiplayer is pretty much a standard part of gaming experience.
12 years, so much has changed. The gaming landscape is radically different. I wonder how much the initial design has changed to accommodate the shift in gaming standards? Was DNF envisioned to be a revolutionary shooter for it's time? What did it lose? What did it gain? It would be hard to imagine that the only thing that got an upgrade in that time was the graphics engine, DN's core audience has moved on, and there's a whole new gaming audience out there with different expectations and experiences. Action heroes on the screen these days aren't in that mould anymore, he would be an anachronism by today's standards.
Though this event was inevitable, there was still a part of me that wanted to play this game. And there was a part of that which secretly hoped that this game would blow me the fuck away. It can't not, a developer puts in a decade and millions of dollars into a production and there's inevitably going to be the hype that this would be the event to end all events; that Duke would come and rock our socks off. Maybe the developers knew this hype too, maybe that hype got to them. If they released it any time at all, if it wasn't the greatest gaming event in the history of FPS then it would be considered a waste of effort.
The reaction of the gaming community seems to be one of slightly disgruntled apathy, those few gameplay snippets have emerged were encouraging enough that the game had potential, but the game itself has been nothing more than an in-joke amongst gamers for about a decade now. This event has finally come to be, and I guess in a way its eventual demise is better than playing a stock-standard FPS that lost its cultural relevance a decade ago. It might have been great, it could have blown us away. But all that we are left with is speculation and claims of incompetence among staff at 3D Realms. Was it over-ambition? Technical incompetence? Competitors releasing genre-changing products? I guess we will never know, short of a Gamasutra post-mortem on the whole experience.
So goodbye Duke. I couldn't wait forever, and neither could it seem the gaming community or those funding the enterprise. Maybe in a parallel universe, quantum physics means that in that alternate reality a copy was released and maybe it really was the best gaming experience of all time. But in this reality, we now will never know.
Monday, 29 December 2008
Improving Upon Perfection
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/1.xml
The original Starcraft was one of the most balanced Real Time Strategy games I've ever played. Three unique races, a multitude of different strategies required for victory, Blizzard created a masterpiece back in 1998. It's a game I still occasionally pull out and play at LANs.
Starcraft II looks to be fantastic so far, it's my most anticipated game of 2009. Blizzard may make games that try to aim at as wide an audience as possible, but it's hard to deny the effort they put into making a highly-polished and replayable game.
The original Starcraft was one of the most balanced Real Time Strategy games I've ever played. Three unique races, a multitude of different strategies required for victory, Blizzard created a masterpiece back in 1998. It's a game I still occasionally pull out and play at LANs.
Starcraft II looks to be fantastic so far, it's my most anticipated game of 2009. Blizzard may make games that try to aim at as wide an audience as possible, but it's hard to deny the effort they put into making a highly-polished and replayable game.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Re-skinned Oblivion
In 2006, a game came out that reshaped the way I view RPGs. The 4th game in the Elder Scrolls series (to which I confess that I haven't played any other title) known as Oblivion was to me one of the pinnacles in modern gaming. It was really the first game where beauty and met, and while the mechanisms for gameplay had some flaws, it's diversity and scope make for a compelling game time after time. It was a fantasy epic with a captivating story, a spectacular open environment with so many different options for the gamer.
By contrast, Bethesda's latest effort, Fallout 3, is a bleak environment. The developers have outdone themselves in selling the post-apocalyptic setting, the engine capable of the magnificent imagery in their fantasy classic was able to render such a desolate world. The game looks truly fantastic, everything from the design of the ruins to the cartoon displays in the hub. Visually the game looks spectacular.
As for the gameplay mechanics, if you have played Oblivion then you have essentially played this game. The interface is the same, the interaction with objects is the same, the AI behaviour is the same, it's another open-ended world, there are still plenty of places to explore and quests to do on the side. It's Oblivion with guns, though the mechanics of battle suits gun-fighting far better than swordplay. The VATS system is really cool too, the ability to queue up moves is very helpful at times.
As for differences, obviously the levelling system is different. The S.P.E.C.I.A.L. approach means that actions do not have to be taken into consideration and it becomes a lot easier to build a customisable character. All that matters is the accumulation of experience points, the fact that I don't need to put on autowalk and sneak or spend hours swimming in order to skill up. The karma system is a really nice addition. Ammunition conservation and weapon degradation also add another level of complexity to the game. When there's a few approaching Mirelurks, having to worry about whether to unload multiple clips of ammunition is one more thing to consider.
Like with Oblivion, the main adventure comes from exploring the lands, and the side-quests keep the game interesting. Lock-picking is far less frustrating than in Oblivion, it's simply a matter of skill level rather than timing. One of the more fun novelty tasks is computer hacking, it's like a game of mastermind but with letters instead of colours. The joke-telling butler from your house in megaton can provide a laugh or two, but not as much as the gullible shopkeeper (and amateur novelist) Moira. Messing with her after she sends you on misguided fieldwork is somewhat cathartic.
The success of Fallout 3 as a game rests on it's ability to immerse the player, and like Oblivion it's the game's strength. Without playing the original games I can't really comment on whether it's successfully captured the franchise, but as a stand-alone product it's thoroughly impressive. In the last 6 weeks or so, about half a dozen top titles have all hit the shelves. Once I got this game, all others have ceased to even be touched. Going back to Far Cry 2 now will feel like a step down. A fantastic game with truly amazing depth, it's a reminder of the quality that Bethesda studios are capable of. It may be little more than a re-skin of Oblivion, but for a game to base in on they could have done a lot worse.
By contrast, Bethesda's latest effort, Fallout 3, is a bleak environment. The developers have outdone themselves in selling the post-apocalyptic setting, the engine capable of the magnificent imagery in their fantasy classic was able to render such a desolate world. The game looks truly fantastic, everything from the design of the ruins to the cartoon displays in the hub. Visually the game looks spectacular.
As for the gameplay mechanics, if you have played Oblivion then you have essentially played this game. The interface is the same, the interaction with objects is the same, the AI behaviour is the same, it's another open-ended world, there are still plenty of places to explore and quests to do on the side. It's Oblivion with guns, though the mechanics of battle suits gun-fighting far better than swordplay. The VATS system is really cool too, the ability to queue up moves is very helpful at times.
As for differences, obviously the levelling system is different. The S.P.E.C.I.A.L. approach means that actions do not have to be taken into consideration and it becomes a lot easier to build a customisable character. All that matters is the accumulation of experience points, the fact that I don't need to put on autowalk and sneak or spend hours swimming in order to skill up. The karma system is a really nice addition. Ammunition conservation and weapon degradation also add another level of complexity to the game. When there's a few approaching Mirelurks, having to worry about whether to unload multiple clips of ammunition is one more thing to consider.
Like with Oblivion, the main adventure comes from exploring the lands, and the side-quests keep the game interesting. Lock-picking is far less frustrating than in Oblivion, it's simply a matter of skill level rather than timing. One of the more fun novelty tasks is computer hacking, it's like a game of mastermind but with letters instead of colours. The joke-telling butler from your house in megaton can provide a laugh or two, but not as much as the gullible shopkeeper (and amateur novelist) Moira. Messing with her after she sends you on misguided fieldwork is somewhat cathartic.
The success of Fallout 3 as a game rests on it's ability to immerse the player, and like Oblivion it's the game's strength. Without playing the original games I can't really comment on whether it's successfully captured the franchise, but as a stand-alone product it's thoroughly impressive. In the last 6 weeks or so, about half a dozen top titles have all hit the shelves. Once I got this game, all others have ceased to even be touched. Going back to Far Cry 2 now will feel like a step down. A fantastic game with truly amazing depth, it's a reminder of the quality that Bethesda studios are capable of. It may be little more than a re-skin of Oblivion, but for a game to base in on they could have done a lot worse.
Friday, 25 July 2008
Censorship Fallout
As yet another high profile game fails to meet the censor's stringent requirements, us gamers are left to befoul the most draconian censorship platform of games in the developed world. It's beyond a joke that Australia doesn't have an R 18+ rating for games, it stems from a complete misunderstanding of the medium as an entertainment source. The average age of a gamer in Australia in 2006 was 28 years old, and over half of gamers are over 18. This is fairly consistent with trends from elsewhere. Over 88% of Australians support an R rating for games. These are telling factors, yet there are still hurdles to overcome: namely attorney generals who have no clue about modern culture. The desire to protect children is one thing, to cut off the majority of the market in order to protect children is another.
Protecting children
On the show Q&A, a member of the audience asked a question about why we don't have an R rating. One thing that amazed me is how often the response is that it's about protecting children. "I have kids who play games" came up more than once. It's completely missing the whole point of the debate. The R rating is a means of restricting children from playing the game. To give certain games an R rating would remove it from the hands of children, much like doing so with films does so, much like making alcohol restricted removes it from the hands of children. Of course it's not perfect and kids still watch R rated films, just as kids still drink and smoke. The problem here is consistency, if parents can determine what is best for their children in terms of films, why can't they do the same with games?
The next point in the line of protecting children (keep in mind that R ratings are for adults only) is that interactive media is so much worse than films or books. And what evidence is there to support this? Turns out there is none. The studies on this field are scarce. But from the studies there are, there is nothing to suggest that violent games have any more effect than television. What is different about clicking a button to make violence happen than watching it? Most of the time, we don't passively watch films. If the film is engaging, we are actively taking part. Same goes for a good book. Games are no different to any other media in this respect, making minor choices in the direction of the media surely couldn't make it stand out.
The final point seems to be the idea of harm minimisation in society in general. And I agree with this point. If a particular medium causes enough social harm which greatly outweighs it's benefit then it shouldn't be allowed for sale. This goes for drugs including alcohol, gambling, extreme media like snuff or rape films. If there is a severe negative impact which is detrimental to society then it should be reviewed. So lets examine games under a critical eye:
Consistency
Democracy can show it's flaws at times, the fallibility or ignorance of individual politicians on matters they have authority over is astounding. The bureaucrats who write the guidelines are sometimes so ignorant of the legislation they pass that even the most hardened supporter of the democratic process would be disillusioned. Gaming is a new medium, and while we now have a generation that grew up with games, it's original place as a niche market means that there is a generation gap between those who saw it's conception and the mainstream entertainment source we have now. As it's acceptance as a valid form of entertainment is kept at bay by ignorant commentators using the art form as a scape goat, the doubt in peoples minds is constantly part of the media spotlight.
A ratings system only works if it's consistent, and in Australia we don't have consistent guidelines. What good reason is there that sex can be shown in M rated films (and sometimes even PG) but the slight bit of sex in a game makes it unusable? Same goes for drugs. Fallout 3 was banned because it references the drug morphine, yet we can see the effects of drugs in M rated films and television. Some of the violence in games is deplorable, yet it's given an MA rating where the equivalent film would be rated R. Is this because it's interactive games are meant to be worse? It's those inconsistencies that make ratings irrelevant. It's those inconsistencies that confuse parents. For adults like myself, the rating is already irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if a movie is G or R, just like it doesn't matter for a game. I'm not a parent.
And that's the core issue in the end. As much as we want to protect children from harm, which is a noble aim, the bottom line is that entertainment mediums are there for everyone. Just like films such as Pulp Fiction or Hostel, there are games that cater for that adult audience. Having parents allowing their children to play a game like Grand Theft Auto would be around the same level as letting them watch something like Saw. But children aren't the only users of the medium. It's up to parents to protect their children from harm, and society as a whole shouldn't be deprived of the freedom of choice because of a few bad parents. What point is a ratings system if the government doesn't trust the population to use it properly?
Protecting children
On the show Q&A, a member of the audience asked a question about why we don't have an R rating. One thing that amazed me is how often the response is that it's about protecting children. "I have kids who play games" came up more than once. It's completely missing the whole point of the debate. The R rating is a means of restricting children from playing the game. To give certain games an R rating would remove it from the hands of children, much like doing so with films does so, much like making alcohol restricted removes it from the hands of children. Of course it's not perfect and kids still watch R rated films, just as kids still drink and smoke. The problem here is consistency, if parents can determine what is best for their children in terms of films, why can't they do the same with games?
The next point in the line of protecting children (keep in mind that R ratings are for adults only) is that interactive media is so much worse than films or books. And what evidence is there to support this? Turns out there is none. The studies on this field are scarce. But from the studies there are, there is nothing to suggest that violent games have any more effect than television. What is different about clicking a button to make violence happen than watching it? Most of the time, we don't passively watch films. If the film is engaging, we are actively taking part. Same goes for a good book. Games are no different to any other media in this respect, making minor choices in the direction of the media surely couldn't make it stand out.
The final point seems to be the idea of harm minimisation in society in general. And I agree with this point. If a particular medium causes enough social harm which greatly outweighs it's benefit then it shouldn't be allowed for sale. This goes for drugs including alcohol, gambling, extreme media like snuff or rape films. If there is a severe negative impact which is detrimental to society then it should be reviewed. So lets examine games under a critical eye:
- Gaming is becoming more and more a social medium. Anti-social behaviour is one of the biggest factors people cite in the need to censor games.
- Violent crimes in recent years has gone down. While correlation does not equate to causation, if there were a link between violent games and violent behaviour, then as game sales rise, then a trend showing the opposite shouldn't be there.
Consistency
Democracy can show it's flaws at times, the fallibility or ignorance of individual politicians on matters they have authority over is astounding. The bureaucrats who write the guidelines are sometimes so ignorant of the legislation they pass that even the most hardened supporter of the democratic process would be disillusioned. Gaming is a new medium, and while we now have a generation that grew up with games, it's original place as a niche market means that there is a generation gap between those who saw it's conception and the mainstream entertainment source we have now. As it's acceptance as a valid form of entertainment is kept at bay by ignorant commentators using the art form as a scape goat, the doubt in peoples minds is constantly part of the media spotlight.
A ratings system only works if it's consistent, and in Australia we don't have consistent guidelines. What good reason is there that sex can be shown in M rated films (and sometimes even PG) but the slight bit of sex in a game makes it unusable? Same goes for drugs. Fallout 3 was banned because it references the drug morphine, yet we can see the effects of drugs in M rated films and television. Some of the violence in games is deplorable, yet it's given an MA rating where the equivalent film would be rated R. Is this because it's interactive games are meant to be worse? It's those inconsistencies that make ratings irrelevant. It's those inconsistencies that confuse parents. For adults like myself, the rating is already irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if a movie is G or R, just like it doesn't matter for a game. I'm not a parent.
And that's the core issue in the end. As much as we want to protect children from harm, which is a noble aim, the bottom line is that entertainment mediums are there for everyone. Just like films such as Pulp Fiction or Hostel, there are games that cater for that adult audience. Having parents allowing their children to play a game like Grand Theft Auto would be around the same level as letting them watch something like Saw. But children aren't the only users of the medium. It's up to parents to protect their children from harm, and society as a whole shouldn't be deprived of the freedom of choice because of a few bad parents. What point is a ratings system if the government doesn't trust the population to use it properly?
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
The Death of PC Gaming
As GTA IV rushes off the shelves and onto the 7th generation consoles, the hype surrounding the game fills me with a sense of lament. The once great fortress for hardcore gaming that is the Personal Computer is now nothing more than a slowly decaying ruin inhabited by the few who hold the delusion that someone will gallantly ride in and save the day. That's not to say that hardcore gaming is completely dead, but as consoles catch up to the technology that has long kept the PC gaming market viable the platform is growing more and more irrelevant. It's become a system dominated by World of Warcraft and The Sims where piracy and extreme copy protection are making the system less and less favourable for users and developers alike.
A brief history of gaming
To understand the situation now, it's important to understand the difference in the life cycles of PCs and consoles and how each intertwines with development and sales. For an in-depth look at the history of games and gaming there is always Wikipedia. If I tried to explain it in my own words, I'd just muddle it up, leave out vital details and possibly push false information. Instead I'm just going to focus on the technology vs marketplace battle which to me is very indicative of why the battle has gone the way it did.
The console is on an approximately 5 year lifecycle; when it comes out it's the latest greatest thing, from there it takes about 12 months to build up a decent gaming library. For the next year or so it features it's best sales, then it starts to taper off by which time the hardware is becoming redundant and a new console needs to come in it's place and start all over again. The PC is a much more incremental process, when a new piece of hardware comes out, it doesn't require buying a complete new system. Likewise the software that games are built on stays the same. With computers, you don't build to hardware, you build to software. With Microsoft having the effectual monopoly on home computing, it does add the stability the computer needs to foster a development environment.
For the most part, the PC market has been the centre of innovation in gaming. Partly this has been driven by the nature of early development. Games were small and could be made by small teams or even garage developers. An incremental system is perfect for this kind of development environment. At the same time, the console market was primarily a way to bring arcade games into the home. The divergence in the style of games is quite clear at this point. Consoles and arcade games were at best joystick / pad + buttons while the computer had the keyboard / mouse combo. Just the speed and complexity that the mouse allowed for gaming brought complexity to the likes never seen. Without the mouse, the RTS would still be turn-based. The First Person Shooter genre would not be where it is now, nor would RPGs. Though it's interesting how the RPG genre developed on both console and PC resulting in two very different ways to do the genre.
The Playstation for me was the console that changed everything. It had targeted the audience that PC games and packaged it up in something affordable. Sony in their first foray into the gaming market killed Sega and seriously dented Nintendo. Though the PC market still survived thanks to the 3DFX and NVidia providing a graphics arms race, while gaming took on a new dimension with the internet providing a new multiplayer experience. While the incremental PC system kept ahead of it's console counterparts, the software libraries and convenience meant an ever-growing market. And with the onset of the PS2 and X-Box finally there was a large enough market share worth going after for non-Japanese developers. The advantages of developing for a market like that are well worth the switch in a field where only 10% of games make a profit and most companies go bankrupt after one game. It's a cut-throat multi-billion dollar industry, risk management comes into play. The problem of piracy on the PC makes the platform a higher risk, as does programming software to work on an almost infinite combination of hardware configurations as opposed to the one.
In the mid to late 90s, consumer electronics were still reasonably expensive so it made sense that the market would be dominated by those looking towards an all-in-one machine which a computer would fit the bill. Now as the price has dropped, the silicon boom has meant that we can afford purpose specific devices. The power and range of hi-definition entertainment equipment combined with wireless LAN and broadband really harbours the lounge rather than a desk as the prime candidate for entertainment. The new consoles offer the best of both worlds; a globally connected device that also allows for social multiplayer action.
Piracy vs protection
I was browsing one of my favourite webcomics this morning and came across this article. It somewhat shocked me to see the extent of copy protection, but really it shouldn't. Sure it's extreme and for the most part impractical, but it's really not much more than the Half-life 2 or Bioshock protection. When Half-life 2 came out, I did the right thing and bought it. From the time I first tried to install the game to the point where I could play it was well over 3 hours. Over 3 hours for a legally bought game! It's getting beyond a joke just how restricting and invasive copy protection is. Only the really extreme measures are effective, and the regular methods only serve to hurt legitimate consumers.
Yes, piracy is a problem for game developers. Though as I asserted with the music industry, the days where we have high-speed broadband lend itself towards a global distribution system over the internet. We get shafted here in Australia in terms of game prices. What retails for $100 AUD retails for $50 USD despite a strong exchange rate. I didn't rate Steam when it first came out, but now I can see it's appeal. When I can buy games for $50 USD and they are downloaded onto my computer ready to play, why should I go out and spend $100 to support the dying retail chains that put such a huge mark-up on the price? is it really worth that extra $40 to have a physical copy any more? Consoles themselves are still geared to that centralised distribution system by selling games on physical media. Though I feel this generation of consoles will be the last to operate that way, given XBox Live and the Wii Virtual Console are showing that digital distribution is achievable on consoles.
To me invasive copy protection is one of the worst things the industry can do. Checking for unique cd keys is one thing, installing rootkits on the users system is another. Having to disable virtual drives, making sure a game can't be duplicated, surely these methods contravene fair use policies. At a time where it's far more convenient to play off backups and virtual drives, copy protection becomes more and more restrictive on the ability to do so. Note that it's not stopping piracy, just do a search on bit torrent for any game you can think of. Massive global copying is still happening, just like it's happening for albums. And there is a consumer backlash against companies that use more extreme methods to stop piracy, so there should be. Because it is contributing to the downfall of the medium that so many of us still choose to game on.
The future?
There's just so much to cover with this topic, and there have been so many angles I've wanted to push but not had time for. But I'm sure that over the next few months as I get back into casual game development, my interest will be sparked enough to lay forth all the issues I deem noteworthy. As much as my pessimism rang out in the above prose, I'll say now that PC gaming will never die completely. There is too much of a base following for it to completely die. Some genres like Real Time Strategy is far too complex to be streamlined effectively on a console, and the market for fast and complex First Person Shooters will always be there. MMORPG's like World of Warcraft thrive because of the social atmosphere they provide, something a keyboard is geared towards. Not to mention that most developers are PC gamers who love to play on the platform just as much as their target audience.
There will be gaming on this platform while there are still those to support it, though the model for "epic" games should continue in it's "console release followed belatedly by a PC release" as has been the case since the turn of the decade. I lament the shift away from the PC as a preferred platform, but for all the reasons specified above and more, I understand why it has to be this way. All I can do is sit back and watch as it changes in a metaphorical arms race that will largely focus on giving the consumer what it wants. But I fear that it will be like TV in that eventually most games will be made for the lowest common denominator as gaming becomes more and more socially mainstream.
A brief history of gaming
To understand the situation now, it's important to understand the difference in the life cycles of PCs and consoles and how each intertwines with development and sales. For an in-depth look at the history of games and gaming there is always Wikipedia. If I tried to explain it in my own words, I'd just muddle it up, leave out vital details and possibly push false information. Instead I'm just going to focus on the technology vs marketplace battle which to me is very indicative of why the battle has gone the way it did.
The console is on an approximately 5 year lifecycle; when it comes out it's the latest greatest thing, from there it takes about 12 months to build up a decent gaming library. For the next year or so it features it's best sales, then it starts to taper off by which time the hardware is becoming redundant and a new console needs to come in it's place and start all over again. The PC is a much more incremental process, when a new piece of hardware comes out, it doesn't require buying a complete new system. Likewise the software that games are built on stays the same. With computers, you don't build to hardware, you build to software. With Microsoft having the effectual monopoly on home computing, it does add the stability the computer needs to foster a development environment.
For the most part, the PC market has been the centre of innovation in gaming. Partly this has been driven by the nature of early development. Games were small and could be made by small teams or even garage developers. An incremental system is perfect for this kind of development environment. At the same time, the console market was primarily a way to bring arcade games into the home. The divergence in the style of games is quite clear at this point. Consoles and arcade games were at best joystick / pad + buttons while the computer had the keyboard / mouse combo. Just the speed and complexity that the mouse allowed for gaming brought complexity to the likes never seen. Without the mouse, the RTS would still be turn-based. The First Person Shooter genre would not be where it is now, nor would RPGs. Though it's interesting how the RPG genre developed on both console and PC resulting in two very different ways to do the genre.
The Playstation for me was the console that changed everything. It had targeted the audience that PC games and packaged it up in something affordable. Sony in their first foray into the gaming market killed Sega and seriously dented Nintendo. Though the PC market still survived thanks to the 3DFX and NVidia providing a graphics arms race, while gaming took on a new dimension with the internet providing a new multiplayer experience. While the incremental PC system kept ahead of it's console counterparts, the software libraries and convenience meant an ever-growing market. And with the onset of the PS2 and X-Box finally there was a large enough market share worth going after for non-Japanese developers. The advantages of developing for a market like that are well worth the switch in a field where only 10% of games make a profit and most companies go bankrupt after one game. It's a cut-throat multi-billion dollar industry, risk management comes into play. The problem of piracy on the PC makes the platform a higher risk, as does programming software to work on an almost infinite combination of hardware configurations as opposed to the one.
In the mid to late 90s, consumer electronics were still reasonably expensive so it made sense that the market would be dominated by those looking towards an all-in-one machine which a computer would fit the bill. Now as the price has dropped, the silicon boom has meant that we can afford purpose specific devices. The power and range of hi-definition entertainment equipment combined with wireless LAN and broadband really harbours the lounge rather than a desk as the prime candidate for entertainment. The new consoles offer the best of both worlds; a globally connected device that also allows for social multiplayer action.
Piracy vs protection
I was browsing one of my favourite webcomics this morning and came across this article. It somewhat shocked me to see the extent of copy protection, but really it shouldn't. Sure it's extreme and for the most part impractical, but it's really not much more than the Half-life 2 or Bioshock protection. When Half-life 2 came out, I did the right thing and bought it. From the time I first tried to install the game to the point where I could play it was well over 3 hours. Over 3 hours for a legally bought game! It's getting beyond a joke just how restricting and invasive copy protection is. Only the really extreme measures are effective, and the regular methods only serve to hurt legitimate consumers.
Yes, piracy is a problem for game developers. Though as I asserted with the music industry, the days where we have high-speed broadband lend itself towards a global distribution system over the internet. We get shafted here in Australia in terms of game prices. What retails for $100 AUD retails for $50 USD despite a strong exchange rate. I didn't rate Steam when it first came out, but now I can see it's appeal. When I can buy games for $50 USD and they are downloaded onto my computer ready to play, why should I go out and spend $100 to support the dying retail chains that put such a huge mark-up on the price? is it really worth that extra $40 to have a physical copy any more? Consoles themselves are still geared to that centralised distribution system by selling games on physical media. Though I feel this generation of consoles will be the last to operate that way, given XBox Live and the Wii Virtual Console are showing that digital distribution is achievable on consoles.
To me invasive copy protection is one of the worst things the industry can do. Checking for unique cd keys is one thing, installing rootkits on the users system is another. Having to disable virtual drives, making sure a game can't be duplicated, surely these methods contravene fair use policies. At a time where it's far more convenient to play off backups and virtual drives, copy protection becomes more and more restrictive on the ability to do so. Note that it's not stopping piracy, just do a search on bit torrent for any game you can think of. Massive global copying is still happening, just like it's happening for albums. And there is a consumer backlash against companies that use more extreme methods to stop piracy, so there should be. Because it is contributing to the downfall of the medium that so many of us still choose to game on.
The future?
There's just so much to cover with this topic, and there have been so many angles I've wanted to push but not had time for. But I'm sure that over the next few months as I get back into casual game development, my interest will be sparked enough to lay forth all the issues I deem noteworthy. As much as my pessimism rang out in the above prose, I'll say now that PC gaming will never die completely. There is too much of a base following for it to completely die. Some genres like Real Time Strategy is far too complex to be streamlined effectively on a console, and the market for fast and complex First Person Shooters will always be there. MMORPG's like World of Warcraft thrive because of the social atmosphere they provide, something a keyboard is geared towards. Not to mention that most developers are PC gamers who love to play on the platform just as much as their target audience.
There will be gaming on this platform while there are still those to support it, though the model for "epic" games should continue in it's "console release followed belatedly by a PC release" as has been the case since the turn of the decade. I lament the shift away from the PC as a preferred platform, but for all the reasons specified above and more, I understand why it has to be this way. All I can do is sit back and watch as it changes in a metaphorical arms race that will largely focus on giving the consumer what it wants. But I fear that it will be like TV in that eventually most games will be made for the lowest common denominator as gaming becomes more and more socially mainstream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
