First things first, I know I haven't updated in ages. I've been in Germany and I'm also on the job hunt!
In my down time I recently rented Alan Wake, a game I at least enjoyed the story to, but coupled with my rental of Dante's Inferno before my trip I think I've been served a very large dosing of game design decisions I think we need to start doing away with:
Collectibles
I'm not at all against the idea of collectibles in a game when a main theme of the game is exploration. I loved the bobble heads in Fallout 3, not to mention each one was hidden in a very interesting location that was fun to explore and revealed an interesting story. However, in a game where exploration is either not facilitated well by the level design, controls, pacing or story it really blocks the flow of the game.
Alan Wake really pushed this too far, there are 100 coffee cans to find, 25 signs to read, 106 manuscript pages to find, 25 can stacks to shoot over and 14 television shows to watch and 15 supply crates to find. WHY the hell is there so much shit in this game? I can let the manuscript pages slide as they are absolutely integral to the story and I always enjoyed when I found one as they tell a small story. However, all the rest leads to immensely stupid situations.
A game like Alan Wake that has such a strong story really just makes the player want to focus his or her energy on experiencing that. When Alan is in a hurry to get to a location, wouldn't it make sense that he just drives like a bat out of hell with his headlights searing the darkness to his next objective? Why yes it would, but I would love to read the story where Alan stops at every house along the way to see if they have one of the 100 coffee thermoses he's trying to collect.
This is just bullshit, tedious busy work and there's always that "Oh god maybe I missed one" thought that creeps into my head. It becomes frustrating when 9/10 times I wander off and find nothing, but damn that 10th time I found a fucking thermos ensuring I scour the entire game for this garbage. The kicker is, what do they do? As far as I can tell, not a damn thing. If you find them all you get an achievement but besides that... nothing! At least the Fallout 3 bobble heads gave your character permanent buffs.
I mean really, these things to not NEED to be in the game. I'd rather finish a game and be done with it instead of thinking "Oh I could go back and collect this or that." Really though, unless you LOVED a game, who the hell does this anyways? I have no desire to return to Alan Wake. I know the story, it's told and done. Why would I replay to collect pointless crap that gives me nothing? If you beat Assassin's Creed, do you really feel the burning urge to run around and collect flags for hours and hours? No, because it's not fun. It wasn't fun the first time and it won't be fun now, so lets just take things out of games that make them tedious and frustrating and just keep the shit that makes them fun
This is the kind of tripe hate and it is absolutely padding your game for length. A scene that would normally take 5 minutes can now take 10 or 15 as the player has to scour every edge and corner of the god damn map if they want to find all their shiny objects. If it's not padding the game then it's...
Pointless Achievements
God do I hate these. One has to ask themselves, if it weren't for achievements would Alan Wake have had the coffee thermoses? My bet is no, Remedy is much better than that. Did Assassin's Creed really need the hundreds and hundreds of flags all over the fucking place? NO It didn't, just focus on working the achievements into the game and not working your game into the achievement system.
Again, if these were all relevant and pertinent to the game then I like them. It is nice to get recognition of we beat a boss fight without taking damage or complete a section very quickly, but rewarding people for doing stupid shit like "travel 1,000,000 kilometers" or whatever it was in Tales of Vesperia is just so utterly axillary to the game it's a just idiotic to include. The kicker is unless you essentially tape your move stick down once you get the airship (furthering my theory that every JRPG must have an airship) for about 6 hours you probably aren't going to get this achievement. There is no reason you would ever need to normally move this far and on the flipside, it is not something to be commended as there is nothing impressive about it. Though, at least it didn't have...
Jumps in Games That Just Shouldn't Have Them
Again, another thing Alan Wake is guilty of. Face it, if your character's jump animation is just awkward and strange it is immensely cruel to put jumping situations into the game. I'll admit that Alan Wake was fairly good about this, safe for a few select parts but can we PLEASE stop doing this?
This also goes hand in hand with the "really hard jump" situation I find in games all the time. Now for me, Dante's Inferno had way, way too many of these. I fucking swear that every other jump was one of those jumps that you have to perfectly time your double jump while traveling at the right angle away from the surely stupidly positioned camera in a location you can't change. Again, if your game is a platformer than obviously jumping is a must. If you are sort of an exploration type game (metroid, castlevania, etc.) then hell yes, let's jump away because I KNOW the jump mechanics will be solid in these games.
Again back to Dante's Inferno, I died in pitfalls in that game about 95% of the time. So much so that a screen came up "You can adjust the difficulty in the options menu, would you like to?" NO! Go fuck yourself game. Is putting the game on easy suddenly going to alter the geometry of the map so that the ledges are closer together? Of course not, go to hell. At the very least the game LET you change the difficulty because I hate
Not Being Able to Change the Difficulty
Now, not many old games had this at all and it's a pretty modern idea in gaming. However, it's one that I think makes a lot of sense. Especially with the trend of games seeming to become easier and easier, "hard" is almost like the new "medium". The problem is, when you get a difficult game and assume you can handle it on hard and then an hour in when things really kick off the game decides it's going to stomp your ass to the moon because your on hard. Should the player really need to start a new game on "medium" and lose their progress because of something they really couldn't have ever known? They didn't know how hard "hard" is and had no way of knowing. Though on a related topic I also dislike...
Locked Difficulties
Don't do this bullshit. Alan Wake was a huge offender in this regard. Not only because it locked Nightmare difficulty until you beat the game on medium or hard, but because it also only dropped certain manuscript pages in Nightmare difficulty. The manuscript pages provided a lot of back story and motivation into the characters, which in my opinion makes having some of them as hidden collectibles a very strange choice. But come on, locking out back story because I'm not playing on the hardest mode which is ALSO locked from me? Get over yourself, game.
Padding games out
Maybe you had your funding cut, maybe the publisher wants the game to be longer. Whatever the reason, padding a game out just leads to tedious situations.
No, actually, I do not want to fight every boss monster in the game in some ridiculously contrived "gauntlet" at the end of the game. Nor do I want to play through all the levels again but in reverse. Nor do I really relish yet ANOTHER "suddenly the room collapses and this door is blocked, go walk for 40 minutes the long way around." A game should be as long as it needs to be, and not longer.
Stuff That Isn't Your Fault
An alternative title to this could just be "Other Bullshit" but I felt that was less descriptive. I mean parts in games where you just yell at the screen "Oh, come on!" I think I'll just list a bunch of stuff here.
Enemies that can stunlock you to death or near death. This is just classic cheesy "make the game hard" garbage. If an enemy can combo me to death you may as well just do away with the health meter so we can stop pretending I have more than one hit.
Shit that happens that you can't react to. like an enemy just spawning behind you and then one shotting you, thanks game.
Characters that just don't seem to DO what you tell them to. When I say switch weapon, do it NOW; don't take all damn day. Likewise when playing an RTS, when I damn well tell you to use an ability you USE it.
Having little enemy/environment variation. This is important enough to probably warrant it's own section, but really it's a very simple concept. People get bored doing the same thing again and again and seeing the same thing again and again. If you mix this up your game becomes much more interesting and gives more breathing room for extended combat sections.
Finally...
Bad Endings
Now, I don't really know why this is such a problem with a lot of games. I realize you all want to keep the bling bling sequel opportunities open and we of course HAVE to make room for the piles of inevitably shitty DLC to come out, but does all this really mean the game we all purchase needs to have such a terrible ending?
I want things to feel concluded, or at the very least concluded for the time being. A good metaphor would be to close a door, but open a window. We want the door (ie, the main story) to be finished but leave a hook (ie, opening the window) for the story to continue should sales be good enough. Movies and novels do this all the time when sequel potential is there so I don't know why we gamers get the hardcore shaft on things. Sometimes it doesn't even seem like we make it into the house that even HAS the door or the window.
Let's look at say.... Unreal 2. At the end of the game your main space ship blows up and every character on it but yourself dies in a horrible laser beam. Your stuck on the planet and then the game ends, see ya.
What the fuck is this? NOTHING is concluded, NOTHING is even finished. It's not even a cliffhanger, it's just kind of... a dead end. It's like the game just goes "Well that's all for you, we're done here - see ya!"
This kind of abrupt ending is not entirely common in games, but we don't need all the cliffhangers and ambiguous bullshit endings that happen all the time. Perhaps I'm just a prude, but I don't like endings where I need to "assume" things via sheer guesswork. If the main character dies just tell me so, don't make it so he might be dead or might not be because we don't know if we can afford a sequel. And hell, you know what?
Don't Retcon
I'm looking at YOU Starcraft 2!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Deus Ex: Sepia Revolution
In case you didn't see it there is a new Deus Ex "gameplay" trailer out. While it actually simply looks like a cinematic trailer rendered in engine, I guess some of it could be gameplay. For your consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNQR0spE_s&feature=player_embedded
Now, why in the hell is it so yellow?
I thought we got over this desaturated ultra bloom thing in video games. Though, I guess this isn't really desaturated as it is just make everything yellow and orange.
This looks really stupid. Why in the hell can't we simply have COLOURS in games anymore? Does making your game with less colours make it more hardcore? I would love to hear Edios Montreal's reasoning for this, as I'm quite positive it must be monumentally absurd.
Really, that's the thing to keep in mind. Someone or even a group of people collectively chose to make the game look like this. Why? What possible reason is there? Such a bland colour choice just makes the whole damn game look bland. Gears of War started to bore the hell of me with it's washed out testosterone fueled bullet circus and I have no doubt the boring world in Deus Ex is going to start to grate on me as well.
You know, in REAL LIFE colours exist. Even in metropolis like cities. For your viewing pleasure I've mocked up some comparisons for you all below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNQR0spE_s&feature=player_embedded
Now, why in the hell is it so yellow?
I thought we got over this desaturated ultra bloom thing in video games. Though, I guess this isn't really desaturated as it is just make everything yellow and orange.
This looks really stupid. Why in the hell can't we simply have COLOURS in games anymore? Does making your game with less colours make it more hardcore? I would love to hear Edios Montreal's reasoning for this, as I'm quite positive it must be monumentally absurd.
Really, that's the thing to keep in mind. Someone or even a group of people collectively chose to make the game look like this. Why? What possible reason is there? Such a bland colour choice just makes the whole damn game look bland. Gears of War started to bore the hell of me with it's washed out testosterone fueled bullet circus and I have no doubt the boring world in Deus Ex is going to start to grate on me as well.
You know, in REAL LIFE colours exist. Even in metropolis like cities. For your viewing pleasure I've mocked up some comparisons for you all below.
Toronto Regularly
Toronto in the Deus Ex World
There, doesn't that look MUCH more realistic?
No, of course it doesn't because real life is full of vibrant colours. I want to feel like I'm in an actual world in video games, and these disgusting and moronic colour pallets do nothing but put a huge barrier directly in the way of this goal.
Just bring back colours, the gamers miss them!
No, of course it doesn't because real life is full of vibrant colours. I want to feel like I'm in an actual world in video games, and these disgusting and moronic colour pallets do nothing but put a huge barrier directly in the way of this goal.
Just bring back colours, the gamers miss them!
Monday, July 12, 2010
Check out my Let's Plays!
Hi everyone, just a quick update. Incase you didn't know (which you probably didn't) I have a "let's play" channel up now. If you don't know, a Let's Play is basically you watching me play a game. As boring as that sounds and may be, I've recorded audio simultaneously as I play of me giving my commentary on the game.
Right now is just an hour of dead space up. Check it out below if you're interested!
http://www.livestream.com/weaverschannel
Right now is just an hour of dead space up. Check it out below if you're interested!
http://www.livestream.com/weaverschannel
The T word
With blizzard now revoking their plans to force realID on the forums, I thought I'd do a short piece on the word on everyone's lips these days "Troll" and how it's overuse is REALLY pissing me off.
I remember way, way back in the mid to late 90s someone who was "trolling" a forum/nesgroup referred to someone who was what in modern times you would call a lurker. Back then a troll was someone who was ALWAYS on the boards and always watching everything that happened, just as a troll watches everything that passes over their bridge. How the term came to mean what it means now; someone who posts inflammatory remarks for the sheer purpose of getting a reaction out of someone, is beyond me. But hey, if that's what the word means now then so be it.
The problem now though, is that EVERYONE with a fucking opinion is a troll. This is not what a troll is and I want the people of the internet to stop throwing this fucking word around like confetti. Allow me to share with you an example:
Let's say the following posts ensues
Hi everyone, I just saw popular movie of the week and I really don't see what all the hype was about. I thought the acting was sub par, there was plot hole X in the second act. I still thought the effects were good and the action decent, but I don't see why everyone is going crazy about this movie; what did you like or dislike about this movie? Maybe I missed something!
In the current state of the internet I've seen people reply to posts like this and say:
"OP, stop trolling, the acting was great and this movie is awesome".
NO! WRONG! BAD! You stupid shit, the original poster is NOT a Troll, he or she is someone who simply holds an unpopular opinion about something. The original post contained no HINT of wanting to offend and get people worked up. In fact, the only troll in the thread is the SECOND poster who is calling OP a troll. His remarks are inflammatory and opinionated.
Thus, let us lay down the SINGLE law of troll detection:
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE VOICES A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM YOUR OWN DOES NOT MAKE THEM A TROLL.
I've seen this happen so much on the internet I can't fucking believe people roll with it. I've seen people called trolls because they point out some of the flaws in Halo with well reasoned and structured arguments, whereas the people who call them trolls get internet high-fives from their like minded friends.
This doesn't mean trolls don't exist, going back to Halo just because I do not like the game, even I would agree someone posting "Halo is an AWFUL game, I can't believe you all like it" is a troll through and through. There is no structure or logic to the argument beyond sheer opinion and is clearly designed to attack people who old the opposite opinion. Since opinions are subjective it's arguing nothing and is designed to get people in a flame war.
If there is one thing you should take away from this, always remember the law of troll detection!
I remember way, way back in the mid to late 90s someone who was "trolling" a forum/nesgroup referred to someone who was what in modern times you would call a lurker. Back then a troll was someone who was ALWAYS on the boards and always watching everything that happened, just as a troll watches everything that passes over their bridge. How the term came to mean what it means now; someone who posts inflammatory remarks for the sheer purpose of getting a reaction out of someone, is beyond me. But hey, if that's what the word means now then so be it.
The problem now though, is that EVERYONE with a fucking opinion is a troll. This is not what a troll is and I want the people of the internet to stop throwing this fucking word around like confetti. Allow me to share with you an example:
Let's say the following posts ensues
Hi everyone, I just saw popular movie of the week and I really don't see what all the hype was about. I thought the acting was sub par, there was plot hole X in the second act. I still thought the effects were good and the action decent, but I don't see why everyone is going crazy about this movie; what did you like or dislike about this movie? Maybe I missed something!
In the current state of the internet I've seen people reply to posts like this and say:
"OP, stop trolling, the acting was great and this movie is awesome".
NO! WRONG! BAD! You stupid shit, the original poster is NOT a Troll, he or she is someone who simply holds an unpopular opinion about something. The original post contained no HINT of wanting to offend and get people worked up. In fact, the only troll in the thread is the SECOND poster who is calling OP a troll. His remarks are inflammatory and opinionated.
Thus, let us lay down the SINGLE law of troll detection:
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE VOICES A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM YOUR OWN DOES NOT MAKE THEM A TROLL.
I've seen this happen so much on the internet I can't fucking believe people roll with it. I've seen people called trolls because they point out some of the flaws in Halo with well reasoned and structured arguments, whereas the people who call them trolls get internet high-fives from their like minded friends.
This doesn't mean trolls don't exist, going back to Halo just because I do not like the game, even I would agree someone posting "Halo is an AWFUL game, I can't believe you all like it" is a troll through and through. There is no structure or logic to the argument beyond sheer opinion and is clearly designed to attack people who old the opposite opinion. Since opinions are subjective it's arguing nothing and is designed to get people in a flame war.
If there is one thing you should take away from this, always remember the law of troll detection!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Blizzard has gone FUCKING INSANE
This post refers to the recent blizz announcement:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041
Just a quick summary if you don't want to read the whole thing (it's not that long). Basically, for billing information you provide blizzard with your name and address, this information is now being instituted as what is known as a realid. Realid will be familiar with those in the Starcraft 2 beta. If you had an IRL or otherwise trustworthy friend, you could give them your realid and in game your actual name would appear in messages, notifications, etc. and not your online alias.
This was kind of a cool feature, not that I gave blizzard my real name at all (and I live on 123 fakestreet). However, soon blizzard is going to implement mandatory realid usage in their forums. This is INSANE. What this means is that whenever you post on the blizzard forums (I believe only WoW and SC2 will be affected) you have to use your real name, first and last.
as a bit of an aside, I'll let you in on a secret that I never really PLAN out blog posts. All of them are written from scratch in one go whenever I feel like it. I mention this because I have a TON of things to say about this. Normally, I can get in my head the general flow of the argument - but this time I really can't so I do apologize if this post is very jumbled, but I'll try my best to edit afterward.
WHERE I'M COMING FROM
Now, let's get a bit ethical so you can see where I'm coming from. I firmly believe that your information is yours. If you give it to a company I think it's wrong for them to just give it away - with few exceptions a company does not NEED to store your personal information. Government agencies are exempt from this but I think as they need to maintain birth records and citizenship information this really isn't an issue with most people. The bottom line here is that your information is yours.
REASONS WHY THIS IS BAD
1) Some people have unique names
As someone who has a unique name I'll admit my bias on this topic, but surely others can see the concern? When you can literally just google a name and find information about that person as their name is unique how in the fuck does Blizzard think slapping their name all over the forums is a good idea? What if thier name is in a public registry. WOOPS, now someone has their address and phone number. If someone finds and attacks another player via the WoW forums Blizzard had BETTER face a class action lawsuit for careless distribution of information.
I'll admit my knowledge of security/privacy is limited to one CS course I took, but even people uneducated in the field should notice the giant red flags with this. A solution could be to k-anonymize names. Keeping things layman, this means names which are uncommon become truncated. For example, if your name was Dan Xeeflux or something absurd like that, it would be truncated to something like Dan X. The amount of truncation refers to how many matches Dan X brings up. For example, Dan Xeeflu would bring up just as many as his full name, same with say Dan Xeefl. Eventually, you want to have over k matches, where k is a variable to determine the truncation amount.
HOW exactly Blizzard would accomplish this is beyond me, but it's not my ass in hot water when someone gets physically confronted in real life.
2) This could cost you a potential job
This post is slightly more speculation but hear me out, I think it's a good point. Employers are now using the internet to check out potential employees before they commit to a hire. You can google this if you really don't believe me but I've worked at a company that checked facebook for their applicant's names to see if they could dig up some not so nice habits like pictures of them using drugs or what have you and weigh it in their decision to even put them on the interview list. To be fair, we never found anything.
However, now when someone googles your name, maybe they'll run into your WoW account. Hell, maybe they'll google your name + WoW. WoW has a growing reputation as a massive time sink and for destroying lives, etc. You've heard all this before, and IMO it's no worse than any other MMO - but the stigma for WoW players is out there. If a company wants you to be work focused, they may feel WoW is a liability to your productivity and job dedication. If they believe you'll stay up till 4am raiding every night and show up to work haggard these are not points in your favor.
Again, having a more specific name hurts here, however what if your interviewer doesn't want to take any chances? Say you have a common name, they search it and find it on the WoW forums and figure "hell, let's not take any chances, that could be this candidate!" and just take you off the interview list? This is perhaps stretching plausibility, but i feel it's well in the realm of possibility.
3) This could affect your CURRENT job
This was something I hadn't even considered until I just read a few pages of comments on the topic. What if someone finds out you play WoW, but you're in a position of authority? My main concern is being a teacher or the like and having your students find out you play WoW. They could then find you in game and potentially harass you. Furthermore, it may lessen the air of authority a teacher should (imo at least) generally carry. If your students see you as a buddy buddy WoW player this may compromise your authority. Maybe they'll feel superior to you since they're higher level or have better gear? Do they not have a right to keep their online and real lives separate?
4) This game is about escapism and you're bringing it to real life
This sort of ties in with the last point, why is it so wrong for people to want to keep their online and real lives separate? The IDEA of WoW is to create an Avatar and be someone you aren't. To grow them and make friends in an online and safe environment. Blizzard is removing this and the two worlds are going to collide together in an ugly way.
5) This is illegal under Candian Law
Being Canadian I'm pretty familiar with our privacy laws. This seems to be in direct violation with Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Now I'm no lawyer, but one of the main ideas with PIPEDA is that "The law requires organizations to supply an individual with a product or a service even if they refuse consent for the collection, use or disclosure of your personal information unless that information is essential to the transaction"
Is disclosing my personal information essential to the service? No, it's not. Blizzard must then, at least for Canadians, give us the option of non disclosure. If they do not, I hope they see class action lawsuits.
6) Under certain situations this is illegal under US law as well.
What if someone is under witness protection? It is illegal for Blizzard to disclose ANY information about the name or whereabouts of this person in any fashion. This is probably a fairly rare situation, but with 11 million players could a few of them be under witness protection? A quick romp in the blizzard forums and I was actually very quickly rewarded by the first damn post in this thread:
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25712374700&sid=1&pageNo=1
Never say it can't happen!
WHY THIS IS HAPPENING
I think this is really the kicker of the whole argument. ALL of this, all the risk, the shady dealings, the potential ILLEGAL nature of this whole damn thing is done for one reason, or at least under the guise of "combating forum trolls and stopping flame wars".
Oh yeah guys, this is a just cause here. Fuck your privacy rights, fuck your LAWS - our moderators are too lazy to clean up the forums themselves and we can't have people get hurt feelings on the internet - we'd rather players track them down in real life and MURDER THEM.
That's probably a bit extreme, but there is literally no REASON to do this. Now I hear you argue "the forums are OPTIONAL, they aren't required to play the game". Fair point. However, what if my game breaks or I run into bugs? Blizzard's job is to provide me with technical support, and to do that guess where I have to go? The forums. To do that I need to disclose my name.
I can also hear people argue that the threat of having your name out there is probably exaggerated. However, you can't deny that it doesn't at least INCREASE risk where risk need not be increased? Blizzard, I assume accounts are currently linked to in game characters, if you start putting IN GAME punishments, like block WoW access for 24 hours for forum infringements, I think people would get the message.
I can also hear people argue, and I would disagree, that there simply IS no risk at all in putting your name out there. Besides being utter bullshit, your logic also points to Blizzard's use of real names being pointless:
If there were no risk at all in having your real name on their forums, then how in the hell would that stop trolling and flaming? If people weren't scared of real world repercussions then the flaming and trolling won't stop. On the flipside, if Blizzard is adamant that it WILL reduce flaming and trolling they are flat out admitting that they're putting you at a direct security and privacy risk as that's the only reason I can think of someone would stop trolling and flaming.
NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OF THIS. If anyone at Blizzard is reading, I beseech you STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING!
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041
Just a quick summary if you don't want to read the whole thing (it's not that long). Basically, for billing information you provide blizzard with your name and address, this information is now being instituted as what is known as a realid. Realid will be familiar with those in the Starcraft 2 beta. If you had an IRL or otherwise trustworthy friend, you could give them your realid and in game your actual name would appear in messages, notifications, etc. and not your online alias.
This was kind of a cool feature, not that I gave blizzard my real name at all (and I live on 123 fakestreet). However, soon blizzard is going to implement mandatory realid usage in their forums. This is INSANE. What this means is that whenever you post on the blizzard forums (I believe only WoW and SC2 will be affected) you have to use your real name, first and last.
as a bit of an aside, I'll let you in on a secret that I never really PLAN out blog posts. All of them are written from scratch in one go whenever I feel like it. I mention this because I have a TON of things to say about this. Normally, I can get in my head the general flow of the argument - but this time I really can't so I do apologize if this post is very jumbled, but I'll try my best to edit afterward.
WHERE I'M COMING FROM
Now, let's get a bit ethical so you can see where I'm coming from. I firmly believe that your information is yours. If you give it to a company I think it's wrong for them to just give it away - with few exceptions a company does not NEED to store your personal information. Government agencies are exempt from this but I think as they need to maintain birth records and citizenship information this really isn't an issue with most people. The bottom line here is that your information is yours.
REASONS WHY THIS IS BAD
1) Some people have unique names
As someone who has a unique name I'll admit my bias on this topic, but surely others can see the concern? When you can literally just google a name and find information about that person as their name is unique how in the fuck does Blizzard think slapping their name all over the forums is a good idea? What if thier name is in a public registry. WOOPS, now someone has their address and phone number. If someone finds and attacks another player via the WoW forums Blizzard had BETTER face a class action lawsuit for careless distribution of information.
I'll admit my knowledge of security/privacy is limited to one CS course I took, but even people uneducated in the field should notice the giant red flags with this. A solution could be to k-anonymize names. Keeping things layman, this means names which are uncommon become truncated. For example, if your name was Dan Xeeflux or something absurd like that, it would be truncated to something like Dan X. The amount of truncation refers to how many matches Dan X brings up. For example, Dan Xeeflu would bring up just as many as his full name, same with say Dan Xeefl. Eventually, you want to have over k matches, where k is a variable to determine the truncation amount.
HOW exactly Blizzard would accomplish this is beyond me, but it's not my ass in hot water when someone gets physically confronted in real life.
2) This could cost you a potential job
This post is slightly more speculation but hear me out, I think it's a good point. Employers are now using the internet to check out potential employees before they commit to a hire. You can google this if you really don't believe me but I've worked at a company that checked facebook for their applicant's names to see if they could dig up some not so nice habits like pictures of them using drugs or what have you and weigh it in their decision to even put them on the interview list. To be fair, we never found anything.
However, now when someone googles your name, maybe they'll run into your WoW account. Hell, maybe they'll google your name + WoW. WoW has a growing reputation as a massive time sink and for destroying lives, etc. You've heard all this before, and IMO it's no worse than any other MMO - but the stigma for WoW players is out there. If a company wants you to be work focused, they may feel WoW is a liability to your productivity and job dedication. If they believe you'll stay up till 4am raiding every night and show up to work haggard these are not points in your favor.
Again, having a more specific name hurts here, however what if your interviewer doesn't want to take any chances? Say you have a common name, they search it and find it on the WoW forums and figure "hell, let's not take any chances, that could be this candidate!" and just take you off the interview list? This is perhaps stretching plausibility, but i feel it's well in the realm of possibility.
3) This could affect your CURRENT job
This was something I hadn't even considered until I just read a few pages of comments on the topic. What if someone finds out you play WoW, but you're in a position of authority? My main concern is being a teacher or the like and having your students find out you play WoW. They could then find you in game and potentially harass you. Furthermore, it may lessen the air of authority a teacher should (imo at least) generally carry. If your students see you as a buddy buddy WoW player this may compromise your authority. Maybe they'll feel superior to you since they're higher level or have better gear? Do they not have a right to keep their online and real lives separate?
4) This game is about escapism and you're bringing it to real life
This sort of ties in with the last point, why is it so wrong for people to want to keep their online and real lives separate? The IDEA of WoW is to create an Avatar and be someone you aren't. To grow them and make friends in an online and safe environment. Blizzard is removing this and the two worlds are going to collide together in an ugly way.
5) This is illegal under Candian Law
Being Canadian I'm pretty familiar with our privacy laws. This seems to be in direct violation with Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Now I'm no lawyer, but one of the main ideas with PIPEDA is that "The law requires organizations to supply an individual with a product or a service even if they refuse consent for the collection, use or disclosure of your personal information unless that information is essential to the transaction"
Is disclosing my personal information essential to the service? No, it's not. Blizzard must then, at least for Canadians, give us the option of non disclosure. If they do not, I hope they see class action lawsuits.
6) Under certain situations this is illegal under US law as well.
What if someone is under witness protection? It is illegal for Blizzard to disclose ANY information about the name or whereabouts of this person in any fashion. This is probably a fairly rare situation, but with 11 million players could a few of them be under witness protection? A quick romp in the blizzard forums and I was actually very quickly rewarded by the first damn post in this thread:
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25712374700&sid=1&pageNo=1
Never say it can't happen!
WHY THIS IS HAPPENING
I think this is really the kicker of the whole argument. ALL of this, all the risk, the shady dealings, the potential ILLEGAL nature of this whole damn thing is done for one reason, or at least under the guise of "combating forum trolls and stopping flame wars".
Oh yeah guys, this is a just cause here. Fuck your privacy rights, fuck your LAWS - our moderators are too lazy to clean up the forums themselves and we can't have people get hurt feelings on the internet - we'd rather players track them down in real life and MURDER THEM.
That's probably a bit extreme, but there is literally no REASON to do this. Now I hear you argue "the forums are OPTIONAL, they aren't required to play the game". Fair point. However, what if my game breaks or I run into bugs? Blizzard's job is to provide me with technical support, and to do that guess where I have to go? The forums. To do that I need to disclose my name.
I can also hear people argue that the threat of having your name out there is probably exaggerated. However, you can't deny that it doesn't at least INCREASE risk where risk need not be increased? Blizzard, I assume accounts are currently linked to in game characters, if you start putting IN GAME punishments, like block WoW access for 24 hours for forum infringements, I think people would get the message.
I can also hear people argue, and I would disagree, that there simply IS no risk at all in putting your name out there. Besides being utter bullshit, your logic also points to Blizzard's use of real names being pointless:
If there were no risk at all in having your real name on their forums, then how in the hell would that stop trolling and flaming? If people weren't scared of real world repercussions then the flaming and trolling won't stop. On the flipside, if Blizzard is adamant that it WILL reduce flaming and trolling they are flat out admitting that they're putting you at a direct security and privacy risk as that's the only reason I can think of someone would stop trolling and flaming.
NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OF THIS. If anyone at Blizzard is reading, I beseech you STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sorry for lack of updates
Hi everyone!
I SWEAR I've been trying to update. I have about 5 unfinished articles that about some way through writing them just figured my argumentation for various things was not good enough so I just iced them. They still exist and I'll try to salvage bits from them, but just call it a case of writers block.
I'll hopefully have something up soon!
I SWEAR I've been trying to update. I have about 5 unfinished articles that about some way through writing them just figured my argumentation for various things was not good enough so I just iced them. They still exist and I'll try to salvage bits from them, but just call it a case of writers block.
I'll hopefully have something up soon!
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
So, you're making a PC game!
For those of you who don't know me that well, first a little background on myself. I am a programmer by profession and I've recently obtained my full degree in Computer Science (in fact, convocation is this Friday). I just want you to know that the claims I make about programming are not coming from an unaccredited hack. I also want to warn you that while I'm going to try to keep things as high level as I can, I may get a bit carried away.
So, you're making a PC game! Congratulations! The PC is, by far, my favorite platform. In my opinion, it is unparalleled in flexibility and potential. It has lead the technological advances in gaming for nearly the entirety of our beloved hobby, only perhaps now being "beaten" by motion controls on the consoles if you really care about that kind of thing.
However, there are many things developers do poorly in the PC field and - in true rant style - you're going to hear about what are, to me, the biggest mistakes one can make when developing and especially porting a title to the PC.
1) Porting games late and expecting an avalanche of sales
If a game is ported to the PC 8 months after they're released with no care at all I don't want to hear "BAWWW I ONLY MADE 50 MILLION DOLLARS ON THE PC VERSION, WHY DIDN'T IT SELL?!?" Do you want to know why it didn't sell? Well I'll tell you why!
2) Assuming I ONLY play on PC
There seems to be this myth in the gaming industry that every market is entirely isolated. That there are PC gamers, 360 gamers, PS3 gamers, Wii gamers, DS gamers... etc. I don't really know if companies just like to do this for simplicities sake or whatever - but this is a dirty, filthy lie.
I am the proud owner of every current gen console, a great PC and tons of older consoles. Not everyone, of course, has such financial flexibility but you know who is the MOST likely to be a multi-platform gamer? PC gamers. My reasoning is fairly simple; if you have enough money to spend on a $2000 gaming PC then a $300 console is really not out of the question. Also considering all new monitors have HDMI ports in them a PC gamer, already comfortable in his or her domain, wouldn't need a ginormous TV for HD capable graphics.
So what am I getting at with all this? Well, when your PC port comes out months after your console release and you didn't even tell me a PC version was in development, the odds are if I wanted to play your game I already have. And, call me what you will, but I'm not buying it again - end of story. Thus, it is infinitely infuriating for me to read when a developer flips out when their PC games don't sell very well even though it's a port of a game that's a year old that I already own on the 360 (I'm looking at you EPIC with Gears of War). But that doesn't get to me as when it's combined with the next fatal error:
3) Your port is just terrible: Rebinding Keys
Maybe if you took care to port it, and I didn't already own it on one of the several consoles I own I would buy it. I'm sure PC gamers reading this are far too well aware of awful ports ruining our day. This, in fact, happens so damn often it's made us into the stereotypical jaded asshole who hates everything ever. Surely I can't be the only one whose erupted into an internet nerd rage when some gamer makes an insolent comment online and unleashed a thunderstorm of nostalgia and game history. Beware PC gamers, they're forged with fury and tempered with the hate of 1,000 bad ports, which is exactly what I want to talk about (the bad port part that is).
So WHAT makes a bad port? Surprisingly, it's exactly what makes any PC game bad. Let's take, for example, BLUR on the PC. You can't rebind your controls in that game.
Yes, you read that correctly. It's 2010 and You can't do something as TRIVIAL is rebinding controls. As a game developer and programmer by profession I can tell you this is an immensely simple thing to do unless your game engine is an architectural nightmare. In that case, you have WAY bigger problems.
It always boggled me, why are the standards of console games so low? Rebinding a controller is just as easy on a console, yet barely any console games do this. To the other console gamers out there, have you never played a game where you thought "Man, I wish the shoulder buttons were switched" or whatever? Wouldn't you love to be able to make the controller work exactly like you wanted to? I know I'd, personally, love this in some games I own.
4) Your port is just terrible: Field of View in FPS Games
5) Your port is just terrible: Screen Resolution
This is directly related to our frustum friend above. You see the X and you see the Y in the above picture? That is what will reflect your screen resolution, and just like field of view it is very simple to alter. I will admit, you can "squash" your view if you don't also play with the FOV when changing aspect ratios. It is easy to fix by adjusting the horizontal and vertical FOV correctly for your aspect ratio.
There is absolutely no excuse, at all, to not be able to run your game at any resolution unless it is a 2D game (as scaling sprites looks like crap). That was kind of one of the big deals about going to 3D, wasn't it? If you, like I do from time to time, boot up Unreal Tournament 99 to this very day, it detects every resolution your PC is possible of and adjust it's view frustum correctly.
That's right, I can play Unreal Tournament 1999 on my 1080p monitor at 1920x1080 and it's fantastic. It doesn't flake out because it's 16:9 resolution, it doesn't put black bars at the edges of the screen, it doesn't fuck up at all.
THIS GAME IS 11 GOD DAMN YEARS OLD. If your game can't properly adjust to a ratio, you have a LOT of problems and it is perhaps time to dig out those old linear algebra notes, as an 11 year old game engine has surpassed yours - this should not be happening. Poll the PC for what resolutions it's capable of and use those. Don't hard code in a list that's "good enough".
6) Your port is just terrible: User Interfaces
This is really the cream of the crop here. Maybe we can crack open the config files and change our keys manually. Maybe we can find whatever key the resolution is stored in and change that. Maybe even the FOV or we can just live with a low one - but we can't rewrite your UI. And if we can, we really don't want to.
Without going ultra UI theory here the Joystick is a relative positioning device and the mouse is generally a clutched positioning device. Keeping this simple, as I really can't teach an entire UI course in this blog post, developers should know what UI techniques work with a mouse and what work well with a joystick. Since every UI needs to fit a different purpose, allow me to just throw out a few generally good ideas.
Use drag and drop techniques when you can
Think of an inventory system in an RPG. On the console, if you wanted to swap two items how I generally see this done is you select one item, navigate to another with the joystick, and again press the button again to confirm the swap. On the PC I don't want to click the mouse button, go to my new item, then click again to swap them. This feels very wrong. Instead, how about I simply press down the button, fling the cursor over to the one I want to swap with then let it go? Drag and drop can make your UI 10x more intuitive when done correctly.
Remember, the mouse has more than one button
If a secondary, but quite common action can be bound to the right mouse button you should probably do that.
If the game doesn't use the mouse, your UI shouldn't either
I bet a lot of people will disagree with me on this. But, for instance, when I'm playing the racing game using just a keyboard, it's awkward to shift my playing position to use the mouse to navigate your user interface. I have no qualms with ALSO using the mouse, but it shouldn't be manditory.
Get those damn Xbox 360 Icons off my screen
I don't mind if I have a 360 controller plugged into my PC, but NOTHING says "this game is a cheap port" then when the main menu says "press
to continue" and to continue I press enter.
Well, that's about it for today! I hope you've learned something and it would bring me nothing to joy to see higher quality PC games in the future! Remember, we're not dead yet!
So, you're making a PC game! Congratulations! The PC is, by far, my favorite platform. In my opinion, it is unparalleled in flexibility and potential. It has lead the technological advances in gaming for nearly the entirety of our beloved hobby, only perhaps now being "beaten" by motion controls on the consoles if you really care about that kind of thing.
However, there are many things developers do poorly in the PC field and - in true rant style - you're going to hear about what are, to me, the biggest mistakes one can make when developing and especially porting a title to the PC.
1) Porting games late and expecting an avalanche of sales
If a game is ported to the PC 8 months after they're released with no care at all I don't want to hear "BAWWW I ONLY MADE 50 MILLION DOLLARS ON THE PC VERSION, WHY DIDN'T IT SELL?!?" Do you want to know why it didn't sell? Well I'll tell you why!
2) Assuming I ONLY play on PC
There seems to be this myth in the gaming industry that every market is entirely isolated. That there are PC gamers, 360 gamers, PS3 gamers, Wii gamers, DS gamers... etc. I don't really know if companies just like to do this for simplicities sake or whatever - but this is a dirty, filthy lie.
I am the proud owner of every current gen console, a great PC and tons of older consoles. Not everyone, of course, has such financial flexibility but you know who is the MOST likely to be a multi-platform gamer? PC gamers. My reasoning is fairly simple; if you have enough money to spend on a $2000 gaming PC then a $300 console is really not out of the question. Also considering all new monitors have HDMI ports in them a PC gamer, already comfortable in his or her domain, wouldn't need a ginormous TV for HD capable graphics.
So what am I getting at with all this? Well, when your PC port comes out months after your console release and you didn't even tell me a PC version was in development, the odds are if I wanted to play your game I already have. And, call me what you will, but I'm not buying it again - end of story. Thus, it is infinitely infuriating for me to read when a developer flips out when their PC games don't sell very well even though it's a port of a game that's a year old that I already own on the 360 (I'm looking at you EPIC with Gears of War). But that doesn't get to me as when it's combined with the next fatal error:
3) Your port is just terrible: Rebinding Keys
Maybe if you took care to port it, and I didn't already own it on one of the several consoles I own I would buy it. I'm sure PC gamers reading this are far too well aware of awful ports ruining our day. This, in fact, happens so damn often it's made us into the stereotypical jaded asshole who hates everything ever. Surely I can't be the only one whose erupted into an internet nerd rage when some gamer makes an insolent comment online and unleashed a thunderstorm of nostalgia and game history. Beware PC gamers, they're forged with fury and tempered with the hate of 1,000 bad ports, which is exactly what I want to talk about (the bad port part that is).
So WHAT makes a bad port? Surprisingly, it's exactly what makes any PC game bad. Let's take, for example, BLUR on the PC. You can't rebind your controls in that game.
Yes, you read that correctly. It's 2010 and You can't do something as TRIVIAL is rebinding controls. As a game developer and programmer by profession I can tell you this is an immensely simple thing to do unless your game engine is an architectural nightmare. In that case, you have WAY bigger problems.
It always boggled me, why are the standards of console games so low? Rebinding a controller is just as easy on a console, yet barely any console games do this. To the other console gamers out there, have you never played a game where you thought "Man, I wish the shoulder buttons were switched" or whatever? Wouldn't you love to be able to make the controller work exactly like you wanted to? I know I'd, personally, love this in some games I own.
4) Your port is just terrible: Field of View in FPS Games
Another thing that FPS games in particular are guilty of - low field of views on console ports. This comes from the fact that the eye is more comfortable with a lower field of view when playing the game from a couch to TV distance. When playing closely at a monitor though, the eye is much more comfortable with a higher FOV. These aren't changed - why?
If you can't change your FOV in engine, then the FIRST incarnation of the Quake and UT engines were, in my opinion (which is what you're here to read by the way), much more advanced than whatever you are using. Altering a frustum is simple - OpenGL and DirectX have them fucking built it, it will take 5 minutes + compile time to fix these.
Since you were just about to google what a frustum is, here's a picture of one.
5) Your port is just terrible: Screen Resolution
This is directly related to our frustum friend above. You see the X and you see the Y in the above picture? That is what will reflect your screen resolution, and just like field of view it is very simple to alter. I will admit, you can "squash" your view if you don't also play with the FOV when changing aspect ratios. It is easy to fix by adjusting the horizontal and vertical FOV correctly for your aspect ratio.
There is absolutely no excuse, at all, to not be able to run your game at any resolution unless it is a 2D game (as scaling sprites looks like crap). That was kind of one of the big deals about going to 3D, wasn't it? If you, like I do from time to time, boot up Unreal Tournament 99 to this very day, it detects every resolution your PC is possible of and adjust it's view frustum correctly.
That's right, I can play Unreal Tournament 1999 on my 1080p monitor at 1920x1080 and it's fantastic. It doesn't flake out because it's 16:9 resolution, it doesn't put black bars at the edges of the screen, it doesn't fuck up at all.
THIS GAME IS 11 GOD DAMN YEARS OLD. If your game can't properly adjust to a ratio, you have a LOT of problems and it is perhaps time to dig out those old linear algebra notes, as an 11 year old game engine has surpassed yours - this should not be happening. Poll the PC for what resolutions it's capable of and use those. Don't hard code in a list that's "good enough".
6) Your port is just terrible: User Interfaces
This is really the cream of the crop here. Maybe we can crack open the config files and change our keys manually. Maybe we can find whatever key the resolution is stored in and change that. Maybe even the FOV or we can just live with a low one - but we can't rewrite your UI. And if we can, we really don't want to.
Without going ultra UI theory here the Joystick is a relative positioning device and the mouse is generally a clutched positioning device. Keeping this simple, as I really can't teach an entire UI course in this blog post, developers should know what UI techniques work with a mouse and what work well with a joystick. Since every UI needs to fit a different purpose, allow me to just throw out a few generally good ideas.
Use drag and drop techniques when you can
Think of an inventory system in an RPG. On the console, if you wanted to swap two items how I generally see this done is you select one item, navigate to another with the joystick, and again press the button again to confirm the swap. On the PC I don't want to click the mouse button, go to my new item, then click again to swap them. This feels very wrong. Instead, how about I simply press down the button, fling the cursor over to the one I want to swap with then let it go? Drag and drop can make your UI 10x more intuitive when done correctly.
Remember, the mouse has more than one button
If a secondary, but quite common action can be bound to the right mouse button you should probably do that.
If the game doesn't use the mouse, your UI shouldn't either
I bet a lot of people will disagree with me on this. But, for instance, when I'm playing the racing game using just a keyboard, it's awkward to shift my playing position to use the mouse to navigate your user interface. I have no qualms with ALSO using the mouse, but it shouldn't be manditory.
Get those damn Xbox 360 Icons off my screen
I don't mind if I have a 360 controller plugged into my PC, but NOTHING says "this game is a cheap port" then when the main menu says "press
to continue" and to continue I press enter.Well, that's about it for today! I hope you've learned something and it would bring me nothing to joy to see higher quality PC games in the future! Remember, we're not dead yet!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
2K Marin... honestly, what the hell?
BEHOLD, THE NEW X-COM TRAILER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNlC19Vcvrw&feature=channel
NOW, BEHOLD MY OLD POST ABOUT THE NEW X-COM GAME
http://weaversgameblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-new-x-com-game-wont-work-out.html
What did I say again? Something like:
However, the concern I've been reading on the net is that the game is more or less going to just be a re-skinned Bioshock and I don't think these concerns are completely unwarranted.
Well hot damn do I ever love being right because that's exactly what this game appears to be. Let's go over the points of the trailer one by one.
1) FIND THEM
So it seems the place to find them is in the 1950's. This is surprising as the original X-com games take place in the fucking future so I really don't know what we're doing in the 1950's. Oh wait, yes I do; it's so you can re-use everything you've 50's styled from Bioshock in this game. What I really hope this means is that we need to root out aliens in suburban environments. This would be a great throw back to the terror missions in the original X-Com games where aliens invaded a suburb and you needed to try to kill the aliens and save the civilians.
The flip-side to this, I really hope that isn't ALL the game is. Just wandering a suburb waiting for randomly generated aliens to happen to pop into houses for you to kill. Somewhere along the line gaming studios got into their heads that doing something that's pretty fun about a million times never gets repetitive. Let's hope this isn't the case, yes?
2) STUDY THEM
Hmm, this seems awfully familiar. You use a camera, and you take pictures of enemies. Just like in Bioshock... and let me guess, it gives you bonuses against the enemies... just like in Bioshock. You could at least TRY to cover your shame.
3) FIGHT THEM
Ah yes, the COMBAT! The core of any FPS game.
So let's see in the video there was a
Jeeze, this all seems a bit similar!
Like honestly guys, this just reeks of cutting corners. Maybe the game will amaze me, it's too early to tell. Maybe the story will blow my ass out of the water, maybe it will be really engaging and fun. I don't know, but what I DO know is that I'm really not pleased with this incredibly uninspired design.
One of the things that I get asked from time to time is why I care? If I don't like the game, why go on these big, huge rants about it? Why THIS game in particular?
The answer is that I have a special place for the X-Com series. If this game were called something completely different I would have no qualms with it. It's that your bastardizing an amazing series. It's that you're banking on the popularity of an amazing and ENTIRELY unrelated game. Furthermore, it's because for a lot of new and younger gamers this will be what X-Com means.
That's a large and frightening idea to me. The name X-Com shouldn't be associated with a reskin of the sequel to a system shock 2 clone. It's so much more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNlC19Vcvrw&feature=channel
NOW, BEHOLD MY OLD POST ABOUT THE NEW X-COM GAME
http://weaversgameblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-new-x-com-game-wont-work-out.html
What did I say again? Something like:
However, the concern I've been reading on the net is that the game is more or less going to just be a re-skinned Bioshock and I don't think these concerns are completely unwarranted.
Well hot damn do I ever love being right because that's exactly what this game appears to be. Let's go over the points of the trailer one by one.
1) FIND THEM
So it seems the place to find them is in the 1950's. This is surprising as the original X-com games take place in the fucking future so I really don't know what we're doing in the 1950's. Oh wait, yes I do; it's so you can re-use everything you've 50's styled from Bioshock in this game. What I really hope this means is that we need to root out aliens in suburban environments. This would be a great throw back to the terror missions in the original X-Com games where aliens invaded a suburb and you needed to try to kill the aliens and save the civilians.
The flip-side to this, I really hope that isn't ALL the game is. Just wandering a suburb waiting for randomly generated aliens to happen to pop into houses for you to kill. Somewhere along the line gaming studios got into their heads that doing something that's pretty fun about a million times never gets repetitive. Let's hope this isn't the case, yes?
2) STUDY THEM
Hmm, this seems awfully familiar. You use a camera, and you take pictures of enemies. Just like in Bioshock... and let me guess, it gives you bonuses against the enemies... just like in Bioshock. You could at least TRY to cover your shame.
3) FIGHT THEM
Ah yes, the COMBAT! The core of any FPS game.
So let's see in the video there was a
"6 shooter" revolver
an old 50's shotgun
an electricity gun
a fire making thing
an old 50's shotgun
an electricity gun
a fire making thing
Jeeze, this all seems a bit similar!
Like honestly guys, this just reeks of cutting corners. Maybe the game will amaze me, it's too early to tell. Maybe the story will blow my ass out of the water, maybe it will be really engaging and fun. I don't know, but what I DO know is that I'm really not pleased with this incredibly uninspired design.
One of the things that I get asked from time to time is why I care? If I don't like the game, why go on these big, huge rants about it? Why THIS game in particular?
The answer is that I have a special place for the X-Com series. If this game were called something completely different I would have no qualms with it. It's that your bastardizing an amazing series. It's that you're banking on the popularity of an amazing and ENTIRELY unrelated game. Furthermore, it's because for a lot of new and younger gamers this will be what X-Com means.
That's a large and frightening idea to me. The name X-Com shouldn't be associated with a reskin of the sequel to a system shock 2 clone. It's so much more.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Microsoft, how big do you think our living rooms are?
First, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm0KKa6wACQ&feature=player_embedded
So, besides looking like a complete tool while playing Natal (or Wave as I think it has been officially named) I need a giant, empty room in my house that can fit 4 people comfortably while I flail around?
You know, my living room right now is actually pretty big. If I re-arranged the room (I mean like, shit has to move everywhere for this to work) I could probably actually manage to play the natal. However, most people I assume actually have furniture in their living rooms. This is really the crux of the problem.
Microsoft, I do not want to move tables and couches all over the place just so I have enough room to play a video game. This is ludicrous! I now suddenly see why the Wii and Sony's move is a much better layout. Yes, it may not be ultra cool revolutionary, but I'd assume most people can still maintain their current housing layout to play them. Mine is couch -> coffee table -> TV on TV stand. This brings me to another fear I have with the Natal.
My TV is not setup to be at eye level for people who are standing up. Being an LCD TV, and honestly being really, really damn cheap it has pretty good horizontal viewing angles for what I payed. The vertical angles aren't very good though. Hence why the TV is oh so PERFECTLY setup at a sitting eye viewing level. It could not be more perfect. So when standing up I'm going to have to deal with colour washing as I'm now towering over my TV. None of this seems appealing to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm0KKa6wACQ&feature=player_embedded
So, besides looking like a complete tool while playing Natal (or Wave as I think it has been officially named) I need a giant, empty room in my house that can fit 4 people comfortably while I flail around?
You know, my living room right now is actually pretty big. If I re-arranged the room (I mean like, shit has to move everywhere for this to work) I could probably actually manage to play the natal. However, most people I assume actually have furniture in their living rooms. This is really the crux of the problem.
Microsoft, I do not want to move tables and couches all over the place just so I have enough room to play a video game. This is ludicrous! I now suddenly see why the Wii and Sony's move is a much better layout. Yes, it may not be ultra cool revolutionary, but I'd assume most people can still maintain their current housing layout to play them. Mine is couch -> coffee table -> TV on TV stand. This brings me to another fear I have with the Natal.
My TV is not setup to be at eye level for people who are standing up. Being an LCD TV, and honestly being really, really damn cheap it has pretty good horizontal viewing angles for what I payed. The vertical angles aren't very good though. Hence why the TV is oh so PERFECTLY setup at a sitting eye viewing level. It could not be more perfect. So when standing up I'm going to have to deal with colour washing as I'm now towering over my TV. None of this seems appealing to me.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Demon's Souls Isn't THAT Hard
Now I first want to say that Demon's Souls may be my favorite game on the PS3, giving little big planet a run for it's money (you can expect a post on LBP some time soon). It's a fantastic game with a great sense of reward and it is, as you've heard, difficult.
But posts such as this kind of get to me:
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/acz2t/let_me_tell_you_about_demons_souls/
For example, it skips a lot of details. Yes when you're in soul form your health is halved, but your damage output increases and you can wear a ring to get your health at 75%. Yes, others can invade you while in body form, but you can only invade players at higher level than you. Meaning the person who is invaded has a health advantage and a level advantage.
I don't want to mislead people and claim that Demon's Souls is easy because it's not. However, Demon's Souls can be made to be easier. Once you learn the right places to grind and get an equipment setup you enjoy, a lot of the difficulty of the game dissolves. If you are over leveled it's very easy to tell you are as enemies will just be dropping incredibly easy. I grinded so much I beat a few bosses on the first try, one without even taking a single hit point of damage.
This is the why Demon's Souls isn't legendary hard; it's punishing but there is generally an out, a lifeline. Yes if you die you lose your souls, but if you can make it to your bloodstain then cast evacuate you're home free. Let's compare this to, say, Silver Surfer on the NES. I actually own this game, as apparently my parents hated me while growing up. In fact, a look at my NES library seems like I've compiled a list of Angry Video Game Nerd games and got them all.
Anyways, in Silver Surfer you pick whatever level you want to start with (kind of like Demon's Souls) and then get your ass handed to you. The "easiest" way to beat Silver Surfer is to never, ever fuck up. Start on the alligator level (probably the easiest), get full power, and then never lose it. The game was programmed as if you're always at full power, some enemies I feel would be physically impossible to shoot enough to kill before they hit you if you did not have full power.
Now, do you want to know how easy it is to die in Silver Surfer? If ANYTHING touches you, and I fucking mean anything, you die. That's it, try the level again. ANYTHING could be an enemy, or a bullet, or even a wall. Usually it's a pot or some leaf that looks like it's in the background but it turns out nope, you just can't touch that either. This game doesn't fuck around and there's no way out except brutal memorization and patience.
Another thing, those of you who played roguelikes will find Demon's Souls to be pretty forgiving. Demon's Souls has roguelike elements, but is much easier than even modern roguelikes such as Shiren the Wanderer. However, I think this works well in Demon's Souls favour. It really struck a good balance between accomplishment and giving up.
For instance, I've felt the disheartening feeling of essentially having 5 hours of progress absolutely lost in roguelikes. A modern equivalent would be like having your hardcore character in diablo 2 or torchlight die. That's it, games over. After that it may be a few days before you pick up the game again ;) Demon's souls is perfectly snuggled in between.
There is enough punishment that you learn and learn quickly that you are playing on Demon's Souls terms not your own. However, it is not SO punishing that you want vomit every time you see the game disc. It has what many games (at least I feel) should have; a sense of achievement.
Let me tell you, if you haven't played Demon's Souls you really should. The thrill of fighting the first boss and experiencing what can only be described as complete vulnerability was exhilarating. Something I haven't felt in a long, long time. I recommend this game to any who want to wear the label "gamer".
As someone who basically only had near impossible games to play I find playing hard games is fantastic for your gaming personality. I feel I'm often a "zen" gamer. Things do not bother me because I've played these games. I see people raging online when they die in shooters, or frustration mount when the team is under performing in League of Legends.
I, literally, do not understand this. These things do not bother me in the least; I'm accustomed to failure and I'm accustomed to losing because of these games. Losing is PART of a game being a game. It would not be fun if you did not have to fight for your victory. What enjoyment is there in winning if the win was not fought for? This is one thing I agree with the link at the top about; modern games are too easy.
For this, I really respect Demon's Souls and From Software. They made the game they wanted to make for the players they wanted without caving to corporate pressure of "accessibility" and everything for profit (and hell, the game did pretty well!).
To summarize, while Demon's Souls is not the hardest game ever made and is really not even as hard as everyone claims, it is still a challenge. If you want something a little different, a lot of fun and incredibly rewarding I very much recommend this title. Go in with the mindset "I'm going to die and die a lot... and that's okay!" and I assure you the game will reward the patient.
But posts such as this kind of get to me:
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/acz2t/let_me_tell_you_about_demons_souls/
For example, it skips a lot of details. Yes when you're in soul form your health is halved, but your damage output increases and you can wear a ring to get your health at 75%. Yes, others can invade you while in body form, but you can only invade players at higher level than you. Meaning the person who is invaded has a health advantage and a level advantage.
I don't want to mislead people and claim that Demon's Souls is easy because it's not. However, Demon's Souls can be made to be easier. Once you learn the right places to grind and get an equipment setup you enjoy, a lot of the difficulty of the game dissolves. If you are over leveled it's very easy to tell you are as enemies will just be dropping incredibly easy. I grinded so much I beat a few bosses on the first try, one without even taking a single hit point of damage.
This is the why Demon's Souls isn't legendary hard; it's punishing but there is generally an out, a lifeline. Yes if you die you lose your souls, but if you can make it to your bloodstain then cast evacuate you're home free. Let's compare this to, say, Silver Surfer on the NES. I actually own this game, as apparently my parents hated me while growing up. In fact, a look at my NES library seems like I've compiled a list of Angry Video Game Nerd games and got them all.
Anyways, in Silver Surfer you pick whatever level you want to start with (kind of like Demon's Souls) and then get your ass handed to you. The "easiest" way to beat Silver Surfer is to never, ever fuck up. Start on the alligator level (probably the easiest), get full power, and then never lose it. The game was programmed as if you're always at full power, some enemies I feel would be physically impossible to shoot enough to kill before they hit you if you did not have full power.
Now, do you want to know how easy it is to die in Silver Surfer? If ANYTHING touches you, and I fucking mean anything, you die. That's it, try the level again. ANYTHING could be an enemy, or a bullet, or even a wall. Usually it's a pot or some leaf that looks like it's in the background but it turns out nope, you just can't touch that either. This game doesn't fuck around and there's no way out except brutal memorization and patience.
Another thing, those of you who played roguelikes will find Demon's Souls to be pretty forgiving. Demon's Souls has roguelike elements, but is much easier than even modern roguelikes such as Shiren the Wanderer. However, I think this works well in Demon's Souls favour. It really struck a good balance between accomplishment and giving up.
For instance, I've felt the disheartening feeling of essentially having 5 hours of progress absolutely lost in roguelikes. A modern equivalent would be like having your hardcore character in diablo 2 or torchlight die. That's it, games over. After that it may be a few days before you pick up the game again ;) Demon's souls is perfectly snuggled in between.
There is enough punishment that you learn and learn quickly that you are playing on Demon's Souls terms not your own. However, it is not SO punishing that you want vomit every time you see the game disc. It has what many games (at least I feel) should have; a sense of achievement.
Let me tell you, if you haven't played Demon's Souls you really should. The thrill of fighting the first boss and experiencing what can only be described as complete vulnerability was exhilarating. Something I haven't felt in a long, long time. I recommend this game to any who want to wear the label "gamer".
As someone who basically only had near impossible games to play I find playing hard games is fantastic for your gaming personality. I feel I'm often a "zen" gamer. Things do not bother me because I've played these games. I see people raging online when they die in shooters, or frustration mount when the team is under performing in League of Legends.
I, literally, do not understand this. These things do not bother me in the least; I'm accustomed to failure and I'm accustomed to losing because of these games. Losing is PART of a game being a game. It would not be fun if you did not have to fight for your victory. What enjoyment is there in winning if the win was not fought for? This is one thing I agree with the link at the top about; modern games are too easy.
For this, I really respect Demon's Souls and From Software. They made the game they wanted to make for the players they wanted without caving to corporate pressure of "accessibility" and everything for profit (and hell, the game did pretty well!).
To summarize, while Demon's Souls is not the hardest game ever made and is really not even as hard as everyone claims, it is still a challenge. If you want something a little different, a lot of fun and incredibly rewarding I very much recommend this title. Go in with the mindset "I'm going to die and die a lot... and that's okay!" and I assure you the game will reward the patient.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Rebooting games, modern shooters and Medal of Honour
Firstly, yes Honour is spelled with a damn U in it.
So I just watched the new trailer to the new MoH game which you can lovingly watch here:
http://kotaku.com/5531930/new-medal-of-honor-trailer-aims-for-the-heart
I admire that they're trying to add a more personal element to the game. What I don't admire is that another shooter is getting a reboot.
What in the FUCK is going on in the games industry? Firstly, just calling it "Medal of Honour" pisses me off. The first one is only 11 fucking years old, is this REALLY necessary? Do we really need to name games so they pander to the 12 year old console children who shouldn't even be playing this game in the first place? Starcraft is older than the first Medal of Honour and it's new game is properly called "Starcraft 2". Imagine if Blizzard released "Starcraft 2" and just called it "Starcraft", this is the exact damn thing they're doing.
Why I hate this is because it's so POINTLESS to do. It makes it a pain in the balls to talk about with people because now when I talk about it they go "what one are you talking about, the new one or the old one?" And saying "Medal of Honour 2010" sounds like it's a God damn sports game. And in reality, if the games industry grew some balls you could just call it what it is "Medal of Honour: We Want to Cash In on the Success of Modern Warfare 2" we'd all be in a better place.
Now, a lot of people claim that Battlefield was going all "modern warfare 2" with Bad Company 2. I think this is kind of bullshit as really the ONLY thing similar is that they both have a single player campaign with a terrible story and boring characters. In fact, Battlefield 2 which was modern combat came out in 2005, 3 years before Call of Duty 4. Thus it's more or less just factually incorrect to claim DICE copied MW2, because they fucking did it first. Plus the multiplayer in these two games are night and day different (myself preferring battlefield's).
However, Medal of Honour, as far as I know, has always been a World War 2 game and is so obviously going after the new Modern Warfare craze that seems to be sweeping the industry. As I'm writing I'm trying to hold back my rage to form a coherent article here (unlike my last one, this was written not at around 7:50pm instead of 5am). So lets try to examine the good and the bad.
Good Stuff
So I just watched the new trailer to the new MoH game which you can lovingly watch here:
http://kotaku.com/5531930/new-medal-of-honor-trailer-aims-for-the-heart
I admire that they're trying to add a more personal element to the game. What I don't admire is that another shooter is getting a reboot.
What in the FUCK is going on in the games industry? Firstly, just calling it "Medal of Honour" pisses me off. The first one is only 11 fucking years old, is this REALLY necessary? Do we really need to name games so they pander to the 12 year old console children who shouldn't even be playing this game in the first place? Starcraft is older than the first Medal of Honour and it's new game is properly called "Starcraft 2". Imagine if Blizzard released "Starcraft 2" and just called it "Starcraft", this is the exact damn thing they're doing.
Why I hate this is because it's so POINTLESS to do. It makes it a pain in the balls to talk about with people because now when I talk about it they go "what one are you talking about, the new one or the old one?" And saying "Medal of Honour 2010" sounds like it's a God damn sports game. And in reality, if the games industry grew some balls you could just call it what it is "Medal of Honour: We Want to Cash In on the Success of Modern Warfare 2" we'd all be in a better place.
Now, a lot of people claim that Battlefield was going all "modern warfare 2" with Bad Company 2. I think this is kind of bullshit as really the ONLY thing similar is that they both have a single player campaign with a terrible story and boring characters. In fact, Battlefield 2 which was modern combat came out in 2005, 3 years before Call of Duty 4. Thus it's more or less just factually incorrect to claim DICE copied MW2, because they fucking did it first. Plus the multiplayer in these two games are night and day different (myself preferring battlefield's).
However, Medal of Honour, as far as I know, has always been a World War 2 game and is so obviously going after the new Modern Warfare craze that seems to be sweeping the industry. As I'm writing I'm trying to hold back my rage to form a coherent article here (unlike my last one, this was written not at around 7:50pm instead of 5am). So lets try to examine the good and the bad.
Good Stuff
- The first few Medal of Honour games were really good, maybe this one will be as well.
- We have enough fucking World War 2 FPS games. Really, I could go for about 2 or 3 years without seeing one and that would be just fine with me.
- It looks like they may make a story that actually makes sense.
- The modern setting shooter seems to be the new WW2 shooter. We fucking have enough of them do something new.
- The fucking box:
Lets talk about the two bad points. First I'm going to start with the box.
Remember what I said in my last post about modern shooters being written for idiots? Who the fuck is this douche on the box? Are companies so desparate to get into the jager pounding frat boy houses they need to put a backwards baseball cap wearing, bearded fuck head right on the damn box? Are they hoping these morons will just wander in the store and go "Look brah that guy like has a hat and a gun! WHOAAAA I NEED THIS!"
This isn't the only reason I'm pissed at the box. The beard is the other. The fucking beard. Why do I hate beards? I don't, the better question is why does the military hate beards; because they do. The Canadian, British and American military DO NOT ALLOW BEARDS ON THEIR SERVICEMEN. So who the fuck IS this guy? I mean some stubble is alright, in a combat zone you can't be expected to shave every day. However, this guy has clearly been growing his beard for months. If an officer saw him he would be forced to shave or be dishonourably discharged. That's what they could call this game Medal of Dishonourable Dischargement.
Well, enough about the box; lets address the other "bad" point I made. There are too many modern shooters. Now admittedly there are like what? BF2 and it's gazillion expansions, COD4, COD6, Bad Company 1 and Bad Company 2, and medal of honour 2010 when it comes out. This isn't too many considering there are probably more WW2 FPS games in the Medal of Honour series alone. What really irks me though is that there's clearly some money grubbing fucker running the show.
"Oh wow look how well this "modern warfare 2" thingy sold, we need one of them! Make a game like it!" If you all want to learn something about me; I hate business men. They're slimy shitfaced bastards. They care about money and only money, no matter who needs to suffer or what needs to be done just to get their bonus. It doesn't matter if your development team is pushing 90 hour weeks with declining health so long as you get your fucking bonus. Medal of Honour reeks of a "business man" decision.
I know someone will inevitably tell me "Gaming companies are businesses first and need money." How MUCH money exactly? I don't think people really understand the business world. When a company "loses money" it just means their revenue dropped, it doesn't mean they actually had more of an expenditure than they did revenue. So when a bank, for instance, says "we lost 1 billion dollars this year!" it simply means instead of making 40 billion dollars like they did last year they made 39 billion dollars. It's the exact same with the games industry when we hear these ludicrous claims. I can assure you that developers do not give a shitting fuck that their last game only sold 1 million copies and that wasn't enough for upper management.
So now that I've kind of sidetracked and ranted, I further want to claim that making another modern shooter isn't just assured money like I'm sure some suit thinks is. There is a little thing called over-saturation. Look at all the "X Hero" music games. No one gives half a fuck anymore. Activision turned a cash cow into a dead horse so they could beat it some more. When you keep making these games people stop caring. Why does NO ONE in the industry making decisions want to do ANYTHING unique at all?
This is the main gripe I've had for a long time. The indie scene, I must admit, has given me some amazing and original titles and for that I thank them. But we've seen nothing but stagnation for like 10 years now. Everything is just copying everything else. Remember WW2 shooters? Why did barely ANY of them take place on the pacific front? You know there was a war over there too, right gaming companies? You could have given us something familiar but different at the same time. COD5 actually did have pacific missions which were actually interesting to play, so I feel it's a reasonable enough point.
I want someone out there to take a chance and deviate EVEN JUST A TINY BIT from the modern shooter formula. We need people in charge who care about games again. Someone save us!
Remember what I said in my last post about modern shooters being written for idiots? Who the fuck is this douche on the box? Are companies so desparate to get into the jager pounding frat boy houses they need to put a backwards baseball cap wearing, bearded fuck head right on the damn box? Are they hoping these morons will just wander in the store and go "Look brah that guy like has a hat and a gun! WHOAAAA I NEED THIS!"
This isn't the only reason I'm pissed at the box. The beard is the other. The fucking beard. Why do I hate beards? I don't, the better question is why does the military hate beards; because they do. The Canadian, British and American military DO NOT ALLOW BEARDS ON THEIR SERVICEMEN. So who the fuck IS this guy? I mean some stubble is alright, in a combat zone you can't be expected to shave every day. However, this guy has clearly been growing his beard for months. If an officer saw him he would be forced to shave or be dishonourably discharged. That's what they could call this game Medal of Dishonourable Dischargement.
Well, enough about the box; lets address the other "bad" point I made. There are too many modern shooters. Now admittedly there are like what? BF2 and it's gazillion expansions, COD4, COD6, Bad Company 1 and Bad Company 2, and medal of honour 2010 when it comes out. This isn't too many considering there are probably more WW2 FPS games in the Medal of Honour series alone. What really irks me though is that there's clearly some money grubbing fucker running the show.
"Oh wow look how well this "modern warfare 2" thingy sold, we need one of them! Make a game like it!" If you all want to learn something about me; I hate business men. They're slimy shitfaced bastards. They care about money and only money, no matter who needs to suffer or what needs to be done just to get their bonus. It doesn't matter if your development team is pushing 90 hour weeks with declining health so long as you get your fucking bonus. Medal of Honour reeks of a "business man" decision.
I know someone will inevitably tell me "Gaming companies are businesses first and need money." How MUCH money exactly? I don't think people really understand the business world. When a company "loses money" it just means their revenue dropped, it doesn't mean they actually had more of an expenditure than they did revenue. So when a bank, for instance, says "we lost 1 billion dollars this year!" it simply means instead of making 40 billion dollars like they did last year they made 39 billion dollars. It's the exact same with the games industry when we hear these ludicrous claims. I can assure you that developers do not give a shitting fuck that their last game only sold 1 million copies and that wasn't enough for upper management.
So now that I've kind of sidetracked and ranted, I further want to claim that making another modern shooter isn't just assured money like I'm sure some suit thinks is. There is a little thing called over-saturation. Look at all the "X Hero" music games. No one gives half a fuck anymore. Activision turned a cash cow into a dead horse so they could beat it some more. When you keep making these games people stop caring. Why does NO ONE in the industry making decisions want to do ANYTHING unique at all?
This is the main gripe I've had for a long time. The indie scene, I must admit, has given me some amazing and original titles and for that I thank them. But we've seen nothing but stagnation for like 10 years now. Everything is just copying everything else. Remember WW2 shooters? Why did barely ANY of them take place on the pacific front? You know there was a war over there too, right gaming companies? You could have given us something familiar but different at the same time. COD5 actually did have pacific missions which were actually interesting to play, so I feel it's a reasonable enough point.
I want someone out there to take a chance and deviate EVEN JUST A TINY BIT from the modern shooter formula. We need people in charge who care about games again. Someone save us!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Why most modern FPS games stupid as hell
Let's get a few things straight. There have been stupid FPS games since the absolute beginning of the genre with Wolfenstein. I mean, robot Hitler with dual chain guns for hands? Awesome! My gripe though isn't just "stupid in concept" because personally I love stupid in concept.
Duke 3D is stupid in concept, but it knows that it's just taking a piss and has a ton of fun with it. Serious Sam was the same. Unreal Tournament is the same - it's all over the top fun. It knows it's all impossible so it just says "fuck reality, lets do FUN THINGS".
This idea of "fuck reality" has stuck with FPS games pretty much forever. Even the modern shooters like call of duty 4/6 and Bad Company 2 have such ludicrously impossible feats you pull off that they shouldn't be taken seriously. That's, of course, what makes them fun! Think of them like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. The characters are serious, but you know that really it's all just for fun and to blow things up. However, unlike even Arnold's movies I just can't shake the feeling that most (not all) modern FPS games are just stupid as hell.
That may have come from left field, but I thought all this out as I just beat Bad Company 2. Firstly, without going into spoiler details; the plots of both bad company 2 and modern warfare 2 are fucking terrible. I mean, these stories have such huge, gaping plot holes it's almost a joke within itself. So many times I just slammed my head onto the desk in disbelief at what could only be described as a link so weak bridging story elements it bordered on ethereal.
Even if we go back to good old Arnold's movies, he may do impossible things and the story may even involve a cartoonish villain, but the story MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. There is, give or take, a meaningful and easy to follow progression from one scene to the next which doesn't cause you to literally question how any of this makes sense at all or fit together. MW2 for me is the most guilty of this.
Moving on though, Bad Company 2 recently pissed me off in that I hated the characters. I'm pretty sure you could not possibly make the characters any more stereotypical unless you gave the Jewish guy a yamaka and the hick a cowboy hat. Though stereotypes in themselves do not inherently mean the characters are bad, but the writing was atrocious. It was at this point that it hit me like a brick wall: "This game was written for idiots."
Yes, I know I'm an egotistical dick, thank you. However, I'm almost positive I'm right. The dialogue clearly caters to the everyman and uses such lame and over used jokes with such a resoundingly clever punchlines "the hick likes cheerleaders, football and beer". Why is this happening? Half-Life and Half-Life 2, games I cannot praise enough, were amazingly complex in the story for example.
For one, it at least made fucking sense. Yes it is sci-fi, and yes it is ridiculous - but as I said above that is not the problem. The story is expertly told, the characters are deep and likable and there are philosophical similar to (or even ripped right off from) something like the book 1984 evokes. There are several references to physics, science and academia; long story short Half-Life is the FPS for an intelligent person.
As such, I want to lay down some things I'd like FPS games to at least attempt to adhere to.
1) I don't want to leave my body or lose control
I noticed this in bad company 2 and it drove me fucking crazy. MW2 may have had a worse story, but at least it TOLD it's terrible story better. BC2 suffers from constantly, CONSTANTLY yanking control from me. There were even parts when it stayed in first person mode, yet didn't even let me LOOK AROUND - it locked the camera directly on what I was supposed to be looking at as if I was a retarded monkey and couldn't be trusted to do what it wanted.
Now, I realize setting "never leaving your body" as a hard and fast rule is impractical. Some cutscenes are fine, but I'd really like them to be at the beginning of a level or during a briefing or something. In BC2 you would just walk up to a hill, the game would fade to black, play like honest to shit a 20 second cutscene of your squad chatting and inevitably making a bad joke while emphasizing their stereotypes, then cutting back. It left me wondering "why the hell did that happen?" Was it too much to trust me not to run down the path like a blood drunk lunatic ignoring all the dialogue to do it in game? Is your target audience really so frothy at the mouth for violence that they can't even stop at an OBVIOUSLY cinematic point and listen to the squad?
I mean really, that's what this is about; trust. Half-Life TRUSTS me. It says "hey, don't worry, I trust you to notice when a vehicle is flying in. No need to take control from you!" Bad Company 2 though gives me the impression of "NO YOU'RE FAR TOO STUPID TO POSSIBLY DO THIS RIGHT! HERE LET ME DO IT!" What an asshole that guy is!
2) Your story has to at least be logically consistant
I'm not crazy enough to expect a Nietzschean level of poetic prose while critiquing the structures of religion and its entanglement in western morals in a game where you just want to blow shit up. However, at the very least your story needs to be logically valid. There shouldn't be any elephant sized plot holes and characters need at least KIND OF believable reasons for doing whatever they are doing.
I think perhaps part of the problem FPS games are running into is they're trying to be too complex except the medium of an FPS game simply does not allow for the required depth and explanation of what is actually happening. Thus we get these narrative gaps, which lead to plot gaps, which lead to me getting really pissed off at how shitty your story is told. Which of course goes hand in hand with:
3) Your story needs to be told well
Again, in an FPS game you don't have all the possibilities of a finely crafted book. Rely on the characters, the environment and queues to the player. Movies aren't like books either, and they can tell a damn fine story. If you want your story to be important, you need to tell it well - this is crucial. Or you could always go the route of serious sam which is just "bad guy, kill him" which sometimes, works just fine.
4) Make your story interesting
This is probably the fluffiest point here. What I want to stress is that a story does not need to be amazing and groundbreaking to be interesting. Again, I enjoy Arnold's movies and they're fairly derivative. I feel as things stand now, studios have making the gameplay interesting down fine, but the story itself is just kind of latched on.
Well it's 5:15am, i'd better sleep!
Duke 3D is stupid in concept, but it knows that it's just taking a piss and has a ton of fun with it. Serious Sam was the same. Unreal Tournament is the same - it's all over the top fun. It knows it's all impossible so it just says "fuck reality, lets do FUN THINGS".
This idea of "fuck reality" has stuck with FPS games pretty much forever. Even the modern shooters like call of duty 4/6 and Bad Company 2 have such ludicrously impossible feats you pull off that they shouldn't be taken seriously. That's, of course, what makes them fun! Think of them like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. The characters are serious, but you know that really it's all just for fun and to blow things up. However, unlike even Arnold's movies I just can't shake the feeling that most (not all) modern FPS games are just stupid as hell.
That may have come from left field, but I thought all this out as I just beat Bad Company 2. Firstly, without going into spoiler details; the plots of both bad company 2 and modern warfare 2 are fucking terrible. I mean, these stories have such huge, gaping plot holes it's almost a joke within itself. So many times I just slammed my head onto the desk in disbelief at what could only be described as a link so weak bridging story elements it bordered on ethereal.
Even if we go back to good old Arnold's movies, he may do impossible things and the story may even involve a cartoonish villain, but the story MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. There is, give or take, a meaningful and easy to follow progression from one scene to the next which doesn't cause you to literally question how any of this makes sense at all or fit together. MW2 for me is the most guilty of this.
Moving on though, Bad Company 2 recently pissed me off in that I hated the characters. I'm pretty sure you could not possibly make the characters any more stereotypical unless you gave the Jewish guy a yamaka and the hick a cowboy hat. Though stereotypes in themselves do not inherently mean the characters are bad, but the writing was atrocious. It was at this point that it hit me like a brick wall: "This game was written for idiots."
Yes, I know I'm an egotistical dick, thank you. However, I'm almost positive I'm right. The dialogue clearly caters to the everyman and uses such lame and over used jokes with such a resoundingly clever punchlines "the hick likes cheerleaders, football and beer". Why is this happening? Half-Life and Half-Life 2, games I cannot praise enough, were amazingly complex in the story for example.
For one, it at least made fucking sense. Yes it is sci-fi, and yes it is ridiculous - but as I said above that is not the problem. The story is expertly told, the characters are deep and likable and there are philosophical similar to (or even ripped right off from) something like the book 1984 evokes. There are several references to physics, science and academia; long story short Half-Life is the FPS for an intelligent person.
As such, I want to lay down some things I'd like FPS games to at least attempt to adhere to.
1) I don't want to leave my body or lose control
I noticed this in bad company 2 and it drove me fucking crazy. MW2 may have had a worse story, but at least it TOLD it's terrible story better. BC2 suffers from constantly, CONSTANTLY yanking control from me. There were even parts when it stayed in first person mode, yet didn't even let me LOOK AROUND - it locked the camera directly on what I was supposed to be looking at as if I was a retarded monkey and couldn't be trusted to do what it wanted.
Now, I realize setting "never leaving your body" as a hard and fast rule is impractical. Some cutscenes are fine, but I'd really like them to be at the beginning of a level or during a briefing or something. In BC2 you would just walk up to a hill, the game would fade to black, play like honest to shit a 20 second cutscene of your squad chatting and inevitably making a bad joke while emphasizing their stereotypes, then cutting back. It left me wondering "why the hell did that happen?" Was it too much to trust me not to run down the path like a blood drunk lunatic ignoring all the dialogue to do it in game? Is your target audience really so frothy at the mouth for violence that they can't even stop at an OBVIOUSLY cinematic point and listen to the squad?
I mean really, that's what this is about; trust. Half-Life TRUSTS me. It says "hey, don't worry, I trust you to notice when a vehicle is flying in. No need to take control from you!" Bad Company 2 though gives me the impression of "NO YOU'RE FAR TOO STUPID TO POSSIBLY DO THIS RIGHT! HERE LET ME DO IT!" What an asshole that guy is!
2) Your story has to at least be logically consistant
I'm not crazy enough to expect a Nietzschean level of poetic prose while critiquing the structures of religion and its entanglement in western morals in a game where you just want to blow shit up. However, at the very least your story needs to be logically valid. There shouldn't be any elephant sized plot holes and characters need at least KIND OF believable reasons for doing whatever they are doing.
I think perhaps part of the problem FPS games are running into is they're trying to be too complex except the medium of an FPS game simply does not allow for the required depth and explanation of what is actually happening. Thus we get these narrative gaps, which lead to plot gaps, which lead to me getting really pissed off at how shitty your story is told. Which of course goes hand in hand with:
3) Your story needs to be told well
Again, in an FPS game you don't have all the possibilities of a finely crafted book. Rely on the characters, the environment and queues to the player. Movies aren't like books either, and they can tell a damn fine story. If you want your story to be important, you need to tell it well - this is crucial. Or you could always go the route of serious sam which is just "bad guy, kill him" which sometimes, works just fine.
4) Make your story interesting
This is probably the fluffiest point here. What I want to stress is that a story does not need to be amazing and groundbreaking to be interesting. Again, I enjoy Arnold's movies and they're fairly derivative. I feel as things stand now, studios have making the gameplay interesting down fine, but the story itself is just kind of latched on.
Well it's 5:15am, i'd better sleep!
Monday, April 19, 2010
Why the new X-Com game won't work out
2K marin. Oh how I have so little good to say about you. Bioshock was a pretty fine game, it raised the bar for narrative and philosophical undertones in games, something I haven't seen before. There was social text in a video game!
However, you didn't make Bioshock, did you? No, you made Bioshock 2: Bioshock Again.
You were so terrified you wouldn't live up to the game before you that you pretty much just copied it entirely (which is funny as Bioshock just copied System Shock). Now, you're back. When I read that there was a new X-com game my heart jumped, then a few words later it came crashing back to the ground when I found out it would be another fucking FPS. I've never been simultaneously picked up then let down so drastically as this one headline.
So I, obviously, have several issues with this. Many of them revolving around what curious logic I can only imagine is being deployed at the 2K Marin office.
1) Why are you banking on the X-Com name?
As we all know, older gamers such as myself are jaded, nostalgic ridden assholes who love to hate everything. Perhaps that's a bit stereotypical, but hear me out on this:
My first assumption is that the MAJORITY of people who know what X-Com is and loved the X-Com games are older gamers much like myself. Not only that, but they are PC gamers, well known for being quite an unforgiving lot. So your PLAN here 2K Marin, was to assume these old and fickle gamers would be so attached to the X-Com name that they would forgive you for turning it into an FPS game? I think you're fucking crazy, and I'm sure it will have the exact OPPOSITE effect. There is, of course, reasons for this. Keep on reading!
2) X-Com wasn't about the universe
Look, I LOVE me some X-com, and back in the day they were incredibly atmospheric
Doesn't this send shivers down your spine?
Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99964-New-X-Com-Shooter-Coming-From-BioShock-2-Studio
However, you didn't make Bioshock, did you? No, you made Bioshock 2: Bioshock Again.
You were so terrified you wouldn't live up to the game before you that you pretty much just copied it entirely (which is funny as Bioshock just copied System Shock). Now, you're back. When I read that there was a new X-com game my heart jumped, then a few words later it came crashing back to the ground when I found out it would be another fucking FPS. I've never been simultaneously picked up then let down so drastically as this one headline.
So I, obviously, have several issues with this. Many of them revolving around what curious logic I can only imagine is being deployed at the 2K Marin office.
1) Why are you banking on the X-Com name?
As we all know, older gamers such as myself are jaded, nostalgic ridden assholes who love to hate everything. Perhaps that's a bit stereotypical, but hear me out on this:
My first assumption is that the MAJORITY of people who know what X-Com is and loved the X-Com games are older gamers much like myself. Not only that, but they are PC gamers, well known for being quite an unforgiving lot. So your PLAN here 2K Marin, was to assume these old and fickle gamers would be so attached to the X-Com name that they would forgive you for turning it into an FPS game? I think you're fucking crazy, and I'm sure it will have the exact OPPOSITE effect. There is, of course, reasons for this. Keep on reading!
2) X-Com wasn't about the universe
Look, I LOVE me some X-com, and back in the day they were incredibly atmospheric
Doesn't this send shivers down your spine?so maybe not so much now-a-days, but TRUST ME, these were some tense games. However, atmosphere and tension aside this is not why people played X-Com games. The characters in the game were meaningless, the story ranged from ignorable to okay. The MAIN DRAW of the X-Com games was and STILL IS the GAMEPLAY.
That's right, we didn't play these games because we cared about our crew populated with randomly generated names, we played them because they were difficult, exciting and strategic. These games were punishingly cruel but the reward for out-smarting a level was the greatest feeling in gaming: true accomplishment. And really, this is how games were back then: it was difficult to integrate a complex narrative or to even create a true universe with a bunch of back story (which X-com does have... well, kind of).
Anyways, what I'm getting at here 2K Marin, is that using the X-Com license for the games is absolutely pointless because it wasn't the X-Com universe we really cared about it was the gameplay. You simply will not be able to re-create this game-play with an FPS, it's not possible.
3) It seems kind of lazy of you to do this
I don't think I'm alone here when I say this; it really does seem lazy of you to make X-Com an FPS game. We KNOW you have the bioshock 2 code kicking around and we know bioshock 2 is an FPS game. Thus it is at the very least suspicious that you take a beloved turn based strategy and turn it into an FPS game.
Now, this isn't all bad. Perhaps the studio wanted to get their feet wet with another FPS game. They did one, they learned a lot and want to work on another, I suppose there is no harm in catering to your own strengths. However, the concern I've been reading on the net is that the game is more or less going to just be a re-skinned Bioshock and I don't think these concerns are completely unwarranted.
However, I guess we'll just have to wait and see! Marin has already stated that you'll have limited characters and if one dies they're gone forever. This is already somewhat promising, but we'll have to see how the gameplay relates to bioshock.
That's right, we didn't play these games because we cared about our crew populated with randomly generated names, we played them because they were difficult, exciting and strategic. These games were punishingly cruel but the reward for out-smarting a level was the greatest feeling in gaming: true accomplishment. And really, this is how games were back then: it was difficult to integrate a complex narrative or to even create a true universe with a bunch of back story (which X-com does have... well, kind of).
Anyways, what I'm getting at here 2K Marin, is that using the X-Com license for the games is absolutely pointless because it wasn't the X-Com universe we really cared about it was the gameplay. You simply will not be able to re-create this game-play with an FPS, it's not possible.
3) It seems kind of lazy of you to do this
I don't think I'm alone here when I say this; it really does seem lazy of you to make X-Com an FPS game. We KNOW you have the bioshock 2 code kicking around and we know bioshock 2 is an FPS game. Thus it is at the very least suspicious that you take a beloved turn based strategy and turn it into an FPS game.
Now, this isn't all bad. Perhaps the studio wanted to get their feet wet with another FPS game. They did one, they learned a lot and want to work on another, I suppose there is no harm in catering to your own strengths. However, the concern I've been reading on the net is that the game is more or less going to just be a re-skinned Bioshock and I don't think these concerns are completely unwarranted.
However, I guess we'll just have to wait and see! Marin has already stated that you'll have limited characters and if one dies they're gone forever. This is already somewhat promising, but we'll have to see how the gameplay relates to bioshock.
All Systems GO
Hello to anyone and everyone reading this. This blog was created under the pretense that people enjoy reading my rants and raves and thus advised me to create a blog as an outlet and repository for access to these. I waste more time than anyone should keeping up with gaming news and I have more opinions than anyone should on said news. As such, most things in this blog will be game related, as you've probably figured out from the title.
Things in this blog are probably offensive and I have no intentions to censor myself in any way. If strong language offends you, look elsewhere!
Things in this blog are probably offensive and I have no intentions to censor myself in any way. If strong language offends you, look elsewhere!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)