TEM's Biweekly Video Games

[WarpRattler]

An excellent article covering the subject of designing difficulty in games.

Also, I'm going to start buying cheap shirts specifically to wear while I'm gaming so that I'm not tearing up stuff like my Battle of the Planets or God of War: Chains of Olympus shirts.

[TEM]

Exclusivisocity: Causes and Effects

Exclusive: the concept of a video game being particular to only one gaming platform.
This idea is important to the larger concept of a Console War, the war not necessarily being heated competition between two companies, but between the fans quibbling over which video game system is better. The exclusivisocity of a game is an oft used weapon in a console war; credit and greater value is often attributed to a console when it has numerous exclusive game titles, or arguments of superiority may be made over the fact that a specific awesome game is exclusive to their console of choice. Game exclusivisocity goes beyond being a weapon used in console war, but can be used as an advertising point by a game console producing company. This is different from a console war in that it is traditional advertising by a company in a competitive capitalist environment, as opposed to a group of consumers being giant ****ing nerds.

Other Causes
Another progenitor of exclusivisocity is that of technological restraints. The prime example of the current generation of video game consoles is that of the Nintendo Wii. Insanely less powerful than its competitors, the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360, the Wii often does not have games that they do due to its inferior 16-bit processor. Though this fact is a major weapon used by console war participants to define the Wii's overall inferiority, it hasn't hurt Nintendo in the business side of things. Often the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 share titles, but with small differences, usually in graphics (either system seeming to have the graphically superior version of the game at random) or in downloadable content.

Value and Dynamics
Exclusivisocity does not have a universal value. Again the Nintendo Wii often has games that others do not. But frequently this is the case because the game was made for the Wii's weaker processing power and would look ridiculous, or perhaps pointless, on one of its more powerful competitors. The game is exclusive, but does that have the same punch when it's exclusive because it was tailored for a soft milksop of a system? There is also the thickness of a game's exclusive skin to consider. Sometimes a game proves to be a little less exclusive than originally thought and ports to other systems, to the horror, or delight, of those embroiled in console war.

Questions for Asking and Maybe Answering
Is exclusivisocity relevant? In what way? Does a library of exclusive titles factor into contemporary consumers' purchasing decisions, or are other factors such as price and name brand recognition more important? What does exclusivisocity mean to a consumer who owns all the game consoles of the current generation? How valid is it to use a system's library of exclusive game titles as a point to prove the inherent value of said system?

[WarpRattler]

Something to take into account is the fact that exclusive titles don't mean a [darn] thing if they're not worth playing. Ultimately, the quality of a game means more than whether or not it's stuck on a single system.

Going deeper into the business side of exclusivity, in Japan (where Microsoft has always been floundering in the console wars, being non-Japanese), Microsoft has paid developers to make games exclusive to the Xbox 360. This backfired on at least one occasion with the JRPG Tales of Vesperia. Microsoft paid Namco Bandai to put the game on the 360. Namco Bandai essentially used the money to develop a PS3 version of the game, which they then released after the one-year exclusivity contract that came with the money Microsoft gave them ended. The PS3 version (which is Japan-only, and features some new content, including a completely new character) sold something like three times as many copies as the Xbox 360 version.

Going deeper into that, Sony has some policies for games to be released on the PS3.

1. It has to "look" next-gen.
2. It has to have some sort of online capabilities.
3. It has to be something that would shift at least 30,000 copies.

(Disgaea 3 is pretty much the only exception here.)

Their policies for games ported from the 360 (games like Tales of Vesperia, not games released simultaneously) involve the PS3 port having more content. This is part of why you don't really see a lot of games come out on the 360 and PC and then later see a port to the PS3.

These policies, coupled with the fact that Sony's hardware is notoriously difficult to code for (which is why so many games that hit the 360 and the PS3 at the same time look or play worse on one or the other), mean certain genres (namely, shmups and visual novels) are effectively 360-exclusive. Games like DeathSmiles, Senko no Ronde, and The iD@LMASTER are responsible for moving large numbers of units, not only because they're 360-exclusive, but because of developers choosing to region-lock games (and my phrasing here is important; the 360 is not region-locked, but many of its games are) and people importing Japanese consoles as a result. (Fun fact: Microsoft will service Japanese 360s in the US as if they were a US 360, and they'll actually send you back your Japanese 360.)

I was going to say something about exclusivity regarding the DS and PSP, but then I realized that it really doesn't matter, since the PSP has been in second place pretty much forever; releasing a game as a PSP exclusive is basically dooming that game to obscurity and relatively poor sales unless it has the words "Final" and "Fantasy" in the title.

[Lizard Dude]

2. It has to have some sort of online capabilities.

Where are you getting this from? Most of the PS3 mega-exclusives are completely single-player.

(I love this thread.)

[WarpRattler]

As you pointed out to me a while back regarding games that say "Xbox Live" on the package, online capabilities can even just be things like Trophies. Also, Sony's rules don't apply to themselves.

[Lizard Dude]

Bring back this thread! ILTT!

Maybe do a post on release delays in the wake of Gears 3 being delayed by half a year today. :/

[TEM]

See below.

[TEM]

DLC: Digitally Enhancing Your Game Experience. If You Know What I Mean.

When considering the recent trend of straight to your console/PC downloadable content (or "DLC"), two main issues crop up: questionable game content definition and possible implications of unfavorable business strategies at work.

Where Does The Game End?

With a game that has downloadable content how does one determine the boundary of where the game ends? The obvious approach is the say the game is complete as it was on release, the single unit purchase with no other separate transactions attached; anything else is extraneous and not core to the definition of where the game begins and ends. The opposite approach is that the game is not complete until every single piece of "DLC" associated with the game was been completed and added, making it whole. The latter definition can be troubling when considering that a game could potentially have never ending DLC. The game Dante's Inferno features DLC that is boasted as being prequel material. Some games, such as L4D2 and PAIN, even feature free game modes/stages that appear temporarily, coming and going in a short period of time, further complicating the issue.

Where Does The Transaction End?

DLC can be viewed as a way to make people pay extra money for the "whole" game. A major example of this is the game Fallout 3, where the main plot line of the game can be extended by way of an optional DLC pack, called Broken Steel. This DLC costs money and it can be argued that consumers are being asked to pay for an ending they might feel they deserved a right to when they initially bought the game. The concept of planned DLC, DLC that was planned and ready to launch when the original core game did, can strengthen the concept that DLC is an unfair exchange, selling a product piecemeal when the consumer is expecting to get the entire experience for the money they paid.  The other viewpoint would be that DLC is unnecessary to enjoying the "core" game and is a completely optional way to extend your enjoyment of the product by purchasing new game play content related to it. Many consumers greatly enjoy DLC and are eager to purchase additional content such as maps, new game modes, and sometimes plot extensions to their favorite titles.

Questions, questions, questions.

How do you personally define the "wholeness" of a game: core product, all DLC gathered, or something else entirely? How does the idea of "nomadic content" (content that comes and goes) affect your idea of game wholeness? Does the definition of what makes a video game whole matter? Should consumers expect a complete story experience in a plot-oriented game, or is story related DLC fair game? Does the concept of preplanned DLC seem troubling compared to DLC created after the core game is released? Why or why not?

[bobman37]

Hey, you only post like once every 3 months!!!

[WarpRattler]

TEM neglected to mention what I'll refer to as non-downloadable content - that is, locked content that's included on the game disc and unlocked by purchasing it like standard DLC. Along with being a blatant cash-grab, it's also yet another excuse publishers can use to complain about piracy and not release games on PC: when they include non-downloadable content with a game, the instant that game's cracked, the pirates get access to the NDLC regardless of whether or not it's actually been "released" to the public. I see non-downloadable content as a Bad Thing.

Downloadable content, when handled properly, can be an excellent way to extend the length and lifespan of a game - as I've said before, downloadable content should be a modern version of the expansion packs of old. Too bad the major publishers far too often equate that with "let's ship unfinished games and make the peons pay extra for the rest."

An example of good DLC: extra songs for rhythm games. Even when you ship with a hundred songs on the disc, now that consoles support downloading and saving data, there's always plenty of room for more. I'd actually go as far as to say that if you're releasing a rhythm game on a modern, Internet-enabled game system and not planning on offering extra songs as downloadable content, you're just as bad as companies who release incomplete games, and you deserve it when your game crashes and burns in the face of Rock Band.

As far as so-called "nomadic content," as long as it's free, I don't see a problem with it. It's no different from MMOs that offer special holiday areas or events.

If you buy a game the day it comes out and there's paid DLC available when you pop the disc in, that's a Bad Thing too. It's especially heinous if it's story-based - I don't have a problem with story-based DLC if it's a side story or a prequel or something released a few months later, but when they're making you pay extra for something that's actually important to the game you just bought...no.

Something else TEM didn't mention is making part of a game DLC but including a code with new copies of the game to get that DLC free. The basic idea here is to make it so that players who buy used still give the company some money, but I see it as solidifying the idea that video games can be treated as a service rather than a product, which is a Very Bad Thing.

However, in addition to seeing publishers use it to exploit consumers, I also see far too many cases where downloadable content could be offered but isn't. Pangya could definitely have extra courses as DLC, and Valkyria Chronicles II could have extra missions and characters (though I'll note that it does feature bonus content both by way of secret passwords and as bonuses for having certain games' save data on your memory stick). I own loads of games on Steam that could quite easily support DLC, but don't. While in my example the games mentioned are already "complete" games in the sense that when you buy them you're paying for a finished product, there's still room for more content, but it's not being offered. A preferable situation to paying extra for the rest of a game, to be sure, but still not as good as it could be.

One last thing: pricing. Obviously free DLC is the best, but at what point does downloadable content become too expensive to be justifiable? $15? $10? Theoretically companies should offer DLC at a price in line with what their competitors are charging for a similar amount of content - but then again, how well did that $15 Modern Warfare 2 map pack with three maps sell?

[Weegee]

Another frustrating aspect of DLC is that some gamers simply don't have access to it. I live in the capital city of one of the world's most prosperous nations, but my house didn't have access to broadband up until three years ago. "Non-downloadable content", as Warp puts it, is even worse: It's downright despicable to exclude some players from experiencing content to which they've entitled themselves by purchasing the game.

[WarpRattler]

Okay, scratch what I said about Valkyria Chronicles II in my previous post - I just found out a DLC pack with twenty-two missions is available for the excellent price of $5. I'll be buying that as soon as my US account is tied to my PSP again.

However, that opens up a different problem: how do you inform users that DLC is available for games on a system like this one? This mission pack came out on September 28th, almost a month ago (and almost three weeks after I bought the game), and I just found out about it now. I know Sony does a weekly release post for PlayStation Network on the PlayStation Blog, but shouldn't there be a better way to ensure users know about new content?

[WarpRattler]

a rhythm game on a modern, Internet-enabled game system

Bringing this up again because we're getting a patch for DJ Max Portable 3 this week (three months after the game came out) that fixes some bugs and massively buffs the experience-boosting equipment. But there's no DLC, and there hasn't been DLC for any of the PSP DJ Max games. XD XD XD

(Also, Project Diva 2nd has two DLC packs that include some bonus costume stuff for a couple of characters and one song. They cost ¥1000 each. The other two downloadable songs they've added are ¥400 each, and one of those is from the first game. What the hell, Sega?)

(Also also, TEM should do another post. This thread rocks.)

[TEM]

Minecraft: Concentrated Evil that Begs For Apocalypse.

So everyone (no one) has been asking me, "Instructor TEM, how do you feel about Minecraft?" So I purchased the game a few weeks ago and these are my immediate thoughts:

• Ass.
• What the hell is this [dukar]?
• I could have spent that $15 on drugs or something.

I initially hesitated to criticize Minecraft (though I will in a moment), because it is the beta form of the game. It is unfinished, being "tested" by the public, undergoing patches and bug fixes until the game reaches a kind of finished state. However, as time goes by, I can't help but notice that the game has possibly hit its peak of popularity, and has yet to exit this state of critical invulnerability. Some games, such as Team Fortress 2, frequently get updates and bug fixes, but does not use the subtitle of ß. So given its duration of time in the limelight, I feel that it is allowable to criticize the aspects of Minecraft that I feel need some work.

Sweet, Sweet Freedom

Minecraft is a game where you decide the goals. You decide what constitutes a victory, choose what to do, and how to play the game in general. It is definitely the sandiest box I have ever seen in the world of sand box style games. In a related vein, this lack of predetermined goals is matched by a complete lack of instruction. Indeed, such instruction or indication of how to "play" the game would inherently push a player in the direction of completing the tasks being explained, removing the pure, God-Bless-America-Freedom that the game is saturated with.

Sometimes freedom sucks.

This utter lack of instruction or goals in the game can only appeal to the most Asberged, Autismal, Basement-bound people in the player community. The time taken to comprehend the game without any outside resource is quite frankly absurd. The time needed to test and figure out the basics of the game mechanics is ridiculous, learning which items do what and combine together to make this and that. The malicious absence of any kind of training scenario or goals within the core of the game is a mistake. It might be argued that understanding the game takes intelligence. The only thing necessary to understand this game is time and focus, neither of which is a desirable sacrifice for one who wishes to engage in a digital entertainment. Note that while duration may be desirable in a game, having to spend an inordinate amount of time to simply get the game is just bad.

World of Warcraft Syndrome

World of Warcraft and Minecraft are a lot a like in a certain respect. This resemblance is not good, but only furthers the time sink previously established with Minecraft's horrid learning curve. World of Warcraft's gameplay is at its finest when one is max level, and has the finest possible gear one could want for what they are doing with their character. Once this state is reached, what I call, Character Prime, one can engage in PvE and PvP in World of Warcraft at its most strategic and complex. Game mechanic knowledge, decision-making, and even a little skill with the keyboard is at its height when one is playing the game with a Character Prime. However, as dictated by the monthly fee, this process takes a lot of time. Minecraft's second level of awful time-drain occurs in that, even after a player understands how to interact with the game, they must spend an enormous amount of time to get to the point of doing anything remotely interesting. Although Minecraft's potential goals could be as simple as say, surviving, the more obvious approach is to create something in the game world. If one is to achieve anything remotely impressive time must be spent obtaining materials and crafting various objects in order to make things to continue obtaining materials. This is synonymous with leveling, grinding, and raiding in World of Warcraft in an effort to obtain a Character Prime, and similar to a fighting game requiring a player to accomplish singleplayer mode goals to unlock characters in multiplayer. In order to make these impressive buildings, caverns, statues, etc., etc., one must grind this game unmerciful, to get the mats and get craftin'. This style of gameplay, which creates an artificial feeling of "advancement" toward a fictional creation (a Character Prime or materials to create something), which is the REAL point of the game, sucks. A game with a goal is not bad, but when the process of reaching the goal is inherently not fun and constitutes the majority of a repetitive game play experience, the game is crap.

There Is Hope

The graphics and overall idea is interesting, I will admit. The actual gameplay experience is dull and only appeals to homonerds.
A few suggestions that would improve the game:

• Introduce a basic and advanced tutorial mode/presentation.
• Have the game be a level creator for a different mode of play. This level creator mustn't necessitate the WoW Syndrome and allow creators to build at will, generating necessary blocks without restriction.
• Goals should be introduced into this meta-game level creator mode, as well as other level specific variables, such as starting gear and health. The goals introduced should be varied and many, allowing easy creation of simple or large and complicated scenarios. Ex.: Find materials to craft specific type of sword, get to finish of dungeon, slay monster with sword, get amulet.
• The already existing multiplayer servers could be tailored to make very fun, but focused and goal-oriented, created levels, for unique and unending co-op playing experiences. Even goal-specific versus scenarios!

Summary

The game takes too long to learn how to play, the actual gameplay itself is monotonous, but there's great potential for a more FOCUSED type of game, with limitless potential for fan-created content and awesome multiplayer experiences.

[ShadowBrain]

I'm of the mind that the game deliberately relies on a combination of Notch's blog posts and the conglomerate of "other people" and/or savants to disperse indirect tutorials for the game. I mean, if you've bought it, then you have an internet connection, so why not just go to Minepedia? I think it's refreshingly modern, in a way, though I do agree that I could literally never come up with some of the bizarre Crafting combinations without outside aid.