TEM's Biweekly Video Games

[TEM]

Every other week I'll post about a video game. There's no restrictions to what game I might talk about, whether it be the week it's released or the genre the game falls into, which means my thread is the best of the video game thing threads!

Week 1: Introduction to Video Games.

Week 2: Killing Demons

Week 3: GOD OF WARAN

Week 4: Fun-size

Week 5: The Difficulty with Difficulty

Week 6: Defining Exclusivisocity

Week 7: The Downloadening

Week 8: MineCrap

Week 9: I'm Gonna Rip Out Your Eye And **** On Your Brain You Alien Dirtbag

Week 10: Skill Mastery

Introduction to Video Games and Critical Approaches 101 Section 003

This week I'll be discussing video games in general, instead of being all restrictive and only talking about one video game (like SOME people).

What is a video game? A miserable pile of cheat codes? NO THERE'S MORE TO IT.

Video games are artifacts created at first as curious novelties. Most people would be surprised to know that video games are only half a century younger than movies, give or take a few decades depending on when you want to set the mark of FIRST VIDEO GAME EVER. For the past few decades video games have become mainstream and are the prime artifact experiences of many millions of people's lives in the same way some people love books or movies. Just like movies video games were thought of as cool weird things, then they were pure entertainment, and now people are thinking that they are art sometimes. They are an amalgamation of music, photography, and film arts combined and infused with interactivity, giving people even further engagement into a thing. Though, much like movies, sound is secondary and not intrinsic to the definition of what a video game is. So back to the question:

WHAT IS A VIDEO GAME?

There's a screen you look at and you use some kind of interaction tool to influence and change what the screen is displaying, also it has to be electronic or digital some how. There is a goal in mind and your interactions affects the achievement or failure of the goal.

So now that you guys know all about video games, two weeks from now I'll talk about a video game or maybe a genre, who knows.

Attached Color Plate (wk 1): An art made by Instructor TEM that has to do with video games.
Attached Color Plate (wk 2): Demon That Has Been Handled by TEM
Attached Color Plate (wk 3): A picture of a God of War II poster.
Attached Color Plate (wk 4): Bullet Candy on Steam, an example of VG Candy.
Attached Color Plate (wk 5): Choosing a difficulty option in Left 4 Dead.
Attached Color Plate (wk 6): Super Mario World, formerly exclusive to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. See Week 6 Post.
Attached Color Plate (wk 7): A news bit about Halo: Reach's upcoming map pack. See Week 7 Post.
Attached Color Plate (wk 8): My feelings after ten minutes of play. See Week 8 Post.
Attached Color Plate (wk 9): A friendly reminder See Week 9 Post.

[WarpRattler]

being all restrictive and only talking about one video game (like SOME people)

Yeah, Glorb, get with the program.

[Glorb]

I forgot I even still had that thread.

[TEM]

Demons and Why They Have to Be Killed

Demons and/or creatures from Hell are a recurring theme in video games. Why?

Because stuff from Hell or a comparable dimension of bad things are the ultimate realization of things that need to be killed. So?

Humans want to kill stuff and hurt things in various ways some times. Video games can satisfy that need by allowing you to attack stuff, and the best video games let you attack hell demons. This is a fact.

Examples of games with demons or otherwise hellish creatures:

DOOM, you play as a man on Mars with guns and you shoot demon-type creatures from a portal which probably connects to a Hell-like atmosphere.
Quake, you play as something that has sweet guns and you blow away evil dark things in different evil dark environments
Demon's Souls, you play as a person who slays demons and takes their souls.
God of War, you play as a dude who kills countless minions that crawl up from the depths of Hades.

All of these games are good games. The reason for this is that you slay various kinds of demonic creatures. But WHY is it so satisfying to kill these demons?

Demons are the ultimate representation of things it is okay to shoot in the face or slice in half.

Society will tell you that it's okay to shoot certain things and not okay to shoot others. Demons are on the top of the list of things it's okay to shoot. Other things that are near the top of this list (but below demons) are: zombies, Nazis, hostile extraterrestrials, and exploding barrels.

In summation: Go forth, and feel guiltless as you massacre the unholy wrath-bringers of hell, slayer of demons!

[WarpRattler]

All of those are awesome games, but you forgot Torchlight, in which you can shoot demons in the face and slice them in half at the same time.

[BriGuy92]

You also forgot Painkiller, in which you shoot the blade with which you slice demons in half into said demons' faces.

[SolidShroom]

You homos, he wasn't trying to give a comprehensive list of examples. He just wanted to explain why demons are a frequently used form for video game enemies, and he was successful.

[Lizard Dude]

TEM you forgot Diablo, where you kill the actual devil.

[TEM]

God of War: The Game

God of War is a game where you are Kratos, an anti-hero styled after Greek mythological half-god figures. Kratos does battle with various beasts such as minotaurs, harpies, and the gods themselves.

Combat
It's cool and like a beautiful flowing ballet. It's like poetry with chains and blades on the ends of the chains. The various combos and moves add great variety and new lines to the poetry. The different combos have strategic value as well, this game is not a mindless hack and slash. As you play the game on higher levels of difficulty, the importance of strategic attacking, dodging, and blocking becomes more apparent. The quick button pressing events for special finishing moves are satisfying to pull off and awesome to watch when successfully performed.

Story
The game is epic, there aren't tons of plot turns or surprises, but it is a solid narrative. The story is inherently epic, and though it doesn't follow mythology precisely, it uses various characters, monsters, and locations effectively. The music is very well done as well.

Other Gameplay
Anyone that likes plaforman and puzzlan will love God of War. A giant chunk of the first game takes place in what is essentially a giant puzzle. As far as platforming is concerned, quick reactions and precision handling comes into play many times, a certain column of blades still haunts my dreams.

Conclusions and Thoughts
When I first played this game I hated it. Lizard Dude purchased it for me, and when I played it at first I thought it was a completely stupid violence fest. I came back to the game a second time, then 2 months later, I had purchased God of War II and they are now two of my favorite games. If you haven't played these games before, definitely grab the GoW Collection.

(DISCLAIMER: I haven't played Chains of Olympus, the PSP God of War game.)

[Lizard Dude]

Oh, I'd say there are several great plot turns and surprises, a few of which blow your mind and one that makes you lol.

God of War is definitely in the highest echelon of all gamingdom. It is the nearly perfect action game in all aspects. If you haven't played them, your gaming experiences are sorely incomplete.

[Lizard Dude]

Hey! Where's the updates? I loved this wacky thread.

[TEM]

Delicious Game Candy

Irresistible bite-sized bits of electronic fun; this is what describes "video game candy". Cheap, small, quick, fun, and usually acquired by digital means. The specific  limits of what defines video game candy can vary.

The game that can challenge one's notion of where candy ends and normal game begins is Portal. Normally retailing $19.99, this game is about two hours long for the first time player. Portal's length seems correct, but the normal price is a little higher than the normal bit of candy, myself feeling that 10 dollars is the limit. But when the game goes on sale, for perhaps 5 dollars, does it rightfully transform into the vg candy that it is? Another aspect that brings Portal at odds with its potential candy status is its high quality. While normally vg candy is fun, it usually isn't ground-breaking or brilliant, both of which are qualities Portal can be said to have.

Other less troubling examples of vg candy can be found on XBLA or Steam; they are everywhere like in candy shops.

The best source for vg candy, however, is the unknowable amount of freeware titles out on the internet. Free (or requiring a donation) bite-sized games are all over the internet, though to differentiate from flash games, you usually have to download them (and obviously aren't run with flash players). My favorite example of high quality, free vg candy is GRAVITY BONE.

The ultimate questions regarding vg candy is that of definition and allowance of variation. Where are the lines drawn: file size, price, game-play length, a combination of qualifications? And variation, is it to be allowed? If a short game goes on sale during a period of time, is it vg candy during that time? If an old game is now short in comparison to current games, and cheap, has it become vg candy?

Whatever your idea of vg candy might be, just be sure to do one thing. Once in a while, put down the 10 hour long action game, the 80 hour long RPG, spend 5 bucks, and enjoy a fun-sized bite of video game delight.

[Weegee]

this game is about two hours long

Pfft.

[Lizard Dude]

for the first time player.

As further WTD, you probably haven't even played it yourself.

[CrossEyed7]

They're more savory than sweet, but Judith, Pathways, and Don't Look Back are pretty nice candies if you're into that kind of artsy stuff.

[Lizard Dude]

Here are some of my favorites:

Psychosomnium

Passage

Gravitation

Seven Minutes

The Graveyard

ROM CHECK FAIL

You Have To Burn The Rope

Hoshi Saga

Cursor*10

Music Catch

fruit mystery

Shift

Night of the Cephalopods

:the game:

Space Phallus

When The Bomb Goes Off

Today I Die

Fathom

Ergon/Logos

Steamshovel Harry

Every day the same dream

The ones TEM and CE7 linked are excellent too.

[Turtlekid1]

What about Fancy Pants Adventures?

[CrossEyed7]

Oh yeah, forgot about Passage and The Graveyard. Both good. And Burn the Rope, of course. Another one I forgot is (I Fell In Love With The) Majesty Of Colors. And here's a little thing I made that might qualify.

[Weegee]

As further WTD, you probably haven't even played it yourself.

Is it really such a crime to take a quote of of context to justify posting an unnecessary video?

:the game:

I can recall having played that about a year ago. Hilarious, although its gameplay experience is only slightly deeper than this.

[WarpRattler]

Space Phallus

Bullet Candy Perfect and Irukandji, also by Charlie, are great as well.

Genetos, Chains, and x.x's games are also pretty good.

[Lizard Dude]

Oh man, how could I forget the wonderful:

La La Land 1-5 (especially the BRILLIANT La La Land 5)

Life is a Race (Passage parody)

Mondo Medicals

Randy Balma Municipal Abortionist

Rara Racer

<a href="http://doomlaser.com/downloads/[dukar]game.zip">[dukar]Game[/url]

<a href="http://www.kongregate.com/games/Rete/dont-[dukar]-your-pants">Don't [dukar] Your Pants[/url]

Glum Buster

Eversion

The Gutter (The Graveyard parody)

Home

[Lizard Dude]

Bullet Candy Perfect and Irukandji, also by Charlie, are great as well.

Maybe, but I'm only in it for the penes.

[WarpRattler]

Perhaps you should play more H-games, then. Not that most of those would count as "video game candy," considering their length.

[Lizard Dude]

WeeGee, don't do it!

[Turtlekid1]

"Penes"?  "Candy"?  "Length"?  Weegee's gonna have a field day with this one.

EDIT: LD beat me to it.

[Lizard Dude]

Well thanks for still posting and ruining mine too.

[Weegee]

I don't know where to start!

Anyway, since this thread has apparently become the place to share one's favourite flash games, Toss the Turtle provides an immature diversion when necessary. Adults and those disapproving of no-fail games need not click.

[CrossEyed7]

I approve of the usage of the correct pluralization (which, interestingly, is not picked up by the censor).

[Lizard Dude]

Most of the stuff I linked is not Flash. It's also interesting, unlike Toss the Turtle, which is just another one of the 2459085 launch the animal/person/object games. Also it stole Castle Crashers's music, which is not cool.

[Weegee]

Somebody woke up on the beligerent side of the cage this morning.

[Lizard Dude]

Seriously, we've been doing that same [dukar] for over half a decade. Except better.

[WarpRattler]

Thanks for reminding me how awesome CashCrazed and Watoad were. Jerk.

Also, I played the game again, and stopped just half a meter shy of Insane Steve's score on my single attempt. Not horrible.

[Lizard Dude]

The cutest part of looking over that thread was where I uploaded the intro vid to CROSS†CHANNEL because YouTube wasn't invented yet.

[WarpRattler]

Speaking of which, apparently an English translation patch for CROSS†CHANNEL was released back in August.

I forgot about Ball Explosion AWESOME. Its creator hangs out in #tmk, by the way.

Sort of surprised that no one mentioned Seiklus, Eternal Daughter, or Spelunky.

[TEM]

Difficulty: Turn It Up To Eleven or Slow Your Roll?

Video games with difficulty settings offer staggered levels of challenge for the player. Let's examine two reasons why this reoccurring video game staple exists and discuss what it can offer.

There are two main reasons for difficulty scaling in video games: Game Conforming to Player and Player Conforming to Game.

Game Conforming to Player

People have different amounts of skill at certain video games and the first reason to include and use a difficulty scaling option in a video game is for the player to adjust the game to them. Now this not only refers to lesser skilled players lowering the difficulty of any video game for the purpose of increased enjoyment (or for truly struggling players, simply making the game playable); but it also refers to players with greater skill increasing a difficulty setting to more suit their abilities, the purpose being to make the game enjoyable if it is initially too easy.

An obvious problem occurs when a game is too difficult for a player on its easiest difficulty option and too easy for a player on its hardest. Both situations offer two potential conclusions. The unskilled player can challenge themselves to becoming better at the game. The skilled player can submit to the boredom. The option open to both situations is to of course abandon the game all together.

Player Conforming to Game

The second reason for having a difficulty scaling option is similar to the unskilled player forcing themselves to adapt to the game, except this player can master a given difficulty setting but wishes to force themselves to be able to master a higher level of difficulty. At its root this reason exists by a player's desire to meet a challenge, to forge themselves in its heat, and overcome. This contrasts drastically with the root cause of the former reason, which is that of enjoyment gained from the game by first tailoring the game to oneself.


Resulting Questions: Is there a preferable option? Should games be enjoyed regardless of the means, or is it only admirable to truly challenge yourself to the extreme? Does beating a game constitute a victory, or does it only truly count as domination when the game is overcome at its highest difficulty setting? Does victory or overcoming challenges reign supreme or should only personal enjoyment of the video game matter?

[bobman37]

I approve of difficulty scaling options.

I always play through a game on Normal mode first, so I can enjoy the game without getting too frustrated and without just blasting through it. Then I play on harder difficulties, normally to unlock things in the game and for bragging rights. I never play on Easy except in extreme cases, none of which come to mind.

I don't believe in changing difficulties mid-game. You should finish the game at the same difficulty when you started.

Having a game's easiest setting be too hard is infinitely better than the hardest setting being too easy, because eventually the hard difficulty will make you better at the game and you'll be able to beat those difficult levels, which gives you a high sense of accomplishment. Plus, super easy games are super boring.

I think personal enjoyment of the game is what matters most. And for some people, that personal enjoyment comes from beating the game on the hardest difficulty. I think you can beat a game on an average difficulty and still say you beat it, but no one will be very impressed. If you beat the game on the hardest setting, you can say "I beat this game on the hardest setting!" which still signifies your completing the game, but also garners respect from fellow gamers.

[Turtlekid1]

Is there a preferable option?

I'm not sure about this one.  I can't really say that I've ever enjoyed a game more or less than any other due to its having several different difficulty levels.  That said, another option is to give the player rehashed versions of specific missions with extra restrictions, such as in Super Mario Galaxy or Kingdom Hearts; 358/2 Days (which actually had three different difficulty settings in addition to that).

Should games be enjoyed regardless of the means, or is it only admirable to truly challenge yourself to the extreme?

I may not be a relativist as a general rule, but I do believe that as long as you enjoy a game, there's no wrong way to play it; this includes cheats, self-imposed restrictions, and the like.  However, I also believe that unless you try the game first without cheats or self-imposed restrictions, you might be depriving yourself of some of the fun.

Does beating a game constitute a victory, or does it only truly count as domination when the game is overcome at its highest difficulty setting?

That would depend on whether you actually plan on 100%ing the game, or whether you define "beating" a game as getting 100% completion.  In most cases, I don't consider a game really beaten unless I 100% it.

Does victory or overcoming challenges reign supreme or should only personal enjoyment of the video game matter?

The latter.  But most people can find some amount of enjoyment from overcoming challenges anyway.

[TEM]

Is there a preferable option?

This is referring to Game Conforming to Player vs. Player Conforming to Game.

[Turtlekid1]

Then no, neither option is necessarily better.

[WarpRattler]

This is a very interesting topic, and one that relates largely to my favorite genre.

I wouldn't be the first to say that shmups are ****ing hard. They are intense, brutal, and oftentimes utterly unforgiving, largely due to the nature of arcade games in general. And most arcade shmups of the eighties and nineties didn't have difficulty settings available to the player, though many home ports and console shmups did have the option. For arcade games, the difficulty of a game was solely in the hands of the arcade operator, and players either dealt with it or didn't play the games (or bought home versions, if those included difficulty settings). And players got to be too good at the games and started stretching their quarter out to the point that it made games unprofitable, so companies made new ones that were harder. And harder. And this absurd difficulty is what turns a lot of people away from shmups in particular.

But look at shmups nowadays. It's not uncommon for shmups, whether in arcades or at home, to offer a few difficulty options at the start. Some games go further, with the DeathSmiles games letting you pick your difficulty for each level (though you have to play each level on the hardest difficulty and on one credit to be able to go to the final stage). There's also stuff like the Touhou series, in which almost every game offers four distinct difficulty settings, and games like Space Invaders Extreme 2 and to a lesser extent Ikaruga, which offer "beginner" modes that give the player infinite lives (though in Ikaruga, this only applies to the first stage, and the whole game in this mode is only two stages long, and in Space Invaders Extreme 2, a player cannot choose their route or save a score if they play on beginner difficulty).

And with shmups in particular, I think giving the player a choice regarding difficulty is a good thing, because it means the genre isn't dying even as the games continue to get harder and harder. It means one player can play through a novice Ultra run on Mushihime-sama Futari and have plenty of fun, while another can play through a regular Ultra run and have just as much fun, if not more (if it's the sort of player who derives fun from overcoming challenges). It means the genre isn't being "dumbed down for the casuals" (an accusation thrown at many games in other, more popular genres).

As for the matter of "beating" a shmup, I tend to agree with most of my peers on the subject: when you have cleared the game on one credit at the default settings, you can say you have beaten the game. This isn't as simple as it might sound - for games such as Gradius, clearing the first "loop" would count as a clear, while for games such as DoDonPachi, defeating the true last boss is a clear (though some players will still say they've beaten a multi-loop-and-TLB game if they cleared the first loop on one credit, regardless of whether or not they met the requirements to enter the second loop). And "default settings" might vary as well, as with Battle Garegga, where "default settings" involve setting the region of the arcade version to Japan (the different regions have different starting rank and scores for extends), or the aforementioned Touhou games, where opinion is split between "Normal counts," "only Lunatic counts," "just make sure to note what difficulty you cleared it on when you're talking about it," and "Touhou sucks."


Now for everything else.

All games where difficulty is applicable should have difficulty settings. However, games with difficulty settings should also offer greater incentives for playing on higher difficulties, as in some of the shmup examples above. Another example would be The World Ends With You, where conducting battles on higher difficulties yields greater rewards; The World Ends With You also allows for more customization of the game's difficulty than pretty much any other game I've ever played.

Sometimes adjustable difficulty in-game works, if it's done in such a way that it makes the game accessible to more players without making it easy for everyone. That said, I agree with bobman that you should finish at the same difficulty where you started, unless you're increasing the difficulty because the game is too easy.

I also agree with everything bobman said regarding games that are too hard on their easiest difficulty being preferable to games that are too easy on their hardest difficulty, except for the part about super-easy games being super boring. Sometimes you play a game for the experience rather than the challenge; this is especially true today, since we now have all manner of "art" games.

I try to enjoy games where difficulty is a factor by way of optimization. Speed-running a Metroid game, earning the highest score I possibly can in Space Invaders Extreme 2 - these are things I enjoy. This isn't to say I don't enjoy games where difficulty isn't actually a factor the same way; for example, I try to clear JRPGs with the least amount of grinding possible, as opposed to just grinding and making the final battle end quickly. In most cases, the former is quicker.

Unlike Turtlekid, I absolutely refuse to use cheats, to the extent that I won't apply an Action Replay code to Yu-Gi-Oh! World Championship 2010: Reverse of Arcadia to give me every card even if it would unarguably increase my enjoyment of the game by allowing me to build any sort of deck I want. I'll instead earn more cards through playing the game or entering codes from the physical game cards to unlock them for purchase in the game, as was intended. However, I won't hesitate to abuse glitches in a game, such as the bug in Shao-Lin's Road that allows you to earn 1500 points from a single normal enemy. If a programming oversight in a game allows me to enjoy said game more or perform better, of course I'm going to take advantage of that.

[Turtlekid1]

I forgot to mention that I hate it when the player is made to unlock the higher/highest difficulty level.  I'm the sort of guy who wants to start on the highest difficulty level there is.  I want to be used to the brutality from the get-go, instead of playing through on an easier difficulty to unlock the next one up, and then getting thrashed when I try it.  I don't want to know any different, so I can form strategies and gameplay styles based only on the hardest setting, instead of breaking old habits and unlearning tactics that only worked on easier ones.

[Weegee]

I generally start a given game on its lowest difficulty setting, beat it, crank it up to "normal" mode, deem that too hard and stay on Easy Mode forever instead.

[Lizard Dude]

Wow. Then I guess much like you will never experience the joy of sex, you will also never experience the joy of fiero, the surging elation at defeating a challenge that has thwarted you for hours of intense gaming, the primal scream as you leap to your feet and throw your head back, ripping your shirt in twain to reveal your chest, glistening from all your hard-earned cold sweat.

There's nothing like it, that most precious of emotions. And that is why difficult games are important.

[Turtlekid1]

Yeah, Weegee.  You'll know what he's talking about the day you're forced to put your own socks on in the morning.

[Chupperson Weird]

I am all in favor of games being hard and me figuring out how to best them. There are few feelings like knowing that finally, after all that patience, as your heart pounds in anticipation, after all those attempts, that boss is finally going down.

[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.

[Turtlekid1]

Have you watched Yahtzee's review of this game?  I think you could benefit from it.

If you can't be bothered to watch it, the main thing that I would ask you to take from it is his point that creating things in Minecraft is satisfying because it takes so long to learn the game and gather the materials.  Perhaps this is ironic coming from me, considering my hatred of grinding, but Minecraft is different.  Partly because the game is in real time, and thus demands more of your mental energy than pressing a button every turn, but mostly because it's not all that repetitive.  "Long" does not necessarily mean "tedious."

If you find yourself growing bored with the game, turn the difficulty up from Peaceful if it isn't already.  Explore a cave if you're tired of living topside for so long.  Build stuff on the surface if you've had your fill of mining.  Look into mods to spice up the mechanics.  Even a simple texture pack does amazing things for the game's atmosphere.

Also, randomly generated worlds are awesome and go a long way toward keeping the game fresh.  No two caves are alike.  Each world has you using your surroundings differently to survive (or just to build, if you're playing on Peaceful), especially with the different biomes.  Your own creations are limited only by your imagination and your willingness to explore and harvest materials.

And yes, the game takes a long time.  This is not bad, but good.  For two reasons:

-First, it means you're getting your money's worth.  This game costs less than half the price of, say, Metroid: Other M, yet here I am still playing the former while the latter is sitting in my local GameStop because of its atrocious lack of replay value.
-Secondly (again), it means that whatever you achieve is that much better when it happens because it takes effort.  It might be a bit cliche to say this, but the destination isn't what counts here.  It's the journey.  If you can't like the journey Minecraft offers, I don't see how you can like it in any other game.

Now, the game is far from perfect, but as you've pointed out, it's still in Beta; and as ShadowBrain pointed out, there is an abundance of online resources to help you learn the game (unless you have some silly, false sense of honor that prevents you from using a guide).  Mind you, a tutorial to teach you the basics (say, up to building your first set of tools) would work pretty well and need not be obstructive.  The difficulty needs balancing still; this game is brutal when first starting out, so much so that it's best to set the difficulty mode to Peaceful for the first couple of nights so you can get a shelter up.  I agree that Creative mode needs to make a comeback, with all the bells and whistles introduced since Classic (it's worth noting that Notch has two or three more game modes planned for later on, such as Adventure and Capture the Flag, as well as Achievements and Statistics).

I guess my main point of disagreement here is that I don't see the game as all that monotonous.

[bobman37]

April fools! TEM loves Minecraft.

[Turtlekid1]

Good one!

I'd like to think my post is still a good reply to those who dislike the game, though.

[TEM]

It being April Fools is a coincidence, I am being 100% sincere. Me saying this invalidates any Fooling that my post would cause, let this be proof of my sincerity.

[TEM]

The Duke, The Whole Duke, and Nothing But The Duke.

Duke Nukem Forever has been getting its balls punched by critics. I am confused by this, as DNF is one of the most fun FPS games I've ever played. The game isn't a perfect triple A masterpiece, but it's a great gameplay experience that a lot of people are going to miss out on because of the negative press. It should be kept in mind that I am reviewing the PC version of the game, as well as I am no Duke Nukem fanboy.

The Humor
Most games aren't that funny. They might have funny moments. They might have stupid dialogue that is meant to be funny. But more importantly, there aren't any games where humor is an underlying law of design, possibly excluding a few games that are probably rated E and the "humor" is on par with a Muppets sketch. Duke Nukem Forever is sketched with humor in mind. It isn't always laugh out loud funny, but the levity is there. And it often did make me laugh. I will withhold examples, but the game is about having a good time and laughing, when you aren't busy shooting. The only game I've ever played that approaches the camp and humor of DNF is the PSN game Pain. The action in the game, the set pieces, the character of Duke, and almost everything about the game is suffuse with subtle humor and fun, and I love it for that.

Interaction
This game is full of various interactive moments of a number and detail that you don't see in games much. Again, difficult to describe without examples, but it is a big reason for why I enjoy the game. There is often no purpose to these interactions Duke has with the environment, except for a random Ego (health/shield) boost. It is a necessary key to the tone of this game. One example you'll find rather early in the game is urinating in the toilet/urinal. I found myself doing this multiple times throughout the game, even though no benefit arises from multiple whizzes. The game has a few decent puzzles and many cool action sequences that aren't running and gunning.

Graphics
Not the best looking game I've ever played, but it's okay. I did notice one odd thing about the visuals though. With my computer, it is customary for me to max out the video settings of any game I might be playing. Unfortunately, DNF has a few options that you "turn on" that make the game look worse. Specifically the "Post Special Effects" and the "Depth of Field" option. I pray that console owners are able to toggle this setting off, but it seems unlikely. The graphics seem a little unpolished, and reminiscent of a game made maybe a few years earlier, but they aren't dated to the point of adversely affecting the game.

Criticisms
Duke Nukem Forever is far from perfect, and I have three major criticisms:

• Some offensive material: I'm not easily offended, in fact, I don't ever really get offended at all. But there was one element, present in a smallish section of the game, that kind of made me say "Really, developer guys? Come on." I felt the game crossed the boundary from "playful sexism" to "full blown misogyny."
• There weren't enough action set pieces that let you go to town with the Steroids. Sounds trivial, but I feel like that particular power-up should have had a lot more room to shine because it's lots of fun.
• Once again, it seems silly for me to make this point, given the goofy, light-hearted nature of the game, but there is a particular plot turn that I feel is missing from the story. In most action... anything there is a moment when the main character(s) get into particularly dangerous territory. This can be labeled as the "Descent into Hades" that is featured in Greek mythological works, one example being The Odyssey by Homer. Duke Nukem Forever is missing this particular piece of action as a climax or a build up to the climax of the game. In Star Wars, Luke entered the Death Star trenches. In Ghostbusters, the guys climbed to the penthouse of Spook Central. In God of War, Kratos ... descended into Hades. This set piece is either missing, put in the wrong part of the game (too early), or isn't built up enough to provide the dramatic tension necessary for the moment.
  
  

The Whole Hog
Overall, from a gameplay point of view, I've played better games. The FPS mechanics are great, the non-FPS oriented actions sequences are fun, but I've seen a lot more amazing things in other games. Duke Nukem Forever doesn't break any kind of gameplay boundaries or push the standards of excellence in game design. It could use some refining, some polish in certain places (I'd say a few months for a normal game, maybe 5 years in DNF time) The point I must emphasize is that the game has humor and an emphasis on having fun; these are the real reasons that Duke is A-#1 in my heart.

[Lizard Dude]

I beat it tonight and can say I agree with TEM's astute write-up here. DNF is a game for people who like America, boobies, and kicking alien ass. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that this game was in development for 15 years and as such retains many old-school FPS elements, both bad AND good. For instance, most big-budget FPS of the last few years have around five hour long single-player campaigns but DNF is longer. And you get old-school giant bosses that launch hundreds of rockets at you while you circle-strafe and slowly whittle down their health bar. And you don't have annoying AI squadmates leading you through the whole game (except a few times as basically jokes).

I was impressed by the extensive Extras menu. You can view a historical timeline of DNF development with interesting facts (like it was originally called Duke Nukem 4Ever because it was the fourth game), screenshots of how the game looked during every year of development, and every trailer for the game released starting in 1998. There's also a buttload of concept art and a Duke Nukem soundboard.

What was the part that offended you? The Pregnator hive?

I'll end this post with a quote from Duke Nukem:

"You must make a great hero sandwich because you just gave me a footlong."

[TEM]

Answering LD's question: Yeah, specifically the raped naked women stuck into the walls, their stomachs inflating and bursting with alien babies. Too dark, disturbing, and serious in the context of such a goofy game. But I accept it as a minor portion of an otherwise really fun game.

[Lizard Dude]

Another question: At the start when Duke is playing DNF he uses a 360 controller. I'm assuming on the PS3 he has a PS3 controller, but what does he use on PC?

[TEM]

A 360 controller. I actually have one plugged into my PC right now for playing Darksiders.

[Ultima Shadow]

The multiplayer is good fun when you can get it going, but what with the lack of half-decent dedicated server support and the nigh-unplayable online play, it's a nightmare to find a good game. When you do, though, it's a hell of a lot of fun that brings back all of my memories of Quake from the misty haze of Call of Duty and its million ******* children. The customization of your own Duke is great fun, and it's fun seeing the hero of the Earth running around in a samurai helmet and a Hawaiian shirt. Outfits have to be unlocked, and you can tell the players that have put the most effort in when the silliest looking Nukems fly past you with a jetpack and blast you to kingdom come with the incredibly overpowered Devastator.

That said, I think Gearbox and Triptych need to put some serious effort into patching up some of the holes, especially in multiplayer, or else the game's not going to last too much longer competitively.

[Lizard Dude]

Here's my biggest problem with multiplayer: the game browser DOESN'T TELL YOU WHICH MUTATOR IS ON.

I am so ****ing sick of joining infinite ammo matches by "accident" (it's not really an accident if you have no way of knowing). It's like, you people want infinite ammo Devestators? Seriously? Infinite pipe bombs?

Proof positive that if you give your players the tools to ruin your game design, 90% will immediately do it and never look back. (Also see: GTA cheats)

[TEM]

I played the multiplayer, once, briefly. The insane amount of unlockables seems a shame when the multiplayer is so... unfulfilling? I suppose that is the only element of old school FPS action that actually leaves me unhappy.

[TEM]

Ten Thousand Hours

When some people grow up they begin to do things that take up a lot of time. This leaves less time for things you thought you'd do for the rest of your life.

Video games have become a smaller and smaller part of my life. I've never wanted to become (and always resented) the people that "grow out of" video games; yet I can see and feel it happening. And I'm okay with it.

Before I thought the term "grow out of" meant becoming mature and turning away childish things so you can pretend to be an adult (be boring). But that isn't it. You actually grow so large in what you want to do with your life that there's literally no time to spend properly enjoying a video game, at least not on the scale that I'm accustomed to. I'm playing Skyrim right now and I just started recently, months after release. This would be unthinkable to me 5 years ago, and I'd be playing multiple games at the same time.

For the past few weeks the only game I've really played is Skyrim, and before that, for months, I didn't play video games much at all. My X-Box 360 is long since gone. My Wii hasn't been touched in nearly a year. My PS3 is a Netflix and blu-ray playing machine. I watch a lot of movies; I try to watch one new movie a day. This isn't as a preoccupation, for entertainment; or the more revealing French word divertisement. This is in service of Hours*.

I've become fairly dedicated to the concept of 10,000 Hours (it takes 10,000 Hours of dedicated practice and study to master a specific skill, such as playing an instrument or racing a car) To obtain the 10,000 Hours in 5 years I must read and write for forty Hours a week. For me the "growing out of" is caused by school partially, but mostly writing (Fiction, Nonfiction, Screenwriting*). I've been reading my entire life, but I only just learned enough about writing in the past year or two to say I've begun to read in service of Hours.

I'm going to finish a slowly earned Bachelors degree soon. Will I spend my extra free time returning to leisurely pursuits? To playing video games for 30+ hours a week? No. I'm going to put in my Hours. Do I do this because I have to? Because if I don't I'll starve to death if I don't sell some stories or get noticed and get a job? While this last part may be true, I don't do it because I have to. I do it because I've grown into something that must work toward the goal of skill mastery. I want to write. I want to cease playing video games so I have more time to practice and get better and hone my skill. The abandonment of what I once enjoyed is an acidic bittersweet taste in my mouth that spurns me to go forward, to cut off ties to past desires and move forward into a better, brighter future.

This isn't sad. It's fantastic. Since studying and indulging in writing stories and film scripts myself I enjoy movies and books on a level unknown to the average person. I've become a Hardcore reader/watcher; so to speak. My life is filled with something I love and enjoy and the dramatic emotional sting will eventually fade away and things of the past will be gone, shades of a life I half remember. I've set a marker for myself. When the next Half-Life game comes out; I will be done. I'll buy and play the game and (hopefully) enjoy it as the climax to a great series of games characterized by well established characters and subtle storytelling (these things accomplished in a specifically video game register, unique from other mediums). And then I'll be done with video games and I'll grab more hours for each week that I can turn into Hours. With these Hours I will grow. With these Hours I'll be even closer to my skill mastery. I'll use this skill to create and become a Person. And in that way I'll be the closest thing reality has to a god.

What am I going to do after I get my 10,000 Hours? I'll write a good story.

And then another.

And then another.

Final Questions:

Why ten thousand hours? What level of concentration and learning denotes the earning of an Hour? Do you truly have to spend so much time doing something to become great at it? Is completely abandoning things necessary? Is this method the best way to be happy? Do you put Hours into a skill? What skill? Is it a skill worth putting hours into? Why or why not?