E3 2014: The Fallout

 

After watching all the presentations at E3 2014 I thought it best to let a few days go by before I gave my thoughts. I hold some small regrets from last year’s E3 over my excitement at Sony managing to win fans over with the PlayStation 4 announcement. I reflected on that one and made a post about it but, in short, it was that Sony was being praised for doing things that should be standard. This is the reason I decided to wait it out for a few days and let myself really sink in this year’s E3. I didn’t want to let my excitement for some company announcing games I like to influence my opinion. Instead I wanted to view the presentations on how they promoted exclusives, the way they used trailers, gameplay demos, etc. and judge them based on the presentations rather than siding with a company that presented games that I like.

E3 2014 was not as exciting as I felt it could have been. I feel that, for an event that is essentially a hype train, it could have done a lot more to impress. Now I’m sure there are fans who were excited about their favorite console or seeing their favorite franchises and such but that’s not what I mean. Those fans will always be pleased when they see their favorite games announced. I was that way when I saw the Mortal Kombat X trailer because I’m a Mortal Kombat fan. That’s not the point I’m trying to make. I won’t go into full detail of their presentations and only touch up on how I felt about each one. Keep in mind these are my personal views and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.

As a disclaimer I’m focusing on exclusives when I mention games revealed and I won’t mention all. I am aware of many games presented but the problem is the vast majority are multiplatform titles and none of those serve to promote a console. You see a trailer for Destiny or Arkham Knight and it doesn’t matter the console you own you’ll still be able to get it. Also, HD Remasters, which were shown, I find problematic. Remastering has become a nickel-and-dime tactic but that’s going to be expected. So I’m avoiding bring those up when I can. So with that here are my opinions of each press release.

MICROSOFT

I found their presentation to be very lackluster and there were no real exclusives that completely amazed me. Sunset Overdrive was a decent exclusive as well though I didn’t find it to be as intriguing as others may have. Open World seems to be a new trend and, though this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it may end up becoming oversaturated. Platinum also announced an exclusive Scalebound which looks to be an interesting concept but since it was a CGI trailer it really didn’t tell what the game was like. It only showed the concept of there always being a bigger enemy.

I will give Microsoft credit, though. They did manage to focus on games and that’s definitely a step forward from last year when they were adamant about pushing the Kinect, hand gesture and talking to your machine, sports and television. Microsoft stepped up from last year but they still had nothing that showed why the Xbox One is the go to system. Forza and Halo are great selling games but they could have pushed something extraordinary and they failed to do that.

SONY

I admit I was expecting a little more with them but they seemed to fall into the same camp as Microsoft; A very dull presentation. This was made even worse by the fact they actually took a page from Microsoft’s E3 2013 presentation and spent a lot of time focusing on television. Sony had a presentation that was almost two hours long and with the television announcements it really made it feel like that. As for exclusives, they did present Uncharted 4 which served for some hype for the PlayStation 4.

My theory on the issue is that Sony walked into E3 2014 a little too confident. The fast sales of the PlayStation 4, I think, really gave them a confidence that is still too early to claim victory. This showed in their presentation and they had very little of interest to talk about. Overall, Sony’s presentation would be just as boring as Microsoft’s but I have to say they were the worst of the two mainly because of their lull in the middle to talk about television.

NINTENDO

Nintendo was smart choosing to go on the day after Sony and Microsoft. This allowed them to have the entire day focused on them. They did not, however, have a full stage press conference like the other two. Instead they focused on a digital event which was a pre-recorded video not unlike Nintendo Direct. Nintendo has been hurting a lot lately with the pathetic sale of the Wii U and how they pretty much ignored it for almost all of 2013. Though, in hindsight, 2013 did help kick up the 3DS sales which, at the time, were hurting drastically as well.

This year they chose to focus almost entirely on the Wii U and it was a wise decision. Nintendo managed a better show than the other two companies by showcasing a ton of exclusives including some new IPs as well as staples including Kirby, Yoshi and The Legend of Zelda. Was it an amazing event? No, it had its lulls too but it did show that Nintendo was actively listening to what fans wanted and willing to give them even a taste of things to come. Having Adult Swim’s Robot Chicken come in and do animations as well didn’t hurt any.

SUMMARY

The three console manufactures had some good things showing but I’ll have to say that this year was the year Nintendo outshone Sony and Microsoft. It wasn’t so much in what games were shown because that’s always going to be up for debate. It was how it was presented and Nintendo managed to bring a show to the audience without requiring the main stage to do it with the exception of the Smash Bros. tournament.

Nintendo went into E3 understanding they weren’t the top dog and so they brought the best of what they could offer even announcing some games in early development which is something Nintendo is not known for. Sony and Microsoft should have done this as well. Microsoft is still struggling to fix its image with the Xbox One and, though they did focus on games, they did not treat their press conference as if their console’s life depended on it. Sony felt a little too proud and they really should have went in swinging hard instead of assuming the would be victorious.

EA & UBISOFT

I should note that it wasn’t just console presentations but some publishers as well. Ubisoft showcased a lot of their upcoming titles including a very depressing trailer for Tom Clancy’s The Division. Their showcase was decent but nothing super special. I’ve not much to say about Ubisoft otherwise. I’m not entirely sure why we even needed an Ubisoft presentation.

One of the worst presentations, in my opinion, was EA. Sure they had the Dragon Age trailer but they showcased three trailers: Mirror’s Edge, Mass Effect, and Star Wars: Battlefront. The problem with these three trailers is that they didn’t show anything of the games. They claimed it was behind the scenes footage. I don’t buy that and find it to be lazy. Behind the scenes footage could have been used as extras for the games themselves rather than trailers. Seeing these trailers did nothing for me and it felt as if EA was showcasing hubris and going on the belief that people will buy these games no matter what they show.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Ultimately, Nintendo had the better showcase and Sony and Microsoft were rather uninteresting. Sony and Microsoft had a lot of titles scheduled for 2015 leaving Holiday 2014 rather empty and this is not a good thing. Nintendo had 2015 titles too but they showed a lot of games that are scheduled for Holiday 2014. It’s ok to showcase future titles but have enough to keep customer interest especially during the holiday shopping season.

That’s my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it is.

My Hatred for Story DLC

 

I have developed a massive hatred for paid story DLC. It’s just a practice that seems really shady to me.

Before the Seventh Generation of consoles you would buy a game. That purchase was the entire game. Complete multiplayer, complete story, complete everything. The internet was just not what it is today so the only real way to continue a story was to release expansion packs. Often, those were complete games too that just required the base game to get up and running.

Such is not the case anymore. There are still a few titles that still toy with expansion packs, largely MMOs, but the majority of titles that exists today deal with DLC. Initially I had no issues with DLC but now it has begun to bother me.

Before the Seventh Generation studios made money off the initial purchase of a game. PC Games didn’t have that restriction so much even with the way the internet was but even they released expansions rather than DLC. It worked well for them and the customer. Video games were required to be complete upon release and this would make money. Even the beginning of Generation Seven started that way but as broadband became more widespread it changed.

Now you have a situation where games are released incomplete in one way or another. Final Fantasy XIII-2 was released with much story content restricted to DLC. That DLC was used to explain situations in the main game that were otherwise confusing or seemed to go nowhere. Mass Effect 2 released story DLC that, though wasn’t directly involved the main story, carried on canonical situations that are part of the entire trilogy’s story. DmC did a similar thing with Vergil’s Downfall DLC.

I could continue on but the point I’m making is that there are many games now that release story DLC and are essentially leaving the main purchase unfinished. Then most of these games are charged a full $60 or more for their purchases. So you pay for the game plus the DLC per release. Some offer a Season Pass or something similarly named that allow you to get the DLC as it comes out without paying separately but even this is still a problem for me. If you want a complete game you end up paying around $80 or more. This is even exacerbated in PAL regions where the price of games are already in the hundreds.

I do not believe you should have to pay $60 for a game with an incomplete story only to be told to get the rest of the story as DLC for $5-$20 a pop. The entire game should be finished. If you do mess up as the case was for Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 3 that story fix should be free as it was for those games.

I've no problem with paid DLC for map packs, costumes, items, etc. Call of Duty releases map packs mostly. None of that bugs me although the prices for the Call of Duty maps is a bit much. A lot of fighting games release costume packs and that's fine too. Though there are issues with fighting game DLC as well which usually involve paid DLC characters.

I do not tolerate nickel & diming tactics and that's all Paid Story DLC is. If it's a game I really want that bad I'll seek it used if that's the case. If you can't be bothered to release a complete product then I can't be bothered to hand over my money to the developer/publisher. I do not sympathize with the "Developers need money to keep making games" ideal when they don’t care too about the customer to give them their money’s worth. I do understand that, in many cases, this is also the publishers fault. In that case it’s just collateral damage then. I apologize to the developer but if the publisher wants to swindle me out of story content then I either will buy it used or not buy it at all. Either way the company doesn’t get money from me.

I am more than willing to let a developer or publisher lose money if they can't bother to release quality, fully finished products. This is not counting for bugs of course unless it's like the issue Skyrim had on the PS3 or Assassin's Creed Liberation on the Vita. If the game is released so unplayable that it requires a patch upon release then it should be pushed back for that system to fix the problem. Not released with a Day One patch to fix it, left broken for months, or just deciding to not fix bugs in favor of DLC. (I’m looking at you Warner Bros.)

So, in conclusion, if I'm going to pay $60 for an unfinished story then I do expect the story DLC to be free to complete my purchase. I don’t buy into the attitude of “It’s such a small price to pay” or “If you can’t afford it rethink your priorities.” You know what? I can afford a $3 gallon of milk but I’ll buy the $2.50 one instead. I can afford the more expensive item but there’s need to waste money like that. It’s not about being able to afford anything. It’s about getting what you pay for. Gamers really need to rethink their position and realize that they are consumers and consumers are the ones who make the decisions not companies and game developers and publishers are no exception.

Parents and the M Rating

 

(Note: ESRB and MPAA ratings are used but there are equivalents in other countries.)

As the Christmas season ends another group of kids will get their hands on multiple games and some will be exposed to M rated games, maybe for the first time. With that, there seems to be an issue that, despite how often it’s brought up, still seems to be a problem. The issue is the M Rating for video games. M means for mature audiences and comes with a major age warning which is age 17 and older. This means that the game may be inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17. This is equivalent to the R rating for movies.

I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here and anyone who has a big interest in gaming will know the argument that M rated games are not for children. However, often times, parents still buy their kids these games. Often with the concept that games are still just kids toys and couldn’t possibly be bad. Then they get surprised and shocked when they find the game has intense violence or nudity.

Grand Theft Auto V is a good example. The game has hardcore depictions of graphic violence, nudity and non-appropriate scenes in it. The game is, naturally, rated M for Mature but parents still purchase this game for their children and some go on to complain about the content.

I don’t know why this idea that M rated games would be considered OK for children. They’re not and never will be. That’s what the rating system is for. It’s there to allow parents to make responsible decisions as to what their children are exposed to. It really should be utilized and the tools are there just for that.

The front of the box will always show the rating. If you flip the box over then there will also be a short description of why the game got that rating which includes important information as to what level of violence, is there any substance abuse, nudity, etc. The tools are there at the box, on the shelf, at the store.

This isn’t the only toll at hand however. There is also the ESRB website which allows you to search any game title. This will allow you to see the rating, a short description and an in-depth description. This can be done from any mobile device or computer and should also be utilized. The website is there so you can make informative decisions as to what children are exposed to.

Now, keep in mind, that I am not saying what a parent should allow their child to watch or play. That’s not, at all, my intention. I’m merely saying that parents should be aware of what their children are exposed to. If you don’t have a problem with them seeing graphic violence or nudity in a  video game that’s your choice. If you do, however, then you really need to research what kind of game your child wants.

The link to the ESRB website can provide valuable information as to what kind of content is in a game and don’t forget that you can view rating and rating information on the box of any game you buy so keep that in mind when purchasing more video games for children.

Link to ESRB’s website http://www.esrb.org

Accepting Criticism

Recently there was an incident involving Youtube personality, Totalbiscuit, and his review of Day One: Garry’s Incident. What happened is that he got a review copy of the game and then gave it a negative review which then prompted developer, Wild Games Studios, to have the video taken off for copyright violation. Later, after much backlash, they sent out an apology and allowed the video to be put back up. Now, Wild Games Studios has claimed that it was due to a monetary issue and not because it was a bad review. That claim itself has been brought into question and there are, no doubt, many people who don’t believe them. In the end they did issue an apology and that is what really matters but this got me thinking about the level of criticism that seems to exist among video games.

There have been a few games that have received massive criticism within the past few years and in both direction but the attitude is rather unfair. It was the issue of Day One: Garry’s Incident that made me think about it. It’s not the first game to have had this issue and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

Now many games get a poor or high rating or somewhere in between but for the most part the reviews are left alone. However there are issues that seem to exist among both developers and the gaming  community as a whole and a big issue is the ability to accept criticism. Many games that gamers believe are perfect tens get overly angry to levels that just aren’t healthy when their beloved game gets a lower rating or a not-so-perfect review.

This attitude between gamers and companies really does need to stop because it really is just one of the reasons that people have such a negative view of the entire gaming culture. We need to accept criticisms and accept that other people will not like the same things we do. If Grand Theft Auto V gets a 9/10, which is still a good score, and you think it deserves a 10/10 then so what? You’re still going to enjoy the game despite someone finding a flaw in it. The same goes for a game like The Last of Us. We all are going to like different games for different reasons and will also dislike games others like. That’s how subjective mediums work.

In the case of a game like Day One: Garry’s Incident, and going on the assumption that it was the negative review that angered Wild Games Studios, then that’s another issue on a similar level. Developers aren’t always going to make games that people will like. That’s just how it goes. Sometimes the publisher will rush the game, sometimes the game will be extremely buggy and sometimes the game just isn’t all that good. One of the risks you deal with in reviews is that the submitted game will get a bad review.

I think developers can do a better job learning from this than fighting back. A good idea is to see why the game got a bad review, see what was wrong with the game that was submitted and then move forward from there. Keep what works, fix what doesn’t and try new ideas to improve upon it. Anyone at an art school can tell you that critique is important and a good way to improve. Video games can learn from this too. Improve on things that work and learn from things that don’t.

I really believe if both sides start taking a more mature standpoint on video game criticism then we can help the medium grow and be further accepted in its own right. I think it’ll work but it takes effort from everyone and nothing happens without effort.

I Believe in the Wii U

It’s been almost a year since the Wii U’s release and it would be a lie to say that it hasn’t had a bad first year. It’s first year run was a gaming desert with only a select few titles released. I remember when the system came out and its dismal sales lead many people to decry that the Wii U was a failure and that Nintendo should stop making consoles and go third party. Things seem to be slowly shifting and according to an article on MCV Wii U; Wii U sales are up.

I was an early adopt of the system and I had to deal with the dry spell myself. There were games that I did enjoy playing but most of them were multi-platform games. I did have a lot of fun with Lego City Undercover and Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate though Monsters Hunter 3 Ultimate was a port of Monster Hunter Tri for the Wii. Regardless of the fun I had with those games it’s hard not to acknowledge for a time that the Wii U was, for lack of a better term, collecting dust.

I didn’t give up, though. This was a system I had bought and I planned (and still plan) to support it. Games like Pikmin 3 and The Wonderful 101 have proven to help the system somewhat but it seems, at least to me, that it was The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD that has helped the system.

I admit I was skeptical that an old game such as The Wind Waker would help the system but it seems like that is what happened. Sales for the month of September were up 200 percent. I’m sure the Wind Waker has helped but I won’t say it’s the sole reason. I have good reason to believe that the $50 price cut on the Wii U Deluxe Set also helped as it, obviously, makes the console cheaper.

Seeing this is nice but I’m not going to just say the Wii U is going to have smooth sailing. It’s got an uphill battle to go and with the upcoming release of the Xbox One and Playstation 4 I see that it’s going to be a little more difficult for the struggling system. However, I have faith that the Wii U will do better as more and more games get released. The install base will grow if the system can produce quality products that people will want and, despite what many Nintendo haters say, there has always been a market for Nintendo IPs. Nintendo will be able to pull the system out of its slump as they’ve even acknowledged it and have began to release a steady stream of quality titles with more coming out for the 2013 holiday season.

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes but, as I’ve said already, I do believe in the Wii U.

Gamer Rant: Teen Jailed for Comment on LoL

 

So before I start here’s the link to the news article.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/texas-teen-makes-violent-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/

Now then, I have to say I’m rather upset at the situation that has gone down and I think it’s gone a little too far when it comes to how secure we want to be. I understand we don’t want to tolerate hate speech or threats and we need to take everyone of them seriously but this is a bit much.

Justin Carter, a 19 year old in the state of Texas was arrested for making a sarcastic comment online while playing League of Legends. Someone decided that the comment was offensive enough to make a phone call to the police.

Now,  I will just say that the kid was doing your typical online banter in an online video game. That’s it! Nothing more but a stupid comment said while playing a game and if anyone has played an online game in the past few years they’d hear so much worse.

The issue here is that instead of just deciding it was not worth pursuing they actually arrested the guy! To make this worse, it also looks like he may get an 8-Year Sentence for it. So he’s in jail and may get a longer sentence all for saying something online that is nowhere near the caliber of what has been said on Xbox Live.

I’m sorry but I have a major problem with this. He just made a sarcastic comment while playing a game. Nothing more. I guess hate speech will not be tolerated at all. It’s just stupid. Normally I would have something more thought out but I just can’t get past the utter stupidity of wanting to arrest a kid for something so trivial.

Perhaps this will set an example to all the people on Xbox Live then. Every racist, sexist, overtly violent comment and message sent over Xbox Live should be treated the same way. Each one of those people is just as guilty. But, alas, that won’t happen.

Look, I’m not about hate speech or threats, I understand the negative impact they have. However, we do have freedom of speech in the United States and that freedom should not be anymore infringed than any of the other amendments. I will defend hate speech largely for that and that only. That doesn’t mean I agree with it but if I’m willing to defend hate speech, despite the fact I don’t like it, you can bet that I’ll defend a sarcastic, joking comment.

We’ve become a society where being offended is not OK and simply walking away from the problem isn’t enough for us. Nowadays we want people arrested for the slightest infraction because we’ve become unable to deal with the problem in any other more appropriate way.

I’ll just be talking in circles here so it’s best not to continue. If you read this spread the word about it and make sure this gets out these because if things like this are allowed to continue then I don’t know what will happen. I fear that we’ll be creating a new witch hunt.

Why the Xbox One Should Fail

Now, I’m sure by this title, many will cry out that I’m being a anti-Xbox and I’m sure I’ll be called a Sony Fanboy or a Nintendo Fanboy over this. However, my reason for why I feel the Xbox One should fail is not because I hate Microsoft or prefer the other consoles. My reasoning is a lot different.

Let’s travel back in time to the 80s. The Nintendo Entertainment System had a few games released for it that required the use of 3D glasses. These were the standard red/cyan glasses that were popular at the time. Games like Rad Racer and 3D World Runner utilized the 3D glasses but for the most part they failed at their job. The 3D didn’t work very well but thankfully the games were playable without the glasses. A simple press of the Select button allowed this.

The Sega Master System also had a 3D glasses peripheral added to it. The peripheral allowed select games such as Maze Hunter 3D, Zaxxon 3D and Missle Defense 3D to be played. The 3D did work fairly well on this system but there was nothing to really hold it up. The peripheral was pretty much dropped to the wayside and you couldn’t play the games without them.

Nintendo would attempt to bring back the 3D gaming experience again in the mid 1990s with the release of the Virtual Boy. A sort of virtual reality, 3D gaming experience. It was a big failure, gave headaches to those who played it and had very mediocre games.

Nintendo finally hit gold with the Nintendo 3DS. This portable console allows the use of 3D gameplay without the need for special glasses. It utilizes a similar mechanic to those holographic cards you can get in hobby shops. Now, it’s important to know that initially even this system was at risk of failure. The 3D effect was, and is, little more than a gimmick. If Nintendo hadn’t come out with some major games to pick up the console it probably would have failed. All games utilize the 3D effect but at a 100% optional level.

It’s safe to say Nintendo eventually landed a success with 3D from a certain point of view. It can be argued that it wasn’t the 3D that was successful but the games. That’s a very valid argument and is pretty much right. The thing is, some games such as Fire Emblem Awakening actually are enjoyable with the 3D effect on. So now it comes down to preference more than just people outright not wanting to use the 3D.

Now I come back to the Xbox One. It wants to do cloud gaming, it wants to do mandatory installs, it wants to utilize online connectivity.

This isn’t about the DRM or the bad stuff that Microsoft wants (and has now rescinded) but about the benefits this stuff has to offer. Sure cloud gaming can be uses as a form of restricting the owner from owning an actual copy but let’s look at it from a more optimistic point of view. Not having physical space tied up can allow for some greater worlds, especially in the persistent world and MMORPG markets.

Getting away without having to use the disc is a great option to speed up load times. Imagine being able to return to a loading speeds on par with instant cartridge loading. That would mean more time gaming and less time waiting.

And online connectivity is good when it comes to patch fixes and updates that can increase a game’s length time. Anyone who has played an MMORPG will know about these. Sometimes they’re bug fixes, sometimes balance issues and sometimes new content.

Now, I already know the bad from all this. I’ve made a past article that mentioned the fear I’ve had over these things. This is to focus on some positivity but with the need for negativity.

With that….

We’re just not ready for it yet. It’s that simple. The infrastructure isn’t there to support cloud gaming like we would want it to. The ability to trust our internet reliability is often nil. I actually get asked to reset the modem multiple times on a daily basis. Worse though is that we cannot trust their servers either. Any kind of crash, DDOS attack, etc. can severely hamper our ability to enjoy the game.

Mandatory installs on a console isn’t there yet either. Sure, you could use installs of some data but not the whole game. Especially with the miniscule size that the Xbox One is coming with in that 500gb hard drive. Such a small hard drive for game installs will become tiresome after a while.

Online connectivity for patches and updates and DLC is at a decent spot right now, largely from how much we’ve learned from it and with the recent Sony update having bricked some consoles even that isn’t entirely stable yet.

This is exactly the reasons the Xbox One needs to fail. It’s exactly why OnLive failed. These failures are good though! You see, by these consoles failing they allow us to learn. We see where they failed and why they failed. Then we take steps to improve upon those to allow for an eventual success.

This is why I feel the Xbox One needs to fail. It can benefit all gaming and technology by learning not only just the technical aspect but the public relations and consumer aspects as well. You could argue that Xbox could have learned from Sony’s PS3 disastrous launch but sometimes we have to beat our head a few times on the same wall before realizing we’re not going to break through.

Let’s hope the future will be so bright.

Ellen Page and The Last of US

 

It has come to my attention that Ellen Page is a bit upset that Naughty Dog had used her likeness to create the character of Ellie in The Last of Us. It should be noted that Naughty Dog did redesign Ellie to look more like her voice actor, Ashley Johnson. However, Ellen Page still feels like she’s been ripped off by having her likeness used.

Now I’m not here to debate whether or not Ellie looks like Ellen Page. That point will always be subjective, though I personally think she does but not 100%. Regardless of this, the issue that I bring up is the people who are using the argument that they look like characters in games (or even TV shows and movies).

Virtually every movie that is out there now often has a disclaimer at the end of the credits that goes something like this.

”All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”

Likeness rights exist for a reason and that’s to protect every single person who exists the right to control the use of their name, image. likeness and any other form that is involved with their person. It’s there to protect from slander and libel as well. It’s also a form of a right to privacy which we in the U.S. seem to hold very dear.

The character disclaimer exists to protect the developers, filmmakers and the like from random people filing lawsuits over likeness rights. This means that Joe Everyman can’t claim that the character used in a work of fiction was deliberately using his likeness for the character.  It doesn’t always work of course and people have sued and, in some cases, have won their cases when they are able to prove that the the work had deliberately used their likeness. For the most part, however, the developers are protected.

Now we come to the Ellen Page’s comments.

It’s easy to accuse her and make claims, whether joking or not, that any one of us looks like a character. There’s a difference though.The difference here is that Ellen Page is not some nobody. She’s a well known actress who has been in many notable roles. Many will notice her as Kitty Pryde in the X-Men films among other famous roles.

Why this is more of an exception than any of us is the fact that it is very hard to believe that Naughty Dog would not have known who she was and that it was all accidental. Sure, there is always a possibility it was accidental but it’s just hard to believe.

The use of her likeness if that is the case is good reason to upset her. Due to her social status it’s, really, now upon Naughty Dog to prove they aren’t if she even takes legal action.

She might have just been voicing her concern or anger but nothing more. She’s within her rights to do whatever and she’s possibly right. That’s all this boils down to. If she sues it’ll be a court case that will surely get coverage on various gaming website publications. If she’s just complaining then that’s all it is and there’s nothing more.

All I’m saying is she’s not deserving of some of the backlash she’s getting over this but that’s just my opinion.

Microsoft and the Anti-DRM reversal

 

If anyone has read the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury they would know that the state of the world, in that story, became the way it did because people wanted it that way. Books became banned basically because people decided that they had no use for them. They embraced a world that was more controlled by the government willfully largely due to technological and mass media control. In short, they lived in an oppressive world because they wanted to.

Now it’s no secret that Microsoft has reversed its decision to implement their 24-Hour Online Check, Region Locking and their Anti-Used Video Game policies.

It’s easy to cheer and be excited that Microsoft did the right thing and it is good news. However, I just don’t feel that this is something they should be cheered for. It’s not a decision that is pro-gamer. It’s a decision that was forced based on pre-order sales and how the competition capitalized on it by not including the DRM features that Microsoft was doing.

Due to their lack of pre-orders and the rate they going to lose money they had to shift focus but there’s one thing that I noticed that I’m sure others have noticed too. They have been pointing out that features such as the “Cloud Gaming” and “Family Sharing” will not be implemented (at least at launch) due to this change.

Now this is what it comes off to me as.

It appears to me that they are using these features to get people to be upset but in a way that they can control. They removed these features so they can get people to be upset and request that they put them in. Then they explain the only way to do so is to make the system always online and then require licensing to ensure authenticate copies are used. They are providing an element to be despised so they can implement their anti-consumer business practice and the sad thing is that it’s working.

I go onto various websites and I read the comment sections and there are people who are complaining or are angry that they’re losing on the family share plan or the benefits of cloud gaming. They blame the amount of people who cried out about the DRM calling them names like whiners and the like. I just can’t understand this thinking.

The Family Sharing plan is a novel idea in that it allows you to share your purchased games with up to ten people. It’s great in that it allows those people to install the games onto their systems and play but it’s still limiting. It’s great if you have a family member away at college because then they can download it though considering how the online connectivity didn’t matter to Microsoft enough when it came down to military personnel it’s still limiting. Whereas, using the disc you can share with virtually unlimited people without requiring downloading or installs. Just plug ‘n play.

By taking away this feature you just prevent a family member from downloading the game you bought but this really only affects family members who are fare away. If they live close by or even in the same home then it’s really not a problem or, at least, it shouldn’t be.

The cloud gaming feature is another feature that is being taken away, again during launch and could be returned, and Microsoft is saying you’ll lose the benefits of the cloud that allow games to play better, use better technology, etc. This one I have a problem with.

My argument is that games should be fun. There is no amount of technology, processing power, graphical power or whatever that can provide this. Ingenious design, creativity and well planned out gameplay will provide the fun. The rest are bells and whistles. Losing the benefit of the cloud should not ever affect the replayability and enjoyment of a video game. There are games today that are fun no matter what and if you look at games like Angry Birds, Animal Crossing or even Tetris you can see that these games utilize fun over power. The cloud cannot and will not ever provide that. A bad game will be a bad game no matter what kind of power it has.

But, as is shown, it seems to be working somewhat. People are upset at losing these features and are stating that they would rather have the DRM on their systems and are willing to put up with that so long as they can have the small features that are provided. To me, the bad far outweighs the good.

Who knows though, maybe the complete 180 will be permanent and then maybe it won’t. Until November rolls around we won’t know if any of this really has an affect on the sales of the Xbox One or not. But it still looks like Microsoft is taking a page right out of Ray Bradbury’s classic.

Women & Box Art

 

So this is fairly old topic that has recently been brought alight again due to the cover of a GameReactor magazine.

This issue features Joel from The Last of Us however the original art here is a bit different.

That’s right! Ellie is in the original art.

Now then. I’m not, at all, saying that there is some sexism involved here and that GameReactor is being malicious in any way, but it does raise some questions. And thinking back to three games this past year with “BioShock Infinite,” “Remember Me” and, the above mentioned, “The Last of Us” it’s interesting to point out that there were issues with getting female characters into video games.

I don’t know what it is but it seems that there is this aversion to using female characters in games that aren’t either damsel in distress or sexualized. This isn’t true for all games but reports have been released stating the hurdles these developers had to go through just to get the female characters on the cover or as a playable character.

The argument for this is that the majority of gamers cannot relate to a female protagonist. There’s also talk that if there are romance options that the male gamer feels weird which I read more as a homophobic feeling despite the fact the in game relationship is a heterosexual one.

That’s where I begin to question things.

First off, let’s get the obvious homophobic one out of the way. If someone is playing a female protagonist and the character forms a heterosexual relationship in the game’s story and the player has issues then the problem is lying solely with the gamer. The gamer who apparently does not have the ability to differentiate fantasy from reality. Seeing a female protagonist fall in love in a game is no different than in a movie. It’s that character’s story not the players.

The argument is then that since the player controls the character they’re as much a part of them and that’s why it feels weird. That’s still not an acceptable thinking approach and I refer anyone to look up Shakespearian plays and will point at all the roles were played by men which include the female characters. So Juliet Capulet was portrayed by a male who had to act out the role with another male. It’s important to separate yourself from the role enough to enjoy the art at hand which, in the game’s case, is the story.

Now the second part: The argument that gamers cannot relate to a female protagonist and that the game won’t sell as well with a female on the cover.

We need to break our mindset that a game won’t sell because male gamers cannot relate to a female protagonist, the mindset that seems to want to prevent female characters from gracing the cover of box art because it’s not as appealing. This is art. Art should stand on its own and be pleasing despite the gender of the protagonist.

A well designed art cover will generate a lot of interest and get people to pick up the box to see if they will be interested in what the game is about. It shouldn’t be reliant on the gender of the character on the cover. That isn’t how art works.

Games are so desperate to be considered an art form and even if they are considered art by legal standards they still hold themselves back on the social standard by doing things like refusing to put female characters on covers and arguing that gamers cannot relate to female characters.

Gamers aren’t idiots. If the game is good, if it tells a good story and it plays well then I can promise that a female protagonist and female cover art will not hurt sales. People do respect quality.

The Last of Us

I try not to write reviews because, really, there are plenty of people who have done that and done it better. This is no attempt to review the game either but to bring up something I kind of find a bit interesting.

Every site and reviewer out there is lauding this game as a masterpiece, citing its superb storyline and well thought-out voice acting along with the message it conveys. I’m not here to argue that. The story is done good, the voice acting is top notch. The message is easy to understand.

No, what I’m here to argue is that this game has a surprising lack of gameplay. It’s something I find a bit troublesome for a game that has such a great storyline. It’s not often talked about but the problem with this game is that it feels like you are walking from cutscene to cutscene. There’s dialog while you are walking that just provides exposition and character development. This is good for story purposes but it’s not good, in my opinion, for gameplay purposes.

Now I’m not saying this game doesn’t have gameplay. It’s there. It’s just not a lot. There’s no boss fights either. In fact this is the issue I have with the game. The gameplay elements (which are either stealth or combat according to preference) are the boss fights. You walk and walk and walk, listening to the characters talk while you push forward on the analog stick then when you get to an ending point before a cutscene you’ll face a small battle.

I’m all for games becoming an artform and in the case of games like The Walking Dead, I can see it being more focused on the story but even I felt the game didn’t deserve Game of the Year status. Adventure games are fun if done right. For the most part The Walking Dead: The Game is. In the case of The Last of Us it looks like it struggles to decide on being either a game or an interactive film. Interactive films are decent and that’s what Adventure Games are. But it’s about striking that balance.

The Last of Us seems to fail at its gameplay mechanic just having you push along for story purposes without any major events happening then giving you a small battle arena to stealth or fight in before repeating the same long trek to the next cutscene.

Now don’t get me wrong! The Last of Us is a great game. I just think many people are ignoring the fact that it’s not giving you much gameplay because they’re taken in by the story. I see no reason it can’t have both.

The State of Gaming and Fear of the Future

 

OK so E3 2013 is behind us now and now is a good time to reflect on it as the excitement and hype has died down. I have to say that I’m worried about the future state of gaming, not because there will be bad games coming out because we all know there will always be good and bad games. I worry because of the restrictions placed on gaming such as DRM, online checkups, etc.

Now I know this is initially sounding like an anti-Xbox rant but I assure you my fear goes beyond that.

But let’s talk Xbox One. A lot of it does start from here. They have a very strict policy coming into this next console generation. They have a strong anti-used game standpoint. They have mandatory installations, online checkups, always on (for the most part) Kinect functionality, required internet service and the like. All of these are obvious anti-consumer practices that favor the corporate entities over the consumers, which is Microsoft’s right to do. So let’s look at a few things on this first and I do warn you that much of what I say may sound like I’m wearing a tin foil hat.

1) No support for trading.
Sure this might just be at launch and may be changed. I can’t predict the future. However there is an argument among people stating that you can still share it with up to 10 people in your home. I have a problem with this. The problem is that previously you could share your game with as many people as you liked. What happens here is a simple strategy that makes people willing to give up their rights. First you announced a major change that will restrict people. This gets them fired up. Then you announced a change of that policy that still restricts people but just not like you initially announced and they welcome it. We see this done often with gasoline prices. They skyrocket a dollar or more for a while upsetting people but then come down a few cents and people think that it’s not so bad now even though the price still jumped up dramatically.

2) Always on Kinect.
I’m sure people will argue saying that you can pause it or turn the system off. Fine, the Kinect may not be intrusive, we don’t know. However, with recent revelations with Microsoft, the NSA and spying, the fact that the Kinect is watching you no doubt has some people worried.

3) Anti-Used Games and Online Checkups.
The Right of First Sale is a strong law that weakens when digital content comes around. It’s being able to skirt around this law that allows DRM to persist in all sorts of mediums among other reasons. This law should exist for games as well as a protection for consumer. That doesn’t mean at all that it can’t still be illegal to copy and pirate. But as criminals are criminals by not obeying the law there’s no stopping them and you don’t really make it that much harder by doing so. Most hackers take it as a challenge. The always online checkups just seem to be a measure of authenticating that you have your legit copy.

Now I know a lot of this is preaching to the choir and you’d be right. What I’ve said about Microsoft and Xbox One has been said before and it’s like beating a dead horse.

So let’s move on to Sony. The beloved savior of video games.

I’m going to go on record here and say this flat out.

The applause Sony got for their consumer views should never have happened.

Now don’t get me wrong. It’s great that Sony is going in a pro-consumer view and it’s great that they will be less restrictive. That’s the problem though. There should never have been a situation like this to begin with that would require something as little as ownership being a major thing.

The DRM started on PC, the Microsoft blew it up and because of it people are cheering the fact that the Playstation 4 will not. This is an issue that it only takes a few people to accept it for it to become worse. Sony is getting tons of praise right now for doing what consoles have been doing for decades. It shouldn’t have come to this. Cheers should not be giving for someone doing what is expected of them. You can give a thank you just not a praise. That’s not to say Sony didn’t warrant it. The argument is because people should never have been pushed to that point to where what they expect is the savior. The real bad part about this is that during the applause and praise given for their standard pro-consumer stance they managed to say that you will need Playstation Plus to play online. A feature, that isn’t a big deal, but is still sneaking in an aside in the hopes no one notices which can be somewhat shady.

My fear now comes in that gaming will become more and more like consoles as they slowly take our consumer rights away. It may not happen and that would be great but I fear that if there is another generation it will be a company with even more restrictions and then a company using what Microsoft is doing now being praised for being less restrictive. And if it keeps going that route we’ll look back and wonder what happened to our consumer rights.,

Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s still a dreadful thought.

Way Too Long of a Hiatus

Well it’s been over a year since I made a post and largely that’s due to the fact that the minute I started this blog things kind of spiraled out of control. So I’m going to try to get back on track with this blog. Hopefully I can get it up and running on a more frequent basis now.

Same-Gender Relationships in Video Games

 

BioWare is well known for this. Lionhead Studios does it as well. You could even do it in “The Sims.” Of course I’m talking about same-gender relationships in video games. The reason this is being brought up is due to the current letter-writing campaign from activists against same-gender relationships.

For those not in the know, EA is under fire right now for including same-gender relationships in their video games. The specific games of note are both BioWare games being “Mass Effect” and their MMORPG “Star Wars: The Old Republic.” One can think back a few years when “Mass Effect” came under fire as an unsavory game, propagated by Fox News, even though you see more skin on over-the-air television. That controversy died down however but now is resurfacing due to same-gender relationships.

BioWare specifically has a long history of same-gender relationships. “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic” introduced the female character Juhani, who was a romance option for the female Jedi. “Mass Effect” has Liara T’soni. “Dragon Age: Origins” had a multitude of same-gender options and its sequel “Dragon Age II” had even more. The “Dragon Age” series is notable for having both male and female options in their games.

Now for my opinion on the matter. I like to think I’m fairly logical and understanding among both religion and politics. For same-gender relationships, I really feel that it should be allowed on a legal side. The government should not put forth any laws that discriminate against same-gender relationships. On the religious side, due to the separation of Church and State, I do believe that it is up to each religious institution to decide if they want to perform same-gender ceremonies or not.

That said, it’s only obvious that these groups often bring up religion as their reasons for wanting these same-gender relationships out of video games. My biggest question to this is why? I mean when you consider it, same-gender relationships are probably the least problematic issue in video games today.

Let’s look at a list of things you can do in video games: Kill, fight, wound, maim, insult, swear and more. It’s a small list of things that bring harm to others. To top it off with games like “Mass Effect” and,especially,“Star Wars: The Old Republic”  you have the option of being on the meaner side of things. In “Star Wars: The Old Republic” you can actually be evil.

Let’s consider this for a moment now. You can become a Dark Side character, perform assassinations in cold blood. In one instance you can kill a child’s father right in front of him, yet same-gender relationships are the problem.

In the “Mass Effect” series you can make decisions that lead people to their deaths. In one instance a poor drugged out alien who thinks it’s invincible can be sent to die instead of being told to get to safety but same gender relationships are the problem.

This is just my view and all but I have a really hard time in believing that these religious groups are righteous or noble in any way since they appear to spread more hatred and intolerance than anything. They don’t seem to have a problem where you can virtually murder people on a whim with  but you can’t have a same-gender relationship.

Another issue on this matter is the fact that this didn’t seem to be as controversial when it was female-female relationships. I could be wrong of course and just didn’t notice it but it appears to me that this issue started when the male-male relationships were introduced. Why is it that even with many of these prejudicial complaints in video games it only seems to really matter when it’s male oriented.

I’m sure the female side is shunned too and I’m not saying they don’t have their problems from these people because they do. I’ve once heard a complaint that why they don’t mind female-female is that no penetration is involved. To me it’s an issue of bias. It’s not about religious teachings. It’s about some personal, homophobic disgust that makes them decide to use religion as the excuse to express homophobic propaganda.

That’s really all I have to say on this matter and, really, there are other games out there that do not involve same-gender relationships. So, for those parents that don’t want their kids exposed to it then it’s your responsibility to make sure they aren’t. Stop trying to make video game companies do your job for you.

The Surprising Similarity Between Sports and Games

 

I’m going to flat out say it. Sports and video games generate very similar experiences.

OK, now that I’ve actually made sure anyone who reads this will be angry with me, let me try and explain.

There is no doubt a difference in sports and games and the fans of each. Often time we think of sports fans as beer drinking, loud mouthed, always playing too rough guys who scream and yell. Often times people think a similar thing of gamers only it’s Mountain Dew drinking, loud mouthed when online, playing games too much and screaming and yelling at their systems. But I’m not here to focus on stereotypes. I’m here to talk about some actual positive effects that both sports and video games offer. They’re actually the same things.

Think of the sports hero. That player that has gone above and beyond. He or she is an example of physical prowess, sportsmanship and excellence. When the sports fan was a kid they idolized them, wanted to be like them, Now consider the gamer, who possibly played pretend as a kid, wanting to be Mario or Sonic or Chris Redfield or many of the other character heroes (the good guys). So they both provide the youth with dreams, sure you can argue that sports are more tangible than games but positive influences are a good thing. You could argue games aren’t as positive as sports are since you can play games like Grand Theft Auto or Hitman. My counter-argument to this are two famous names: O.J, Simpson and Michael Vick. I could easily list of a few more sports stars that are not good role models as well. So, even though both have bad examples of role models, good role models still exist and en masse, fiction or real.

Fantasy is definitely another comparison that both have in common. Easiest to pick out the video game part. Play any video game and you become that character, living in their world. It’s a game of pretend which allows for great creativity and imagination. This is even more proven in games where you create your character from scratch or upload your face to the character. Now, you are that character, you are inside that world. You’re not just assuming another character’s life.

Now for the sports side of this think of all the kids that have played baseball, football or whatever other sport exists. Remember hearing the kids cup their hands over their mouths, make a whispering sound in imitation of a crowd roar. The kids that point their finger like the professional baseball player or mimic Tebow and his prayer motion. They become that player and live in that world of the sports superstar. If you’ve ever done that yourself you know exactly what I’m talking about.

One more thing that both have in common is hope. This is actually a very big one. Hope is what gives anyone the strength to follow their dreams and pursue their goals. If even a glimmer of hope exists it can push a person to move forward and climb that metaphorical mountain. Seeing that underdog team win the championship or that swimmer recover from a life threatening injury to go to win a gold medal. That is exactly the kind of hope playing a video game offers. A feeling of finally conquering the evil demon or dragon. The savior of the galaxy. You are that underdog and that story brings hope just the same way.

So these are three of the examples that show how sports and video games are very similar and deliver similar and positive ideals. Positive influence, healthy fantasy and hope. It’s amazing how often both sides shun the other when they actually have more in common than one would think.

The RPG Paradox

 

What is an RPG? It’s an acronym for a Role-Playing Game (or a Rocket Propelled Grenade but that’s not the one we’re talking about ) but I’m sure everyone knows that. Now, the real question to ask is what makes an RPG? RPGs are games where the player controls a character and takes them on an adventure through a fictional setting. Usually, the character will collect rewards such as treasure, skill points, experience points and more to make them richer and stronger to take on tougher battles as they progress in a story.

So what makes an RPG? Well, first off, and the most important, is character. Without a role to play it kind of makes it hard to Role-Play. Secondly is the sense of adventure, from braving the darkest dungeon in a medieval setting to investigating an evil corporate entity in a modern setting to battling a great galactic evil in a futuristic setting and anywhere in between. Thirdly, is story, which is also important. A Role-Playing Game needs to have a story for it to be engaging enough to take your character on the adventure. Why go adventuring in a game like this if there’s no story to go through?

Now those are the engaging parts of a Role-Playing Game but you still need mechanical parts to it to be one otherwise you have a game of Let’s Pretend. So, the mechanics of an RPG are simple. You need a system for gaining power or strength. Often, this is done via a leveling system but can also be done through other systems such as skill point leveling or perk leveling (a system less numbered oriented and more pick from a skill you want) or even a combination of them.

So this now brings me to the video game RPG. There’s really two distinct genres of RPGs in video games, the WRPG or Western RPG and the JRPG or Japanese RPG. However, I’m not going to discuss which one of these is a real RPG. Instead I’m going to point out how very few video games are RPGs yet most video games are, indeed,  RPGs.

First off, let’s discuss the simple nature of how most video games are RPGs. In this sense all RPGs are interactive fiction. Interactive Fiction is a term commonly associated with text-based adventures and visual novels but really that’s what a lot of video games are. Tomb Raider follows the story of Lara Croft. God of War follows the story of Kratos. Uncharted follows the exploits of Nathan Drake. Castlevania follows the exploits of the Belmont Clan and others as they battle the forces of Dracula. One could go on with a list of games but these are all interactive fiction based on the fact that the stories are fictional and you interact with them. Say what you will but these are definitely examples of what interactive fiction is.

Now what makes them all Role-Playing Games is the fact that you assume the role of the character. You are Lara Croft, you are Kratos, you are Nathan Drake and you are the various characters who do battle with Dracula. You are assuming the role of these characters and going through an adventure which you experience through an engaging story. These are definitely elements that exist in a Role-Playing Game and it makes these type of games Role-Playing Games.

Now, obviously, we don’t consider these games Role-Playing Games. So, what separates these from Role-Playing Games? Well, it seems that what separates them from Role-Playing Games are the mechanics of the game. RPGs seem to have mechanics that involve adding gear to your character such as weapons and armor, a system to pick or distribute skills and a leveling system that shows your character progress. There’s also the fact that in RPGs you create your character which are major factors in RPGs.

Now with that said, let’s discuss the part no one really wants to hear and that’s how very few games, especially those claiming to be RPGs, are actually RPGs. For this part I will use the two major RPG developers: Bethesda and BioWare.

BioWare is well known for their video games such as “Baldur’s Gate,” “Neverwinter Nights,” “Dragon Age,” and “Mass Effect”. Bethesda is well known for their “The Elder Scrolls” series and more recently “Fallout 3.”  It would be easy to classify these all as RPGs but in truth only a handful of these are.

“Baldur’s Gate,” “Neverwinter Nights,” and “Dragon Age; Origins” are RPGs. You develop a system where you create your character, level them up, add skills and go on an adventure. However, the entire “Mass Effect” series and “Dragon Age II” are not RPGs. They’re interactive fiction, no doubt, and the do tell a great story. But they lack some major elements.

So why are these not RPGs? One critical element is the ability to create your character. Sure you can decide how Hawke or Shepard look and even what gender they are but regardless of that you are Hawke and Shepard. You will always be Hawke. You will always be Shepard. Being able to create the first name, though an element of RPGs, doesn’t really make it an RPG.

Gear is another factor and where “Mass Effect” actually did allow gear changing, that little feature was left out of “Mass Effect 2” and “Mass Effect 3” which takes out the customization feature of that series. The inability to customize your inventory is a factor that makes the “Mass Effect” sequels less of an RPG. This doesn’t exist as much in Dragon Age II as you can still customize your gear to a point.

Skills and leveling are factors that make up an RPG as far as mechanics go. The “Mass Effect” series and the “Dragon Age” series both allow for these. But the issue again lies in how severely limited the sequels are from the originals. Taking just the Soldier class from “Mass Effect” skilling up with that class is really nothing more than adding different types of weapons to your arsenal, from grenades to bullet types.

Now, none of these makes these games bad in any way. BioWare is definitely genious at telling stories and their games prove this. The “Mass Effect” series and the “Dragon Age” series are fairly epic and tell wonderful stories. You don’t need to be an RPG to do this.

Story is a key factor and this is where I will bring up Bethesda games. “The Elder Scrolls” series is definitely a series that is closest to what an RPG is. It has many of the mechanics that make up an RPG from a leveling system to an in-depth skill system to the creation of character. It’s story is fairly generic as far as story goes but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You still embark on an epic adventure from facing the realm of Oblivion to fighting evil dragons hell bent on the destruction of Skyrim.

The thing with Skyrim is that, even though there is a main story, the intent of the game is to let you exist in a virtual world, take on the role of a hero or villain, and exist in the land of Tamriel. It’s true to many aspects of Role-Playing and is very close to being a virtual Dungeons & Dragons. You can pick your character’s race, give them a name, and then level them in a way you’re happy with.

We tend to classify many video games as RPGs or not based on the rules set forth by tabletop gaming since these tabletop games were some of the earliest examples of RPGs. But now that can include just about every game and also just very few of these games. Call of Duty has a leveling system now. Many sports game allows you to create and name your character and add stats to them.

Setting is not a factor though we often assume a medieval fantasy setting is an RPG but EA’s “The Lord of the Rings” games based on the films are not RPGs. “Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines” is an RPG set in modern-day Los Angeles. So the setting doesn’t matter.

So this is why I present this as The RPG Paradox. Many games are RPGs and yet they are not RPGs. They are all fun to play regardless of what game style they can be classified as. In the end that’s what really matters though. It’s all about enjoyment.

Hello everyone!

 

Hello to everyone and welcome to my blog. This is my simple blog where I talk about various aspects of the video game industry and community as I see them. It is not a review site, an insider site or a how to of the game industry. It is simply an opinion site based solely on how I view the industry and community and the actions, attitudes, designs and ideas. With that said, do not expect everything I say to be held as fact. Again, this is simply done for me to express my own opinions on video games.

I welcome responses and arguments to any of my opinions as I am sure many will disagree with what I say. However, I do politely ask that you refrain from being insulting or rude. I am more inclined to engage in a discussion on a topic if it is presented to me in an appropriate manner.

Thank you for your understanding and I hope that we can have an engaging discussion on the topics to follow.