nobody's playground

I'm a choker!

2008-10-22T19:21:00.004+11:00

And no, that has nothing to do with sexual activity. Get your mind out of that place, now!

What it refers to is when watching a TV show recently-ish some character in that show was referred to as a choker. They experienced great success to get them into the finals of a sporting competition but every time they made it to the finals they would "choke" and perform poorly. This moment in that show was something of a gotcha moment for me as it helped me to name my experiences playing games in a competitive environment. Wipeout HD is my most recent foray into this world of "choking".

I've made no secret of my personal distaste for competitive gaming and my preference for cooperative play. I hate winning and I hate losing to bad winners. The very idea of someone tea-bagging my online avatar in a game such as Halo generates nausea. That kind of idiotic male posturing helps me understand why people walk into a public place with fully loaded sub machine guns and let loose. It's not something I expect to ever do, it's just that sometimes I am ashamed of my species and can understand why some reckless individuals would lash out. That said, I've had many positive competitive experiences that are about learning, particularly while practicing martial arts many aeons ago.

This trait that I've recently managed to name has manifest itself to me through Wipeout HD where I'd been setting goals for myself to work through. Three "perfect" laps in a row on a difficult track. I realise that most of you won't know precisely what this goal is in practical terms. Assume it means something like I've set a high standard for myself that I must work very hard at to achieve. When I succeed (I'm comfortable with practice after learning piano and violin in my childhood) I cannot ever manage to take it to four laps in a row. Well not yet anyway. I choke. Some switch inside of me flicks on and I experience a form of elated surprise at my success after hours of practice followed by a grim determination to better the result "this time". All this is set upon a foundation of dread because on some level inside me I know that I will fail. I fulfill my prophecy.

I am interested in this because, now that I can name it, I have begun to explore my response to success and pressure through games such as Wipeout HD. Suddenly competitive play can be internalised into an exploration of my psyche in the light of success. I can "win" and remain comfortable with myself should I acclimatise myself to the new sensation and reject the feelings of low self-worth borne of my youth. Discovering that I can work through the four perfects barrier onto a new level of competence. Each step that I make is a leaden one. Heavily burdened with emotional baggage I'd long forgotten. Gaming in such environments offers me a chance to explore my psyche and its response to such stimuli in a manner that is far more harmless that those used by the reckless individuals of my earlier example. After reading Michael Abbot's self conscious exploration of his desire to apologise for his gaming interests, I am glad to say that gaming helps make me a better man.

Nothing if not conventional

2008-10-14T21:52:00.002+11:00

I may have already mentioned that I like table top role-playing games. Bugger that! I love them. While I enjoy the dross billed as RPGs on computers and consoles, they are little more than derivative stories that provide context for tactical war games, a pale comparison to the greater diversity of participation found in the humble pencil and paper RPG.

Mental note: I'm not talking about DnD in any incarnation.

Thus my love of such should translate into a love of conventions where similarly attributed nobodies gather to gesticulate wildly with raised voices about the exploits of fictional characters, that one time, at band camp (or similar) did something to someone. On the contrary, role playing conventions leave me decidedly cold.

This is significant because a couple of weeks ago some of my pencil and paper RP friends ran into a spot of bother. They're convention organisers. One of their "game designers" dropped out suddenly due to unexpected work commitments and they were left with a bunch of players, a possibility of no game and probably no-one to run it for them. I value my friends deep in my heart, anyone who tolerates me enough to spend any more than a few minutes in my extremely testing presence deserves more than I can ever possibly give them. They knew of a mild distaste for the RPG Convention scene, so it was with some trepidation that I was approached to "help out".

I tried and, in my interpretation of events, failed to assist. This isn't particularly important though. What is important is that I was reminded of why I don't really like conventions. They lack intimacy.

What I enjoy about playing with my friends is the open and honest sharing of potentially controversial material in the knowledge that we all understand that this is fiction. We can take risks. We can explore elements of ourselves and each other that would generate irrational responses in "real" situations. The fears still exist, they still prey upon us, our hopes, dreams and desires still colour our decisions and shape our characters but we can explore our natures in a way that doesn't threaten to undermine them or qualitatively analyse our worthiness. These people who I play with share revelations about their very natures with me by virtue of playing with me regularly. I cannot help but poke, prod, experiment and peer a little too keenly at the bits revealed. I stay my tongue and try to incorporate my observations into crafting a more compelling experience. Sometimes I step too far and cross some unseen boundary between fiction and reality. Sometimes there are emotions that aren't easily distinguished between fictional characters and their players. It is fiddling with this delicate balance that becomes a beacon, a hypnotic siren's call that entrances me and will not let me go. It is my fervent hope those I play with feel some sense of my passion and interest and that this enhances their enjoyment.

With strangers all my hopes and efforts are for nought. They do not know me and I do not know them. When seeking to evoke an emotional response in a fellow convention goer who I have never met before today I fail. Every time. In my mind's eye, my imagination I can see what I aspire to achieve and my various attempts to communicate this message invariably result in a flat, lifeless imitation. There is no flattery. It is a struggle. It is a test of endurance. It is painful and unpleasant. It is because I am my own worst critic and have expectations of what could be that fail to match what is.

I find that except in the rarest of circumstances telling a meaningful story that resonates strongly with its participants isn't possible in such an environment. There are just too many taboos, foibles and scruples getting in the way. And it is this that got me wondering whether the reason almost all stories in games lack any tangible qualities is because they lack intimacy. I saw a You Tube video of a marriage proposal using LittleBigPlanet's level creator today. I wonder if there is a way to appeal to the great unwashed masses and the individual within the throng simultaneously. If a thing can be both universal and intimate at the same time. I also wonder whether this species that I am a member of is "ready" to be one among many without restrain, fear or hostility.

I found I still dislike conventions. We're still not ready to share ourselves with complete strangers, even in a fictional world, even if they don't exist. I believe this is shaping our interactive experience. Yet others appear satisfied with superficial interactions of little longevity. They thrive on it. I am confused, please enlighten me.

Stuffs

2008-10-13T20:29:00.002+11:00

Okay. So I haven't posted for a while and this isn't going to be a "real" post. My "old" computer is experiencing some kind of Alzheimer's and is slowly degenerating. I have a replacement that is much better all in all, but requires some degree of effort to bring up to speed. A few mistakes and I'd lost all of my bookmarks, most of my emails and a few other things too. Trying to reconcile this mess has entertained me for the better part of two weeks. Yes. I'm not really dealing with it effectively, it's not very interesting.

My intent is to get back to posting now that it's almost resolved.

See you tomorrow for more fruitless explorations with little meaning.

Gender Horrors

2008-09-29T20:26:00.003+10:00

I'm acclimatising to a new life schedule so my posts will be either brief, sporadic or both.

If you ever thought that western developed games lacked gender bias then maybe you should read this article. It explores the feminista's response to the game Cunt. I just want to add my voice to those voices already condemning this travesty of wisdom and sense.

What I discovered on my way to tearing a new one for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.

2008-09-26T22:09:00.004+10:00

A copy of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (sW:TFu) fell into my lap at the beginning of the week and with this sudden and unexpected opportunity I felt I could try my hand at offering a "current" review of this game. Its visit would be limited so I resolved to focus all my attentions on it to the scorn of all else (including this blog if you hadn't noticed). I finished the "normal" difficulty setting on day one and pondered whether to endure the game again, on a harder difficulty to get the alternative ending that taunted me with its "locked" status. I wrestled with my completionist impulses and while I did so I went and read a few blogs.

Versus CluClu Land is a blog I've mentioned a few times. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interesting in thoughtful discourse about gaming and the world, there's a link to it in the links section. While visiting in this impromptu interlude I was greeted by Pliskin's evil, evil words as he explored the meaning and relevance of game reviews. For a time his honeyed words messed with my substandard issue brain and had me convinced that it would be worthwhile to follow his sage advice. You've probably already guessed that I was going to play through sW:TFu for that last piece of story - the gaming press had promised it was good! - and I had a blog post that was delayed due to my inexplicable fortune so there would be a delay in getting the review out.

Then, before I try his ideas out for myself, he goes and posts a review himself. Somehow this turgid piece of steaming advertising copy (aka turd) only served to undermine those ideas that had formed in my head prompted by his musings earlier. Let me declare my undying hatred for this person I do not know, largely born of synonyms for envy. Why? Apparently there's a thin line in there somewhere. Fortunately he doesn't read this blog, and if he were to read it, I'm a complete nobody who's opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. So I need not fear hurting his feelings. I questioned my own slavish devotion to his twisted mental manipulations and began to realise something about what I want from a review. Probably the point, but no matter.

Criticism can mean many things. It can be the analysis of something with the intent to provide feedback to the creator of that thing so that they may improve. Rather than the whiney complaining or listless fawning that is the staple these days. Critics criticise. The content of their criticisms lie within their "review". Those critics I respect most explore their feelings, established knowledge, the ideas the creator wished to express and the response of the viewer in light of all these things. It's personal, opinionated and typically includes a discussion about what was lacking and how it could be done better. No point in telling someone what they're doing wrong without telling them what they need to do to fix it.

Except that many games lack a permanent infrastructure to make such an exercise meaningful. Developers hire staff to make that one big game to end them all and then reward them by firing them once it's "gold". While this is also true of movies, it is also true that movies have a cultural industry that involves criticism with meaningful feedback that is directed at the specific individuals involved in the generation of a product. Directors, cinematographers, actors, writers, editors, sound and lighting staff, even the lowly stuntspersons and gaffers (among others) will get a look in from time to time. The relationship that exists between the critic and the developer (without even considering their relative anonymity) is largely meaningless in games. Critics in the gaming world serve only to promote someone's product, some publisher's product. And don't get me started on quality assurance. What is it with all these online patches for supposedly complete games anyway? Test the damn thing before you release it, fix it and then try to sell it to me.

sW:TFu glitched on me in less than 5 mins. The game froze at the 4 min 32 second mark as Vader was dicing some wookies. I was able to "complete" the holocron subquest(s) simply by changing my outfit once I picked one up. I discovered this quite by accident. The story was lacklustre, weak, insipid garbage with puerile scripting and voice acting that can only be described as "what the fuck"? The people responsible for the in game camera should be shot. Sith Lord difficulty was a joke (Sith Master unlocks once it's completed but I chose not to endure any further punishment), I died twice during the entire playthrough because of my desire to experiment rather than through any actions of the AI or the difficulty of the game. Even the graphics are weird, a cartoony representation of the far, far away galaxy that completely undermines the supposedly sombre atmosphere of doom and gloom the story tries to portray. I suppose I should also mention screen tears, clipping, piss poor controls, the overhyped waste of Euphoria (much more effectively implemented in GTA IV), how there are only two force powers of any worth - telekinesis in four variations, push, throw, repel and sabre throw or electrokinesis in the form of lightning or electrical shield - nothing unleashed here. DMM was nice though (mostly).

Yet there are some who have lowered their standards and expectations so much that they will ignore all the problems of the game, all its shortcomings and play it anyway. I really wonder what is going on at times. Advertising copy billed as a "review", minimal direct or indirect feedback on the quality of titles. Titles released as buggy messes with no respect for the craft, the art or the consumer because they can patch it later presumably. A press that is a simpering sycophant so desperate for an exclusive they won't check sources, will fire those who write risky reviews, or rely on a publisher's press agent for the scoop that would have once come from investigative journalism.

I'll still hate Iriquois Pliskin for all the wrong reasons and Star Wars: the Force Unleashed for all the right ones. What I want from my critical analysis of shit, is critical analysis. And if it's shit, I want someone to call them on it. Don't you?

Edit: You may notice that I've accidentally written the word "interesting" instead of "interested" in paragraph two, sentence two. I'm not going to change it because I suspect it's a Freudian slip of sorts. I apologise for any inconvenience this lack of compulsive grammar tyranny may cause.

Dipping into deMMOs

2008-09-25T21:58:00.003+10:00

Free to play MMOs (Massive multiplayer games) were recently a topic of discussion at the Austin Developers Conference. There's a fairly interesting round-table discussion on the nature of the MMO, its business model and its evolution moving forward from that conference. One sentence from that point form summary resonated very strongly with me. "But the only thing you can’t buy is social merit." This is a specific reference to the subscription based MMO, yet I wonder whether it is applicable to all forms of online interaction. Xbox Live, for instance, has had its fair share of social problems leading to a poor perception of its "social merit", whatever that really is.

I've spent a little time with both subscription and free-to-play MMOs and in many ways they're very similar experiences and in many ways entirely different. Their relationship with their player is very different. In a subscription based game players prove their worth to their peers by committing time to the grind and to the "scripted game moments". In a free-to-play game the commitment is more varied and very, very rarely related to time commitment. At its most insidious the free-to-play game is about wealth and the social merit derived from having more stuff than the guy or girl next to you.

The very notion of free-to-play is misleading. The free part is a glorified demo that is designed to lead the user toward the pot of gold at the end of the pixelated rainbow. You don't get the full game as a player, but you are exposed to those who have more of the game than you do (practically anyone who is still there after a week, presumably) and the desire to keep up with them is compelling. I appreciate the notion that I can test the gameplay through a demo but I dislike the idea that I can dip my toes into the wading pool without actually getting to swim around in the waters defined by the game. The pursuit of loot is both an ancient, well known practice and an addictive one that links to our limbic need to feel worthwhile. And while that scares me, it's not why I'm here.

I'm very comfortable with my ability to say no, regardless of how pushy someone may be, or how desperately needy. It's not so much that I wish to be cruel, it's a fundamental belief of mine that I have a responsibility to the universe to make sure that I put my own house in order, before attempting to help, interfere or be the victim of another's. Thus I feel no particular need to extend my demo like (without the full game experience) explorations into the worlds of free-to-play MMOs. My personal adventures are probably not representative, yet I wish to include them as an exploration of the social merit of such games.

My first free-to-play experience was a little awkward, ultimately driving me away from the game. Wandering around relating to the world, poking at things mechanically and thematically I began to meet people and make friends. It was not too long before I had a decent sized roster of opportunities for interaction. At some point I met a lovely, if needy, lesbian couple with a deaf daughter who required supervision because that person over there was a child molester who was hunting their daughter for reasons I'd prefer to know nothing about. The text based interaction environment was ideal for the deaf girl apparently. We chatted. I lamented their plight. The youngster was dumped under my supervision after our third meeting and the couple went off to play while the nominated molester followed my ward and I around with religious zeal. I really wish that I could say this was a form of role-play that was part of the game. It soon became apparent that these new friends of mine had cast me into a role that I would rather not have as part of my participation in this virtual world. I rejected the world and ceased attending.

Refusing to accept that this freak occurrence was representative I endeavoured to initiate a new experience in the same vein. I found that I had soon become embroiled in a serial online dater who sought a sympathetic ear and a new lover. She stalked me beyond the game and sought access to my real life. While flattering, it was more than a little harrowing as I felt that I had done nothing to encourage the belief in her that I was interested in her in that way. I left the game to escape her and soon discovered that this wasn't enough.

These highly personal experiences are echoed through retelling of friends who share their own stories of weirdness and general horror. Social merit indeed. I bear no ill will to those individuals who are mentioned above and in the former case do not know if it was some extremely elaborate joke designed to drive players from a competing product. What concerns me about this sort of thing is that many of these free-to-play models are a form of institution that will encourage players to become something. Precisely what is dependent on how the environment handles itself. If the environment is designed to make a profit for its distributor then its motives may be less than ideal and the social impact of such devices could be very deep indeed. Games influence players at least as much as the players shape the community.

Any tales from the world of MMOs you'd care to share with me?

Dipping into demos

2008-09-21T21:01:00.003+10:00

I haven't quite gotten my wish in regards to Braid. I don't mind at all. Life is good with or without Braid or any other critically acclaimed gaming experience such as Castle Crashers.

One of my friends, amazing that I have any really, let me fiddle with the demos of both Braid and Castle Crashers. Thanks. I would prefer to never write about demos as they might be constructed on early builds and offer a limited insight into the actual game. It is unfair and unreasonable to offer impressions of a game from a demo. I enjoyed the Braid demo but found the text elements to be indulgently pretentious. The Castle Crashers demo was vile, I hated it. Please be aware that in no way am I advocating anything about either of these games (positive or negative) from this experience.

Professionally published games aren't the cheapest form of entertainment. iTunes offers free podcasts of many varied professional standards. Music is a little more expensive. Then there are DVDs and shareware style games, some free to play MMOs might be similarly expensive if one is frugal. Blu-Rays, DVDs of TV series seasons, new release Blu-Rays, larger downloadable games represent the next largest price bracket. The most expensive of this kind of media is the major game release. Price is a consideration in the arena of entertainment and games are good value for money when one considers time versus dollars. There's a risk though, the consumer wants to know that the long time will be worthwhile, will be "enjoyable", and most importantly will be worth the investment monetarily. There are definitely times when I'd rather buy two seasons of TV on DVD (or Blu-Ray) for my one video game. Unlike the game I've probably had a chance to preview the series and am buying it because I enjoyed what I've seen and want to fill in the gaps that were generated by my real life commitments. I may also wish to return to whatever place is represented there if it is particularly compelling.

Demos represent this "preview" in the gaming world. It is imperfect. The demos are often created on preview builds, early levels, out of context moments, artificial additions that may taint the pure experience intended by the developer. Demos are a huge risk for the developer and publisher because they put the product out there for gamers to try, to see for themselves and to judge. I've noticed that many companies are turning to a wide array of user participates marketing techniques as a replacement for a demo. Many AAA releases deny access to the great unwashed masses until they fork over the cash, relying on the millions of marketing dollars and rabid fanpersons to generate interest. Such strategies make me wonder if such practices are better or worse. My belief is that they are better in the short term if the product is sub-standard but far worse in the long term as consumers learn that they cannot trust material from that source. Demos are honest, there is very little to hide behind, they give the power to the gamer.

Every once in a while publishers change the rules. Spore's Creature Creator is an excellent example of the delivery of a game demo that doubles as a viral marketing campaign. Penis monsters and fruit fuckers make good press, 3 million created creatures must mean this game is good. It also has follow on benefits for the developer / publisher as much of their game content is created by the users. N'gai Croal's discussion highlights how many artist hours it would take to create a similarly sized creature database, if you consider $20 per hour versus free the difference is significant in dollar terms, particularly when you consider that this structure also generates interest in the game.

The best game demo I've seen in a while is the demo for Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Conspiracy. The reason I make this claim is because the creators of this demo showcased all three kinds of gameplay available (four if you count the quicktime events). The first is a tutorial in hand to hand fighting, each element is introduced in carefully measured doses eschewing the need for a manual and enabling the player to master hand to hand fighting quickly and easily. So too with the fighting and driving sections. The demo even does a passable job of concealing the poor level design and largely uninspired game design choices made in the final product. I bought the game in the end, I wanted to reward the manufacturer of this product with my dollars, to thank them for taking the risks and putting effort into treating me as a valued customer. Oh the irony.

Where's your locus of control?

2008-09-18T03:50:00.002+10:00

Third post today, save this one for a day or two from the time you receive it as I have real world based concerns that will draw my attention away from the blog for a few days.

The subdivision of psychology known as motivational theory has this idea of a locus of control. Much like metacognition it's a scale with one axis representing internal locus of control and the other representing external. An internal locus of control is self directed. It is not reliant on external factors for activity. In gaming terms it represents the kind of player who does not need a reason to play, who plays their own way, on their own terms, using their own rules. Outside of gaming those who have a strong internal locus of control are likely psychopaths or entrepreneurs. An external locus of control is directed through external influences, other people and the environment. Gamers with a strong external locus aren't looking for the secret passages, the hidden treasures nor are they inventing new ways of playing the game. They're more likely to do what they're told and play through the game as presented to them in the tutorial. Outside of gaming those with a strong external locus make fine petty criminals, career victims and form the core of public service occupations.

How is this relevant to games? Well, in my rambling little mind I've tried a few times to write about emergent gameplay. A definition here, a reference there, a paragraph on games of that style, and a paragraph on styles of play that might be representative. It's all pretty dry, dull, boring stuff. So I'm gonna break it up into different pieces and deliver it slowly so it can be more easily digested and not lead to impacted faeces of the mental kind.

Sandbox games like GTA4 or Oblivion lend themselves well to those who have a strong internal locus. Externally focussed individuals will play through the main quest and maybe a side quest or two (depending on interest) before putting the game aside. An internally focussed individual will probably devise a plan and attempt to implement it. A friend of mine often asks what I do in games like Oblivion once the main quest is completed. She's externally focussed in this aspect.

Linear games represent the ideal game for those individuals who are motivated by environmental factors. Freed from having to devise any reason for participating in the pastime these players will dutifully do as they're told, the plot, the rewards and the mechanics all request a specific set of behaviours from their players there is no need or point in attempting to deviate from the norm. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a good representation of this kind of game.

Most of the time most people have a little of each with one or the other being dominant. In dealing with one's boss one is more likely to acquiesce to external influences (and probably resent it), while encouraging one's child to live out the dream life one never could is largely an internal focus. Like life, games can provide instances where either locus is valid. Most games, however, tend to limit themselves to an either/or stance. Either you're its bitch and you do as your told or you have free reign (once the mechanics are mastered and the rules learnt) to play and do whatever you like. I'm proposing that a game, if it wishes to broaden its audience should cater to both loci while keeping its core gameplay model intact.

A great example of this in action is in SoulCalibur 4. I set up a challenge for a friend and I to create characters in the character customisation mode that represented ordinary household items. We had to create five characters each. Seeing and fighting against his wonderfully realised "plunger" inspired my "toilet brush" creation. We're taking an element of game play and making it our own, as much as is possible within such a limited framework. Typically SoulCalibur 4 presents an external locus of control, but what makes it great for me is that I can influence it with my own goals, ideas and ideals.

Would you mind thinking about games where this is possible and recommending them? Perhaps you could relate experiences of your own, either where you took the game and made it more about you or where the game invited you to create your own goals but you were not inclined to take them. What were your reasons?

Digital download blues

2008-09-18T02:10:00.002+10:00

There's a lot to like about digital downloads. Cheaper distribution models lead to the possibility of increased innovation or more bang for one's buck. The convenience of shopping from one's home without having to spend money, time or effort grooming before traveling to a public place filled with those annoying creatures known as people only to acquire the latest, greatest AAA gaming title. Digital downloads would reduce carbon emissions, greenhouse gases and consumption of electricity required to power the energy hungry displays found in gaming retailers. They may result in more timely delivery of product too, no cursing another country/region/state/suburb's store for breaking a release date, no waiting for a delivery man or woman to knock on the door at some ghastly hour with your game a day or two later than the "official" release date. Anything before midday is ghastly.

Digital downloads also have a couple of flaws.

Infrastructure

Without a physical presence there is no motivation for a provider of the necessary telecommunication services to accommodate digital downloads unless they receive a slice of the profit pie. Existing digital download providers, as far as I understand it and my understanding is very limited, operate independently of the telco providers that enable connection to their service. This is fine, reasonable, understandable, but it only really works as a delivery mechanism in densely populated, wealthy, single nation countries that are not heavily restricted by legacy infrastructures. Basically Canada (the southern bits) and the US. Oh and Estonia which kindly legislated a free wireless broadband internet service for every one of its 1.5 million inhabitants. Time to move methinks.

Europe may well have internet connections and digital downloads available to it and it has a very high population density. It also suffers from having many nations with different ideas about how to implement and regulate telecommunications. Not to mention having an overly bureaucratic model steeped in ancient traditions that is not highly adaptive to change unless there is recompense. The EU is something of a counterbalance to this very problem yet one need only look at the different regulatory behaviours toward games, different buying habits and product distribution to know that this is a complex market.

Poorer nations such as most of Africa, India and South America will only have services of worth available to the very rich who can afford them. Most of their populations will not be able to access their games via a digital download medium for a few years yet as we're talking significant economic reform and fairly massive economic investment.

Isolated, low density nations such as Australia are already falling behind the technological capacity of the rest of the world. The cost to profit ratio of providing state of the art services isn't justifiable, with only the wealthy being able to access the premium services.

Physical shops get around by existing in the real world, by being tangible. They drive entire industries through encouraging shoppers to congregrate and spend their earnings. Gathering together in shopping centres shops compete with one another for the consumer dollar, kroner, pound, yen or yuan. Existing behaviour patterns tell us that people like to have a wide array of shops in centralised locations because their funds are limited and they must decide whether to eat or to buy the latest console title, whether to keep clean or cover their car seats with pure wool. Removing the possibility of buying games from physical stores without providing the infrastructure required for the most likely buyer (the working classes) may result in a large loss of market share.

I have an acquaintance with a dial-up modem and a PS3. They lament not being able to buy Blood Siren in a physical format. They're in credit stress at the moment, cannot justify the increase in service (and can barely justify their dial-up) and still spend more than they can afford each pay period. With the current economic climate surely this scenario is going to become more likely than less? Is it all a Sony and friends conspiracy to ensure that Blu-Ray remains relevant for the entire life cycle of the PS3? If consoles are on their way out as a means for delivery gaming, then will Telco's become the new console market as they enhance services to deliver the product to a larger market, seeking to recoup losses on standard services introduced by VoIP and introduce new internet fee structures for distributors of digital downloads.

Ownership

It is said that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Interestingly enough this is pretty accurate. Software, however, is a little wonky when it comes to possession. Most software is a license that permits the user access to the software for a fee. If it comes in a disk based format the owner, "owns" the disks and may do what they like with them, but they don't entirely own what is on them. DRM and SecuROM take this concept further. You, the user, may have bought the disk that contains the game Spore, but there is only one user allowed per disk and should you upgrade your computer more than three times (according to the manual) you will need to renew your license. That is, buy the game again. General consumers aren't largely affected by these legalities because most software developers aren't too restrictive with their product and they don't upgrade their systems or crash their hard drives as much.

Digital downloads, however, are poised to change all of that. You see, without that disk the user only has a set of code on the hard-drive of their processing machine of choice. Strictly speaking that code doesn't represent a thing, it represents an idea with ownership of ideas differing slightly from ownership of objects. That said, I'm not a legal person of any kind so I may well be completely wrong! Yet, I believe that who owns what is still being explored by the law. Second Life has had its fair share of thefts with interesting implications try this post, or this post if you want to start exploring this quagmire of confusion, old news maybe, but more relevant to now with all the controversy surrounding Spore. Sure they can claim that you can re-download a game, but this only works if the distributor continues to offer it. You've bought it and you should be able to keep it, but if you have a hardware failure of some kind you're at the mercy of the distributer more than ever before.

Publishers don't like the trade-in or rental markets either and for good reason. Yet there are reasons these facets of the business should be allowed to continue. They stimulate interest. They allow a potential buyer to test a legitimate copy of a publisher's game without having to resort to bit torrents containing cracked pirated copies. They generate throughput and enable gamers to keep their favourite games while reducing the cost of newer games. I realise that this limits the total numbers of games sold as trade ins, they aren't counted as actual sales and they don't generate profit for publishers. However, as with the infrastructure problem above, the issue here is that distributors have no connection with publishers, the lucrative area of 2nd hand games is purely the domain of the retailer. Savvy publishers could perhaps find ways to enhance their overall profitability by connecting with this aspect of the business rather than trying to eliminate it. Some sort of buyback scheme with a cross-promotional tie in that links the business aspects of the physical distribution model might help curtail the highly variable income derived from a high risk product portfolio. Other options exist, of course, I won't bore you with a list of my ideas as my intent is to illustrate that generating interest in a market that is not yet saturated will increase overall sales.

Digital distribution offers a different set of opportunities, of course, but with existing profit areas already prime for milking why aren't more businesses looking for greater leverage?

Learning, gaming and me.

2008-09-18T01:08:00.002+10:00

I am a poor student.

This is a peculiar statement because on the surface I present as a good student. I attend all classes. I read the required readings. I listen. I ask questions. I am even able to accurately respond to questions for a while. But then something happens, it's complicated, the whole illusion breaks apart and I start to struggle. There are a multitude of reasons for this and they aren't explicitly important in this context except to note that there are number of factors at play and as I wrestle to overcome one problem my efforts are hampered by others. The end result is always the same, in a traditional classroom environment I am a poor student.

James Portnow and Daniel Floyd are currently collaborating on a series of videos that explore learning and games. Their latest discusses tangential learning. While they could benefit from an editor - can't we all? - there's much of interest if one cares about alternative applications available from games. Games can be powerful vectors for education yet as is discussed in the referenced post, educational games are shit (my phrasing, not theirs).

As a dedicated gamer with strong completionist tendencies I have no problems learning the elements of the game, implementing them and then subverting them for my own ends. I have discovered that my "completion" rate is remarkably high when compared to my friends, both real and virtual. In this instance I refer to both types of completion, I complete the actual throughput of gameplay as intended by the developer and I complete the additional material such as found in achievements. My point isn't to elevate myself as a superior gamer as I believe that this behaviour isn't qualitative. It is relevant because if games were a classroom then I'd very nearly be a model student.

Yet I am not.

If I ignore the fun aspects of play for a moment - which are certainly significant motivators but dealt with here, here and here as well many times over throughout the interwebs - what else motivates me to play? Gaming lets me compare the fictional reality of the game world against the real world that I inhabit. Gaming lets me make mistakes that may result in virtual death but are not harmful to me. Gaming lets me just do it, should I not be in a reflective mood I can just poke around and explore. With games I can propose theories and test them. Games are practical models for action with direct rewards that are dependent on the fulfillment of the most "desirable" action. They have a degree of reality that, for me at least, transcends the classroom. Games enable me, they elevate me, they even sometimes send me off on some tangent as I struggle to keep up with my "normal" peers in some classroom that teaches the Sephiroth.

I've met a lot of people like me. People who do not learn well in the classroom environment, who find practical activity more productive. Games don't really embrace this capacity well and educational games are frequently little more than interactive electronic lesson plans. While it may not be art, should developers decide to incorporate a design principle that incorporates educational goals they will definitely elevate the medium.

RPG or TWG, you decide.

2008-09-16T15:26:00.003+10:00

For a really long time the notion of video games labeled as RPGs (Role Playing Games) has irked me. A role playing game is a game wherein the player plays a role and this notion applies to every fucking game ever created. In Tetris I play the "block manipulator" or builder or whatever name you may care to give to the role of the player's avatar that's spinning and shoving blocks. In Crash Bandicoot I'm an anthropomorphised bandicoot with a penchant for spinning and creatively wacky death animations. In Call of Duty 4 I'm a soldier and a man, twice! My avatar as a player is someone else's idea of whatever it is that I'm doing in their idea of whatever it is that's being done. I'm playing a role, their role, a specific role that I have no say in how it develops, changes or responds to its environment. No meaningful role. I am a functional unit designed to fulfill a limited range of functions that unlock new cutscenes or high scores. The subcategory of games that are actually called role playing games are in fact TWGs (tactical war games).

TWGs (formerly known as RPGs) are games where the player has the ability to fiddle with the underlying mechanics of the game in some fashion. These games provide a series of functional tasks, typically physical in nature, that require certain mechanical qualities to overcome. The "role" is represented by a form of niche protection or exclusion of function. The thief's "role" is to pick locks and stab people in the back. The fighter smashes stuff and is smashed. The priest role heals people. The wizard role zaps stuff and crumples. These established "roles" are functional tasks lists that have nothing to do with playing a character and everything to do with fulfilling a function. Typically the problems that these roles are required to overcome are presented in a tactical combat focussed manner, reminiscent of the miniatures source from which these sorts of games were originally inspired. MMOs (massive multiplayer online [games]) are TWGs where individuals play each individual character in a given unit (such as infantry unit or cavalry unit). Like other TWGs there is no mechanical support for emotional connections, for the notions of evil or good, of noble or unjust, of happiness or sadness. Well beyond simplistic scripts that provide a set of emoticons. Does Poe's law apply here or is it only for fundamentalist religious rants?

TWGs have grown stale. Mechanically they fail to explore their own nature repeating over and over and over the same mechanics. Their stories are clichéd derivative drivel. Even the roles they have defined as templates have passed beyond familiarity and become predictable functional tools. Many people like the idea of RPGs, every single one of the people that have commented on this blog, for instance, and I believe they fall into three groups.

Tactical wargamers are those who like, you guessed it, the mechanical side of the game, the minutae, the collecting of loot, the sorting of loot, the division of labour and the optimisation of statistics to reap maximum benefits. The best description of this sort of game is the "turn based strategy game" such as the Disgaea franchise or the Civilisation style of strategy game, light on story, heavy with mechanics. Though most current "RPGs" fit this play style as well.

Narrative viewers aren't really interested in "playing" the wargame elements beyond meeting the requirements necessary to reach the next story function. These players are single handedly responsible for "the grind" as all they need is time to acquire the necessary power to progress through the next functional task. Inefficient builds are fine with "the grind", poor tactics are overcome with "the grind", anyone who is given enough time can make it through to the next narrative moment. Any RPG with an "epic story" fits this category, but many non RPG games also fall here, such as the Metal Gear Solid series.

Role-players want to play character roles not functional roles. They aren't as interested in the healer as they are in playing the priest who firmly believes that his or her deity is the one true deity and seeks to convert those of not of their faith. They don't want the fighter so much as the gladiator who seeks someone who can see his or her inner softness and look beyond the scars, fall in love, marry and raise children. The wizard isn't as interested in zapping things as gaining the admiration and respect of his or her academic peers. The thief may well steal because they cannot reconcile their fundamental inability to agree with the dictatorship that rules them and the general populace with an iron fist. I cannot name a single game that provides gameplay of this type.

It is my belief that the reason TWGs are stale is because developers aren't really considering their audience and catering for their tastes. Development costs could be reduced significantly if developers were to focus on targeting a specific demographic and developing with that type of player in mind. Too much time is spent on story when a few goofy jokes will do. Disgaea 3 is a TWG for the PS3 that doesn't bother with fancy graphics or deep, original storylines and for its target demographic it delivers. Farenheit / Indigo Prophecy and its offspring Heavy Rain represent the Narrative Viewing game, gameplay is much more a function of the story rather than of skill. There's a scene in Farenheit, for example, where the avatar is being interviewed about his possible role in a crime while being harrassed by invisible alien fleas, if the player chooses not to respond to the avatar's paranoid delusions then the interview goes smoothly, but if the player plays the mechanical aspects skillfully their erratic behaviour is considered suspicious and has consequences. Playing the game skillfully is detrimental to the avatar in this instance, discouraging skilled play and encouraging a more thoughtful exploration of the mechanics.

Games that allow the player to adopt an avatar that is a character role doesn't really exist. I believe that there is a market for this kind of game and would welcome and reward any developer that chose to undertake this challenge.

I'm a character role player, but I like the story and tactical aspects of RPGs. Many of my friends are easier to define into little boxes. What kind of RPG gamer are you? What kind of RPG game would you play? How would it be built, dialogue heavy tracts of narrative, minutae laden lists of inventory, skills sets and kewl powerz or maybe character traits like, honest, generous, miserly or headstrong?

What's in a name?

2008-09-15T00:03:00.001+10:00

I chose the name nobody for a reason. Firstly, it's not really a name but more an adjective. I am a nobody, nobody relevant to the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean I am insignificant, just not "important" as much as such concepts can be defined. Somebody therefore is likely to be a well known figure with some, maybe much, influence. They are "named" (rather than described) and they often have plot relevance or perhaps many nobodies that congregate around them. In a JRPG (Japanese role-playing game - typically developed for a gaming console) I'm one of the filler avatars in town that might wander from one location to another and back. In most JRPG's I'd be lucky to have a name and get a line or two (written only, not spoken) of largely useless fluff. I suppose this sort of thing exists in all computerised RPGs.

Some cultures see this as a negative, my culture knows that many nobodies are needed to make somebody Somebody. Culturally we also take great delight in reminding a Somebody how tenuous that adjective can be.

A friend or two tell me that non-linear stories are really hard to code. I dispute this, but do so largely from a stance of complete ignorance. My intent is to offer a means to provide a non-linear story generation mechanic that is both simple to implement and simple to play. How does a nobody (the starting character) become a Somebody? In the real world it's usually when Somebody pays attention to them, mentors them, and/or assists them in reaching others. It could be just the same in the fictional worlds of games too. Take a largely irrelevant nobody farming their parents peasant farm in nowhere-ville and consider how they become a hero. Campbell's Hero's Journey is something of a cliché these days, surely the process can be more organic?

A player would make choices about their character's mechanical qualities based on preferences centred around that player's personal interests in the game. Those choices could then trigger a predefined Somebody or two or more throughout the game world that become interested in the character. Those virtual Somebodies would then respond in a pre-defined manner to that player's character's choices. The same Somebodies could respond differently, or different Somebodies could respond, or a combination of both. How much variation could be included in a game would be a function of time.

Corvus at Man Bytes Blog suggests that verbs could be a means to enhanced storytelling. And while I agree The Sims uses such techniques in its structure without defining character relationships (boyfriend, mother, rival, lover) and they do weird things that while briefly amusing typically result in dissatisfaction in many of the games detractors. In The Sims, a microwave is defined by its "cook" [food] attribute, so a Sim can use it to cook food making it edible and fulfilling the hunger directive. It's hardly compelling from a storytelling perspective. Still, mechanics that define the core features of storytelling could redefine narrative games as more than aping linear media into creation of a whole new understanding of narration.

Sometimes though, that old nobody sitting there by the fountain turns out to be the ancient kung fu master keeping it low key. Perhaps not this time, but sometimes.

Gender Bites

2008-09-14T22:35:00.005+10:00

Leigh Alexander at Sexy VideoGameLand is someone I admire. She's also someone who's much more likely to be informed about what it's like being a woman in the modern gaming world. So when she writes about how irrelevant gender is to her gaming experience I think, "fair enough" and "good for you". After all, a real life friend echoes those exact sentiments.

This morning my TV, in its role as my alarm clock, roused me to the news that Republican Candidate Sarah Palin has single handedly caused a 20% swing against Barack Obama by virtue of nothing more than her gender and her appeal to white women. That's the crux of what they said, pretty much as they said it too. Gender shapes nations, why wouldn't it shape games?

It's hurricane season!

2008-09-09T20:21:00.005+10:00

Storms are funny things, they build momentum out at sea normally, brewing, percolating as they drift across the waves, typically they just water the garden and wash the car, but sometimes they lay waste to entire cities.

Michael Abbott's post on Spore triggered a thought process in my teeny tiny mind that reveals a growing trend of militant behaviour in gamers and developers. Maybe it was always part of the gaming scene and I haven't noticed until now. Mr Abbott's post is as genteel as always remarking on the divide between games reviews and actual play. On its own the post is largely unremarkable, but given discussions here and all over the internet many gamers and former games journalists (such as Dan "Shoe" Hsu at Sore Thumbs) are very disgruntled with the current systems in place. Games journalism is not particularly helpful and many are dissatisfied with its apparent pandering to publishers. I am one of those many.

Several posts of my own have expressed my desire to see developers and publishers push the envelope with their games. Too many are making bland decisions that fail to ignite a community that is becoming jaded and wary of the tricks of the trade. N'gai Croal, the videogame writer for Newsweek and all round cool dude wonders at what is fun and realises that the big blockbusters no longer hold that allure for him. His reasons are personal but his sentiments are echoed all throughout the interwebs. The first signs of the coming storm, perhaps?

Then a company called Stardock goes and releases a gamer's bill of rights. The cynic in me suggests that this is a clever marketing ploy designed to cash in on current moods among gamers. Core gamers feel that Nintendo have deserted them, regardless of the truth it's interesting to see the shift in perception toward Nintendo's extremely effective strategy. The other cynic in me sees it as an attempt to cash in on the hostilities that have erupted over DRM and the EA published game Spore. Shamus Young is one somebody who feels very strongly about DRM, from personal experience, to a reinterpretation of the gamer's bill of rights EA style. Whatever it was that Stardock was trying to achieve they've succeeded in generating a lot of hype and the cynic in me suspects that they are rubbing their hands with glee.

Spore - published by EA - uses this DRM stuff. The same stuff that is generating negativity. The same stuff that prompted Stardock to shoot for a little publicity regardless of their intentions. The same stuff that has some claim "problems" although as far as I can see it the problems were created by EA not really anticipating that an over-hyped game monstrosity like Spore would break street date somewhere and did not have the infrastructure ready for such an event. That sort of thing has never happened before! Like this time, or this time or even this time or the countless other times I haven't referenced. Makes me wonder whether EA personnel are näive, stupid or arrogant. I'm sure the reputation that EA has isn't warranted and I hope that one day they prove it.

The storm lingers by the shore undecided whether to rage or just rain. Many gamers, 1,210 of them in fact (as of my writing / researching this), have decided to "attack" EA directly via the only direct means at their disposal Amazon. Is it DRM, the dissonance from game press, gamers disillusionment with games or something else that's generating all this hostility? If it's enough to get a charming, easy-going, considerate guy like Michael Abbott on the defensive then something's brewing.

I believe that DRM could well be a Trojan horse of hurt for EA but have little grief with it on a personal level. Are you feeling dissatisfaction at the moment? Is that bubble of prosperity that the video games industry is currently experiencing about to burst? Or is it just a sign of the times in America where the sub-prime mortgage crisis has left the economy in shreds and everyone feeling a little glum?

EDIT: Last paragraph, third sentence, phrasing.

Braid - Impressions

2008-09-08T22:30:00.004+10:00

There's this problem with Braid, you see. I really would like to relate my impressions about this game here, but I can't. You see, I don't actually own an Xbox 360 and am at the mercy of my philanthropic friends for their patronage. Unfortunately my subtle hint earlier in this post fell on deaf ears. They're comparatively wealthy too. I hope they get the hint this time!

Just in case I wasn't clear.

Dear [insert your name here],

Please buy Braid so that I may play it. I don't mind if you enjoy it too. Just think of all the children that read this site and will miss out on the chance to vicariously experience this game without your kindness. That somebody wannabe Iriquois Pliskin thinks you'll enjoy it, but then again he loves MGS2 so his analytic qualities are questionable and definitely not conventional! You should ignore that established somebody Michael Abott's whining about Braid's difficulty as he is clearly deficient and should you encounter similar problems you can rest easy in the knowledge that I will be there to assist you.

Gratefully yours,

nobody

Let's face it, the only people visiting this blog are my friends, so this is directed at YOU!

(j/k)

The Last Guy - Impressions

2008-09-08T21:52:00.004+10:00

If you read these posts in chronological order then you should know that I was holding off on buying PixelJunk Eden until I had a chance to choose between it and The Last Guy. My limited funds were not limited enough and I succumbed to my delight with both demos. They're very different games, both available via PSN and both most probably overlooked by the AAA game, hype driven gaming sites out there.

Whereas PixelJunk Eden evokes feelings of wonder, of the fresh scent of a garden with new blooms, The Last Guy is instantly familiar.

It's a 2D collecting game similar to many early platformers without all the jumping. Your avatar is described as a Himalayan mutant that can lead "survivors" of the "purple light" cataclysm to safety. Anyone outside when the purple light bathed our planet was turned into a "zombie", basically a vastly more powerful monster with differing powers and behaviours that change the gameplay environment.

The gameplay environment is a secret delight. Aerial photography of many major international cities converted into a top down 2D platform with free roaming zombies and tiny ant like dot representations of survivors that follow The Last Guy as he (she?) leads them to safety, mostly. I love that they squeal, shake and the controller vibrates whenever a "zombie" lurks nearby - particularly when they can see something that my avatar cannot, sometimes even only half the line of followers panic as only they can see what threatens them. There are power-ups like invisibility, time-stop and a teleport to base called Return. You can run quickly, huddle and infravision innately but this consumes Endurance that replenishes over time or with the Endurance or Endurance+ power-ups.

This is the fast food of gaming. Easy to pick up and play, easy to put down. There is certainly something fulfilling about saving people (pixels) in one's home city and I take some perverse delight in choosing not to visit a building and save its inhabitants because a real life friend works there. I suppose this sensation is commonplace for Americans as many games are set in one or more of their cities. Yet, if we believe the hype surrounding GTA IV, it is neither old nor tired.

PixelJunk Eden - Impressions

2008-09-08T20:41:00.003+10:00

GameSetWatch is one of those blogs that I really, strongly recommend if you want thoughtful commentary on the breadth and depth of video game culture, such as it is. A little while ago a former somebody by the name of Steve Meretzky laments the loss of creativity in gaming. It's a short piece that affirms my hope, my investment in this pastime.

PixelJunk Eden by Q Games is one of those titles that I have anticipated for quite a while. I didn't pick it up until after I had a chance to play The Last Guy demo so that I could decide which I would buy as my budget is limited. Not limited enough. It's weird, it's wacky and it's definitely original as far as my experience with gaming goes.

The controls are really, really simple. Point in the direction you want your critter (called a Grimp) to jump with the analogue stick and press any face button. One press has the Grimp leap while trailing a thread behind it, once the thread reaches its full length the Grimp can spin around its jump off point twice maybe three times before the thread breaks. Two presses has the Grimp leap forth without the thread. Holding the button down has the Grimp spin. Grimps that just freefall will cling to anything they encounter. Grimps that spin will pass through anything in their way.

The gameplay environment is pop-art inspired, abstract pastel splashes of colour for a background, populated with stylised plant silhouettes and free floating "enemies". Plants grow from seeds, seeds grow when filled with pollen and "activated" by the Grimp by clinging to them. Gameplay consists of collecting pollens, activating seeds, jumping higher and finding the maguffin known as Spectra. Collecting Spectra changes the colours of the game environment, more pronounced as more are collected. The game is 1960's psychedelia in game form. Even the soundtrack is a wacked out, trippy melange.

The game feels fresh to me. I'm nobody significant mind you, but as a dedicated gamer I have directly played at least 300 titles in my lifetime - including Pong in its original form. So few games present this sensation to me these days. It is very welcome when it reveals itself to me, reminding me of that childlike sense of wonder that I cherish. What is particularly delightful about this simple game is that while there are gamey elements it can just be played. In this sense I'm talking more about colouring in the seeds, making them grow and collecting the spectra to change the pastel palette of the viewing space. It's a form of moving meditation that for now, at least, transcends things like scores, skills and trophies.

Shades of gray

2008-09-07T23:56:00.003+10:00

I received some bad news on Wednesday, nothing serious mind you, just the kind of thing that's enough to spoil your mood and yet not enough to generate any decent amounts of sympathy. Then I rushed the convention style tabletop scenario that I was running on Saturday, the ideas and its implementation was clear in my head, just not so clear on paper. My friends, bless them for liking me, tolerated it. And just now I was watching an episode of Dexter on TV. You can tell then that I'm one of the great unwashed, as no Somebody ever watches anything on TV and even hardly any nobodies watch TV programs at their scheduled time slots anymore.

I enjoy watching Dexter. This isn't a review of that program, nor am I advocating that you watch it. I like it's light and dark moments. I like that each of the supporting cast has their moments, their good moments and their evil moments. Each character is wonderfully flawed, honest, and real, more real than many prime time efforts. I very much enjoy the compare and contrast moments between "normality" and Dexter's private world of blood samples and righteous murder. The normal characters are as fucked up as Dexter in their own ways and it's a pleasant little study on the nature of "normality". It's not without it's flaws though. The first person voice over narration is too helpful, too obvious and too simplistic for my tastes. Like any serial some episodes are well wrought, others are just filler. It's also far too conventional, retreating into safety to protect its audience share where it could offer meaningful insight into its titular character and the lives of his peers.

Isn't this a blog about gaming? Well a "Dexter" game is being worked for the iPhone by Mark Ecko Entertainment. So I could claim that's the reason it makes an appearance. It's not. Though I suspect that game will also be far too conventional. Dexter is relevant because as a game it ticks a few boxes that have come up in discussions of late. It could be used to experiment with cut scene structure in games. It would be an ideal vehicle for exploring the alienation of the player through some sort of Brechtian ideal. Not that there's anything wrong with Aristotle. I even vainly believe that a Dexter game structured with the intent of making the participant step back from the game and "think" would not break the expectations of the player, would support those expectations and if done well would offer some insight into what kind of mind is Dexter's. Unlike my personal experiences with MGS2.

Of course in a market economy where the creation of light entertainment such as video games is driven by the need to make money and please shareholders it is unreasonable of me to hope that the developer will take risks with this (or any other title). So what can we expect? My belief is that it will be a "western" take on the Phoenix Wright series with the occasional throw away line stating that Dexter "isn't like normal people". Mark Ecko and his team may well surprise me, they may take risks, they may seek to push the boundaries of gaming on that proven gaming medium of mature game delivery the iPhone. Then again, like nearly every single development team centred in the west they're unlikely to take any real risks. Instead of black, white and shades of gray all I foresee is beige.

Game Play

2008-09-02T21:25:00.002+10:00

I'm guessing that I'm one of the few people in the world that likes this piece of jargon. It represents my central desires when engaging with games. These desires are beginning to change as others in the interwebs help me grasp a greater understanding of not only of who I am and what I believe but of what is possible.

I am an ignorant neophyte. I'm not seeking self-promotion or attention when I interact with others I seek information. I seek knowledge. I seek to compare myself understanding of the universe with others who I admire. I wish to engage in a dialogue about things that matter to me and to these others. I wish to remain a nobody (small 'n') because power corrupts, not that I know, of course.

Versus CluClu Land has educated me and I have responded honestly to Iriquois Pliskin's post on Brecht and MGS2, a post that I think lotusvine would also appreciate. He discusses player alienation and game play and I found it very interesting indeed. Play, that element of gameplay I value most has always been about a sense of exploration, joy and wonder. I test the game's rules, I explore my relationship with the game, I realise the vision of the developer and then I do what I can to make something out of it. The reasons for this are very personal and exist elsewhere on this blog (although there's more, much more that isn't here yet and may never make it here).

I turned away from MGS and from Silent Hill because my notion of play, of gameplay is naive, idealistic, even childish. The structured play proffered by these sorts of games and by games that have linear stories or little functional deviation offer little to extend my belief that games can enable me. I do enjoy many games of this ilk so I'm not completely narrow minded. The question that I ask myself is whether it is possible to forge a gameplay experience that puts the rules in the hands of the player and still be fun or more importantly meaningful.

Mornington Crescent was a game my English teacher adored when I was in High School. Wikipedia covers it's premise aptly enough and when in English class we had fun playing it. Trying to unravel its riddle. The riddle is that it is, in itself, make believe. There are no rules and the winner is the first to name Mornington Crescent on their turn. If one does not know this, then the rules are inscrutable, a humorous trick that teases the ignorant seeking of knowledge. Me. I don't know much of post modern philosophy and its role in games as art, yet. I'm hoping that Pliskin and others will help me, that they don't mind holding the figurative hand of an ignorant nobody. But I wonder if a video game can be designed around the notion of Mornington Crescent. Perhaps the player doesn't know, at first, that the answer to the game is simple, too simple. Perhaps the game leads that player on a merry chase of confusing and humorous phrases, rules, tricks and feints. Perhaps the game itself is so well crafted that it remains playable even after the player gets the "gimmick" because the game itself requires play to unravel all its variants, all its twists and all its wonders.

Wouldn't this then represent the objective vision of Brecht or Kojima without leaving me an embittered ignorant whose understanding of its greater sublime meaning is more "conventional"? I honestly don't believe developers have done anywhere near enough with game play yet, do you?

Games, Gender and Lara Croft - an update

2008-09-02T14:37:00.002+10:00

Edge online has posted a piece on the nature of Lara Croft's gender today. It's largely a safe, measured piece that draws on sound bites of five female industry somebodies. There aren't really any conclusions drawn in this - unless you count the closing quote as the conclusion - I believe this article sits firmly on the fence. It also doesn't really touch upon the gender qualities of the game, or gameplay, just the character.

If this sort of thing interests you, you can find it here.

The Quest for the Holy Grail 5 - Writing

2008-09-01T19:46:00.005+10:00

Facing the continuing prospect of ignorance I wonder at how many more feeble jokes I can make about it before having to recycle them. I will always be ignorant, that is a given, but I can choose to be less ignorant today than I was yesterday.

Recently I chose to embrace broadening my horizons. I examined blogger's functions and I used the world's favourite search engine to find me some articles on writing in video games. The former was easy enough and more poking, prodding and massaging is required. It's like a game! The latter? When I first conducted the search I was told in an indifferent manner that a mere 37,100,000 interwebs awaited my perusal. Ouch! Necrotic equines be damned, this is an entire species. My arm is going to get very tired. Of course much of the material presented isn't actually what I want, yet even if 1% of it is worthwhile, that's still a century worth of reading if I am able to process ten sites a day, every day, without fail until I complete this task. There's a problem though. Over the weekend the number of related interwebs increased another 2 million. Ignorance is starting to look mighty appealing.

The wonder I discovered as I began this new quest was how eloquent, how considered the ideas and their presentation of so many sites. I have not yet encountered the pubescent, homophobic, mammary obsessed, pasty faced, sociopathic freaks that populate the personalities of so many game characters. Writers in games (or the developers that drive the engine that requires the writing) appear to have no idea of who their audience is. I will happily admit that there are probably as many sites that share these characteristics, maybe half, maybe more. However, this proportion isn't reflected in games, the characters, their stories, the pitch, pace and pause of the narration is dominated by the aforementioned characteristics.

Games writers and the entire industry just don't deliver. The standard of writing in games is a huge pile of steaming turd. Bioshock makes a valiant attempt, more win than lose. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune realises the cinematic game ideal well, it requires that the player be skilled right in the middle of the bell curve of the developer's expectations however, leading me to realise that the game actually works to undermine the quality of the experience for the very weak or very strong player. The pacing of the story potentially spoiled by the player's faux participation in it.

This, you see, is my problem with the whole writing in games thing. If game developers seek to emulate cinema, television or books then they really should be making cinema, television or books. Games are games. I'm not really buying into the whole interactive cinema thing. This doesn't mean I won't buy and play such games, but I'm not buying them with any expectation of good storytelling. The transgendered psychotic mess that is Mass Effect was enjoyable enough for me, but not because of its story. Actually if I'm to be completely honest with you, its story is priceless, I laughed myself to tears at nearly every dramatic moment in the game. Unfortunately this was not the intended reaction. I liked the cool powerz. That's why I played the game.

There are two ways this can change.

The first is the Dennis Dyack approach where cut-scenes remain an integral part of interactive cinema, formerly known as games. This is familiar, a known quantity, all of my friends chastise me for refuting its interactivity. The change isn't so much in the delivery mechanism, it comes in what's delivered. Dyack states that "story is very important to video games". Yet his own efforts with Too Human lack quality. I would change his phrasing to "quality storytelling is very important to interactive cinema style games". No gamers I know seriously proffer any games as examples of quality storytelling.

The second option is more insidious. Make the story a gameplay element. This is my holy grail of course. Embrace the existence of the player and make the "story" dependent on their existence. I'm not really talking about a choose your own adventure style of play either. The Sims is vaguely warm, if given a much more robust and meaningful relationship mechanic that can be manipulated, foreshadowed, the pacing played with, edited, that has a certain musicality that incorporates linguistic play. In a criminal investigation style of game allow the player to create the perfect crime and have the NPCs solve it. The relationship between cut scene and player is inverted. Once the gameplay element is completed the game runs its cinematic moment revealing whether the player escapes or is caught.

Let the cut scene report the player's skill to the player rather than reminding them of their irrelevance to the story and its creation. It's a game, make it about play.

Belay that!

2008-08-29T19:17:00.002+10:00

I was off questing for the Holy Grail again and discovered that there was a whole body of work out there that could offer me greater insight. I've also meant to update my understanding of blogging and all that as well. Thus I feel I need a little time to broaden my blogging horizons, expanding my catalogue of regular source material and my understanding of the technical aspects of blogging.

Take the weekend off, have some fun and I'll see you back here again on Monday. This place probably won't have changed much but I suspect there'll be a few changes under the hood.

Why blog?

2008-08-28T21:40:00.003+10:00

Little Minstrel - with his ghastly, horrifying avatar that makes me want to dual wield a nail gun and chainsaw to correct this aberration - and I were politely discussing blogging as a means for personal expression like civilised, mature adults. He asked me why and I offered some of my reasons. I didn't mention the one gaming link so I'll put it here.

I've also really wanted to pimp GameCareerGuide.com for such a long, long time. In particular I love to pretend I'm a student at a game design school and vicariously participate in the Game Design Challenge. I sent an entry in for the first one and then James Portnow detailed how many hours he spent going through the entries and I stopped sending them in. I still do them though. Fun!

One of the articles there chastised a student who wanted to pimp herself to games developers for not pimping herself in other media. In particular the somebody who handled this piece googled her name and could find nothing. It was a moment that made me stop and think. I had tried LiveJournal and I had tried blogging my life (and what a boring load of shit it is too!). Instead I took Jill Duffy's advice and focussed on what might be something I'd show other people. Something I might show to a prospective employer, an academic acquaintance, a stranger who shared similar interests. Strangely I'd thought that this would never, ever happen. I've even deliberately chosen a name for this blog that reflects how irrelevant I am in the grand scheme of things. Yet, since I started this blog I've done all three. Go figure!

We are family! Bringing it all together.

2008-08-28T21:02:00.006+10:00

Shakespeare liked to play with gender roles and he lived long before video games. You can probably guess that I like Shakespeare's plays too. Sex and gender plays a part in nearly every decision we make, even four hundred years later. It's the human condition.

Studies are being conducted that analyse who plays games and why, such as this one. This is so that marketers can build a strategy to appeal to those kinds of gamers by tailoring the advertising campaign to that demographic of gamer. Yet when games sell they experience an initial boom period followed by a bust period as detailed by Leigh Alexander. I am no expert. There is no data supporting any claims I'm about to make. I suspect that the reasons for this is that games and gamers aren't always very compatible. GTA IV was touted as the game to end all games in the press, a lure I resisted for one month. I love games, you see, and I had to know! GTA and I were not a good fit, not at all. I knew it but the gaming industry didn't care and succeeded in selling me something I did not want.

Never again!

Understanding what it is I like about games empowers me. The gender stereotypes I explore in my previous posts and the reasons for my interest are one of the ways I derive satisfaction from games. Knowing this I can test whether a game like GTA fits my profile. Not surprisingly, it doesn't. I don't regret buying it, playing it or trading it. I don't regret buying and keeping Lair either! By looking at the games that I like and exploring what it is that I like about them I can subvert the machinations of the marketing executives and their PR machine. As more AAA titles fail to satisfy our individual tastes we will become more sophisticated as consumers and seek both deeper and broader information about games.

Developers and publishers owe a responsibility to the public as well. If they ever wish to be taken "seriously" then they need to understand their role in this. Japanese developers appear to be very aware that their players are very diverse, very fickle and very capable of discarding them in preference for something that is a better fit. Their industry is more mature. Their games cater to many more tastes. Other nations that develop games (North America, Canada, and Europe) must become aware that gamers have many different tastes and start accomodating those tastes. So far it seems the developers think that they know best, but that is starting to change. Read the comments though, because it's going to take a while.

Gender issues, gaming and me.

2008-08-27T23:24:00.004+10:00

Issues of gender interest me and the reasons are highly personal. I can't really draw any definitive conclusions from this discussion because I don't have definitive data beyond the odd anecdotal reference. I do believe that such an understanding would be worthwhile perhaps offering insight into console sales. After all the Xbox 360 is male, the Playstation 3 is female and the Wii is genderless.

This next part is highly personal, turn away now and come back tomorrow if you're squeamish about such things. I grew up in a violent household. Largely the responsibility of my father. He has a violent temper that he is yet to master. He neither drinks nor does drugs. He is also very much the victim of his circumstances - his father was by all accounts much more brutal. I don't hate him now, but at the time, my youth, I despised him.

From the moment I started to retain memories (roughly 3 years old) until I was 16 I experienced dad's outbursts. My mother bore the brunt of it. Their on / off marriage a whirlwind of violence, apologies, counseling and arguments. When mum wasn't around my brother and I became targets. When my brother went to boarding school and my mother went to stay with friends as she couldn't bear any more, I retreated into my imagination. Ironically, perhaps, dad was insecure about his masculinity, he frequently boasted of engaging bigger, stronger men in fisticuffs and beating them. He exercised regularly and maintained a string of mistresses who I knew as "nanny". He wasn't compensating for his penis either!

My mother dealt with his outbursts in her own way. She manipulated. If there was a way she could cause dad to lose it in public (he would feel great shame at public displays of his "weakness") she would find it. She used any and every form of emotional blackmail to attain leverage in household negotiations. A new car? Then she'd threaten to his latest affair to his heavily Christian boss. Dad would eventually consent to this, then he would get angry and the cycle would repeat, escalating steadily over time. Mum has history too. Her father was an alcoholic and she was the only child - whose mother had died young - raising a manipulative, lying drunk. I pitied and despised her too, at that time.

My brother may have had it a little easier than I did. He grew up tall and strong quickly and when he was fourteen years old he fought back and won - dad never touched him again after that. Ultimately my brother is 6 feet 4 inches tall and played second row in Rugby. He is built. I was a runt, a late bloomer who did not reach my respectable height of 5 foot 10 until around 20 years of age. I escaped my father's beatings by removing myself from his presence when I turned 16. My brother is most like my father. His infrequent public outbursts of violence have threatened his career. The context of my brother's life is different to dad's, his relationship with his wife is more nurturing, less broken than that of my parent's union. I became most like mum. Watching what she went through, sharing it from time to time, I vowed never to be like my father. I steadfastly refused anything that might result in my becoming like him.

How does this relate to games? It's weird. Some time ago I was undertaking extracurricular volunteer work through my school working in a home for children whose parents were drug addicts, prostitutes, in jail for severe crimes, or society's discards (murder/suicide survivors, basket babies). There was this one girl who took to biting me. A lot! She was about 8, maybe 9 years old. She also kicked, scratched, punched and strangled. When seeking to understand this behaviour, the professionals noted that she was quite fond of me and that her behaviour was the equivalent of an expression of love (well like anyway). It was explained that she most probably felt more alive when she was being "abused" by her parent(s) and considered this to be the way of expressing those feelings - aping the behaviour modeled by her parent(s). I'm not going to explain the significance of biting. During this discussion I realised something about myself. Following my mother's example I incited my father's anger - it was part game, part self loathing and part of an attempt at recognition. My father was so busy with his work that I rarely saw him let alone was privileged enough to be beaten by him. I wanted him to love me, and if not that then to acknowledge me. You can probably guess the rest.

Once I realised this I turned it into a form of play (I was about 14 at that time). It became a game. I needed to differentiate myself from my behaviours so that I could choose from them and learn about different responses to them. I retained my hatred of rampant, bombastic, brutish masculinity and forgave my father. It took a lot longer to forgive myself.

This timeline (spanning from roughly 4 years of age and ending in a more formal way at around 18 years of age) played a significant role in shaping me as a person. I had learned to hate masculinity, I had adopted feminine approaches to problem solving. I discovered that I sought destructive results as a means to create self worth and that my head was tangled up in a cycle that duplicated my mother's. My way out was to step back and turn it into a game. Mostly the game was about gender roles to begin with, subverting them in particular. It grew into a fascination with role playing games (the tabletop variety) and gaming in general. I was able to separate myself from my experiences and examine them through play, through gaming, through my imagination. I'm still a little broken, there are missing pieces that I'll probably never repair. Yet it was through play that I was able to start the healing required to become whole.

Hermaphrodites, Transvestites and Transsexuals, oh my!

2008-08-27T21:52:00.008+10:00

Double post today, there was a sudden two hour gap in my schedule and I got busy.

There are plenty of games that can't easily be categorised as either female or male.

Hermaphroditic games like SingStar, Lips, Guitar Hero, Rock Band and maybe even The Sims can easily switch between gender associations depending on content chosen by the "player". I wonder if their developers / publishers ever thought some nobody would describe these games as hermaphroditic. I know I often consider every day items as hermaphroditic. Doesn't everyone?

Earlier I stated that I felt Lara Croft was a man in woman's clothing. Leigh Alexander at Sexy VideoGameLand would be more qualified to answer this than me but I'm not linking to her site because the last time I did that it turned into an ironic moment. While the game retains its masculine tag (spatial puzzles, brutish violence, smug trash talking) I'm going to move Lara into the transvestite category (as a character) now that it's defined. This is a bit of a stretch but Dante and in particular his boyf... er, his replacement Nero from Devil May Cry 4 reside here too as do many many characters from Japanese games. For what it's worth I don't specifically see these characters as males dressing as women, they are males dressing effeminately with character assets that serve to neutralise their gender. I can't think of any games that I would classify as transvestitic though, I must try harder at this as I want more transvestiticness.

Daedalist mentioned several games in one of his comments that I had overlooked MGS's emphasis on avoidance of violence, or more perhaps with its emphasis on choreographed violence with minimalist themes suggesting a neutering or feminisation of this traditionally "male" arena. Some even feel that Solid / Old Snake lacks the equipment necessary to be masculine, I don't think it's particularly relevant but it's nice to know I'm not the only "special" individual posting on the interwebs!

Devil May Cry is a masculine game series as it focuses on violence. It averts the wholly masculine tag by including a somewhat effeminate hero who is rewarded for "stylish" violence. While choreography and dance are not strictly the domain of women, males who dance are seen as "sensitive" and they are often considered homosexual - a strong indicator of how deeply ingrained the stereotype is in popular consciousness. The Devil May Cry series is much more effiminate than any of its western contemporaries (Too Human, Viking: The Battle for Asgard and many other melee smash fests) in this instance it's a good thing because an otherwise predictable button mash mechanic is elevated into an exercise of precision, timing, excellence and elegance. Trés chic!

Transgender games probably don't exist and for good reason. For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to define such games a little differently to their real world inspiration. A transgender game is a game that starts as one gender and becomes another. Think something like a first person shooter heavy on brutal, hard, unyielding violence switching halfway through into a social networking game concerned with nurturing positive, welcoming relationships. Jarring! Mass Effect? Well only if one plays for paragon points, I suppose.

Finally there's the "third" gender, genderless games. Puzzle games are the dominant form of this type of game. These sorts of games are often marketed at families. There is no advantage to a player of either gender, there is no association with gender within gameplay and thus no real barrier to entry either. It's a little flippant to include this relatively large game category in such a small paragraph here, it isn't intended to be flippant it's just that these games don't lend themselves to gender play and gender subversion like the others may.

I did this little experiment. I counted the games that I own (not games I have played just the ones I own) and classified each into male, female and ambiguous. Can you guess how the numbers were distributed? How about you? Do you prefer masculine, feminine or ambiguously gendered games? And if you have a preference, what is its source?

...and the women?

2008-08-26T13:46:00.006+10:00

If men are from the "west" then women are from the "east". More specifically Japan. I say this because I am not well informed on games of eastern nations (China, Korea et al.) beyond those developed in Japan. I also wish to point out that Japanese game development is far more gender balanced than this piece may suggest. However, if there is a place where Yin informs in game development it is currently Japan.

Probably the best known Japanese game franchise is informed with a feminine design aesthetic. The Final Fantasy series of games, with its androgynous male heroes, its themes of identity and self discovery (7 and 10), love (8 & 9) and justice (12), and even its art direction (Yoshitaka Amano's artwork is very soft, delicate, flowery and feminine). Each game in this series has at least one token masculine role demonstrating greater empathy to its own qualities than western counterparts. These characters are usually physically strong, mentally weak, lacking both the capacity for lateral thought, often uneducated and social retards. For example, there are three in FFX, Wakka the big simpleton, Kimarhi the stubborn brute and Auron the troubled loner.

Feminine design principles inform many of their games. Soulcalibur 4 allows for free mixing of gender roles and gender appearances, even going so far to include masculine voices in the female character models and vaguely effeminate voices in the male character models. The Survival Horror genre of games - which I believe, perhaps incorrectly - originated from Japan (with games like the original Resident Evil) have a blokey fixation with violence while being informed with a Yin principle of violence against stronger, tougher and more numerous opponents (mostly). While fist fighting is a predominantly male domain, it becomes feminine if the fighters are fighting physically superior opponents. I've never really liked the survival horror genre because, for me, its visceral thrills too closely model the heartbreaking reality of spousal abuse.

Then there are games like Katamari Damarcy. While a game like this is hard to classify I believe that it is defined by feminine traits. It's social networking, community participation, community assistance themes place it directly into the social arena of the feminine stereotype. Even the act of rolling stuff up has a constructive, lateral, co-operative feel to it.

In the Persona series of games you progress more easily if you maintain social networks. For that matter, the dating simulation game was invented by the Japanese. Games about music (Parappa the Rapper, Jet Set Radio), lines (Vib Ribbon), flowers (FlOwer, PixelJunk Eden), gardens (Shiki-Tei), going on a safari to photograph animals (Afrika) all suggest a greater focus on the internally focussed self referential qualities of Yin.

This doesn't mean that Japan is devoid of masculine games. Tomunobu Itagaki and his Ninja Gaiden and Dead or Alive series of games is aggressively male and this is reflected in the way his games play and their design aesthetic. His recent spate with Tecmo reeks of masculine principles and his bio includes a brief court case where a female co-worker alleged harassment. While Itagaki was acquitted of any wrongdoing, if I were a profiler, I would know that his personality is clearly inclined in this direction. Itagaki is also something of an aberration in the Japanese development scene. He should seek work in the "west" as that is where his design principles flourish.

I have no real idea why this is though. My inflammatory perception is that the Japanese are a small, delicate peoples who survive through a better understanding of their whole being, drawing on lateral thinking in everything they do. Alternatively it could be because of the 'boy love' comics I gather are really popular over there.

Do you see it the same way? Is game development in Japan feminine? Japan is certainly more balanced when it comes to gender roles, gender stereotyping and gender subversion. Is that because they are more civilised than the west, or less?

Where are men from again?

2008-08-25T21:38:00.005+10:00

The ideas of masculinity and femininity fascinate me. This is a large part of my life for reasons I will explain in more detail in a subsequent post. Masculine traits exist thematically in games, their characters, online in multiplayer arenas and can be assigned to specific regions. Men aren't really from Mars they're from North America, Canada and Europe.

Development in these countries is predominantly masculine in approach, theme and implementation. GTA IV for instance is so extremely steeped in masculine traits that it's hardly surprising that the only female characters are "victims" of the game. The exploited 16 year old drug addict, the abused mafia daughter, the painfully insecure (admittedly hilarious when drunk) sister of Irish mobsters, and the evil, emotionally manipulative cow who is in a difficult situation because men hold all the power. There's the NPC hookers and strippers and they hold a lot of relevance to the game. Not one female (if my memory serves) has any actual gameplay impact on the game, not in the same way Roman, Little Jacob, Brucie, Packie and Dwayne do. The women are mechanically useless fluff. Thought provoking stuff.

In Mass Effect you get to play a boring goody-two-shoes or a bully who forces others to succumb to his whim. It doesn't matter what gender you choose for your protagonist the traits of play are clearly masculine, a self righteous paragon or a bully. Gears of War. Every first person shooter ever made. Army of Two. Battlefield Rainbow Six Clancy's Men of Killing Stuff in a Manly way because anything else might be gay! Oblivion, The Witcher and Assassin's Creed all informed by the masculine aesthetic. I'm scrolling through metacritic to find games developed in the regions I nominated above and I'm finding none. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying they're rare, very rare. Even Lara Croft is a bloke. Sure she's wearing a female skin but I can't find her feminine qualities beyond the silhouette. If she was an MMO character then a man would be playing her. Shamus Young perhaps?

I can only think of a few women who are indeed feminine that exist in the world of video games. Elena Fischer from Uncharted is one example, although her propensity to play catch up to the men teeters on the brink of de-feminisation I will give her the benefit of doubt as it could just as easily represent the needs of the game's structure and their intent with her inclusion. Ultimately there is enough evidence to claim her as a feminine character.

Possibly the only game developed in North America, Canada and Europe (UK included) that features a clearly feminine lead (that I can think of) is Jade from Beyond Good and Evil. The best part of that game in terms of gender traits thematically implemented in game design is its compare and contrast features that exist between the three main characters Jade, Peyj and H. Jade is a sensible woman, informed with strong feminine traits (mostly), Peyj is the desirable man, the fool, the mechanic, the friend, brother companion. H is the brute, albeit a well meaning brute but he is the man's man. If games can teach and inform then this game suggests ways for boys to impress girls by demonstrating that pig faced goofballs are much more endearing than penis waving (a metaphorical reference - don't buy the game hoping for penis!) machismo bullshit of the boorish H.

In spite of what individuals who will not be mentioned by name might say in the comments I am ignorant. Do you share this impression or do you believe that games developed in the "West" are balanced or even feminine in their themes, construction and character design? If possible could you provide examples either for or against. This is a four part series of posts so there's more to come… where women are from, the genderless experience and finishing with a personal exploration of why this interests me.

If this is actually true rather than a feature of my own delusions, does it mean that feminine qualities are considered undesirable by "western" developers? And if Beyond Good and Evil is an example of a game informed with more feminine sensibilities is that the reason it sold poorly?

A visit with my Muse

2008-08-24T19:20:00.003+10:00

I have a muse. She's an overweight, chain-smoking, cantankerous bogan who sits in front of the telly in her trackie-dacks and ugh boots channel surfing. She's a lazy old cow too, as you've probably guessed if you read this blog. From time to time she's good to me and warrants a kiss of gratitude. Now if only she'd shave, wax, or Nair® her upper lip. I'm talking about my muse for a reason...

You see on my left there's this horse, lying on the ground, still. It's tongue is hanging out, eyes staring vacantly and it's not breathing. On my right is a riding crop, or bull whip if that's your kink, and it beckons. You know what happens next. I reach for the bullwhip and get cracking.

I firmly belong to the group that believes that video games are not art. I repeat, not art. This group is actually quite large and is composed mainly of individuals who have no idea about either art or video games. Nobodies like me, I suppose. I'm the odd one out in this group as I'm a dedicated gamer who loves video games and proudly declares to all and sundry that I love me some good gaming (phrasing intended). Hence my muse's cameo. One of the questions that comes up in this sort of debate pretty much all of the time is "What is art?". It's a corker isn't it? I love when a discussion about the artistic merits of the medium boil down to semantics. Art is that stuff that hangs on the walls of capital 'G' Galleries (and the small 'g' galleries too), when it's outdoors it's either a sculpture or an "installation". People can perform art but they're not actors. Art can be comics, anime, drawings, paintings and bits of tummy fluff stuck to a wall. It can be made, found and discovered. And sometimes, very rarely, it's a science. Or is science an art? I'm confused!

And let's not forget art's poor cousin crafts!

Right, so now that that is out of the way... Art, yeah it's some pretty fancy stuff. All sorts of somebodies love it and often enough I have no idea why. Art has a special something though, a quality that transcends meaning, definitions and words. It is. Thus I suppose I should claim that video games ARE art because they is! The thing is that I have strong beliefs about what games are and what they could be. Examples of these beliefs are littered throughout the blog and if you're new here I strongly recommend going off to read it - or you could just ignore me and continue - I know what I'd do. Games contain art, but games are more science than art, more craft than art, more tools than creations. I would agree with those who claim that games can look all arty like. Okami by Capcom is an excellent example, Braid and PixelJunk Eden are others. Games can contain considerable music scores that then prompt travelling performances of these austere works. Games may one day contain writing worthy of being called okay, maybe even good, but so far the overall standard of writing in games is shit. So let's just pretend that writing is for books, movies and TV shows and move on.

The ultimate expression of the concept of a game is, in my completely irrelevant opinion, Tetris. It enjoys the status of being "Easy to learn, Hard to master". Clichés exist for a reason you know! And if my muse was half the woman I wish she was then I'd have something better. Tetris is the closest a game has ever come to being "art". The ultimate expression of what a game is, something that can reach anyone, anywhere, anyhow and within a few moments suck away years of their life. Now that's something to be proud of! Yet I don't really see Tetris as art because as you know I believe that in order for something to be meaningful to a society it must have a degree of relevance, of purpose, of bearing a message that both reflects and shapes the society in which it resides. Perhaps we really do live in a society of losers who waste time and will never reach the end. Perhaps not. I've already discussed how I see games and play and which has more meaning.

You see the problem for me is that games offer an opportunity and most developers choose to ignore that opportunity. Instead they seek to emulate other forms of entertainment. They haven't embraced the intrinsic nature of games, and for me, that nature is "tools for play". The games of our childhood are inspired by the pulp action film, that comic we read, the latest pop song, or the stories our parents read to us as we fell asleep. Ultimately though, this form of play is made using our own rules. We can play alone (no comments from the peanut gallery!) We can play with others. We can make up and change the rules of the game as we play in order to refine it. Right now, games are largely the vision of their creator (sans editor) and choose to ignore the primary participant. Me. Or you if you really must play my games. The player. It's akin to a circuit class in a children's playground where the trainer refuses my desperate pleas to have a go on the slippery dip until after I've mastered the monkey bars. I try, but my weak hands, porcine frame, and perspiration borne of excessive effort mean that I fall before reaching the end - time and again. Scuffing my hands and knees, face planting into the gravel, breaking first my collar bone, then my arm and finally my leg. Yet all the while my trainer refuses to share the slippery dip until I reach the last rung.

Games are vehicles for play. The best games are those games that promote play. The best way to promote play is to give the players control over the game. Offering a toolset that is constrained by rules, sure, yet complete enough to allow the player to play. It is when games give the players the tools to create art of their own that games will become what they were always meant to be. And that's not art, but a brush, a canvas, a roll of film, a script and billions of wannabe actors and writers, nobodies. Just. Like. Me.

Intermission

2008-08-23T22:28:00.003+10:00

I must confess to having far too much fun playing SoulCalibur 4 and collecting all the trophies in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and trying out the demo for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.

I've finished Uncharted, gaining my platinum trophy yesterday, my first. If you've read my other posts you'll know that I don't really place much value in achievements or trophies. Why then did I go all the way to get the platinum in Uncharted? (Note that the platinum trophy is only awarded once ALL the other trophies are earned). I needed a new excuse to play the game. I enjoyed it immensely and lacked reasons to play it again. I needed the trophies to remind me of why I enjoyed the game so much. Though I'm far too skilled in it now for even Crushing difficulty to provide much of a challenge, it was much, much easier than I remembered and was over much, much sooner than I expected.

SoulCalibur, as you now know, is a game that really appeals to me. I've yet to truly plumb its depths and lack any "decent" skills with this game. I don't mind so much as part of the appeal is practice and improvement. The Taki style realises the spirit magic weilding, demon hunting ninja in SC4 much better than ever before and forcing myself to master the tricky button combinations of an 11 hit combo that includes a roll, a leap and throw and an unblockable move are sheer heaven for me. Online is another matter. The patch did help, a little, but it appears that it's only worthwhile playing against locals as the lag on "international" matches is appalling by comparison. The ranked matches don't allow for region control or for some way to even the playing field against those who have greater technology or belong to more dominant regions than I do. Never mind finding the right skills, the right outfit, the right style.

The demo for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed was everything I was worried it might be. I won't comment further because it's a demo and thus not complete. One thing that did stand out was the similarity the telekinetic force power has to the telekinetic power in Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy (even the names are similar). Psi-Ops was a PS2, Xbox game published by Midway that was overlooked by the unwashed masses (well mostly - I looked and I'm unwashed, mostly). A 3rd person shooter with psychic powers that were incredibly well implemented, with intriguing puzzles and a totally hokey plot that was laughable. I have the feeling that The Apprentice® can't surf on the objects he lifts like you could with the protagonist of Psi-Ops (if only briefly). I wonder if the similarities will end there?

Thus this post is something of a break. Berkeley (commenting here) and I have chatted at length about Art and Games, the cultural significance of games and of his experiences in MMOs (it was quite extensive and very personal). Our discussions made me think, I don't want to post some mangled paraphrasing of his thoughts and experiences because it would be mangled paraphrasing. That said, I have plans to discuss writing in games, whether games are ART, gender roles in games, passive versus active gameplay (with a nod toward emergent gameplay ideas), game design and much much more. As always I make no pretentions to actual knowledge, these are opinion pieces born of experience not wisdom.

Oh and what a prat I was at the start of the last post. Clearly no-one's reading this because I would have done something with it, something nasty and funny. Still, ask BRK and she'll tell you that I'm good at being a Prat. That's something then.

Video games as therapy.

2008-08-21T16:22:00.004+10:00

Do you see what I'm doing? It's called hypothesis testing, I suggest a hypothesis such as "Games are green" and then go looking for games of differing colour. On a personal level I dislike the falsification method but this blog is about games and gaming so I won't digress any further.

Several local hospitals use video game consoles as therapeutic tools. Of particular note is the Wii with its waggle and its balance board. The Playstation console gets a look in as well, mainly on price point though. Healing times for the users of these devices is improved and significance of pain is reduced (players often produce pain reducing effects while playing saving the hospital on pain medications, but costing more in electricity). Physiotherapy can be oriented through the medium of gaming making it more appealing and less about the cause of the problem (such as the accident that caused the loss of limb utility). Complaints about poor patient behaviour are reduced and depression resulting from serious illness is less frequent. I suppose it can be argued that some patients become less agreeable as they cannot enjoy their gaming in their own time, only according to the hospital's schedule.

What's interesting to me in this arena of the discussion is that the games don't really matter. Sure, there's a degree of consideration toward personal taste. What matters is that the gaming device is "easy to use". Games that fully support the ease of use are more "relevant" to the experience than those that highlight the user's inability so there is some degree of relevance in game design. The Wii excels here. When individuals are disabled temporarily they miss what they cannot ordinarily do and gaming devices such as the Wii and its Wii-mote offer many options to the player that help them feel capable across a broad range of disabling circumstances. Adding the balance board, Playstation Eye and experimental devices like this, this and this to the mix further increases this potential.

The medical profession as a whole has explored this further. There was a recent news item that showed a modified version of the Wii-mote being used as a surgery practice tool. Now this is significant, this is meaningful. Again, though, it's about the tools used and not the material written for those tools. It's easy to extend this idea into many other areas. Particularly those areas where injuries are frequent such as found in the manufacturing sectors. Skill acquisition through play (an inherently risk minimising activity) could become the way of the future. Imagine the headlines, "Wii wakes world!", or some such.

This relates to games how? Well here's the thing, I proposing that "play" is a meaningful activity with cultural relevance. And we "play" games, right? Right. Except that most video games (and tabletop games for that matter) don't really give us the tools we need to engage in meaningful play. This is where the language in games fails me. Most games are "passive" experiences, I get to play in somebody else's sandbox, the rules are set, restrictive and unyielding. Anything I do to break those rules is considered a "cheat". GTA 4 specifically declares them as such - even going so far as to provide a few so that players who wish to explore that world can skip some of the more repetitive tasks through the cheats. Games that give the tools to the players, on the other hand, are all about "play". Meaningful play. I provided some examples of that type of game in my earlier post. I genuinely believe that those games that focus on "play" and provision of tools to the "player" will offer the greatest chance at realising a meaningful contribution to the collective consciousness of the world.

Thus I'll conclude that the pinnacles of gaming achievement as crowned by the gaming media have not yet reached cultural significance in status. Sure many people love these games, myself among them, but their lives are not changed by the game content, by the playing of the game itself. I might not post to this blog as often as I plan because games distract me, but it is not their content that is changing my life, it is their function. Now if only the content could do for me what the content of other forms of media does, inspire me to greatness.

What is 'play', exactly?

2008-08-21T15:26:00.004+10:00

I am a very naughty individual, wasting too much time playing games. The lure of SC4 and Drake's trophies draws my attention from other time wasters such as this blog.

When dabbling in the psychological arena I encountered some explanations for the meaning of play. The psychosocial component where a child apes adult behaviour in an effort to understand and learn about it. The physical component where a child explores their changing bodies through games like tag, tree climbing and the formalised versions of sports. At this stage of our lives, psychologists tell us, play is very important, regardless of whether we are dynamic or reflective thinkers we engage in play and through this non-threatening means of exploration we come to understand the world and our place in it. I say non-threatening because although injuries and possibly even death may arise from play it is far safer to pretend to hunt a tiger than to hunt a tiger for real. Thus play is a form of education.

Michael Abbott at The Brainy Gamer would know better than me but I fear seeking his attentions as they will highlight my ignorance and he is far too busy being somebody to devote attention to a nobody like me. I am okay with this and it is part of my humour through the nobody self referencing. I had heard that educators who have studied children who engage in regular play activities are more adaptable, have more fully developed imaginations and are capable of more varied problem solving methodologies - lateral thinking, data collection, exploration and just trying weird shit that their less playful peers would not consider as relevant in any form of thought. If only I did not spend so much time sitting on my porcine arse playing games and put my problem solving skills to good use! How about you?

So this then leads to my quest, video games more often than not give the illusion of play, but fail to deliver. Sim City™, The Sims™, Spore™ and LittleBigPlanet™ are probably the best examples of games where the rules are more about engaging with the game in playful ways. They're less task oriented focussed toward fostering the player's whims, fueling their imagination and allowing them to explore the nature of the real world through a fictional one. It's also interesting to note that Sim City™ and The Sims™ don't really have an "end game".

I have encountered several "life stories" online where the poster uses The Sims™ as a vehicle for self discovery. Learning about themselves through play, discovering that the game did (or did not) scratch an itch of a highly personal nature and resolving to explore the newly discovered itch either in the fictional world of The Sims™ or more frequently The Real World™.

Sim City™ gave me a healthy respect for the difficulties of politics, an experience I would never had otherwise. I learned that in order to make one subset of the population happy I would have to displease another, it was a delicate balancing game and everything cost money. It even helped me make some decisions about careers I would be willing to explore, or more specifically ignore in my quest to contribute meaningfully to society.

Spore™ and LittleBigPlanet™ are not yet known quantities. Spore™ shows enormous promise, offering biology, anthropology and more as its means of exploration. It looks more like Sim City™ than The Sims™ and in that case it will probably focus on the "big picture" of society rather than the smaller, more personal picture of The Sims™. Countering this is the Spore Creature Creator that suggests it might be possible to create unique individuals within this world, individuals who will become the heroes, the mythical figures of lore who are used as role models. LittleBigPlanet™ is harder to explicate, it suggests explorations in physics (the physical world), economics and marketing.

Thus I elevate these games as potentially significant from a cultural perspective. And posit that they have not yet realised this potential. A few lives may have changed from those who have interacted with these games, many more will not (from those who have interacted) and the culture(s) at large would enjoy no impact from this form of play. It is when games such as these can shape many lives in The Real World™ in the same manner as other forms of 'entertainment' media that they will start to be favourably compared to those others.

What of your experiences? Has GTA 4 taught you that crimes pays or how to steal a car or that having sex with hookers and then killing them afterwards for a refund is a cheap way of experiencing sexually transmitted diseases? Has Mass Effect turned you into a sex-addict? Does Ivy's massive breasts make you want an implant, NOW!? Do you feel undervalued as a person when your own personal minority is not represented in the heroic mold?

I can only claim to be a thoughtful ignorant, you can enlighten me.

But what about play…?

2008-08-17T22:01:00.002+10:00

Games have a stigma as time wasters. A stigma I have done nothing to change.

Yet they are potentially meaningful in that play is a vital part of the human condition. I wonder whether we, as a species, understand how play can contribute to an individual's wellbeing, to their inherent usefulness, their meaningful participation in the game we call life.

Last week I ran a playtest of a convention style roleplaying game the tabletop variety. It was structured exactly as I quest for in my video games. It lacked a tangible plot, but had plenty of cues for players to interact with. The premise was that the players would declare something as fact and the scenario would support that declaration. To that end there were all sorts of "mysteries" that could be solved - the very thing required to solve the mystery was the desire to explore it and guess at its possible conclusion. As long as a player guessed aloud then the "plot" would take form. I learned a lot during that session. About my friends (who were playing), about those new recruits (who were there for the first time), about myself (and my assumptions) and about the interplay these elements have with each other. In the real world it's personal, but in a fictional world shared by the creative minds of the participants it is genuine, honest, carefree play.

Video games don't come close to this kind of play. MMOs drift in this direction but undermine the suggestion by focusing the attentions of the players on the mechanics of the game, functional task oriented mechanics that simulate a fictional reality, one that by necessity does not duplicate our own. Linear games typically consume the identity of the player by overwriting their ability to contribute to the game in original ways. So many players seek other outlets for creative interaction with the medium by poking and prodding at the boundaries of the game. Uncovering cheats, glitches and design flaws in the process. Humans are inherently curious and creative. It always amazes me when people are amazed by the strange things people choose to explore within the context of their game.

Modding is the way of the future, should it be accessible to the masses. It needs to be a form of play in and of itself. If it can enable Joe and Joan Average (nobodies like me) to create their own whacked out vision of an interactive world then maybe games can become relevant culturally. My reality is quite different to yours, imagine if you could see the world through my eyes, through the lens of my experience and then imagine what it could be used for.

I have never believed that "play" is a waste of time.

What is the cultural relevance of games?

2008-08-16T21:01:00.005+10:00

Games have always been a little controversial. After all they're a time waster with no productive output nor any meaningful relevance to the real world. Demonised by those who don't play and don't understand them, games fulfil a niche of irrelevance in our society. However, more recently, those who know something of games have examined them more closely and it looks as though things are changing.

Before I continue I need to mention that I don't consider games to be either art or to be culturally significant. Not yet. With perhaps the exception of cosplay I see no extension of games into popular culture - no projection of gaming consciousness beyond viral marketing and other tricks or techniques directed by marketing companies designed to sell games to those who would probably buy them anyway. While characters in film and books resonate with individuals in highly personal ways, even becoming role models, I have never met nor read about anyone who cites Mario as their personal role model. The idea is preposterous. Yet if games are going to reach a state of maturity that elevates them beyond time wasters then they need to find some meaningful way to engage with their audience that relates to their lives. Their REAL lives. Meaningfully.

The signposts of possible change are all over the interwebs. Resident Evil 5 attracted controversy because of its possible racial connotations, not from just the ignorant demonisers, but from industry professionals. The controversy was warranted because the images portrayed in the promotional material lacked context beyond the "video game" label. The context now exists and the controversy surrounding this title has evaporated. When somebodies and nobodies alike start to take notice of something then it's possible that it's becoming culturally significant.

Resident evil 5 is not the only example. Leigh Alexander, formerly of GameSetWatch, then Kotaku and now back at GSW, explores issues with Fat Princess and SoulCalibur IV. She's an industry somebody, an online journalist with credentials and "fame". She has a personal blog called SexyVideogameland and it's one of those blogs I've wanted to reference for quite a while. Lots of thoughtful, provocative and arousing material there. I have a problem with Ms Alexander's rhetoric though. She frequently requests that those who comment not use the "it's just a video game" defense. My understanding of this request is that she seeks meaningful discourse on her discussion topic that is too easily dismissed by the IJaVG defense. Assuming that my understanding is vaguely close then this would require video games to be meaningful, to be have a cultural consciousness that is both significant and relevant. I just don't believe that they do. I honestly don't believe that anyone sees the Fat Princess as real, as an example of someone to be feared or pitied. I honestly don't believe anyone considers Ivy's endowment to be anything more than fan service, nor would anyone be inspired to have a breast enlargement to compete with this fictional character. Leigh's very own article on Cosplay (cited earlier) demonstrates my understanding of how relevant a video game character is to real life. Is the person playing such a character even real, as many an observer does not treat the real person as such when in costume.

Games are at a crossroads. Their financial weight is generating interest in economic circles. They are reaching more people than ever before. How many of us are proud of our status as gamers? Is it something we declare to others? And if we do, perhaps citing how important Mario is to our life ethic, what sort of response do we get from others? I don't declare my status as a gamer to others, a nerd maybe, someone who loves technology perhaps, but a gamer? - one of the most poisonous social claims I can make (and I do so from time to time to just see the response). I cannot expound the virtues of games to others, they are still time wasters. Sure Folding at Home contributes to "society" in a meaningful way, but I'm not "playing" it. Even fashion holds more significance, more meaning and more relevance to today's society than video games. WiiFit demonstrates that games can be productive in some way and still be popular (if perhaps a little lacking in the artistic department) and perhaps this is where games will find relevance.

The Citizen Cane of video games is still a long way off.

SoulCalibur IV - A Review

2008-08-14T17:33:00.004+10:00

I realise that I went away but I had a good reason.

I find it funny writing this, but SoulCalibur IV is a fairly significant game - for me. This is because it ticks many of the boxes in my quest for the Holy Grail with character customisation and several different play modes it's a good example of what sorts of things I like to see in my games.

This, then, is my review of that game. First some context: I'm a brand loyalist to this franchise. When Soul Edge came out at the arcades I was snared. Soul Blade on the PS1 kept me fighting for many hours - my completionist wouldn't let me quit until I had every damn weapon. I missed Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast, but enjoyed it immensely in the arcades. I was a little disappointed with SC2 as it had a weak single player component. And I enjoyed SC3 because it had a strong single player component. Of the beat-em-up genre this is my preferred game, only Tekken and Samurai Showdown offered any real competition and I enjoyed my brief visit with Marvel vs Capcom (and variations) and Darkstalkers.

So…

SoulCalibur IV is a good game. In gameplay terms it straddles 2 and 3. For those who may not have experienced these games it falls between tight, crisp controls and wacky, concept themed powerz. There's a degree of balance tweaking in this game, many move sets have changed with most changes being actual re-designs like with Cassandra or increased functional consistency (from a heuristic design point, at least) such as with Tira or Ivy. Although not all the balance tweaks created balance. Astaroth, for instance, received a fairly hefty speed boost making him a much more powerful character than he was before. Rock (upon whom Astaroth is based) did not receive the boost and is now easily the weakest character in the roster.

Of all the fighting games I've ever played it's still the most accessible. It takes itself seriously enough to be robust, but has enough of a sense of humour to be fun. The Street Fighter series is too hardcore for me. DoA and Mortal Kombat too um…do people actually take these games seriously? Tekken is okay but its gameplay (juggle emphasis for instance) is too cheeky, and its character customisation options (with 5) are bland or silly (silly is okay but bland is not). Thus SC4 has a broader base appeal. It's also easy to get into although mastering is something else entirely.

If you've never played fighting games before and you're curious then this would be a fair introduction. It pays lip service to story, has barely any artwork (when compared to SC3) and few distractions from the core gameplay experience. There are four basic modes on offer. Arcade or Arcade Plus (labeled as Story Mode), Survival (descend mode in Tower of Lost Souls), Puzzle Fight (ascend mode in Tower of Lost Souls) and Versus or Multiplayer.

Of the four basic modes only two allow for true whimsy. Arcade and some Versus/Multiplayer modes allow the player to create their own visual avatar that fights with a style of their choosing (as long as it isn't lightsaber based). All other modes require the use of character "skills" which are more akin to buffs and debuffs for your character and that are linked to skill points. Skill points are linked, in turn, to your clothing and weapons. Thus for most of the game modes you're required to think about what skills you need to progress and then configure your gear around those points. Female characters have a huge advantage over male characters because they have many more options (of greater power). While I quite like this aspect of the game it's fiddly, nitpicky and requires an investment of time that has nothing to do with "fighting". I wish, at times, that as I ascend the Tower of Lost Souls, I didn't have to reconfigure (or create anew) a character designed to thwart the particular set of parameters set as obstacles in my path. For example one "floor" has opponents that are resistant to most types of damage except one. You have to find out which one. It's not as easy as horizontal strike, vertical strike and kick (the basics) either. Meaning that some characters who have a large repetoire of easily accessible guard breaks become more desirable should this be one of the techniques required. If you don't have one of those characters in your roster at the time the fight begins then it's possible you'll be spending some time in character generation mode making a character that takes advantage of this special circumstance (or acquires the guard break skill or both for maximum carnage). Problem is with about 25 levels (they call it 60) each with their own conditions - unless you're an elite player - you'll be spending a lot of time in chargen picking outfits for their skill point bonuses.

Online multiplayer is ghastly. I'm a complete noob when it comes to online play so my expectations are probably very off. I've read that SC4 has a robust online game, but have yet to experience it (30 battles at this stage, stuggling to find motivation for more). The lag is terrible, often buttons I press don't even register and my character's actions feel entirely random. The online game messed with my offline game too. I found myself pressing buttons long before they were needed (in a kind of slo-mo) when online and this was brutally fatal offline. Still, a new patch recently arrived that might address this a little…I so very much wanted this to be a good online experience, I need to be able to fight other people to increase my skill level, the AI isn't encouraging lateral thinking or demanding I step up. I've nearly completed everything in single player though, so those online 'honors' beckon.

The clothing "breaks" if hit enough and this is reminiscent of Soul Blade (aka Soul Edge) where the weapon broke if it was used to guard too much. I really like the idea behind this and while the execution isn't yet perfect it comes close to realising a workable means for encouraging activity (read attacking versus defending). The Soul Gauge represents how psyched you are in the combat, attack lots (and have those attacks do damage) and your soul gauge increases. Defend lots (guard) and it decreases. Lose enough of your soul gauge and your opponent will initiate what the game calls a soul crush - a brief moment of vulnerability where your opponent can…maybe…execute a critical finish. The soul crush state is very delicate, any further hits will restore some of their soul gauge, it's also a temporary state lasting a few seconds. The soul crush is a fairly rare event in play - opponents attack enough, die too quickly or fall out of the ring too often for the exact conditions to create the state to come to pass. When it does happen two things typically take place. Either you press L1 in time, or you never get the chance because the soul crush happens at the start of a combo and the subsequent hits negate your chance at a critical finish. I've also managed a third version where I hit both the L2 and L1 buttons at about the same time. L2 got read first so I switched in another character BEFORE executing the critical finish and was confused as to why my support character was doing it - well for a moment or two anyway. All in all this feature is fun if a little goofy. If online is "fixed" then I intend to create a male Cassandra style character just in the hopes I can inflict the most hilariously humiliating critical finish in the game on some poor unfortunate out there in the interwebs.

You can switch characters in the character building modes (a limited form of team battle) but NOT in the versus mode. An oversight, as allowing such a capability would have enhanced the versus mode considerably (offline and online). By switch I mean you can be fighting with one character and switch them to the bench to rest and fight with another character, alternating fairly freely - there's a gauge that restricts abuse of this but it fills quickly and there's a skill…

Sc4 is a robust fighting game with something missing. It's a strange thing to say when it is the most flexible fighting game available. But it is its very flexibility that highlights the flaw that irritates me the most. I don't get to play the game my way, the designers have crafted an experience that is deceptively rigid. I am given the illusion of creativity but then am forced to find the specific weakness or quirk required to progress through the game. I'm phrasing this poorly as it's only true of one game mode, but…there's this nagging sensation that lingers as I try to build my ideal fighter, as I try to build a character that visually represents my ideal, as I try to find a "style" that represents my preferences, as I try to build the perfect set of skills. I can never quite realise a complete character because the game won't let me use one or more of its features or turns them off completely as it pushes me toward what it wants me to do, not what I want to do within it.

Thus, for fighting games, the quest for the Holy Grail continues…

Where ignorance is bliss…

2008-07-30T21:46:00.005+10:00

I know that I'm ignorant. It is a function of my intellect and my circumstances. I quite like being ignorant because it means that I can learn, discover, uncover and explore in ways I didn't realise or couldn't articulate well. The truth is we're all ignorant, even the somebodies of the world, as nobody can know everything.

I believe that wisdom is never folly and I appreciate a good oxymoron, such as self love.

This relates to my comparisons of my own musings to those of others. My language, my rhetoric if you will, is inadequate when examine it in the harsh light of intelligent bloggers. This isn't an issue of confidence, it's real and tangible. In my discussion of Mass Effect and Uncharted I explored my enjoyment of these games in spite of their inadequacies to fulfill my desire for the ideal game. Dissatisfaction with the game and yet enjoying is…there's a word for it…and I lack the vocabulary. I suppose I could reach for the Thesaurus but that would defeat the purpose of this blog, let alone the post.

Over at Versus Clu Clu Land "Iriquois Pliskin" articulates much that I cannot. In particular, he explores Trash, Art and Games and it is this very exploration that properly articulates much of what I fumbled around in my awkward discussions of fun versus what I want. I am grateful that he writes what he does so that I can name some of those feelings I waffle on about in my posts. I think I might have levelled up recently though - choosing a point of intelligence - because in the past I found his posts challenging to read. I believe that I miss much of the information in there and fear commenting because I know that I will look foolish and ignorant. I don't mind how I appear, what stops me is my desire to contribute meaningfully and my awareness that the chances I can do so are limited but not non-existent. Although secretly, don't tell anyone, I think Mr Pliskin has recently chosen a more conversational tone and I am grateful for that as I can now visit with impunity, my insecurities can lay dormant for another day.

In this way I learn more of who I am, I can name a little more of the maelstrom.

If you stumbled here thinking this was just a blog about video games then you're not looking deep enough. What Thomas Gray said.

Antici…pation

2008-07-30T06:26:00.011+10:00

Mere moments before I get my cotton picking little hands on Soulcalibur IV, a game I have eagerly awaited, I wonder at what other - coming Real Soon Now™ - games ding my thing.

Fable 2 (Xbox 360 exclusive)
Molyneux promises much and delivers little so I am highly skeptical of this game. That the primary quest takes only 12 hours suggests that the game lacks depth (just like the first) and that this time I will not take the plunge. I'll adopt a wait and see approach for it with a likely refusal pending delivery of potential.

Braid (XBLA)
Jonathan Blow (the game's designer) is much maligned by Kotaku for his controversial views on gaming. Reason enough for interest. His views interest me, I don't agree with all of what he says, but he is sufficiently different in his thinking to suggest that this game will be a breath of fresh air in the constant stream of shooters.

Valkyria Chronicles (PS3 exclusive)
I love turn based strategy games particularly if they are deep, complex and require much micro-management. Disgaea 3 is on my must buys. Valkyria Chronicles is a turn based strategy title with a difference, mirroring the gameplay of Eternal Sonata but in a 'strategy' context (ie. battlefields filled with many opponents). And it looks beautiful.

The Last Guy (PSN)
2D Zombie survival horror with the 'levels' represented by Google Earth. I've started a list of places I want survive such as my own neighbourhood and several famous landmarks for interest. I wonder whether I can use the Liberty City Map in Google Earth for this game, fusing GTA IV and zombie survival horror? (<- rhetorical).

PixelJunk Eden (PSN)
Art style, play style, concept - all these attributes of the game appeal. It looks a little like a study in games as meditation and even that appeals to me. It's a quirky title that oozes originality and will therefore be something of a hit and miss affair with buyers.

Heavy Rain (PS3 Exclusive)
Farenheit / Indigo Prophecy was disappointing. However, the ideas within it, the ideas espoused by Quantic Dream (the developer) and the digital audition for this game have all served to whet my appetite for more.

Faith and a .45 (multi platform)
I'm not expecting big things from this title because it isn't heavily hyped. I really like the name and the concept as offers a fresh perspective on the two-man co-op approach to shooters. Something about playing inside of a relationship akin to Bonnie and Clyde is appealing - finally a shooting game with style instead of raging machismo - fucking sick of the machismo shit.

Final Fantasy XIII Versus (PS3 exclusive)
While I am interested in plain XIII, it is Versus that has me palpitating. This is because it's something of a diversion from the typical approach Square Enix has taken in the past. As an Action RPG it could be shit (think Dirge of Cerberus) or something special (think next gen upgrade of Kingdom Hearts without the nauseating cuteness).

FlOwer (PSN)
Playing a wind blowing petals across a landscape to open more flowers? Weird.

There are other games I either want to get or am interested in, the ones above just represent my curiosity meter flicking past 11 when the maximum is only 10. Are there games out there that pique your interest? I am particularly interested in those titles that interest you because of some quirk or refreshing perspective rather than known franchise titles that will probably sell millions regardless of quality, originality or passion.

The Quest for the Holy Grail - Part Four

2008-07-28T00:47:00.003+10:00

I have still more to add regarding my criticisms and claims.

This time it's for action games, puzzle games and sports games.

I want action games to focus on what they're about and this is not storytelling. Shamus Young's Ping Pong example illustrates this quite neatly. This doesn't mean that these kinds of games can't be enhanced through the use of various aspects of storytelling. But I want developers to ask themselves whether it is necessary or even worthwhile to explore this part of the game.

Assuming that story is in an action game then there are some things I want to see.

I want the story to stay out of the way of the action. Nothing breaks mood and atmosphere more than interrupting it with an advertisement for the developers scripting skills - via a cut scene. Find some way to incorporate the script into actual play. Bioshock tried something along these lines with its recorders and with the 'radio' used by NPCs to communicate with your avatar. I don't believe that this was a 'win', but it was a move in the right direction.

Acknowledge the reality of the game. Again I defer to Shamus Young. The reality is that we're not all idiots and we don't need our hands held. If the game is Capture the Flag, then just deal with it. There is absolutely no need to try to conceal this, any attempt to do so just comes across as disingenuous. It's also a waste of resources.

Acknowledge the existence of the player, either directly or indirectly. The direct approach is to ignore any pretense of the artificial and to establish your game as a game played by a real person in their real home. After this is established I want developers to create real structures that allow personal stories to exist, real stories, about playing the game. This is done at present with things like leaderboards, achievements, gamer scores and the like. However, the mechanism for placing meaningful value on such things does not yet exist. Here's an example of how I would create such a mechanism. Let's assume I'm working on Playstation's Home service and I want there to be a meaning between the acquisition of trophies and the Home service. i could implement a trophy cabinet that proudly displays my trophies, a passive and somewhat bland approach, or I could implement a credit system for players who buy games and earn trophies to use in purchases at the Home shops. This encourages attach rates of games, it generates a visible, and artificially meaningful result for residents, and it allows for connection with materials in the stores that give personalisation, customisation, creation of a personal story in the medium of Home without having to break the bank through microtransactions.

Taking it a step further, perhaps, leaders in a variety of games (those at the top of the leaderboards) could be invited to give demonstrations of their skills, could have specific, unique equipment in Home that would identify them to others (much like the leader's yellow jersey in The Tour de France) or be invited to participate in games that might be charitable, educational and/or profitable for them. This probably carries with it a range of risks that cannot yet be measured because there is no precedent.

The indirect approach often involves breaking the fourth wall or referencing reality within the context of the game. Both approaches carry risk or alienating the player, they also offer a chance for player empowerment. In an educational setting, a game can be used as a simulation of dangerous or unpleasant circumstances. In Metal Gear Solid Hideo Kojima references the player's existence in a variety of ways. One involves the suggestion that the very video game s/he is playing is training him or her to be prepared for the coming 'war economy'. If this moment was integrated into play (rather than in a cut scene) then it would be a great example of an indirect reference of the player - an acknowledgment of their role in the game's story.

Keep it simple and keep it within context. Build mechanics that support the themes of the story, so that playing the game actually reinforces the meaningful result of experiencing the story. If you must have a story about a game of Ping Pong then make it about the game of Ping Pong, not some quest to save the universe from the Evil Blarg.

Old school shoot-em-ups are a great example of this kind of thing, there's a character that's going to stop the invasion / save the world by shooting stuff. There's some friends who yell encouraging words at you as you shoot stuff, and some enemies that mock you as you shoot stuff. Your friends might appear in the form of a power-up and your enemies might appear in the form of a boss battle. The story and gameplay are in synergy.

If I am to be completely honest I think that there's more than can be done with integrating story and action in a gaming context. I feel that my offerings here are paltry and weak. Do you have ideas of your own? Would you be willing to share them with me?

The Quest for the Holy Grail - Part Three

2008-07-28T00:10:00.003+10:00

I have more to add regarding my criticisms and claims.

This time it's in relation to MMORPGs.

The current set of MMO games focus on task resolution with a linear plot provided by the developers of the product. Even within this structure the potential for creating stories ourselves (that is by the great unwashed instead of the developers) is still very large. However, the mechanics of these games do not support this kind of play. In fact, they actively discourage it. Where this kind of play does exist it frequently consists of ignoring the mechanical aspects of the game and using the MMO as a kind of chat room. While I have nothing against this kind of play it is dissonant.

Therefore, I want an MMO that is built to support storytelling in its mechanics, either as well as or instead of task resolution.

Mechanical aspects could include such devices as character traits and attributes. My character could have traits like cowardly, fearful, bewildered, introspective, intelligent, educated, popular. Each of these and many more besides would have actual mechanical meaning. The game could enforce these traits in many different ways, but in the spirit of providing solutions that are not purely speculative, I would like to propose that the game gives experience points when the conditions of the trait are filled. Cowardly: run from potentially harmful encounters. If orcs invade my character's village (populated by many other characters) and my character, the coward, is challenged to a battle, then he runs and by running he gains XP. Character traits wouldn't be visible to other players except through actions. It is possible that players could choose a trait from a list when interacting with another PC, if they choose a trait that is on that PCs list, then that PC gains some XP. Essentially this offers a means for a player to state what it was they felt the other PCs traits were based on their interactions, offering a form of player to player feedback on performance.

I want to see a mechanic for relationships within the game. If the character Tharin is annoying and I want him dead (or my character does anyway) then I could create a Nemesis relationship with that character, earning experience points whenever I manage to make him fail at declared activities (or some other defined set of parameters). The Paramour relationship declares my romantic interest in another character, and I gain XP whenever I manage to woo said strumpet - with a bonus for marriage.

I want plots to be seamlessly integrated into the game. Developers, moderators, game designers become actors and script writers instead of programmers and directors. They create characters that enter the game, these characters have no special qualities beyond those of a normal character, that is they have traits and relationships, for example. And they interact with other players in an effort to keep the story active and moving.

I want 'tokens' that can be passed from player to player that have some significance to the mechanics of the game. This is particularly hard to define because they are highly dependent on the implementation, they could be things, attributes, circumstances, features that are either temporary or meaningful in many ways. Examples of this sort of thing include; curses - the princess is cursed to eternal slumber lest she be kissed by her one true love; quests - only s/he who finds the Holy Grail can be named King; Titles - Princess, King, Duke, Arch-fiend; or even objects - The Dragon's tooth, Excalibur, a poisoned apple, a letter of free passage from the King. Each of these mechanical items have benefits and costs, each lost or gained, each is rare.

This sort of game absolutely must give some consideration to the variable nature of attendance online. While it's difficult to have a showdown with your Arch-Nemesis if the two of you never appear online together, it may be possible to create work-arounds. Thus, creating a language and mechanism that permits this sort of relationship and makes it interesting and engaging is needed. Structures can be introduced that support this kind of play. For example, two rivals are vying against one another for some reason (any reason is fine) and the mechanics of the game declare that a rivalry exists. In order for it to be possible to have such a rivalry the game must support some means for the two characters to interact even if they are not in the same space. It also must support some means for others to interfere. The idea here is simple. The two rivals must touch a central point each real world day. Each 'touch' is worth a point. The one with the most points is the winner. Other characters can interfere with this by moving the touchpoint, by blocking the rival they do not support, by acting as a secret proxy (or even disguise) for the rival and gaining the touch. Relationships such as Sycophant, Kingmaker, Servant or traits such as Malcontent, Anarchist or Deceptive could all play a part in this kind of 'battle' garnering XP for the player who participates and uses these traits.

Once again I feel that my words fail me. Once again I want to know what you might think. Problems, suggestions, any ideas of your own? Would you be interested in playing in such an MMO?

The Quest for the Holy Grail - Part Two

2008-07-27T23:08:00.003+10:00

So…, player centred story building in games.

In an effort to be productive in my criticisms and claims I want to offer a suggestion for resolving the problem. This suggestion offers an interpretation of turn based RPGs.

I want to see turn based resolution of everything, not just combat. Bargaining with a merchant. Researching clues, histories, spells in the library. Begging the ancient master of whatever to take on a new student. Travelling between locations. Dialogue with other characters - particularly when such discussions have critical relevance to the plot. Playing a sport in game. Any of the extraneous and often annoying mini-games included in the typical RPG video game for padding purposes. Use the same, unified mechanic for everything.

I want multiple possible outcomes for "battles". If an invading orcish army comes to my character's village and my character is a diplomat and not a warrior I want to be able to 'fight' the orcs verbally from the village ramparts (having just finished my orcish language lessons in the library - after hearing about their intent from pilgrims). Depending on my character's skill I want to be able to generate a range of responses from the game - convince the orcs to attack someone else, convince to orcs to leave, convince the orcs to join our cause, and maybe others. Even engage the orcs in a bout of fisticuffs if that's what interests me.

I want primary character (and secondary character for that matter) death to be permanent. None of this cowardly continue crap. Given this, the world should remember, allowing a successor to see what has gone before. Players can create new characters that start their journey a day or two after the death of their previous character, or at the beginning of the campaign (harder) or anywhere in the timeline (hardest).

I want all battles to be skippable. That is, if there is a battle that I encounter (say a shopping battle for bargain hunters) then I can skip the battle part and go right to the result. The result should be undesirable to a carefully balanced degree. If my character is exceedingly wealthy I don't want to spend ten minutes in battle haggling over the price of a minimal object (say a couple of potions), I can afford the incredible mark-up that is the result of not bargaining so I skip the tedium of this event. Haggling a significant discount on a high-priced high-powered magical artefact early in the game just because I've focused on such skills would be rewarding, however.

I want every single fucking cut-scene to be integrated into the battle mechanism. Convincing someone to repent their evil ways and atone for their sins at the monastery can be enhanced in the battle by adding script elements to this progression. Convincing the same person to join me in my crusade to rule the world would evoke an entirely different script. If I choose to skip a scripted battle then the game can impose a cut scene on me. This cut scene will depend on what best suits the game depending on character actions, alignments and world structure.

I do not want a world map that my character has to walk across - unless it's using the balance board from WiiFit and I'm burning calories. Make it travel battles I can skip if I want - with requisite penalties.

I want the structure of the world to change based on the outcome of various battles. Structuring key battles will make this easier, developing a large matrix with many key battles would make it extremely immersive and offer a chance for players to experience / shape entirely different stories.

I believe that a single, unified system such as this one will allow the necessary focus required to keep the target in view, but allow for enough freedom that will enable creative interpretation of such a structure and evolve it into new and interesting ways that enable players, rather than neutering them.

Is this ludicrous or can you see this working? Would it make an RPG more exciting for you, or would you flounder around trying to work out what to do as you seek the next story 'trigger' (which ironically won't be as obvious or necessary in this kind of structure)? While it terrifies me, I would love to know - what do you think?

The Story is dead! Long live the Story!

2008-07-27T21:44:00.005+10:00

Some time ago, in the real world, I was embroiled in an impassioned debate about building a story within a video game (or games). It became a semantic issue and I agreed with the interpretation that a player of a game can interpret the story of a game, unveiling hidden meanings, connecting relationships in new ways, and repairing holes in the continuum. The Japanese enable this kind of engagement with their "white space" approach to "creative endeavours" - I'm still not convinced that games are art, yet. Nowhere is this better represented than with Team Ico's creations, 'Ico' and 'Shadow of the Colossus'.

I still hold the belief that I am not building a story and am instead a passive recipient of it.

Thus I am going to make a bold, somewhat trollish, sensationalistic prediction.

Linear, plot-based, developer scripted stories in games will no longer be the dominant form of delivery of stories in games within the next five years. My phrasing is shit. I've re-written this several times and can't express properly my meaning. I am saying that the fundamental means in which games are written, in which characters are justified and in which tasks are framed will change completely within the next five years.

Part of the reason for this claim can be found in the demographic shift initiated by Nintendo. Part of the reason for this claim is well represented by Shamus Young's comic Stolen Pixels at The Escapist. Part of the reason for this claim is argued well, if not completely, by David Cage of Quantic Dream - if you love games for their "stories" this is a must read! Part of the reason for this claim is my own experiences - playing Oblivion I learned that I could ignore the plotted stories and create my own. It lacked the tools to properly support the generation of a real story, one that I could share with others, but it was a creative exploration of my imagination and a creative exploration of the tools the game gave me, that were limited but far more flexible than every other game of this generation that I have played. I don't believe the claims of the developers that this is 'hard' because the "choose your own adventure" series of books do a better job of interactive storybuilding than games do. Part of the reason for this claim is the games themselves are evolving, even Metal Gear Solid 4's cut scenes had many interactive elements, however rudimentary. The scent of change is in the air when an industry stalwart such as Kojima and his MGS series tries (and fails) to change its fundamental nature. Many appear to be seeking a new language, new verbs, new nouns, new phrases and a new grammar for story telling through and in games. Part of the reason for this claim is what is already happening in gaming, modified versions of Oblivion tell new stories, create new worlds, the 'modding' community are passionate, creative (though not necessarily critically arty) and are demanding change. They want to tell their own stories.

I am, as of this moment, fundamentally opposed to the developer centred, plot based, scripted story for games. I challenge developers and publishers to look for gaming concepts that empower the player - games that gives players the means to create stories of their own - and discover that by releasing their control to the great unwashed then magic is possible.

Little Big Planet has me excited, it could help me realise this vision if it is successful - thereby signalling to developers that players want to be able to play with the rules of the game, not just the rules within the game. I wish that it had more support for story creation than it appears that it does. Still it is not released yet, so it might surprise me!

Is the day of the plot based story game numbered?

Sometimes fun just happens

2008-07-24T22:16:00.004+10:00

Context: I'm a dedicated (aka hardcore) gamer with subcategories of completionist and co-operative play. My competitive subcategory score is quite low, in spite of what my friends might say.

There's a lot wrong with Mass Effect. The story is crap. The on foot game play very samey across all three pure classes anyway. The dialogue options - touted as revolutionary in the pre-release hype - felt arbitrary and had no real bearing on the 'plot'. Elevators. Doors. Maps repeated over and over and OVER. Copycat button press mechanics. Collect missions with no worthwhile relationship to anything. Incredibly long texture load times (arguably not Bioware's fault). Constant screen tearing. And the Mako, don't get me started on the Mako. I even found the graphics strangely sanitary, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about it lacked personality, giving an artificial quality to every environment in the game. Virmire and Ilos did not suffer from this as much.

And yet, in spite of all of this, I had fun with it.

I enjoyed the story in the same way one enjoys a B grade movie. I laughed at many of the key dramatic moments in the story for all the wrong reasons. Alternatively I'd yell at the characters in the game for all manner of irritations. I also appreciated that there was so much material directly lifted from sources I had enjoyed in their original form, frequently naming such sources as they appeared throughout the game. This also served to underpin how deeply unoriginal most missions were as discrete units of the story.

The side quests, those with story elements weren't as laughable, even being mildly provoking at times. Seeking them out and exploring their permutations was rewarding for the first playthrough. This mirrors my experience with GTA IV, and even Oblivion where the 'major' story pieces often lack the quirkiness, honesty or creativity explored in the smaller pieces. The collect missions could be ignored - they didn't even have much bearing on the acquisition of achievements.

As a completionist I'm pretty forgiving of many things so I wasn't really put off by a wide array of irritating but not game breaking flaws. The repeating maps, meaningless quests, button pressing mini-games, elevators, doors and texture pop-in problems (which were admittedly pretty shocking) reduced the quality of the experience and were at times tiresome but I could bear it. Most games have flaws like these, mind you I've never seen such a high profile game with so many flaws. The screen tearing was a problem though, so bad at times that I had to stop and rest my eyes after only a relatively short play period (compared to my normal play periods).

The Mako was a gamebreaker, I say this because while I 'completed' the game, I constantly searched for ways to exclude the Mako from my play experience. It felt as though Bioware had gotten their hands on the code for the Warthog and then changed it in a way to make it as annoying as possible while maintaining a semblance of playability. In my travels I discovered that when the Mako was badly damaged it was far quicker to press 'X' while in the Mako to return to the ship, land again (wholly restored) and then return to the destination than repair a Mako and wait for the shields to restore. This includes load times! As I learned more about the game I no longer fought from inside the Mako, instead I'd park it, get out and fight on foot. The rewards were better, the play more fun and the recovery time much, much quicker regardless of the technique used. Except for the Thresher Maws. Fortunately the game was still playable without the Mako and its contribution could be minimised, but I'm convinced that the dev time spent on this abomination would have improved all those other niggling problems that lowered the overall quality of this title.

I got all the achievements. Go figure. I was hoping for a theme or something like a civilian skin for Shepard (jeans and t-shirt), or maybe some insight into the development of the game. I was hoping for something interesting - but I've already dealt with this in an earlier post. I satisfied my completionist urges and in gameplay terms I got a small cooperative play fix through the party mechanics of the game, so it definitely wasn't a waste of time.

Innovate or die!

2008-07-23T20:44:00.004+10:00

The dust is beginning to settle. Developers, critics and consumers all have a pretty good idea of what's on offer. Well they should. So what's next?

I like me some innovation. I'm not ashamed to admit that I bought Lair just so that I could see what a game built around the Sixaxis controls would actually play like. Lost Odyssey, on the other hand, used to be the kind of game that interested me - I discovered as I played it that I'd changed, I'm different, that it's not you - Lost Odyssey - it's me. Goodbye, I won't miss you.

There's this interview with Microsoft somebody John Schappert here. Apart from demonstrating that Phil Elliot - the interviewer - is a kiss-arse, John goes on to say that true innovation can be imitation with a few tweaks (my phrasing, not his). Nice. He admits that they're playing copycat with a few things. Honesty, refreshing! And more or less says that it's not just about the games, to support this the Live service gets a good go around, largely through leading questions though. To be a little more fair, some of the ideas have potential, and while they aren't original a 1 vs 100 game with real prizes might entice new markets, for instance.

Nintendo is reeling from a universally negative response to their E3 presentation, even going so far to apologise! The panning they've received spares me that responsibility. Sniff. The reason they got so badly panned is because their big announcement was an add for their Wii-mote that allows for true 1:1 motion sensing. Nice! Problem is it only has the support of one soon to be released first party game. It was news to third party devs too, meaning it's not going to get third party support in software until a year or two from now because they will only be able to add it to games from now on. Not that anyone gives a shit because who buys third party shovelware on the Wii anyway? Provoke, provoke.

And then there's Sony. How can you not like a game of capture the flag, for up to 16 players, where the flag is a princess that can be fed cake? Even the name is awesome! Oh, how I hate that word. Another case of imitation tweaks. Still, the concept and execution is fun - if lacking longevity. The game? Fat Princess! Flower, a weird game, is much closer to something I would call innovation. The player is the wind blowing petals across the landscape opening flowers as they er…blow on their way. No fucking idea on how it plays (for real) or whether it'll be fun but it certainly feels like a fresh, new, innovative concept. LittleBigPlanet? On paper it's more tweaked imitation, but video of it has a fresh feeling. It's a HD version of a 2D platformer where the player can build their own levels and play with up to four others. I don't get any vibe of innovation from these words (which describe the game in a basic sense) but it looks like something that could, maybe, possibly deliver something unexpected. Sony has made such promises before though, and not delivered (Lair, Heavenly Sword). I couldn't care less about MAG, but then I'm not in its target market so that's to be expected.

Apart from demonstrating my like of Sony's penchant for quirky titles I have a point. Nintendo isn't doing anything really new in the coming while, but they don't really need to, they're #1 now, and the Wii-mote was enough, right? Microsoft seeks to tap the lowest common denominator by focusing on what they already know and offering real prizes. Woo! Sony hopes to capture new markets through a bunch of weird arsed shit that is risky and as previous titles have demonstrated, not necessarily worthwhile. If I was an industry pundit who would I reccommend you invest your hard earned dollars with?

Nintendo, of course, 'cause that shit is selling!

Console wars II - what's it all about?

2008-07-23T02:34:00.007+10:00

In my first post discussing the great console war of 2007-2008 I summarised BRK's comments by suggesting that for her it was all about the games. Yet, I wonder. Not whether it's all about the games for BRK, but whether the console manufacturers, game developers and industry journalists would agree.

The waggling Wii-mote suggests that gaming is no longer about games alone. Sony has gone live with its video-download service (in America), and will 'soon' supply a device called PlayTV to Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Microsoft has penned a deal with Nettflix for a video download service on the Xbox, a complement to its video marketplace offered as part of its Gold subscription service. EA's Peter Moore is quoted at Eurogamer saying that disc based delivery of games is dead or will be soon, implying (but not specifically stating) that Blu-Ray is irrelevant to gaming. Yet Blu-Ray and HD-DVD was a very expensive battleground and Blu-Ray is offered as a potential selling point for the PS3. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. LittleBigPlanet offers the chance to earn money for budding designers, Sony's Home and Microsoft's dashboard re-design offer enhanced networking experiences (networking as defined by building contacts, not by cables and switches) and the role that the RRoD plays in consumer choice, if any. Must. Stop. Now.

You can see my point.

I'm there for most of it. Although my current circumstances dictate that the video download services will not be for me, high definition video is okay - I own 5 Blu-Ray movies and will buy more - but bandwidth, storage and video quality make the download option less appealing.

But I know who I am and what I want. What about you? What do you want? Do any of the extraneous benefits offered by the consoles (or PCs) influence your decisions in console purchases? Console manufacturers and game developers (to some extent) no longer see gaming as "all about the games", but if any of the examples I've provided above don't float your boat, can you conceive of anything that would?

Wherein I contradict myself

2008-07-21T21:07:00.006+10:00

The Brainy Gamer is one of those blogs that scares me. On it there's a post about keeping on topic when designing / creating / building a game. In it Patrick Lipo, a video-game somebody, shares his ways to keep the design of a game focussed on its objectives. I agree with the spirit of this post and wholeheartedly support a game that achieves what it set out to do. This statement is a contradiction of my first Holy Grail quest post, kinda. If you didn't click (and we both know you didn't) then that post advocates a kitchen sink approach to game design, kinda. Actually this statement is erroneous, you really should probably read my post...

Let me attempt to illustrate with an example.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is an excellent example of a game that achieves exactly what it sets out to do. I suspect that if someone on the inside of Naughty Dog (the developer) read this they'd have a good old chuckle. Anything that might be missing from the game (as far as intentions go) is not apparent from my play perspective.

The game itself can either be described as a cinematic game or an interactive movie. The concept of linear play is defined here. Every detail scripted. Gameplay is principally a third person shooter with a cover mechanic, it is very robust and moderately intuitive. There are also platforming elements, an on rails shooting sequence, and two jetski based driving sequences. Hmm, a little more kitchen sink than I had realised.

I had a lot of fun with this game, and for no good reason. You see I don't really like the 'shooter' genre of games as a general rule. Too repetitive. Uncharted is no exception. I prefer games that allow for a variety of approaches to problem solving, and Uncharted is very inflexible here. I like games that give me freedom, that let me explore and play and manipulate. Uncharted is asphyxiating-ly rigid. Looking at the individual elements doesn't really offer understanding on my entire experience. This game was more than the sum of its parts, thankfully.

The story, while not particularly original, was well written. It was very mature, not mature in a ratings scale sense, but mature in that it knew itself and how high to pitch, the delivery and context of the material had just the right mix of serious tone and humour that existed on a level that reinforced the core design aesthetic. It was a game pitched at young adults, and it was pitched perfectly.

The pacing of the story and game elements were excellent. Not perfect, sure, but extremely well wrought throughout, action sequences and their structure (level design) were reasonably well contextualised to the mood and atmosphere of the story. The story's development, such as it approached its climax dictated the gameplay, level design elements and vice versa. It wasn't perfect, but it was probably the best example of the integration of these elements I have ever seen.

Lighting was used both as a literary tool and as a mood enhancer. As the game progressed toward its climax, the ambient light of each set reflected the character's (player's) progress through the game and story. Yes, all the corny elements were there too, finishing on a sunset, I mean, please! I am not kidding about this, they really did consider every single element of the game and how it contributed to the agenda.

Characterisations and dialogue were strong, I'd even go so far to say excellent. They were plausible, well animated, well voiced and well written. The language used was mature in that it fit the tones and themes of the game very snugly. I am comfortable admitting that I had an emotional investment in these characters (Nate and Elena anyway) and I cared about them.

While the game was fun, and it kept true to its agenda, it let me down too. I wanted more, I wanted variety and I wanted the chance to explore the designer's vision with the lens of my own experience and expectation. This game didn't allow that. So heavily committed to its original idea of what it should be, it didn't allow for any real deviation from that vision. Mr Lipo might well call that a 'win', but I want it all.

Tabletop RPGs VERSUS Video game RPGs. FIGHT!

2008-07-20T18:14:00.003+10:00

Wizards of the Coast, who currently own the rights to the DnD franchise of tabletop roleplaying games (RPGs), have recently released a fourth edition of that game. Others tell me that this edition emulates the class of video games known as massive multiplayer online games (MMOs).

Typically table top games are the genesis of ideas that are either directly or indirectly used as the material for building a video game framework. At least as far as the sub-genre of RPGs (western RPGs). DnD 4e reverses this trend, and it is with good reason. Table top games are in decline while video games, in all their forms, are experiencing what some punters and industry somebodies describe as a new golden age. My friends tell me that 4th ed is fun to play, even as they agree that the rules, as written, are not. A table top game that's a boring read isn't a great sign considering how many people buy and don't play those games. Not sure how many of those books actually get read though.

Outside of DnD, tabletop RPGs have evolved and are still trying to find their feet in a competitive world. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the indy game scene. There are heaps of these sorts of games out there, and although I am loathe to promote this site, it's a great example of the independent scene for RPGs. The Forge is the brainchild of one person, and although many have contributed to it over the years, it remains constrained by a single man's vision. This vision is flawed, but there are many nuggets of gold to be found there nonetheless, and it's a great jumping point when seeking alternatives to the mainstream.

I haven't had much experience with any independent video game RPGs, and this has most likely skewed my perspective. As a game format they haven't evolved at all since at least the days of the Apple II and the Ultima series (for example). Graphically they're more advanced, sure. But the mechanical experience is still much as it was. The base model is almost exactly the same, a set of powerz represented by names and numbers that are used in a turn based format. The newer model is an action adventure game that has ignores the turn based format, but retains the cool powerz. This trend has bleed into first person shooters such as Call of Duty 4 and Bioshock, as well as third person shooters such as Metal Gear Solid 4 - the last place one expects to do number crunching.

I still play tabletop games because they offer me something that video games cannot (or have not, they may be able to). They allow me to play a character of my choosing, in a story that is variable. The game master may well have a specific vision in mind, but I may choose to ignore it and create an alternative that I share with my fellows. The freedom of personal expression offered by tabletop games isn't even really touched upon by their video game counterparts. Either as a single player experience OR as an MMO (although MMOs provide a better vehicle for infinite story creation). MMOs are interesting in that the potential for this kind of play almost exists, but the very nature of the format serves to undermine this potential. Grind, PvP, status, exclusives and lack of support for characterisation and story mean that while the game experience is more open ended than the single player experience, the stories are a function of the game's mechanics.

When video game RPGs (single or multi-player) offer truly open ended characterisation and story experiences table top RPGs will cease to be relevant. Sure there will be a few anachronistic die-hards, but even they will indulge in the electronic version from time to time. It's a pity that RPG designers are still focussed on mechanics where the real innovation is going to come from storytelling and characterisation.

Yes, but, who am I really?

2008-07-20T17:41:00.003+10:00

I am a coward, paralysed by fear and feelings of inadequacy. A shivering rodent that is starving to death because it lacks the intestinal fortitude to face the dangers of the real world and forage for food. I'm a wannabe, a nobody, and an irrelevant aberration in the constant stream of consciousness that is the internet.

I fear referencing sites I admire because they may back-track to this blog. The potential for others to come here and find disappointment terrifies me. I look at the blogs that I read, that I admire, that make me laugh and think and I feel unworthy.

None of this has anything to do with "reality" they are irrational feelings that govern my behaviour.

These feelings are contradicted by the reasons for this blog. It is not a vehicle for fame and fortune. I do not seek academic acclaim - no chance of that, I mean have you read any of this shit? I don't expect that anyone will read it, I have to pay my friends for their friendship, so expecting a stranger to contribute for free is…unrealistic.

I seek an identity. This blog is an honest record of me. One aspect of me, in any case. A time capsule of my thoughts and feelings in word form.

I want the chance to test whether my thoughts have any value at all. By offering them to scrutiny I can better determine whether my fears are warranted and can maybe challenge them by scrutinising them through the lens of your experience. I can learn from you, grow and become more worthwhile as a person (whatever the fuck that means).

That doesn't mean I'm not shitting my pants with fear. I hate being such a coward, time to face the music and get my game on, right?

Can metacognition improve game design?

2008-07-18T19:13:00.008+10:00

Metacognition can loosely be defined as thinking about thought. It is often described with a continuum that has reflective thinking at one end and dynamic thinking at the other. Everyone falls somewhere on this continuum. Reflective thinkers tend to think things through. They might try something that fails and based on that experience spend a few moments thinking about it and try something else, rinse and repeat until success is achieved. Dynamic thinkers tend not to stop attempting an activity to think about it. Generally a dynamic thinker will try a bunch of different things (sometimes repeating already attempted things) before finding something that works. Dynamic thinkers don't stop doing to spend time thinking about their actions.

Meta-gaming is a term used in table top RPGs that describes when the player has their character do things that the character couldn't possibly see as appropriate given the context, but that fit with game tropes or rules. It is quite rightfully seen as a form of cheating, but it has uses in non-cheating ways so it's reputation as a negative is undeserved. I'll try to explore this more later, it's here to illustrate that it exists as a named and known phenomenon in table top gaming.

A meta-dialogue is a term I'm inventing (it may already exist elsewhere with either the same or a different meaning) for when an external stimulus causes one to think about something. An interactive media like games represent the best example of a meta-dialogue in action, tutorials and the like introduce a player to a set of expectations, games frequently then toy with those expectations as part of their challenge mechanic. Oh, I've just searched found something similar in Wikipedia called metafiction. Of particular interest is "A story that anticipates the reader's reaction to the story", but the other points are worthwhile also.

I will explore the idea of a meta-dialogue expressed in gaming through three games developed by a single game company, Bioware's Knight's of the Old Republic (KotoR), Jade Empire and Mass Effect. Produced by a single developer there is a consistency of vision that permeates each game, probably the culture of the company that has formed within the company itself. Also, each game engages a different level of meta-dialogue with the player, I'll start with the most recent game and work backwards chronologically.

Mass Effect has no meta-dialogue with the gamer. It is delivered 'straight-up' with a largely linear story and linear gameplay (yes one can choose the core missions in differing orders but one MUST play through them all rendering the order choice cosmetic). As the lastest game produced by Bioware it shows no insight into its own nature as a game, nor does it deviate from what are standard tropes in RPG story and game design - although it conforms more closely to ARPG (action role-playing game) than RPG in actual play, it is largely an RPG at its heart. It doesn't even have a sense of humour about its overblown and juvenile plot, and cookie cutter characters.

Jade Empire attempts to have a meta-dialogue with the player by establishing a supposed weakness apparent in the hero's fighting style through observations made by skilled NPCs. This fails, however, because it is not observable in actual play. While playing the character there is no way to get a sense of this weakness, not that I could find anyway, a fallible assertion. My 'buy-in' to this premise is undermined by the way the game plays, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the plot 'twist' presented later in the game. It is relatively easy to argue the opposite stance, that as the main character (who is blind to the weakness) the player should not be aware of it. My defense against this particular stance is based on reason, I wanted to test my character's fighting style, to explore it against skilled opponents and understand the claims made by the character's contemporaries. The game even encouraged this mode of thought through repetition and variety of claimant (if one falls on the more reflective end of the spectrum anyway) but it steadfastly refused to allow any form of exploration that could confirm or deny the claims.

Knights of the Old Replubic, the oldest or least recent of Bioware's games explored in this post exploits the expectations of the player to deliver what was recently rated in the top 10 OMG WTF moments in games by Screwattack here. If you haven't played the game then be warned because it's a spoiler. If the player returns to the game, replaying it from the beginning then it is possible to see that moment regularly foreshadowed by the dialogue and events depicted in cut-scenes. I missed it, however, and enjoyed the "shock" because the game took standard video game design tropes and subverted them (well some of them anyway). Go have a look at Videogame Tropes for a long list, I'd recommend reading things like Willing Suspension of Disbelief, Gameplay and Story Segregation, But Thou Must and Post Modernism for named relevant tropes. I thought I had read a trope that details that the hero is an amnesiac, but failed to find it for this piece, so I guess that's up to my readers (all two of them! Woo!). It is my belief that the subversion of the expectations of the player of the game through establishing gameplay actions that we, as gamers, permit for the needs of learning how to play the game and then hinging specific story actions on those gameplay elements helped make this game the memorable experience that many gamers claim.

What I'm positing is this. Games and those that play them explicitly establish a dialogue about many aspects of the game, such as gameplay, character and plot. Many games see this dialogue as nothing more than a means to deliver information to the player for successful completion of in-game tasks / functions / for successful 'play'. They treat the player as a dynamic receptacle for instructions and nothing more. A few games have gone further, and are made the more memorable for it, GTA IV does it through its social commentary, MGS4 does it through the inclusion of the 'real world' in the game world and through Breaking the Fourth Wall (kinda). Those games that are aware of their status as a game, and are aware that someone is playing seem to be those games that garner the greatest attention in discussions, in the collective unconscious of players, in the history of games.

It's a delicate balance, most certainly. But as gaming moves closer to achieving a cultural evolution it is an understanding of the relationship between the game and the gamer that will offer the greatest insight into what sorts of impacts a game can have.

Think back to your greatest play experiences, those OMG WTF moments, or those game-gasms you've had playing games and tell me about them. I don't have enough data to claim that my thoughts are little more than opinion, so I need your help.

And now for something completely different...

2008-07-17T14:40:00.004+10:00

Double post today because the first post was so crap!

I often find myself thinking about how a game did something and how it could do it better. For the record, as one of the great unwashed these thoughts are completely independent of any real world requirements of coding, systems or feasibility. My first musing on what works can be found here. Sometimes I think of what I'd like to see in a video game that I've yet to encounter in my travels. Here where I present one of those thoughts.

I want to see a game where the shoulder buttons represent each of the character's (avatar's) limbs. R1 for right arm, R2 for right leg, L1 for left arm and L2 for left leg. The face buttons (square, circle, triangle and cross) are used to change 'stance', loosely defined as the way in which the limbs act. Essentially they change the context of limb use (rather than relying on the environment to do this), press the button once to get into the stance assigned to it, press it again to return to the default stance. Finally, I'd like there to be many more stances available for assignment than the default five, they can be grouped into categories - though I'd prefer they weren't - but I want to be able to customise my play experience as much as possible.

Here's how it would work…

Default stance: Movement

Alternate L2, R2 to walk, run and sprint. Frequency of button presses represents speed of movement. If the button presses are flubbed the avatar stumbles and maybe trips. Press both buttons together for a jump.
Pick things up, manipulate things (switches etc.) with L1 and R1. Climb something you can grab with both buttons together. If nothing to climb, do a handstand with both buttons pressed simultaneously.
Do a cartwheel by pressing, L1, L2, R2, R1 (did I get that right?). Do a series of flips by pressing R2 + L2, followed by R1 + L1. Flubbing the button presses results in a potential accident such as falling, slipping, or tripping per the base running, walking movement above.

Stance suggestions;

Stealth - a variant of the movement stance above. Crawling, going prone, pressing against a wall, hiding inside objects all described using the same button sequences as described above. But applying them differently. Eg a prone position can be initiated by pressing all four shoulder buttons at the same time.

Unarmed combat - Punching, kicking, blocking, tripping, grappling and so forth. Multiple combat styles possible.

Armed combat - Guns, knives, swords, clubs, crowbars, wrenches well you get the idea. Imagine a double fisted gun stance that has one gun in each hand, a reticle for each gun keyed to the left and right sticks respectively. This isn't going to be easy to control, it's just the kind of thing that's possible. The L/R2 buttons might represent strafe left and right in this kind of mode, and a sixaxis controller could handle turning and moving forward and backwards. (This includes the 360 because if the rumours of a pending motion controller for that system are confirmed then it's possible there too).

Social - Each shoulder button could represent an emotional response (happy, sad, loving, hateful, angry, calm, indifferent) when in conversations.

Switching stances is easy, pressing the face button that represents the assigned stance and you'll switch to that stance, press it again and you'll switch to the default stance.

And that's it.

Do you have ideas of your own? Do you want to share them? Do you like / hate this one? I'll post others that I have percolating away in my brain in future posts, so come back if you're interested in stealing this or any of my other ideas!

Why no PC love?

2008-07-17T14:39:00.002+10:00

I own a Mac.

The Quest for the Holy Grail - Part One

2008-07-16T15:04:00.004+10:00

I typically despise criticism that offers no alternative solution(s). I grew up in an environment where I had to learn to laugh and blow my nose several times lest I be "bashed" for not getting it right. The problem wasn't so much the bashing, although that wasn't fun, it was not knowing what was actually correct. It generally took several bashings before I stumbled upon a suitable solution. So rather than just say "this didn't work", "this isn't right", "I don't like", I want to offer some idea of what it is I would like. Just in case.

One thing that consistently pleases me about a video game is whether the game allows for a variety of play styles. Will my third person shooter allow for first person and vice versa. Can I use either stealth, diplomacy or feats of acrobatic skill to solve a given problem, without having to use all three? I want a game that gives me the freedom to explore and choose a playstyle that I most enjoy, or better yet, several equally enjoyable playstyles that I can access on a whim.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion probably represents one of the best realisations of this that I've encountered in my travels. There's a lot that I don't like about the game, but it's one that I can enjoy and keep playing because it's flexible and has oodles of play styles. I can play it as a first person shooter, a stealth action title, I can play it as a puzzle game, I can play it as a typical RPG, or I can generate a ruleset that requires quite lateral, or quite ludicrous paradigm shifts.

I'll admit that optimised play in Oblivion has the "All roads lead to Rome" playstyle in that you need to have everything to create an optimised character, more or less. However, it's when one starts setting rules for oneself, and ignoring optimisation that one can truly explore the variety of games on offer here. For example, stealth only kills, a naturist (nudist) class that is forbidden to wear clothing or armour, a zero kill rule - that is, complete the game without a single kill (and as many of the sidequests as possible). Try playing the game with the Atronach starsign and compare the experience to any other starsign, or try playing a Mage class character as either an Atronach or as any other starsign. While the plot of the story doesn't change, the way in which one can engage with it can change considerably.

I also found Metal Gear Solid 4 to be very flexible. It was a stealth action game, a third person shooter, and a first person shooter. Within this there were several subdivisions on offer. Should I use the new metal gear, the knife, CQC, the tranquilizer guns (pistol and rifle), and / or the various disabling traps to be the focus of my stealth gameplay. Each approach changed the game slightly and by devoting oneself to a particular style of play (knife only for instance) the way to engage with the game changed. While knife only doesn't really seem feasible for boss battles it's certainly reasonable for the rest of the game. I suspect a traps only approach would work as well, but would be considerably harder because of their very limited numbers.

Mass Effect offers this kind of game, but fails to deliver. RPGs are most likely to provide varied play, because by their very nature they offer a wide array of skills, powers, effects and possibly gameplay experiences. The problem with Mass Effect was that it used the same basic mechanical method for all in-game effects. Shooting a gun, using a biotic power, throwing a tech grenade, and throwing a normal grenade all used the same basic approach (press and hold one button, and then press another). Ironically, the character that I typically find to offer the least variety in an RPG - the fighter - was the most diverse in feel when playing the game. Shotguns, Assault Rifles and Sniper rifles were sufficiently diverse to create the illusion of some variety when compared to the other classes. The Adept and the Engineer classes were too similar, within the class and to each other. Their powers were utilised in precisely the same way (sequence of button presses), and manifested as a blue or orange glow on the enemy. This is not to say that I hated Mass Effect, or that I think it's a bad game, just that if it were to come down to choosing between the next Mass Effect, the next Metal Gear or the next Oblivion then Mass Effect would lose out.

One game that apparently has this attribute, but really doesn't is GTA IV. So many industry professionals said in their reviews that this game could be played anyway you like. The variety in gameplay is immense, infinite, and so forth. And it was these sorts of statements that tempted me across the line. Each mission follows a very specific and linear structure that requires a specific set of responses from me, and is quite unforgiving if I don't adhere to the game's expectations of me. Sure you can choose to play through the missions in differing orders, but you must play through them all to reach the end of the story regardless. Because of this the mission structure is illusionist handwaving, an attempt to deceive me into thinking I have freedom when really I don't. Outside of the mission structure I can do anything I want, as long as it's one of three things, driving, shooting or playing mini-games. I can't really re-interpret the game, the game world, or the avatar I've been given through play. I can't convince the baddies that I'm badder or better, I can't play the game through the first person perspective, I can't use stealth to solve a problem, I can't impose a set of rules upon myself that fundamentally changes the way in which to game is played. I can impose a set of rules upon myself that fundamentally changes the way in which I interpret what is represented by the game, but this doesn't change what I'm actually doing in the game, how I actually play, it just changes my perception of it. Problem is, I couldn't make it work, I couldn't make a re-interpretation of the game world strong enough to overcome the limitations imposed on me.

What's your Holy Grail of gaming? Is it graphics, story, gameplay, or is it something else? And if you don't mind sharing, what is it about this Holy Grail of yours that makes it so important?

Console Wars!

2008-07-15T17:24:00.006+10:00

I was going to discuss what makes a game good today, but as that's a multi-part discussion and isn't too dependent on news I can probably delay it until tomorrow, or after E3 if the news from there continues to be interesting and controversial.

Square Enix announced that Final Fantasy XIII will be multi-platform today at their E3 presser. This is significant because it's kind of a first. Good for them.

I never really understood the 'console wars' tag anyway. We don't have fridge wars, TV wars, washing machine wars or fan heater wars (unless you count that the current gen of consoles can double as fan heaters), so the very idea of console wars is ludicrous. It's not helped by the largely baseless wankery of a variety of Microsoft and Sony somebodies. And then there's the gaming media - satisfying the fanboy demand apparently - because the online media needs to generate clicks to get paid.

We may have format wars - blu-ray versus HD-DVD or plasma versus LCD - but the context, meaning and motivation for this situation is entirely different. In a market economy everything is in competition with everything else, but we don't go around claiming that gaming is eating into the DVD market…oh wait, the games industry makes all sorts of these claims. Other devices rarely make such claims, the fridge versus gaming console debate hasn't really reached a climax yet.

I understand the concept behind console exclusives and now, more than ever before they have meaning. Each of the current generation of consoles is quite different, their core build is different, the tools by which they operate are different, and at the moment the markets that they're capturing are quite different too. Developers, therefore, have to make a decision, whether to spend huge amounts of time and effort on developing for many diverse platforms in the hopes that they will increase numbers of actual sales (enough to offset the costs), or whether to specialise knowing that their sales numbers could be higher if the reached more gamers through that other gaming platform. Of course, some developers just want the one console for this very reason, it would make these decisions redundant.

If the developer, such as Epic Games developer of the Unreal Engine, has the hardcore market in mind, then it's a pretty basic answer. They can specialise in either of the 'hardcore' capable machines. This is because most hardcore gamers (hardcore is such a crude and derisive term - I'm going to change it and call 'us' dedicated gamers instead!) have both. However, the fanboy quotient means that some people will refuse to buy one or the other not on reason, but emotion, irrational, baseless, mindless emotion. And it is these individuals who are likely to play games like Unreal Tournament, they are the target market of Epic, so it's reasonable that Epic target both consoles. It's also reasonable that they maintain their stance of not developing for the Wii.

I also understand the developer's need to go multi-platform. Now, more than ever before, game production costs factor heavily into profitability. Thus, to recoup the investment gaming companies must consider how they can increase their sales, one such way is to deliver the product to as many consumers as possible. The multi-platform approach. This will tend toward games like Alone in the Dark which has all this potential but it is unrealised for every single console format because it wasn't built with either the technology or the audience in mind.

Here's where it gets interesting. Gaming is in a boom state at the moment. The world economy is experiencing difficulties, difficulties that will not be resolved anytime soon. What can gaming companies do about it?

Let's start with the hardware companies.

Nintendo has done it right. They have taken a long hard look at what they were doing wrong with the Gamecube (keeping up with the Joneses) and focussed on what it's really about, gaming.

Sony's arrogance really dug a deep hole for them. They completely misjudged developers and the market and they're paying for it now. Their product has probably the best overall feature set, the best overall specs and if they hadn't completely misread how difficult it was to develop for (given existing frameworks) it'd be doing much better than it is. Ironically, they're also failing to properly differentiate the product from their competitors, and it is this that is holding them back more than anything. They still don't know or understand what it is that they have, how to sell it, and who to sell it to. A market has developed for it, so they have a chance now to define that market, strengthen the relationship they have with it, and diversify by building strategies around other markets. It doesn't appear that they've quite grasped this yet.

Microsoft also suffers from arrogance. Arrogance born of gaining an headstart and by being unchallenged in other markets. Right now they're last in all territories, and if they can't stem that tide and turn their fortunes around then they're fucked. Problem is, in order to get to the leading position they've created what is essentially a shit box. The components are cheap, easily broken, it's missing the functionality, quality and versatility of its competitors, at least from a manufacturing perspective, and has instilled a perception of poor quality in the great unwashed masses. Somehow this hasn't had the impact on the Xbox that it would in other consumer products and Microsoft can thank the ease at which developers have in developing games for the console and the sheer desperation of dedicated gamers. The headstart helped a lot here too. Their target market (the dedicated FPS / racing gamer) is largely saturated, and if they don't broaden it then sales will drop significantly rather than steadily decline. The RPG market is clearly their next choice, but time will tell us whether it will be enough.

Given this situation, I think the days of the multi-platform gaming may be numbered. At least those sorts of games developed by a single developer. Smaller specialist developers who focus on a single platform now have an opportunity to 'port' existing IP to alternative systems and build an entire business model around helping larger development houses increase overall sales by broadening the available market. It's just that, so far, projects handled in this way are sub-standard. Alone in the Dark for the Wii is an example.

I know the gaming industry professionals are saying that the day of third part exclusives is in the past, but this may be erroneous. The size of games, and the commitment it takes to make one on current generation consoles means that developers lack the versatility required to properly capture the unique qualities of a given machine, and the preferences of each machine's market.

Time will ultimately prove this one way or another, but while we wait let's speculate.

What do you think? Are you going to buy all the consoles and therefore have your pick of the litter, or are you going to stick with one and rough it with the exclusives?

Before you answer think about this…

Many dedicated gamers are choosing which copy to buy based on what differentiates it on a given console. Quality, downloadable content, controller preferences, hard-disk space, and price are among the many factors gamers cite in forums for choosing which console to buy a game on. I couldn't play a game like Soulcalibur IV on the Xbox controller so I'm getting it for PS3, for a more specific example.

The other thing I want you to think about is, Sony has recently announced that they're going to duplicate the Nintendo business model and focus on delivering high quality first party products. What does this mean for 3rd party developers and publishers? A mass migration to Xbox perhaps? Or has the horse already bolted?

Why no Wii love?

2008-07-14T17:11:00.003+10:00

You've probably noticed by now that I don't really discuss Nintendo's Wii.

The short answer for this is because I don't have ready access to one. There's more to it though.

I admire what Nintendo has done with the Wii. Aaron Greenberg, a Microsoft somebody - apparently - erroneously thinks that the motion controller is a gimmick. If Microsoft can find a new way for people to relate to games that is as intuitive (or more so) than the Wii controller, then all they'll have to do is make sure at least they understand how to publish games to take advantage of the feature and they can start printing money.

The Wii isn't for me.

I never grew up around Nintendo stuff. I have no burning desire to revisit those memories with fan service games likes Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Consequently I don't solicit more information or access to such a device to broaden my understanding of what's on offer. The games the Wii offers aren't to my taste. That doesn't mean I think they're bad games, just not the kind of time wasters I want to waste my time with.

Oh, and for the most part, irritatingly cutesy things like the Mii, just make me want to scream, shout, and smash. While I won't turn green and tear my clothes to shreds, I might smash the offending purveyor of nauseating muck.

All this may change. Many recent games for the Wii appear to have a darker and more mature styling to them. If this trend continues then there might be enough to entice me. But that's not for a good while yet.

Until then, you will just have to tolerate my limited understanding, and limited vision. A nobody like me doesn't necessarily have access to all the latest, greatest and funkiest do-dats available.

Don't let that stop you from sharing your Wii stories, okay?

What's in a 10? revisited

2008-07-14T12:23:00.006+10:00

I never expected to like GTA, and my expectations were met. It just isn't my kind of fun. I can't even understand the raging positive passions that a large number of industry professionals have for it.

The industry elite rate it with a score of 98, while the great unwashed give a more honest 79 ref: metacritic. I'd give it a 70-ish. Please consider that average games are typically scored at 70 instead of 50 and bad games typically get scores of 50-ish instead of 10 or 20. Industry professionals are very generous with their scores.

Given that GTA isn't my "type" of game why the hell, then, did I buy it?

Well... I wanted to know! What it was about the game that had so many raving like lunatics? I suppose it's funny that I still don't know the answer to that, I'm guessing that it has something to do with either the 'nature' of the industry or the general low expectations of those in it.

I'm not going to deride the cheap mission design, the boring and repetitive game-play, the derivative and highly predictable story that lacks emotional buy-in from the player (viewer). If you enjoyed this game then my opinion is irrelevant, of course.

There are nuggets of pure gold in GTA IV that made the purchase and subsequent trade a worthwhile exploration, however.

I enjoyed the lampooning of American culture that was omnipresent. Admittedly it was very hit and miss, and largely juvenile, lacking sophistication and truly biting insight. It was enjoyable none-the-less, something worthy of exploration and discovery. I have since learned that this is a hallmark feature of the series and probably won't be as impressive to series loyalists, but as a virgin GTA player it was a worthwhile distraction from all the other irritations that plagued my experience with the title.

The other element of the game that I enjoyed was the "random" encounters. While traversing the game map one could encounter various characters that had no real bearing on the main story. Each encounter was a diversion from the rest of the game and a complete experience in and of itself. Each encounter was a single task mission framed by brief cutscenes. Several encounters spanned more than a single mission.

These random encounters were the best part of the game. They were the most honest, genuinely realised moments in the game. Freed from the stench of the overblown pomposity of the main story, they offered small patches of honest 'reality' in a world where themes focussed on suffering and hardship. They were probably too small for any deep emotional investment from the player, but they didn't need much for what they were. Most of them were spot on too, in terms of pitching the drama to the player, balancing the emotional buy-in against the satisfaction of play and reward. And most resolved in a largely unsatisfying way, highlighting the meaningless of the main character's existence more effectively than any of the mind-numbing drivel that drove the main plot.

The 16 year old female drug addict who offers her body to Nico in return for a couple of bucks, and her subsequent redemption is painful and while offering a chance for the player to do something constructive, news of her redemption is delivered via a distant email.

If one spares one of the targets in the game, there's the opportunity to meet him a little later on. He's resentful that the main character made him beg like a bitch for his life (something the game chose for me, not something I chose for myself, so my emotional buy-in is non-existent). He's looking for payback. He wants you to beg in the same way you made him beg as he points a gun at you. I didn't beg, and don't believe that there was the option to in any case. As a friend remarked, it was a clever reversal of the standard RPG quest result, he wasn't at all grateful about being spared, and it fit the theme of this 'world' perfectly. It did a great job of undermining any 'mercy' acts you may choose for Nico, and resolved in a largely unsatisfactory manner as he died anyway (unless he killed Nico and the player chose to end their gaming experience there!).

The drug addled merchant banker, the hip-hop idealist, the serial killer, even the ship mate selling handbags on a street corner. These were more real, more honest, and more effective in capturing the game's themes than any other part of the game. If I was involved in the design decisions of GTA IV (or subsequent titles) I'd focus the whole game around these "random" encounters. With branching stories revealing new random encounters depending on what choices the player made.

For example, if the player chose to try to save the girl, but her addiction was too strong and she lapsed (more honest, more real than what the game presented), then she might suggest that if the main character were to "take care of" her pusher, it'd be easier for her to get clean. This steady escalation of story offers chances for the player to explore the story in a more open way. More so than the faux open world structure presented. If the player chose to ignore her, or take advantage of her, then other options could be introduced, the police, desperate family members seeking their daughter / sister / friend. Etcetera.

Ignore that a whole bunch of industry professionals place GTA as the pinnacle of gaming experience for the moment and tell me what you think would make it better. Has GTA IV realised all your wishes for gaming, allowing you to place your console aside and get back to living life, or has it left you wanting more? If you do want more, will it be more of the same, or are there things you'd do differently?

I completed Insanity difficulty in Mass Effect and all I got was this stupid gamer pic.

2008-07-12T06:51:00.005+10:00

Double post today because I missed yesterday's due to stuff.

Achievements in games can be a good thing. I don't want them to interrupt my play, but they can offer new information about the game, and reward the player for playing.

Ironically, perhaps, the games in the new generation that represent my pick for best implementation of achievements are on the PS3. This doesn't mean the Xbox 360 games don't have well implemented achievements, it's just that I haven't had the joy of finding such a game.

I'll cite three examples of games where the rewards systems are well implemented.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune

The first doesn't have an achievement system at all. Not based on gamer points, skill points, medals or anything like that. Instead MGS4 rewards you with descriptors of your game play. It also gives you access to new gear, from new camouflage, to infinite ammo, invisibility and the like. This kind of system was popularised more than a decade ago, and is typically represented in the form of 'cheats'. I dislike the cheats implementation in preference for options that can be turned on and off that are hidden, or unavailable until certain conditions are met (such as completing the game).

RnC and Uncharted take a more Xbox like approach with skill points and medals respectively. However, unlike the arbitrary acquisition of points that typically characterise the Xbox methodology, these games offer genuine, tangible rewards for your efforts. Artwork for the game, skins for the avatar that the character plays, way to change the game board (LOVED the flip the universe option in Uncharted). Some of these rewards are gimmicks, sure. I suspect that those rewards I found to be gimmicky, would be cool features for you, and vice versa.

Games where achievements were implemented in an okay way. That is, they offered actual tangible rewards that went beyond arbitrary scores, but these rewards were half-arsed.

Mass Effect
Conan
The Bourne Conspiracy

Mass Effect is the game that inspired the title. Rewards for completing certain elements of the game are basically 'cheats' for the most part, with the occasional extraneous reward such as a gamer pic (very lame gamer pics). They aren't bad rewards, they're just uninspired. Rather like the Mako.

Conan and The Bourne Conspiracy are what I've seen called 'B grade' games. They have the potential for cult status but critical flaws hold them back from being mainstream successes. Conan's rewards come in two forms, artwork for the game that is too easily won, and too little, (particularly considering how well Nihilistic captured the visual vibe of the novels) and 'cheats' that are earned through play. The Bourne Conspiracy has the collectible treasure approach in the form of passports. There are also 'achievements' for it, but they're connection to the rewards is not clear. The payoff is artwork, music, and being able to replay boss battles.

Poorly implemented achievements include the following games;

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Lost Odyssey
Bioshock
Lair
Eternal Sonata
Enchanted Arms

All of these games offer a score that is awarded for completion of certain in game activities. Nothing else. Most of the activities rewarded are activities that you would do regardless. Lair, at least, has a graded award system with feedback on how to improve it. Lost Odyssey and Bioshock go to some effort to vary the rewards offered from plot based ONLY rewards. That is, at least they give awards for activities that are not purely driven by the plot. The activities are fairly typical of play though, so there's no opportunity to engage with the game in new and interesting ways offered by the game designer. Eternal Sonata and Enchanted Arms offer achievements based purely on game completion, the most boring and unnecessary of implementations. After all, if the game is good enough, I will be completing it regardless.

I started this post by saying "Achievements…can be a good thing", but in truth I actually refer to rewards and feedback. Hints to new ways to play the game, and unlockables that modify the game experience are the 'good thing'. Numeric values released for no more than just playing through the game feel cheap and uninspired.

Are gamer scores enough, or do you want more too?

Seriously. No, Seriously.

2008-07-12T06:24:00.005+10:00

Why I hate the Xbox 360's achievements (and PS3's new trophies, presumably).

Aside from a few humorous moments, like those found in the title of this piece, the achievements of the Xbox 360 are an irritation that really gets stuck in my craw.

One reason involves how I engage with a game. For an example, check out the Who am I? post I made earlier. I don't really engage with games in an immersive manner, although I have friends who do. However, I do establish an ongoing dialogue with games that allows for a deep commitment in my participation in them. The basis of this is that should I choose to play a game, then I'm bloody well going to PLAY it. While in front of the display, I am committed to the designer's vision.

Then this stupid plinky plink noise, coupled with a visual cue that varies in placement on the screen, goes and disengages me from my experience and reports that I've done some arbitrary thing within the game that I would have done in any case. This effectively ruins my dialogue with the game and removes me from the moment.

Okay, so I had thought that with time, I would grow inured of this and be able to just partition the distraction from my sensory input. A foolish hope. My next endeavour was to find some way to turn the damnable things off, or down, or minimise them in some way that will spare my consciousness being rudely ripped from the experience for what, exactly? No joy. I could not find anyway to get rid of the fuckers!

Another reason is that apart from their blatant rudeness to my gaming experience, they're largely an arbitrary measure of well not much at all. I say "largely" because there are some achievements embedded within games that have enlightened me to new ways to play the game, by demanding something of me that was NOT demanded of me in the playing of the game. These achievements help to add value to the game, and only really serve to irritate me further as they are the exception rather than the rule. They also highlight possible shortcomings in game design, or possible shortcomings in the player depending on the game, and the player.

Am I to assume that you love your achievements? Or do they grate on you in new and interesting ways?

What's in a 10?

2008-07-10T14:48:00.004+10:00

The recent spate of high scoring AAA titles has me perplexed. I've played a few of them...

GTA IV (98 by metacritic, 79 rated by 'us')
Bioshock (96 by metacritic, 87 by 'us')
Oblivion (94 by metacritic, 87 by 'us')
Mass Effect (91 by metacritic, 87 by 'us')
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (88 by metacritic, 88 by 'us')
Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction (89 by metacritic, 89 by 'us')
MGS4 (94 by metacritic, 91 by 'us')

Yeah, I suppose it's debatable as to whether all the above are in the AAA category, let's just go with critical acclaim for now, okay?

It amuses me that game critics are more generous with their scores than the great unwashed masses. I'd expect the opposite. Fans of the games are naturally inclined toward excessive bias, surely? Games journalists, or whatever they are, are more likely to assess the game in light of such criteria as broad based appeal, or innovation, or even technical specifications. Yet, reading through these reviews, most if not all are biased in some direction or another. Judging by the scores above, one can see that the backlash that all these games and their reviews have experienced is because the games aren't really worthy of the scores given them by games journalists. Except perhaps Uncharted, and RnC.

If one tracks the forums, blogs and gaming sites, it is possible to notice the following trend. AAA game receives massive amount of hype (varies depending on budgets and skills of publishers), anticipation for game grows, critics release previews, then they release reviews, and then the great unwashed gets their hands on the product. Many of the great unwashed agree with the hype engine, but many more, growing as time passes were let down by the industry. Backlash ensues.

This pattern repeats itself time and time again.

How can game critics be so consistently wrong?

Who am I?

2008-07-10T00:49:00.004+10:00

I've never been one to wax lyrical as to my own nature, nor am I interested in listening to the words of others as they describe theirs. It is actions that arouse me. So how do I convey this in this word based medium? Awkwardly, I suppose. In pieces. After all, if you're going to be reading this, you probably should have some idea of who it is that writes.

Bioshock

My early impressions of this Xbox 360 game may help with getting to know me.

Plane crash. Check. Swam to ominous tower. Check. Climbed into humorously named bathysphere and go down. Er…check. Stop at the bottom of down and watch as something gets all violent, and this is where things start to go wrong.

Okay, so I have hands. Good. Going to use them to open door of humorously named elevator thingy and put a stop to the shenanigans. Hmm. Hands won't open door. Fingers wont push on conveniently located button, murder ensued, forced to watch unable to help, to participate. Manic, low level giggling began to echo throughout my brain.

And then the bathysphere door opened. I breathed a sigh of relief. Freedom...

Someone named Atlas was lecturing me on something. I obeyed, still stunned by the recent violence. I have a spanner in my hand, my right hand, and I used it to send someone's brains splattering across the floorboards. The giggling returned.

Look, a handbag! Inside which are cigarettes, candy and cash! A message read "What is this?" as if I didn't know. I am perplexed. My avatar must be a moronic glutton who gets hard for violence. But I can't pick the damn thing up. I wanted to accessorise, yet the handbag refused to be lifted, it taunted my idiocy and my id, but remained heavier than anything even Atlas could lift. A bottle of booze lay discarded nearby. Of course I drunk it, wouldn't you?

Trying to move away from that table, I found that I was stuck. Looking down to uncover what impeded my progress I discovered I had no feet! I was a pair of hands floating through the landscape, hands that get stuck if there are things in the way of my, invisible?, feet. Moving again, I happened upon a masquerade ball, there, at my…er…feet, lay several masques, all beyond my grasp, cryptically unexplained. A little further and another brutal murder about which I can do nothing but watch. And then the introduction ends, and my gamerscore chirpily tells me I've acquired 10 points.

Hmm, so here's what I got from that…

I'm supposed to be playing a mindless moron, who drools for food, cigs, and booze, play dress ups and loves either to watch or participate in extremely brutal acts of violence. A little later, when encountering the first vending machine, after playing the hacking mini-game I spent all of the money I had found on the liquor available therein, getting my avatar thoroughly drunk.

It seemed fitting somehow. And then I switched the game off.

What were your first impressions?

It begins...

2008-07-10T00:46:00.002+10:00

My ignorance knows no bounds.

I'm nervously traversing this space for the first time. In time I hope to master some of the more advanced features of this blog, but until then I guess I'll just shoot shit into the void.

Or some such, heh.