GameTruth

So Seth and I attended the New York Comic Con this past weekend (more on the NYCC here) with our friend Joe and we saw a ton of games.  Prototype, Mad World, Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena, Ghostbusters, The Conduit, Deadly Creatures, GTA: Chinatown Wars, Sonic and the Black Knight, DC Online and others.  Out of these there are several I will own (Chronicles of Riddick and Ghostbuster for sure) but there was not a game I saw that I didn’t immediately notice something I would consider to be a flaw or detractor from the game.   Prototype looked like Spiderman mixed with Assassin’s Creed therefore done before, DC Online looks exactly like City of Heroes also done before, Mad World got boring during a 10 minute demo and The Conduit had flaky controls to say the least.  The thing is I did enjoy demoing these games and many of them will do quite well.

So that brings me to the question that is the title of this post: do I have impossible standards?  It seems the more I get into game design and the more serious I take them the more I seem to sneer as imperfections.  Now I have played and loved terrible games before (Turok: Rage Wars and Rebel Assault II come to mind) but now that I plan to make my living creating games I can’t seem to cut them any slack.  Do other people have this problem?  Is this even an issue?  Should I check my gaming elitism at the door and give these games more than a 10 minute demo?

-Mark

I remember watching Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome when I was around seven years old. I would go back to that captivating film as I got older, and things would always make a little more sense with each viewing. But one aspect of the movie stayed constant within me: Earth was a hopeless place, which wasn’t necessarily fun to watch. I would empathize with Max and the children that saved him for having to live in such bleak conditions. Any semblance of advanced civilization was non-existent. Security, comfort, and the conventions that humans took for granted in everyday life were gone. The innocents of Mad Max had to avoid starvation, worry about the everyday cold leading to death, and maintain mental stability in the face of despair. There were no grocery stores, no doctors, and no leisure activities to bring your family too. In a fascinating way, it was depressing to witness the results of a self-destructive society, especially when it could become a reality someday. But I could still enjoy the film; it wasn’t me walking in Mad Max’s battered leather boots. I was simply watching his struggles from the safety of my couch. Plus, the atmosphere was so well done that it was impossible to not admire the vision of the film’s creators.

Why am I talking about Mad Max on a video game site? Because those same morose feelings that the film gave me as a child came rushing back to me as I left Vault 101 in Bethesda’s Fallout 3. Except this time, I wasn’t passively watching Mel Gibson; I was the hero.

But in this case, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to be. It was a bit too downtrodden for me, almost eerily realistic. Sure, Doom 3 and Silent Hill are scary, but they’re also completely imaginary. Fallout 3 is more terrifying in a way, because history shows we will eventually be our own downfall. And here I was, walking in a virtual wasteland where broken memories of a thriving culture remained as a depressing nightmare of what once was. Cannibalistic humans run wild and food is scarce (and the food you do find is irradiated, a really clever but disturbing game mechanic: Do I fill my HP at the expense of my long-term health? No game has ever made me think twice before hitting that potion button).

Anyway, I bring this up because I find myself in a predicament: I admire everything about Fallout 3. I love the incredible environment art (so depressing, yet somehow so beautiful), the deep dialogue choices that have an effect on the world, and the impressive hybrid RPG/FPS combat system. I will play through the entire game, eventually. Still, I find myself hesitating to pop it in my 360. I want to play it, but on the other hand, I don’t want to experience such a downtrodden atmosphere. Am I the only jerk on earth that has this problem? Have you ever played a game you loved, but were hesitant to continue playing because its atmosphere messed with you on some level?

-gd

There is an article currently up on Destructiod that talks about how many old school game mechanics that have dropped out of style were actually strengths for the Survival/Horror genre.  The article argues that the evolution of gameplay controls and camera movement have led to less interesting games.  Another article in the Guardian refutes these ideas and says that the downfall of Survival/Horror is not upon us.

Personally I have never been a huge fan of Survival/Horror games.  However, it does seem that any game that is scary is being labeled as Survival/Horror.  It was my understanding that the core gameplay in a true survival game was maximizing resources to try and stay alive.  Items, weapons and ammo all need to be conserved as much as possible, forcing the player to do drastic things to continue in the game.  This is not what I felt while playing some of the more recent horror games like Dead Space and Left 4 Dead.  While these games are gory and have scary moments they are basically the slasher film while original Survival/Horror games are more in the vein of psychological thrillers like The Shining.

But again, this is not my specialty.  I am sure that everyone else has more input on this, especially when it comes to what classifies as a Survival/Horror in recent memory.

-Seth

Its been a while since we have sent out a question.  We have had spring breaks and other things going on recently.  Anyway, in the news there is an article about Atari using Steam to distribute games.  I think this is awesome because I believe Steam solves so many PC gaming problems.  The best part about Steam for the industry is the security it provides against piracy.  The other awesome aspect of Steam is that it will allow multiplayer games to have a standard when creating a multiplayer experience through Steam’s matchmaking.

The thing I believe Steam is missing most is a casual portal.  When Steam releases a casual games section I think it could easily rival Popcap and Pogo for the casual audience.  I see Steam becoming the Xbox Live Arcade for the PC, it already has over 15 million users.  I realize that there is already some casual games available but I would like to see free games available to play on Steam that are multiplayer in nature.  Even if it is only a demo and the real version can be purchased.

The question is, will Steam become the dominate form of digital distribution on the PC, therefore making digital distribution viable for indie games?  I totally think that it will.  I think there is going to be a shift in digital distribution with the support of Steam that will allow independent studios to go around big name publishers for PC games and release directly to the audience.

-Seth

Over on Kotaku they have an extremely interesting article about the creation of the story and world in Bioshock. It specifically discusses the creation of the dystopian society based on the the beliefs of the people who would live there. The use of objectivism in the story helps to build a believable feel for a society that would choose to live in underwater isolation.

So the question is how far do designers really need to go to create a believable world? It seems that in Bioshock the entire story was hinged upon creating an beautiful environment that felt alive. It seems that by taking the extra time to think not only about your environment, but the society and the individuals that will inhabit it will obvious help complete your world. I would argue that this could be taken further and should be used by any game that is trying to create believable characters with interesting relationships and complex motivations.

Either way, read that article, it is really awesome.

- Seth

P.S. GDC is this week, so be ready for some really interesting questions.

While I do like to bring current events into the daily questions it is not often that I will directly take a question and post it here. However, I think this question is different because much like politics or religion, much of gaming is based on opinion.  So I am throwing down the gauntlet.

I say that the Nintendo 64 (N64) is the greatest console of all time. The N64 was the first console to have native 4 player support, something that is now standard across all consoles. The N64 was also Nintendo’s first 3D console and the last console to use cartridges. These two points are important because it being the first 3D console lead to some of the greatest games of all time and they were in cartridge form which meant that at the time they had much faster loading times than disc based systems.

When I said GREATEST GAMES OF ALL TIME, I meant it. Namely speaking of 007: Goldeneye and Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of time, these games are incredible.  Along with those two games came several that were brought to 3D for the first time and became games of legend: Starfox 64, Mario 64, and Mario Cart 64 just to name a few. The fact that Nintendo has not rereleased all of these games on the Wii as downloadables is a shame.

Now on to controller design, the N64 controller was good for any hand size and was the first controller to feature “trigger” and “shoulder” buttons. Also it had an expansion slot for memory cards or a rumble pack. I wish todays controllers had expansion slots and I think this feature may return as more and more games push the envelop for unique control schemes.  So it is not that the N64 controller is the greatest ever, but its impact on future controllers is quite visible.

So in conclusion the N64 is the greatest console of all time because it forever changed the path of both hardware (4 player native, 3D, cartridges) and software (Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time, Starfox 64).  Also it came in a wide range of colors of both console and controller.

-Mark

The reason why there have been no questions for over a week is simple, Seth and I bought The Orange Box. First off, I think Portal is a great game, I will get more into the gory details in a game design question but I did really enjoy it. Having said that I think The Orange Box is the best move Valve has ever made.

Lumping a multiplayer game (Team Fortress 2) in with a very well done mod (portal) and the new episodic content and old content of Half Life 2 is awesome. This brings me to the question of the day: where is episodic content going?

I really like the way Valve has done the episodic content for Half Life 2 and I am also a big fan of Steam. On the consoles I think Xbox Live is great. For a long time I have been a proponent of episodic content, having shorter experiences with a lower price more often I think is what games really need. So why hasn’t it spread like wild fire? Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer to that question.

I think as more gamer shift to community tools (like Steam, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, etc, etc) we will see more games goto an episodic format.

-Mark

With the writer’s strike still going on the Golden Globes and a variety of other television programs have been suffering.  Luckily, Microsoft has created the Xbox Live Arcade Awards.  Normally I would find this stupid and a waste of time but I really like what Microsoft is trying to with Xbox Live.  They are creating a true community of developers, which I think will win the current battle for social site for gamers.  I think if Microsoft puts some effort in they could hold the winning social network ticket, as long as they continue to develop tools to allow hobbyists to make games for the Xbox 360 they will be ahead of the pack.

-Seth

The New York Times put out an article about the Electronic Software Association and their lobbying branch, PAC. The article is here. It is interesting that video games are finally joining all other forms of media (theater, film, music, and books) by offering donations to candidates that will not impose negative legislation on the industry. As I have said before, some candidates (like Hillary) have already said they would like the censor gaming. This is all not really interesting as a question, the more interesting part is the Video Game Voter’s Network.

The Video Game Voter’s Network, website here, is an interesting entity. I have been to a few conferences and even though I am not part of the gaming industry yet I have heard rumblings of unionizing. I only bring this up because the Video Game Voter’s Network would kind of work like that. According to the article there are 100,000 members and that is not a bad number and I am sure it will grow with publicity.

So now that I’m about done I will address the question. I do think lobbying is a good idea. Politics will collide with gaming and setting up a united front to battle unconstitutional legislation will be an asset for the industry.

-Mark

When they came with arena PvP for World of Warcraft I knew it would appeal to the very hardcore and that some of the best could even make an ok living off of playing. Then the finals for the first tournament were one Sunday afternoon televised. I watched for a bit and found it interesting. In the game design question about gore filters I also said that my mom actually liked watching someone play the original Turok. Finally, I present an article from the worldwide leader in sports, ESPN here.

The article is reporting on ESPN’s plans to show competitive gaming by televising Major League Gaming competitions. My first reaction is that it might be better than poker, an eating contest, or a spelling bee, but I am not sure if gaming is a spectator sport. Then I read the rest of the article and it seems that ESPN is going a little deeper in to the gaming end of the pool. They are adding gaming segments to their current shows and have planned a new show to talk about hot topics in gaming. This elaborate house of cards again boils down to todays question: is gaming a spectator sport?

I know I am not alone when I say that I have downloaded gameplay videos from YouTube or wherever that show extremely talented gamers push the envelop of their craft. From speed runs of old school games to PvP videos of naked players in WoW, I have been entertained by watching games before. I have also had to sit through people playing Guitar Hero and want to kill myself because looking at little colored circles come down the screen is all watching Guitar Hero amounts to.

Something is lost when a form of media that is defined by its interaction gets that stripped away in the name of entertainment. It is just not as fun. I think ESPN is in somewhat dangerous territory because TV and video games are competing forms of leisure activities as the article points out. The article states that 34% of 12-24 year old males have gaming as their favorite leisure activity and second is 14% with sports or physical activities. That means that below those two activities is watching TV, I bet watching others play games is much lower still.

Overall I think this is only bad news for ESPN as I think it will cost them some cash. This I am sure will be good for the industry all together as it will mean more exposure. I hope it works out but it could backfire and just be a marketing clusterfuck with kids wearing Mountain Dew hats and Nvidia shirts or something. I plan on DVRing some of this but the noob or woot I hear from some news anchor or reporter I am pulling the plug.

-Mark