Lately I've been playing Blood and Wine for The Witcher 3, and if there is one thing that can't be stressed enough about the expansion its that its fucking breathtaking. I'm not using that word lightly. I do not fuck about when I play games, I am a hard story/hard action player. Not happy unless I'm learning something relevant or killing something interesting. On at least three occasions in as many days I have stopped dead whatever quest or personal slaughter quota I was engaged in, lined up a specific view, and just had Geralt meditate until the moment when the light would be best to really experience a particular vista. The Witcher is a pretty fucking glorious game just generally, and the whole game is beautiful, but Toussaint is heartbreakingly gorgeous. To the point that just riding along a random coast road is a moving experience worthy of comment.
With the expansion they added a goddamn plethora of tiny UI and graphical improvements, cleaned up the crafting system by adding a badly needed buy option for materials that you don't have but the smith does. Though sadly it appears they didn't carry that into the alchemist shops, which given the the fact that you can do that yourself I can sort of understand. They also added an homage to the mutagen systems in the previous games by opening up the option to modify Geralt's mutation with some skills that almost make me alright with the fact that this is the third game in a contiguous series and you start at level fucking one.
So far Blood and Wine lives up to the hype entirely as far as I'm concerned. It's funny, engaging, vast, and displays an emotional landscape that takes the already vibrant and sympathetic characters that the series does so well and elevates them about as near as you can and still have them be fictional. There are games that I've had more fun playing, there are games that have scratched similar itches better, But I think B&W takes The Witcher 3 pretty handily to the #1 spot on my favorites list. Like ever.
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Monday, June 6, 2016
Monday, March 14, 2016
The Finer Points of Pixel Husbandry
I've been playing quite a bit of Stardew Valley lately, and its probably the best money I've spent on a game in years. Normally I don't have any surplus fucks to contribute to farming sims, too often they're painfully vanilla and heavily geared towards cutesy kiddy bullshit. I get that there is a certain fuck-headed percentage of the population that feels that games should be composed of cutesy kiddy bullshit as games are for children, and I acknowledge that these brain damaged, corporate collaborator cumstains exist and are entitled to their stupid, self-oppressive opinions. I'm going to let my personal feelings concerning those fine fucking failures live firmly between the lines and instead discuss why I love Stardew Valley.
First, Stardew leads off with a direct self-reference. You start the game slogging through a life of soulless toil in a call center. Then you receive a letter from your recently dead grandfather that you are only to open in the event of an inescapable ennui, a letter that contains a glorious escape in the form of a dilapidated farm. Saying out right, "oh, you need to get away from the painful mundanity of your life, here's a little farm for you to work on to make you feel better." A tactic that beats the hell out of the sense of forced obligation in so many of the Harvest Moon games or magical shenanigans that tend to accompany the Rune Factory franchise.
Second, and this could be a little spoilery, the characters are treated like people. The Mayor of the town is casually fucking the local cow-seller, one of the sexy-options congratulates the character on their stick handling prowess in a way that comes off as a pretty aggressive masturbation joke. It even stays pretty true to life in that most of the teenage characters are massive fucking cunts.
Finally, it doesn't really give a fuck who you fuck. Stardew is one of the painfully few games with a relationship system that doesn't discriminate on orientation. Wanna bone down with Fabio the fisherman? Do it, we don't care what bits you have. Like the nerdy biracial girl? Feel free to go to town with the genitals of your choosing. I know its a small thing, but I have a nasty pet peeve about games that enforce the character's sexuality.
Stardew Valley is a simple, relaxing game that manages to be approachable without reducing its tone to that of a shrill idiot child, and that's exactly what I've been looking for lately. It feels good to play a game that delivers on its premise without being uncomfortable.
First, Stardew leads off with a direct self-reference. You start the game slogging through a life of soulless toil in a call center. Then you receive a letter from your recently dead grandfather that you are only to open in the event of an inescapable ennui, a letter that contains a glorious escape in the form of a dilapidated farm. Saying out right, "oh, you need to get away from the painful mundanity of your life, here's a little farm for you to work on to make you feel better." A tactic that beats the hell out of the sense of forced obligation in so many of the Harvest Moon games or magical shenanigans that tend to accompany the Rune Factory franchise.
Second, and this could be a little spoilery, the characters are treated like people. The Mayor of the town is casually fucking the local cow-seller, one of the sexy-options congratulates the character on their stick handling prowess in a way that comes off as a pretty aggressive masturbation joke. It even stays pretty true to life in that most of the teenage characters are massive fucking cunts.
Finally, it doesn't really give a fuck who you fuck. Stardew is one of the painfully few games with a relationship system that doesn't discriminate on orientation. Wanna bone down with Fabio the fisherman? Do it, we don't care what bits you have. Like the nerdy biracial girl? Feel free to go to town with the genitals of your choosing. I know its a small thing, but I have a nasty pet peeve about games that enforce the character's sexuality.
Stardew Valley is a simple, relaxing game that manages to be approachable without reducing its tone to that of a shrill idiot child, and that's exactly what I've been looking for lately. It feels good to play a game that delivers on its premise without being uncomfortable.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Scratching An Itch
So I have been playing a lot of Dark Souls lately and it has been scratching an itch that I didn't know needed scratching. While not a perfect game, Dark Souls does a lot of things right. It has excellent atmosphere, well designed monsters and environments, and a lore that requires its players to piece things together rather than spoon feeding all of the information. Dark Souls doesn't hold the hand of the player and guide them through the game, it encourages exploration and clever thinking.
Most games will take a lot of time to make sure the player knows all the ins and outs of the game and the difficulty will slowly ramp up. This is good, but so many games follow this path its nice to play a game that assumes you can figure it out. Dark Souls tutorial is a bunch of signs in its first area, and that is it. Nothing forces you to read them, but they are glowing so they are hard to miss so its kinda your fault if you don't bother with them and can't figure the game out. After it tells you how to play it just lets you run free.
That's not to say that tutorials aren't good, god knows I wouldn't get through a lot of games without them, but making them a mandatory and drawn out part of the game seems excessive. Pokemon games for instance, haven't changed much, but they all make you go through a tutorial on how to catch pokemon. You can't say "no thanks, I know how to do that" you have to sit back and watch a NPC do a pokemon battle. I get that if you don't know how to play it, this is useful information, but forcing players to go through it seems like a waste of time.
Skyrim, a game that I also love, does the same thing with its tutorial. Its like 10-20 minutes long and unskippable. If I just want to wander around adventuring I need to go through a lot of shit just to do so. Luckily mods fix that issue, but it shouldn't have to be modded out.
I know this is a stupid thing to complain about, but the worst parts of many good games are the stuff like this. As I said before, Dark Souls is far from perfect, but I like that it doesn't guide you through the experience, it gives you a world and says "Explore!". Then it kills you over and over and over again.
By the by, if you want to know about another game that does the same thing: Dragon's Dogma. Its a fun game with some great monster design and has some of the best boss fights I have played in an action RPG (You can climb a dragon and stab it in the fucking heart, its balls out).
Most games will take a lot of time to make sure the player knows all the ins and outs of the game and the difficulty will slowly ramp up. This is good, but so many games follow this path its nice to play a game that assumes you can figure it out. Dark Souls tutorial is a bunch of signs in its first area, and that is it. Nothing forces you to read them, but they are glowing so they are hard to miss so its kinda your fault if you don't bother with them and can't figure the game out. After it tells you how to play it just lets you run free.
That's not to say that tutorials aren't good, god knows I wouldn't get through a lot of games without them, but making them a mandatory and drawn out part of the game seems excessive. Pokemon games for instance, haven't changed much, but they all make you go through a tutorial on how to catch pokemon. You can't say "no thanks, I know how to do that" you have to sit back and watch a NPC do a pokemon battle. I get that if you don't know how to play it, this is useful information, but forcing players to go through it seems like a waste of time.
Skyrim, a game that I also love, does the same thing with its tutorial. Its like 10-20 minutes long and unskippable. If I just want to wander around adventuring I need to go through a lot of shit just to do so. Luckily mods fix that issue, but it shouldn't have to be modded out.
I know this is a stupid thing to complain about, but the worst parts of many good games are the stuff like this. As I said before, Dark Souls is far from perfect, but I like that it doesn't guide you through the experience, it gives you a world and says "Explore!". Then it kills you over and over and over again.
By the by, if you want to know about another game that does the same thing: Dragon's Dogma. Its a fun game with some great monster design and has some of the best boss fights I have played in an action RPG (You can climb a dragon and stab it in the fucking heart, its balls out).
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Any Game in Which You can Be Headbutted By A Giant Cthulhian Angel Is Fine By Me
Longtime readers will know that Eshi and I enjoy video games, and lately there has been one game that has been getting a lot of attention from me: Bloodborne. For those of you who don't know, Bloodborne is a game made by From Software, the guys who made Demon Souls and Dark Souls.
The premise is very similar: monsters are vicious and can kill you quick, but by killing them, you get exp (called echos) to level up your character. Bloodborne is slightly easier than its predecessors (the game's director didn't want a game that was only for "hardcore" gamers) but remains a fun and difficult game. I love the lovecraftian vibe throughout the game since the art is inspired by Bram Stoker and Lovecraft in general and it really excels at creating that kind of atmosphere.
Bloodborne also does a few things that I wish other games would do as well. I don't mean that all games should be Bloodborne, that would be terrible, but they could learn something from the way it presents itself. Bloodborne doesn't really hold the players hand at all, it is up to the player to piece together a story and learn how to play. There is a path you can take through the game, but it isn't always completely obvious where to go, so you get to explore, which is nice. Also you can miss huge sections of the game if you don't explore. Out of like 17 bosses only 7 are required.
There are a few cutscenes but they are light on actual exposition. I am not complaining though, I liked having to figure out the mysterious situation my character was thrown in. As a nerd, I love reading into things deeply. Also, there is no real tutorial. When you start the game you are in a fistfight with a big, fuck-off werewolf what wants to eat your face. After being eviscerated the player is transported to a place called "the hunter's dream" where you get two weapons and can read messages that tell you how to play the game. The thing is, you don't have to read them, you can just get the weapons and go straight back to the respawn point like I did my first time through. The game Dragon's Dogma (which we also really liked) did something similar. You are told about the world, and you get a tutorial where you play as a person who was in the same position as you in the past, but then doesn't tell you how to progress the main story, it leaves the exploration up to you. That kind of thing is great.
I love exploring games and finding all the little secrets and story chunks, it's great. That's not to say that linear stories are bad, they are just ubiquitous. Games today have a tendency to assume that the people playing the game have no idea what its all about and try to coddle the player. This seems like a good idea when games are trying to cast as wide a net as possible by making it playable for every person who picks it up, but making that a standard alienates a lot of people who already play games (the bulk of the market). By making a game that makes players explore and learn from experience From made something that melds with subtle storytelling very well and leaves the player wanting more. Speaking of which, I am going to go play more now. =p
The premise is very similar: monsters are vicious and can kill you quick, but by killing them, you get exp (called echos) to level up your character. Bloodborne is slightly easier than its predecessors (the game's director didn't want a game that was only for "hardcore" gamers) but remains a fun and difficult game. I love the lovecraftian vibe throughout the game since the art is inspired by Bram Stoker and Lovecraft in general and it really excels at creating that kind of atmosphere.
Bloodborne also does a few things that I wish other games would do as well. I don't mean that all games should be Bloodborne, that would be terrible, but they could learn something from the way it presents itself. Bloodborne doesn't really hold the players hand at all, it is up to the player to piece together a story and learn how to play. There is a path you can take through the game, but it isn't always completely obvious where to go, so you get to explore, which is nice. Also you can miss huge sections of the game if you don't explore. Out of like 17 bosses only 7 are required.
There are a few cutscenes but they are light on actual exposition. I am not complaining though, I liked having to figure out the mysterious situation my character was thrown in. As a nerd, I love reading into things deeply. Also, there is no real tutorial. When you start the game you are in a fistfight with a big, fuck-off werewolf what wants to eat your face. After being eviscerated the player is transported to a place called "the hunter's dream" where you get two weapons and can read messages that tell you how to play the game. The thing is, you don't have to read them, you can just get the weapons and go straight back to the respawn point like I did my first time through. The game Dragon's Dogma (which we also really liked) did something similar. You are told about the world, and you get a tutorial where you play as a person who was in the same position as you in the past, but then doesn't tell you how to progress the main story, it leaves the exploration up to you. That kind of thing is great.
I love exploring games and finding all the little secrets and story chunks, it's great. That's not to say that linear stories are bad, they are just ubiquitous. Games today have a tendency to assume that the people playing the game have no idea what its all about and try to coddle the player. This seems like a good idea when games are trying to cast as wide a net as possible by making it playable for every person who picks it up, but making that a standard alienates a lot of people who already play games (the bulk of the market). By making a game that makes players explore and learn from experience From made something that melds with subtle storytelling very well and leaves the player wanting more. Speaking of which, I am going to go play more now. =p
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Make Console Love Not Console War!
Last week EA announced a DLC coming out for Dragon Age: Inquisition called Jaws of Hakkon. This isn't really new, DLC comes out all the time, but this time this release put a focus on something that has existed for a while in the gaming industry. Until now, companies like Microsoft and Sony paying companies to release exclusive content has been less visible. JoK came out for Xbox One and PC only. Yesterday EA announced that this DLC would come out for every other console one month later.
DA:I has received a lot of game of the year awards and praise and is a much bigger game then a lot of games with staggered DLC. Destiny came out last year too, and Sony paid Bungie to make sure that a bunch of DLC only came out for the game on the PS3/4. This time it is Microsoft who is doing the paying for exclusivity, but at least the PS3/4 will be getting it eventually. Some game companies use these funds to help complete games and DLC that wouldn't normally come out otherwise due to budget restraints, so it makes sense that this kind of thing would be good for developers. That being said, as this Kotaku article says, this is essentially companies paying developers to keep some players from having this content because they picked the "wrong" console.
When I saw the announcement that DLC would be coming out I was excited. Then I saw that it would be for Xbox only (at least for a while) and all I did was get disappointed. I didn't do what I assume this type of gimmick is supposed to elicit: buy the console with the exclusive content. Increased sales is the main reason that companies like Microsoft and Sony do this, and I have to wonder if it works. Unfortunately, it probably does on some level.
I remember when I saw this kind of thing the first time. Soul Calibur II came out with console specific characters. This meant that to play as Darth Vader I would need to buy a copy for my PS2 while to play as Link or Spawn I would need to buy a copy for my Game Cube and Xbox respectively. This is ridiculous. None of the characters were game breaking or necessary so I just picked up a copy for one console and called it good. One of my cousins did what the companies wanted. He bought all three copies of the game. I remember thinking "ah, that's why they did that!".
Ever since, I have tried to not support this kind of behavior, unfortunately it makes money for the companies, so they will still do it. I won't buy an Xbox One to play this DLC. I love DA:I, its a great game, but not worth buying another console for just to get access to a little bit of content. Hopefully if enough people just don't buy into the scheme this kind of thing won't happen any more, but considering its been happening for a long time, I don't know if that hope is futile or not.
DA:I has received a lot of game of the year awards and praise and is a much bigger game then a lot of games with staggered DLC. Destiny came out last year too, and Sony paid Bungie to make sure that a bunch of DLC only came out for the game on the PS3/4. This time it is Microsoft who is doing the paying for exclusivity, but at least the PS3/4 will be getting it eventually. Some game companies use these funds to help complete games and DLC that wouldn't normally come out otherwise due to budget restraints, so it makes sense that this kind of thing would be good for developers. That being said, as this Kotaku article says, this is essentially companies paying developers to keep some players from having this content because they picked the "wrong" console.
When I saw the announcement that DLC would be coming out I was excited. Then I saw that it would be for Xbox only (at least for a while) and all I did was get disappointed. I didn't do what I assume this type of gimmick is supposed to elicit: buy the console with the exclusive content. Increased sales is the main reason that companies like Microsoft and Sony do this, and I have to wonder if it works. Unfortunately, it probably does on some level.
I remember when I saw this kind of thing the first time. Soul Calibur II came out with console specific characters. This meant that to play as Darth Vader I would need to buy a copy for my PS2 while to play as Link or Spawn I would need to buy a copy for my Game Cube and Xbox respectively. This is ridiculous. None of the characters were game breaking or necessary so I just picked up a copy for one console and called it good. One of my cousins did what the companies wanted. He bought all three copies of the game. I remember thinking "ah, that's why they did that!".
Ever since, I have tried to not support this kind of behavior, unfortunately it makes money for the companies, so they will still do it. I won't buy an Xbox One to play this DLC. I love DA:I, its a great game, but not worth buying another console for just to get access to a little bit of content. Hopefully if enough people just don't buy into the scheme this kind of thing won't happen any more, but considering its been happening for a long time, I don't know if that hope is futile or not.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Shit-Swilling Subhuman Sonsabitches
This is going to be a short post so I don't devolve in to a crazy-eyed chainsaw-wielding redneck. So swatting is a thing apparently. It's been a thing for a while and it has always been fucked up beyond anything like acceptability. If you hit that link up there you might note that when the police discussed the penalty of the Nov. 6 2014 swatting as a fine and, possibly, a year in prison.
People die in SWAT raids. I've covered it before, but SWAT actions terrorize civilians, ruin lives and, occasionally, melt babies. So calling in a bomb threat or hostage situation on someone to fucking troll them makes you not a fucking person anymore. The idea that these fuckers get anything less than dropped in a fucking hole is disgusting to me. Many swatters are apparently kids. That doesn't change my opinion at all. If your shitty fucking kid is willing to fuck up someone's life this badly they don't get to try again, and you probably shouldn't either.
People die in SWAT raids. I've covered it before, but SWAT actions terrorize civilians, ruin lives and, occasionally, melt babies. So calling in a bomb threat or hostage situation on someone to fucking troll them makes you not a fucking person anymore. The idea that these fuckers get anything less than dropped in a fucking hole is disgusting to me. Many swatters are apparently kids. That doesn't change my opinion at all. If your shitty fucking kid is willing to fuck up someone's life this badly they don't get to try again, and you probably shouldn't either.
Monday, March 23, 2015
And the Whole of the Law Shall be: Don't be a Cuntwaffle
We here at Kinda Whatevs have been known to discuss gaming and gaming culture from time to time. Today I plan on tapping a relatively controversial (though less than say, systemic sexism) topic. Yes, today we're going to discuss exploitation, and not in the conventional sense you'd be likely to see here. I'm not going to talk about how we as gamers are being reamed by certain profit models, or how games exacerbate underlying stereotypes and body image issues. No, today its personal. Today we're talking about cheating.
I am a card carrying Video Game Cheater. I cut my teeth on Game Genie back in the day, spent some time voiding warranties with a Game Shark, and have spent more hours than I care to admit to getting various "Mods" to play nicely together in order to tailor my gaming experience to my design. And that's all it has ever been; me trying to get the most out of my games. There are endless, vile arguments in forums all over the webs about the evils of cheating in video games, and some of the points raised are quite valid. If you cheat in an online game against people who are not cheated, you are a cuntwaffle and you deserve the ban that is probably coming to you. If you cheat in a way that actually destroys your game, well fuck, guess you shouldn't have fucking done that. Be more careful next time. My issue comes from the fact that, honestly most games are kind of insufferable to me without at least a little bit of modification. A little bit of god mode goes a long way towards making that psycho with a chainsaw feel like the vindication I crave. I will freely admit that some of the time my desire to cheat is a blatant power fantasy, but that's what escapism is fucking for. I don't, as my previous comments might imply, cheat on games where there are other people who aren't or might not be cheating. The idea of playing out the aforementioned power fantasy on other actual people is spectacularly shitty, that's how social conservatives happen. But there is nary a single player game out there that I haven't run through the paces of Cheat Engine or modded beyond recognition.
I do it for fun. Many of my friends and I have cheated the hell out of games we loved and grown to love them even more with the cheats. Most cheats are harmless as long as you aren't a dick. Now, I realize this is a Rant Fantastique at this point but I do have a reason for it. Recently, Bioware removed an apparently stable and very, very fucking useful exploit from Dragon Age: Inquisition. The exploit in question was item duplication, under specified, reasonable conditions. It allowed players to acquire good gear and made the economy in the game somewhat more reasonable. It had also been available in every DA game in almost exactly the same form. It was removed. That means that it had been intentionally implemented, as evidenced by the fact that they continued to fucking include it, and then patched out.
This bugs the hell out of me, and I realize that it's a little thing but cheating at games is a great joy to me and many other players. I'm being long winded here but I feel like this is on some level an issue of other people dictating how I'm allowed to enjoy myself and that is supremely fuckered.
I am a card carrying Video Game Cheater. I cut my teeth on Game Genie back in the day, spent some time voiding warranties with a Game Shark, and have spent more hours than I care to admit to getting various "Mods" to play nicely together in order to tailor my gaming experience to my design. And that's all it has ever been; me trying to get the most out of my games. There are endless, vile arguments in forums all over the webs about the evils of cheating in video games, and some of the points raised are quite valid. If you cheat in an online game against people who are not cheated, you are a cuntwaffle and you deserve the ban that is probably coming to you. If you cheat in a way that actually destroys your game, well fuck, guess you shouldn't have fucking done that. Be more careful next time. My issue comes from the fact that, honestly most games are kind of insufferable to me without at least a little bit of modification. A little bit of god mode goes a long way towards making that psycho with a chainsaw feel like the vindication I crave. I will freely admit that some of the time my desire to cheat is a blatant power fantasy, but that's what escapism is fucking for. I don't, as my previous comments might imply, cheat on games where there are other people who aren't or might not be cheating. The idea of playing out the aforementioned power fantasy on other actual people is spectacularly shitty, that's how social conservatives happen. But there is nary a single player game out there that I haven't run through the paces of Cheat Engine or modded beyond recognition.
I do it for fun. Many of my friends and I have cheated the hell out of games we loved and grown to love them even more with the cheats. Most cheats are harmless as long as you aren't a dick. Now, I realize this is a Rant Fantastique at this point but I do have a reason for it. Recently, Bioware removed an apparently stable and very, very fucking useful exploit from Dragon Age: Inquisition. The exploit in question was item duplication, under specified, reasonable conditions. It allowed players to acquire good gear and made the economy in the game somewhat more reasonable. It had also been available in every DA game in almost exactly the same form. It was removed. That means that it had been intentionally implemented, as evidenced by the fact that they continued to fucking include it, and then patched out.
This bugs the hell out of me, and I realize that it's a little thing but cheating at games is a great joy to me and many other players. I'm being long winded here but I feel like this is on some level an issue of other people dictating how I'm allowed to enjoy myself and that is supremely fuckered.
Friday, December 26, 2014
See, Gamers Don't HAVE to be Jerks
We have talked about fans on this blog before. I once mentioned that the worst thing about some franchises is the fans that surround them. I was being hyperbolic when I talked about that. Not all fans are bad. Yesterday is a great example of this. Yesterday a bunch of people in the Pokemon community got together and did something nice for new players. In the latest generation of games there is a tool known as "wonder trade" where you can upload a pokemon and trade it for a random pokemon. On Christmas this year a bunch of people started uploading starter pokemon and other rare/nifty pokemon to give the newbies something cool as a Christmas gift when they start their adventures in Honnen. This is a bunch of players going out of their way to be nice to people just starting out.
I have been playing Pokemon since it came out in 1996. I was the perfect age for the target market back then, 10. It was not my first RPG type game, I played a lot of Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy Adventure (which was actually a Dragon Quest game) when I was a kid, but it was my first experience with a game that gave me a ton of control over my party. I got to choose from an impressive list of characters for my party, I could name them, and was forced to think about how to set up a party that would cover all of my bases so I wouldn't get caught unawares. I know what some of you are thinking, "you had to do all of that in Final Fantasy VI too" but FFVI's had a lot less customizability and the story was a little over my head as a stupid ten year old (such as genocide being a thing. Also an implied tentacle rape from one of tho bosses in the opera house scene) I bought Pokemon Red because there was a dragon on the games case and I have always thought dragons were cool (NEEEEEEEEEERRRRRD) and fell instantly in love.They are solid games, despite the dubious premise, and its great to see the community coming together to do something not shitty.
Fans helping new people fall in love with a good game is a great cause. Being nice is something that a disturbingly large amount gamers have a lot of trouble with, so its good to see a bunch of people get together and help kids feel good about a game. Especially in the face of general crappy behavior yesterday too.
I have been playing Pokemon since it came out in 1996. I was the perfect age for the target market back then, 10. It was not my first RPG type game, I played a lot of Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy Adventure (which was actually a Dragon Quest game) when I was a kid, but it was my first experience with a game that gave me a ton of control over my party. I got to choose from an impressive list of characters for my party, I could name them, and was forced to think about how to set up a party that would cover all of my bases so I wouldn't get caught unawares. I know what some of you are thinking, "you had to do all of that in Final Fantasy VI too" but FFVI's had a lot less customizability and the story was a little over my head as a stupid ten year old (such as genocide being a thing. Also an implied tentacle rape from one of tho bosses in the opera house scene) I bought Pokemon Red because there was a dragon on the games case and I have always thought dragons were cool (NEEEEEEEEEERRRRRD) and fell instantly in love.They are solid games, despite the dubious premise, and its great to see the community coming together to do something not shitty.
Fans helping new people fall in love with a good game is a great cause. Being nice is something that a disturbingly large amount gamers have a lot of trouble with, so its good to see a bunch of people get together and help kids feel good about a game. Especially in the face of general crappy behavior yesterday too.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Gygax is My Spirit Animal
I'm late, I know. I'm bad at things and my heart is made of smelly cheese. Rather than self-flagellate over my established failings in punctuality I'm going to ramble about gaming some more.
I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.
I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.
I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.
I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.
I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.
I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
No Damnation Via Misrepresentation
I'm a gamer. I'm not a particularly proud gamer, but that's because I've never seen the purpose in taking pride in an identity. There has been a pretty significant brouhaha concerning that identity lately that I would like to address.
Concerning any misogynistic/racist/bigoted bullshit anyone in the "community" has said; the people saying these things are assholes. The propagation of the whole Gamergate fucking thing was primarily the concern of assholes. There are legitimate concerns over professional misconduct in regards to both the gaming industry and its associated submarkets, most gamers have known and complained about this for years. Most of us didn't need to abuse a nearly unknown developer to discuss industry glad-handing, and by and large gamers hate those fucking dicks, they make us all look bad, as gamergate effectively demonstrated. If anyone decides to be an abusive fucknugget, that person is a dick, and ought to be dealt with accordingly. The fact that the anonymity afforded the overall gaming community draws more than its fair share of this trash shouldn't damn the whole community, babies and bathwater and whatnot.
I will make no attempt to rationalize or apologize for people who bear a vague and general similarity to me. I admit that we as a community need to establish better standards for behavior, we need to apply pressure to the various industries that cater to us to be more inclusive and forward thinking. We, like so many other groups, need to either educate or excise the factions who share our identity. This isn't a matter of to each their own, the assholes in our community aren't just making us look bad, they're hurting people. It's up to us, not just to deny the people who would see our community die due to the actions of the idiot fringe, but to denounce that fringe. They don't really represent us, so we need to do more to stop them representing us.
Concerning any misogynistic/racist/bigoted bullshit anyone in the "community" has said; the people saying these things are assholes. The propagation of the whole Gamergate fucking thing was primarily the concern of assholes. There are legitimate concerns over professional misconduct in regards to both the gaming industry and its associated submarkets, most gamers have known and complained about this for years. Most of us didn't need to abuse a nearly unknown developer to discuss industry glad-handing, and by and large gamers hate those fucking dicks, they make us all look bad, as gamergate effectively demonstrated. If anyone decides to be an abusive fucknugget, that person is a dick, and ought to be dealt with accordingly. The fact that the anonymity afforded the overall gaming community draws more than its fair share of this trash shouldn't damn the whole community, babies and bathwater and whatnot.
I will make no attempt to rationalize or apologize for people who bear a vague and general similarity to me. I admit that we as a community need to establish better standards for behavior, we need to apply pressure to the various industries that cater to us to be more inclusive and forward thinking. We, like so many other groups, need to either educate or excise the factions who share our identity. This isn't a matter of to each their own, the assholes in our community aren't just making us look bad, they're hurting people. It's up to us, not just to deny the people who would see our community die due to the actions of the idiot fringe, but to denounce that fringe. They don't really represent us, so we need to do more to stop them representing us.
Monday, October 6, 2014
The Importance of Being Earnest
Mythology is a weird thing. It is, at its core, the primary method of instilling values in a society. In some cases, its certainly true that mythology can be taken entirely too seriously, as in the case of biblical literalists. Don't get me wrong, I've no particular interest in the existence, much less characteristics, of anyone's respective deity, but if you feel the need to push science to acquiesce to the demands of your mythology you're a fucking asshole. That's not really the topic of interest today though. My interest lies in the habit of misrepresenting mythology.
First, lets establish the difference between mythology and fiction. Mythology is concerned with highlighting the ideal path of action in the more mired and nuanced situations in life. It does this typically by writing that nuance large and hyperbolising factors within that situation. Fiction is only really concerned with entertainment and provide escapism. That's it. Now you might have noticed that that somewhat broadens the standard perceptions of mythology into things that are typically described as fiction. That is intentional.
I think entirely too often modern mythology is disregarded as just a pretty escape. This feels like a huge mistake to me. Most, if not all, of us were raised on stories where the hero's were earnest and caring; stories of great friendships overcoming implacable forces. Stories strewn with courage and dedication. Now how many people do you know today who you would describe as earnest? Many of us move on from the stories of great heroes doing wonderful things as we were simply setting aside childish things. There's nothing wrong with not caring to keep reading those stories as adults, but I think its tragic that more of us don't hang on to those lessons. I'm not saying we should all be wearing capes and making whoosh noises (though we should, those things are awesome and life is too short to not enjoy them), but I am saying that as cliche as it might sound being honest and good and true is a far more beautiful goal than being rich, we ought to start valuing it more.
First, lets establish the difference between mythology and fiction. Mythology is concerned with highlighting the ideal path of action in the more mired and nuanced situations in life. It does this typically by writing that nuance large and hyperbolising factors within that situation. Fiction is only really concerned with entertainment and provide escapism. That's it. Now you might have noticed that that somewhat broadens the standard perceptions of mythology into things that are typically described as fiction. That is intentional.
I think entirely too often modern mythology is disregarded as just a pretty escape. This feels like a huge mistake to me. Most, if not all, of us were raised on stories where the hero's were earnest and caring; stories of great friendships overcoming implacable forces. Stories strewn with courage and dedication. Now how many people do you know today who you would describe as earnest? Many of us move on from the stories of great heroes doing wonderful things as we were simply setting aside childish things. There's nothing wrong with not caring to keep reading those stories as adults, but I think its tragic that more of us don't hang on to those lessons. I'm not saying we should all be wearing capes and making whoosh noises (though we should, those things are awesome and life is too short to not enjoy them), but I am saying that as cliche as it might sound being honest and good and true is a far more beautiful goal than being rich, we ought to start valuing it more.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
YKWFA 2: Player Characters
Alright, I need to go full on squeeing geek for a minute here. This post has been building for a while and I've had a strong need to write about something that doesn't inspire me to try and hate the world to death, so bear with me. Our topic today is my absolute favorite sort of meta-reference: the PCing of a world. Let me explain.
PCing is a narrative device derived from meta-reference wherein the presence of a player character in the world irrevocably changes the structure of the world, typically by fucking over someone in the game who ought to be important. Sometimes this takes the form of ill explained gaps in a game's mechanics that end up illuminating possibly unintentional subplots. Sometimes its the result of active interplay in the story environment. We'll work through some examples and then discuss the value PCing has as a narrative device. (HUGE SPOILER WARNING OF DEATH)
One of the most explored instances of PCing in a game is the roles of "Ash" and "Gary" in the first generation Pokemon games. By all rights the rival character Gary should be a nearly uncontested champion. He's related to the greatest Pokemon researcher in the world, so he's had, or at least had access to, extensive exposure not only to Pokemon in general but to unique qualitative and quantitative information in the field. He's driven and highly talented. Gary as a character has skill, talent, motivation and resources in spades. In fact he accomplishes nearly everything the player does before the player even has the option. He's also over shadowed in every possible way by the PC.
In the beginning of the game Gary's beloved grandfather Prof. Oak doesn't even remember his name (a good example of a mechanical weakness leading to accidental story depth) and he's largely disregarded in favor of his "childhood friend" that no one seems to know anything about. Over the course of the rest of the game Gary develops an almost compulsive need to beat the PC that results in progressively greater failures at the player's hands despite being relatively successful in all other areas. The PC is even the direct cause of the only possible instances of a Pokemon dieing in a battle (though that is debated weirdly fiercely). When Gary does finally become League Champion the PC comes along, beats his ass yet again, and shames him once again before his grandfather. The PC spends the entire game robbing Gary of his every accomplishment and depriving him of the love of his only relative. My favorite part about this is that its not because the PC is an asshole, its because they can't help it. The presence of a PC in the world ensures that the world bends in their favor. Let's see if I can't clarify with a couple more examples.
Fallout 3 starts out in a Vault, which are constantly demonstrated to be long term social experiments, and follows the development of the player in the Vault environment. Butch is one of the children the player grows up with and his story is what we're interested in for this idea; because Butch is the hero of Vault 101. Or at least he would be if it weren't for the PC.
Your first shown encounter with Butch is at the PC's 9th birthday party, where it quickly becomes clear that Butch is a dickhead. In contrast, everyone else at the party, with the exception of the Overseer, thinks very highly of the player. We learn at this point that Butch's mother is a non-functioning alcoholic, providing one explanation for his aggression. At one point during the player's escape from the Vault one of the Overseer's journal entries becomes available in which he is learned to have been utilizing Butch as a means of social control within the Vault. Given the closed system of the Vault and the low population the Overseer is almost certainly grooming the boy for a position of authority not to mention almost certainly vetting him as the likely husband to his daughter Amata, the only female child in the Vault. So lets build the story, it might be a little weird if you haven't played the game, but I have. Lots. So take my word for it.
Butch, seeking support outside his worthless mother, tries to find solace from the other adults in the Vault, who are all preoccupied with the Outsider child (player). Finding no comfort in any of the adults he develops a hefty resentment for the PC as he projects his inability to earn affection onto the player, he instead establishes a "gang" out of the other male children in the Vault. His gang has trouble understanding his aggression toward the PC, but his clear pain on the subject and threats of violence erode their empathy for the player, after all they must have done something for Butch to hate them so much. Being the clear Alpha male of the Vault's children he reaches out to Amata, once again the only female kid, whose father is the only person to value him over the PC. Amata doesn't share that perspective, making Butch feel even further alienated and cementing his rage.
Now here's the thing. The Vaults are all experiments, and Vault 101's purpose is never actively expressed. We know that the culture of 101 is geared to establish the Overseer as a sort of demigod, carrying on the practices that stave off the certain death of the Wasteland. Its not hard to imagine that Butch was meant to take on a leadership role in the Vault. He's charismatic (though his charisma becomes tainted by his aggression), he's strong, and he is highly capable of establishing and maintaining connections with the Vaultdwellers. The mere presence of the PC denies him even the opportunity to explore anything other than his own resentment.
Perhaps the most prominent example of PCing occurs in the Fallout: New Vegas DLC Lonesome Road. In it the player is contacted by a fellow Courier called Ulysses who bears a hell of a grudge. Over the course of the story Ulysses describes both his and the player's actions as Couriers before the events of the game and why Ulysses holds such hate for the player. It turns out that before the events of the game the player essentially tore the country in half. Basically on a whim. Ulysses became obsessed with this act, with what it means to be a Courier. What he finds, what he describes, is a PC. An active, self-actualized being in a world where they are surrounded by people completely at their mercy. The events he describes are the results of PCs in a world without PCs. What Ulysses describes, in both his previous actions and the actions of the player, are what it looks like to the outside world when a PC is active. This is, to me the best description of what a PC is in a game world.
In most games the player is largely lead about by the story, but from a narrative perspective they are all but gods. Their actions fundamentally alter the structure of the world. They are free to act in ways that other actors in the world are not, and the consequences of their actions reverberate through everything. That is why this device is so beautiful to me. By its nature it half-steps the player out of the game and gives context to their actions. It takes relatively simple choices and gives us a chance to consider their consequences, adding depth and engaging us in ways the game otherwise couldn't.
PCing is a narrative device derived from meta-reference wherein the presence of a player character in the world irrevocably changes the structure of the world, typically by fucking over someone in the game who ought to be important. Sometimes this takes the form of ill explained gaps in a game's mechanics that end up illuminating possibly unintentional subplots. Sometimes its the result of active interplay in the story environment. We'll work through some examples and then discuss the value PCing has as a narrative device. (HUGE SPOILER WARNING OF DEATH)
One of the most explored instances of PCing in a game is the roles of "Ash" and "Gary" in the first generation Pokemon games. By all rights the rival character Gary should be a nearly uncontested champion. He's related to the greatest Pokemon researcher in the world, so he's had, or at least had access to, extensive exposure not only to Pokemon in general but to unique qualitative and quantitative information in the field. He's driven and highly talented. Gary as a character has skill, talent, motivation and resources in spades. In fact he accomplishes nearly everything the player does before the player even has the option. He's also over shadowed in every possible way by the PC.
In the beginning of the game Gary's beloved grandfather Prof. Oak doesn't even remember his name (a good example of a mechanical weakness leading to accidental story depth) and he's largely disregarded in favor of his "childhood friend" that no one seems to know anything about. Over the course of the rest of the game Gary develops an almost compulsive need to beat the PC that results in progressively greater failures at the player's hands despite being relatively successful in all other areas. The PC is even the direct cause of the only possible instances of a Pokemon dieing in a battle (though that is debated weirdly fiercely). When Gary does finally become League Champion the PC comes along, beats his ass yet again, and shames him once again before his grandfather. The PC spends the entire game robbing Gary of his every accomplishment and depriving him of the love of his only relative. My favorite part about this is that its not because the PC is an asshole, its because they can't help it. The presence of a PC in the world ensures that the world bends in their favor. Let's see if I can't clarify with a couple more examples.
Fallout 3 starts out in a Vault, which are constantly demonstrated to be long term social experiments, and follows the development of the player in the Vault environment. Butch is one of the children the player grows up with and his story is what we're interested in for this idea; because Butch is the hero of Vault 101. Or at least he would be if it weren't for the PC.
Your first shown encounter with Butch is at the PC's 9th birthday party, where it quickly becomes clear that Butch is a dickhead. In contrast, everyone else at the party, with the exception of the Overseer, thinks very highly of the player. We learn at this point that Butch's mother is a non-functioning alcoholic, providing one explanation for his aggression. At one point during the player's escape from the Vault one of the Overseer's journal entries becomes available in which he is learned to have been utilizing Butch as a means of social control within the Vault. Given the closed system of the Vault and the low population the Overseer is almost certainly grooming the boy for a position of authority not to mention almost certainly vetting him as the likely husband to his daughter Amata, the only female child in the Vault. So lets build the story, it might be a little weird if you haven't played the game, but I have. Lots. So take my word for it.
Butch, seeking support outside his worthless mother, tries to find solace from the other adults in the Vault, who are all preoccupied with the Outsider child (player). Finding no comfort in any of the adults he develops a hefty resentment for the PC as he projects his inability to earn affection onto the player, he instead establishes a "gang" out of the other male children in the Vault. His gang has trouble understanding his aggression toward the PC, but his clear pain on the subject and threats of violence erode their empathy for the player, after all they must have done something for Butch to hate them so much. Being the clear Alpha male of the Vault's children he reaches out to Amata, once again the only female kid, whose father is the only person to value him over the PC. Amata doesn't share that perspective, making Butch feel even further alienated and cementing his rage.
Now here's the thing. The Vaults are all experiments, and Vault 101's purpose is never actively expressed. We know that the culture of 101 is geared to establish the Overseer as a sort of demigod, carrying on the practices that stave off the certain death of the Wasteland. Its not hard to imagine that Butch was meant to take on a leadership role in the Vault. He's charismatic (though his charisma becomes tainted by his aggression), he's strong, and he is highly capable of establishing and maintaining connections with the Vaultdwellers. The mere presence of the PC denies him even the opportunity to explore anything other than his own resentment.
Perhaps the most prominent example of PCing occurs in the Fallout: New Vegas DLC Lonesome Road. In it the player is contacted by a fellow Courier called Ulysses who bears a hell of a grudge. Over the course of the story Ulysses describes both his and the player's actions as Couriers before the events of the game and why Ulysses holds such hate for the player. It turns out that before the events of the game the player essentially tore the country in half. Basically on a whim. Ulysses became obsessed with this act, with what it means to be a Courier. What he finds, what he describes, is a PC. An active, self-actualized being in a world where they are surrounded by people completely at their mercy. The events he describes are the results of PCs in a world without PCs. What Ulysses describes, in both his previous actions and the actions of the player, are what it looks like to the outside world when a PC is active. This is, to me the best description of what a PC is in a game world.
In most games the player is largely lead about by the story, but from a narrative perspective they are all but gods. Their actions fundamentally alter the structure of the world. They are free to act in ways that other actors in the world are not, and the consequences of their actions reverberate through everything. That is why this device is so beautiful to me. By its nature it half-steps the player out of the game and gives context to their actions. It takes relatively simple choices and gives us a chance to consider their consequences, adding depth and engaging us in ways the game otherwise couldn't.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Know When to Fold 'em.
In previous posts I have written a little bit about why I love the crowdfunding of projects. For those of you who don't want to read another blog post; I like that people don't need to go through traditional channels to make a project happen. There is a downside to this though. What if the project gets funded, but then fails. Worse yet, what if the project gets funded then drops of the face of the earth with all that money.
I would like to deal with the scam side of this first as there is already a solution on one side of this as of a couple days ago. Kickstarter has changed its terms of service to make sure that projects have to give updates to explain whats going on, and also state that people who don't finish a project may be legally responsible (if the backers choose to sue) for the loss of backers cash and they will have to return any of the money they have left. I like this in theory, but it also adds more stress to people to succeed, which is a double edged sword. It may make people work harder to make sure they produce what they said they would, but only if they work well with the added pressure. Ultimately I think this will reduce the amount of scammers, which is the biggest problem, so one step at a time I guess.
The other side of this is what happens when a project isn't finished but they have spent the money in development. Unfortunately, I can point to recent events as my inspiration on this topic. Double Fine's game Spacebase DF-9 is getting canceled. This sucks, but for reasons other than just being a game that will never be finished. The game went out on greenlight, a part of Valve's Steam store in which games that are in beta or alpha can sell themselves on the market as "early access" games in order to get more funding. In return the purchaser gets to play the game, give suggestions (which a surprising amount of companies listen to) and have the game already when it is finished. But when a company like Double Fine, which has an impressive pedigree and track record, fails to complete a project, it brings to light the ugly side of game development.
Games sometimes get scrapped. if this was not an early access game, it would have just been announced and then we would never hear about it again. It happens all the time in the gaming industry. Early release just makes the alpha side of projects more visible. Projects fall apart for any number of reasons, anywhere from funding falling through to an excess of ambition. Unfortunately Greenlight doesn't guarantee that you will get a finished project, just an early build, so if the game never gets finished you don't get anything else. Tim Schafer, the founder of Double Fine Productions, said that they would release the full source code for the game so that people who wanted to continue to add to it could, which is more than most companies would do. But, this doesn't address the issue of what happens to the people who initially back the game. Backing an unfinished project, no matter if it is a video game or a start-up company, is a gamble. You are giving money to someone to show that you believe that what they are doing is something worth supporting. IF you get something out of it that's a bonus.
"I paid for a game, so I want my game" is a popular sentiment on the Steam forums right now, and it is an understandable position, even though I think it's wrong. By investing in a greenlight game or crowdfund project you are taking a risk, as in any investment situation. You are not buying a product. The horrific, systematic failure to understand that has lead to no end of entitled bullshit. You are placing money on a bet that the project will finish, if you are right you get a copy of the game, if you are wrong you get nothing. At least in this case they are still going to be turning the project loose on the fan community, which honestly is more than we ought to expect.
If you buy a game on early access, or really any project on any crowdfunding site, make sure you are OK with losing the money you put up, or that you are OK with the project as it is presented at the time of supporting, as in the case of greenlight games. Expecting anything more is a misstep on the part of the supporter.
I would like to deal with the scam side of this first as there is already a solution on one side of this as of a couple days ago. Kickstarter has changed its terms of service to make sure that projects have to give updates to explain whats going on, and also state that people who don't finish a project may be legally responsible (if the backers choose to sue) for the loss of backers cash and they will have to return any of the money they have left. I like this in theory, but it also adds more stress to people to succeed, which is a double edged sword. It may make people work harder to make sure they produce what they said they would, but only if they work well with the added pressure. Ultimately I think this will reduce the amount of scammers, which is the biggest problem, so one step at a time I guess.
The other side of this is what happens when a project isn't finished but they have spent the money in development. Unfortunately, I can point to recent events as my inspiration on this topic. Double Fine's game Spacebase DF-9 is getting canceled. This sucks, but for reasons other than just being a game that will never be finished. The game went out on greenlight, a part of Valve's Steam store in which games that are in beta or alpha can sell themselves on the market as "early access" games in order to get more funding. In return the purchaser gets to play the game, give suggestions (which a surprising amount of companies listen to) and have the game already when it is finished. But when a company like Double Fine, which has an impressive pedigree and track record, fails to complete a project, it brings to light the ugly side of game development.
Games sometimes get scrapped. if this was not an early access game, it would have just been announced and then we would never hear about it again. It happens all the time in the gaming industry. Early release just makes the alpha side of projects more visible. Projects fall apart for any number of reasons, anywhere from funding falling through to an excess of ambition. Unfortunately Greenlight doesn't guarantee that you will get a finished project, just an early build, so if the game never gets finished you don't get anything else. Tim Schafer, the founder of Double Fine Productions, said that they would release the full source code for the game so that people who wanted to continue to add to it could, which is more than most companies would do. But, this doesn't address the issue of what happens to the people who initially back the game. Backing an unfinished project, no matter if it is a video game or a start-up company, is a gamble. You are giving money to someone to show that you believe that what they are doing is something worth supporting. IF you get something out of it that's a bonus.
"I paid for a game, so I want my game" is a popular sentiment on the Steam forums right now, and it is an understandable position, even though I think it's wrong. By investing in a greenlight game or crowdfund project you are taking a risk, as in any investment situation. You are not buying a product. The horrific, systematic failure to understand that has lead to no end of entitled bullshit. You are placing money on a bet that the project will finish, if you are right you get a copy of the game, if you are wrong you get nothing. At least in this case they are still going to be turning the project loose on the fan community, which honestly is more than we ought to expect.
If you buy a game on early access, or really any project on any crowdfunding site, make sure you are OK with losing the money you put up, or that you are OK with the project as it is presented at the time of supporting, as in the case of greenlight games. Expecting anything more is a misstep on the part of the supporter.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Achievement (Not) Unlocked
Something that has been a big inclusion in modern gaming is achievements. As with most things this hides some deeper issue with the industry as a whole. Achievements are basically just used for bragging rights and serve no real purpose, unless you really really want that 1-3% rebate from Microsoft's live market. Companies like Microsoft have attached a "gamerscore" to the idea, adding up points received with achievements and rewarding Xbox live gold members with minor prizes worth about $.25, which is kinda shitty considering to get to that point you would need to play and completely beat 20 games minimum. An added requirement for these "rewards" is that you have to pay Microsoft for the pleasure of getting that 1-3% rebate, as only people with Gold Live memberships can get them. By the way a gold membership costs $9.99 a month or $59.99 for a full year, so you would end up needing to buy 10 $60 games in a month (or just 5 if you have the year long subscription) to make up for the loss from the membership cost. Alternatively, if you don't want to buy shit tons of games, you could just not pay and have more money to spend on a steam sale or something. You can also get points to spend on games in the live market, but once again these rewards are kind of negligible considering you need to pay to get them.
So anyway, back on topic: there are people who let the concern with their gamerscore choose what games they play. That article I linked is about a person addicted to getting achievements, and it displays the main problem I have with them rather well. Achievements control how gamers play games and that removes from the overall experience. Achievements feel as though the game company decided that it needed to wave a carrot in front of our faces to guide us along the best way of playing through a game. The best games act as a medium for storytelling, i.e. most RPGs, or as a great distraction for the player, i.e. one of any number of FPSs. Movies have the same basic goals in a lot of ways. Movies try to tell a good story, make a point, or just be a cathartic distraction from reality, but there are no achievements for having seen The Godfather trilogy because that would be stupid. The subjective experience is the important bit. You don't see directors and writers sitting in an audience telling them the way they should watch and interpret a movie. It is their job to nudge you in the direction they want you to go in a non-forceful, engaging way. I would argue that good game design does this as well.
So anyway, back on topic: there are people who let the concern with their gamerscore choose what games they play. That article I linked is about a person addicted to getting achievements, and it displays the main problem I have with them rather well. Achievements control how gamers play games and that removes from the overall experience. Achievements feel as though the game company decided that it needed to wave a carrot in front of our faces to guide us along the best way of playing through a game. The best games act as a medium for storytelling, i.e. most RPGs, or as a great distraction for the player, i.e. one of any number of FPSs. Movies have the same basic goals in a lot of ways. Movies try to tell a good story, make a point, or just be a cathartic distraction from reality, but there are no achievements for having seen The Godfather trilogy because that would be stupid. The subjective experience is the important bit. You don't see directors and writers sitting in an audience telling them the way they should watch and interpret a movie. It is their job to nudge you in the direction they want you to go in a non-forceful, engaging way. I would argue that good game design does this as well.
Achievements seem to add extra goals for you to achieve as well as "rewarding" you for completing certain stages of the game. I kinda get the extra goals thing, most games want players to play the game for as long as possible so adding more goals on top of the main game is an easy way to do that, but this was something that happened before achievements were a thing. Did you ever play Super Mario 64? There was a non-essential quest in the game to get all 120 stars hidden in the game. If you did this you got an extra scene at the end of the game, 100 lives, and no fall damage from falling from your triple jump. So by giving the player a goal outside the bounds of the main storyline it accomplished the same goal as an achievement, but differs in a major way because it added to the game. Sure it was kind of a crappy reward considering you had already played the shit out of the game at that point, but it was something. In the Saints Row games (at least from 2 and forward) there was an in-game list of challenges that rewarded you with in game guns, vehicles, and power ups that could only be obtained if you had the genuine skill to complete the challenges. Though these got linked with achievements later, the key aspect of them was still essentially to provide benefit to the player by expanding game play. Achievements don't add shit, they just get tacked on as a way of showing off.
Because of achievements games are becoming more goal oriented and the focus of the gamer shifts from caring about the story, just looking for a distraction, or trying to have fun; to trying to show off how many achievements they can get. I am being hyperbolic here, but only slightly. We live in a world where individuality is incredibly important and largely determined by a person's role in a group. People self identify with a group and then try to show that they are the person most representative of the positive aspects of that group. They scream "Look at my gamerscore! I am the BEST GAMER EVER!". I find this sad for a couple of reasons, the amount of time "wasted" playing games not among them. First of all it denigrates the people working on the game. Why write a good story if gamers are only going to run through it just to get their gamerscore higher? The even sadder part is, by adding the socializing aspect to the game you are exacerbating the perceived need for superiority within the group. This is the way that you show you are a gamer now. It's telling people that if they don't play the game in the way that the people who determine achievements want, then they are not just not a gamer, but that they aren't having fun in the right way. And fuck them for telling me how to escapism.
Because of achievements games are becoming more goal oriented and the focus of the gamer shifts from caring about the story, just looking for a distraction, or trying to have fun; to trying to show off how many achievements they can get. I am being hyperbolic here, but only slightly. We live in a world where individuality is incredibly important and largely determined by a person's role in a group. People self identify with a group and then try to show that they are the person most representative of the positive aspects of that group. They scream "Look at my gamerscore! I am the BEST GAMER EVER!". I find this sad for a couple of reasons, the amount of time "wasted" playing games not among them. First of all it denigrates the people working on the game. Why write a good story if gamers are only going to run through it just to get their gamerscore higher? The even sadder part is, by adding the socializing aspect to the game you are exacerbating the perceived need for superiority within the group. This is the way that you show you are a gamer now. It's telling people that if they don't play the game in the way that the people who determine achievements want, then they are not just not a gamer, but that they aren't having fun in the right way. And fuck them for telling me how to escapism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)