Archive for the ‘Article’ Category

SimFailure

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

I admit that despite confessing a loathing (while drunk) for the massive swathe of top-ten lists that infest this time of year I have something of a soft spot for them. It’s a guilty pleasure of mine to stay up at night when nobody can catch me out, reading various critics’ best and worst lists of the year.

Hell, we even did our most recent podcast on just that, regardless of just how cliched a subject it is. I guess it’s an organisation thing. People like making lists – be they shopping lists, lists of girls you’d secretly like to bed or lists of what booze you need to get from the bottle-o next time you sober up enough to drive up there.

So, I decided I’d make up a list to ring in the new year. The real trick was just what to make a list of. For ages, I was playing with the idea of listing something like, say, “The top five video resolutions used in video games on the iPhone platform between January 2010 and December 2010″, but then I realised it was the most boring idea in the whole world.

This idea came about when I was browsing the recent new year steam sales. So many bizarre, cheaply-made simulation titles were on the list! Simulations of things that make submarine simulators or flight simulators look as mainstream as shooter-garbage like Halo.

Thusly, I bring you the second most boring list of 2011 so far:

SIMFAILURE: The Top Five Most Bizarre or Obscure Simulation Titles of 2010

(more…)

Temporal Worlds in Video Games

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

The strength of videogames is their primary point of difference: their interactivity. So I was struck curious recently by a couple of small flash games which utilised a pseudo-interactive gimmick which demonstrated a flaw in videogame open-worlds in general. Each had its own strengths, but both relied upon repetition of the same ‘level’ (for want of a better term), each time adding subtle changes to make the player feel as though they were progressing. Far from making the games themselves feel cheap (a redundant notion anyway considering they’re both free flash-based games which can be played online), they invoked a feeling of urgency, of a malleable world, and of a sense of importance for the player which can be missing from larger game-worlds.

(I strongly suggest you play both games in question. Each one is 5 minutes long, both can be played in a browser and both are highly recommended. They are Every Day The Same Dream and One Chance.) (more…)

The FPS: Sport vs Spectacle

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

So, this morning somebody sent me a link to this in my inbox. A humorous image, showing a top-down view of Doom’s E1M6 next to a single corridor, with ‘cut scenes’ marked at evenly-spaced points along its length. Being a dutiful netizen, after laughing over my morning tea I re-tweeted, facebooked it, mailed it to a few lists and to a few friends who aren’t net-sociable enough to be on any of these things.

Hover-Hitler VS Chaingun. Now that's a story with depth.

After this (doubtlessly familiar) process, I went into the bathroom to scrub a day’s worth of coder/gamer-scunge off myself in the shower, and began to think about it some more. Sure, the image is funny, if ever-so-slightly inaccurate, but there’s more to it than just map design.

There has been a major paradigm shift in first-person shooter development since the days when I played Doom and Quake at LAN parties next to piles of empty coke cans so large as to make you think of something out of greek myths. Buzz-words aside, they are different. Almost different enough, I think, as to more or less be an entirely separate genre.

Sure, the mechanics are roughly the same, right? You move around with the W, A, S & D keys, moving your mouse to tilt your head and clicking to blow away monsters. Well, I’m beginning to suspect that’s actually where the similarities end. (more…)

Review Score Corrections

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010

So, partly as a joke, in the recent twitter game score debate, I said that we should ‘fix’ the ’7 as average’ scoring system by doing the following: -5 from the score, and bottom everything out at a nice, round 0.

As an experiment, I’m going to do that. Here are some scores, by Australian gaming sites.

Firstly, of Halo 3:

  • IGN: 4.5
  • GameArena: 4
  • Gamespot: 4.5

And now, Heavy Rain:

  • Gamespot: 3.5
  • GameArena: 0
  • AusGamers: 4.4

How about Assassin’s Creed?

  • IGN: 2.7
  • GameArena: 3.5
  • Gamespot: 4.0

And finally, Kane & Lynch 2…

  • Gamespot: 1.5
  • IGN: 2
  • PalGN: 2.5
  • GameArena: 0

Does it really make anything easier to get at a glance?

What sort of game scoring system do you prefer? Thumbs up? Out of five stars? Out of ten? Percentile? Out of a thousand? Or none at all?

Do they affect your decision to purchase a game? And, more importantly, do you ever skim review scores after clicking a link to a review, but then fail to read the actual review itself?

Editing & Pacing in Video Games

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

I suspect it’s very easy for people to get confused at the idea of editing video games. After all, there isn’t really much by way of traditional “edit-points”. Outside of cut-scenes, you don’t usually switch angles, and when you do (primarily done in third-person survival horror games) it’s usually for practical reasons. There are exceptions – you cut to a a closer angle when Edward Carnby approaches the entrance to the tomb in Alone in the Dark so you can better see what he’s doing, sure, but it might also be an angle chosen to emphasise the claustrophobia of the environment. Or, perhaps, to strategically hide the mummy coming up behind Edward to play up the ‘boo!’ factor when we cut to a wide shot again.

Playing angles for cheap scares in Alone in the Dark 2.

What triggers these angle-changes, however, is the player. Maybe it’s moving toward the edge of the screen that triggers it. Or, maybe, hitting the ‘view’ button in a more typical game. So the idea of the art of editing actually existing within a game – especially a first-person game where your perspective is constant and entirely player-controlled – doesn’t seem like a big deal.

But really, when you consider that the pace of a game is so heavily controlled by the player in a video game, it makes the managing of pace not just more difficult – but much, much more important. Let’s take a look at the most common way of dealing with pace…

(more…)

A Honeymoon of Cut Scenes and Gameplay

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Rohan: It is with great pleasure that Jeremy and I welcome my brother, industry veteran Leigh H, to join us as a contributor at Restore, Restart, Quit. We will be cross-posting some of his articles here at RRQ – but do check out his blog, which features articles on morality, philosophy, media and more along-side his gaming-related articles.

There has frequently been a tension in videogames which lacks proper definition, and renders criticism vague and at times unfulfilling. There are many moments when the action is intense, frightening, complex, difficult or exhilarating and the button-presses just don’t quite match. I’ll term this interconnectedness ‘gameplay weight’, and want to give a few examples of how it’s been done right, how it’s been done appallingly, and why and how it’s changing.

Doodle Jump for iPhone: a perfect example of how seriously people take modern exponentiontial challenge-based games.

This concept didn’t require as much examination in the 80s and early 90s. Games were still for the hardcore, so gameplay being exhaustingly nerve-wracking the whole way through was common. Other games started slow and the gameplay just scaled up and up and up until you were finally defeated. No matter what your skill level, this game would always find the level of intensity in gameplay which matched your skill and push you just that little bit further. These games still exist today in the form of Doodle Jump, Lumines, Geometry Wars and many others, but they’re now considered small distractions, providing short bursts of excitement in contrast to the awesome scope and power of the big ‘AAA’ blockbusters.

Gameplay began to slow down and become more considered as cinematic prowess in games grew stronger. The advent of 3D, increased potential for emotional investment in characters, and the ability to imbue games with genuine fear brought about the ability for developers to consider a drop in the pace of gameplay where story was taking the fore. This phenomenon has left room for gameplay which just doesn’t belong with the action in one way or another as developers continue to explore this new world of cinematics clashing with gameplay. After all, games require established rules. A certain button-press must do a certain thing or the whole concept of ‘play’ falls apart (which can sometimes be a nice trick developers play, but that’s another story). However, repetition of animations or movements is hardly compelling cinema. So how do developers tackle this tension of establishing rules with unique results every time? (more…)

I, Gamer

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

Over the last six months or so I’ve heard a few different critics and twitteratti make comments and write articles to the effect that the title ‘gamer’ needs to stop existing or, at least, stop being used if we are to be taken seriously. After all, people don’t go around calling themselves ‘readers’ or ‘film-watchers’, right? It’s just a medium you absorb, like any other.

People read books, watch movies, enjoy TV shows, and play video games. So why single ourselves out with a monicker?

I want to put out a brief counter-argument.

There’s good reason to use the term ‘gamer’ to describe yourself, and it probably applies if you’re reading this article right now.

Think of a ‘film buff’ or ‘film nerd’ – whatever you want to call them. They’re not just people who casually enjoy a film or two from the rental store or late on TV. They read film news sites, probably collect posters, magazines, and devote a large amount of their spare time to analysing films and keeping tabs on the latest developments by their favourite directors, writers or cinematographers.

In the same way as this, some people don’t just play the odd new xbox game every other month, when something inspires them to do so. Some of us read articles every week by games critics, know which games are in development, play almost every new title in the genres we like, and have our own favourite game designers whose work we follow as diligently as any Tarantino or Scorcese fan.

So, sure, there may be a social stigma associated with the word ‘gamer’. The title may come with certain baggage – the image of an overweight World of Warcraft-playing slob whose gaming habit is supported by Centrelink springs to mind – but you don’t fight this image by trying to distance yourself complete from the title itself.

You do it by embracing it publicly, to shake off this idiotic misconception.

So whether you’re a handsome, socially savvy woman who just happens to play first-person shooters twelve hours a week, a business-suit toting young middle-manager who spends his off hours facing off against other hardcore RTS players on a ladder, or a father of three teenaged kids who leads a clan six nights a week (when he isn’t paying school fees and going on holidays with his wife)… you are still a gamer.

Say it proudly, and if somebody hears the word and gives you a condescending look, just laugh at them – if their choice is to watch reality TV and read Famous magazine and they’re judging you for your choice in hobbies… well, there’s a saying here involving a pot, a kettle, something being black, and the person on their high-horse being a complete festering idiot.

Everybody has memories of those films or shows that affected them as children or teens – Star Wars or Indiana Jones for some, maybe Withnail & I, Pride & Prejudice, Fight Club or The Crow. Perhaps it was a book – reading Great Expectations, Harry Potter or Stranger in a Strange Land. For me, it’s the end of a long session of playing Ultima VII until the wee hours of the morning, finally engaging in the final showdown with The Guardian and his fellow evil-doers.

If you feel the same way – if it’s games that ‘speak’ to you more than books, films or plays – then you’re a Gamer, and you shouldn’t try to hide it. It’s your label. So don’t be afraid to use it.

The Minecraft boat – don’t miss it

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

I’m presuming, like the rest of the game-playing planet, you gave Minecraft a go during the free weekend just passed, and are now hopelessly addicted to it – but if not, here’s a fan-made trailer to try to show you what you’re missing:

Seriously, give it a go. There’s a reason it’s known affectionately as “Minecrack”.

And it certainly looks like everyone else is. Critical mass has been reached. According to THE INTERNET, sales of the 10 euro game (it’ll be 20 when it’s finished, but buy it now and you have access to all future versions) have now reached $US 250,000 a day. (Two copies of that were from our house.)

Isn’t it wonderful when talent and imagination and vision succeed?

UPDATE: MineCraft vs Civ You know, it’s not just the most addictive game for me since Civilization, it shares a number of characteristics with it:

  1. You start off with nothing but a randomly-generated world of valleys and rivers and resources, and have to cobble together defences to succeed;

  2. You work hard building a home, a civilization, a base – and then you test it against a hostile world. I think that’s a very powerful basic game design: build then test. You get invested in your creation, and then get to see if it’s any good.
  3. Like Civ, Minecraft has the “one more turn” element, even if it isn’t turn-based. You’re always just a little bit away from something cool. I’ll just get this coal and iron and then fashion some armour and I’ll turn it off. I’ll just build the decking on my blocky house and then I’ll turn it off. I’ll just sail to the next island for a look and I’ll turn it off. I’ll just explore around the corner in this dark mine and I’ll… DAMN CREEPERS! Now I have to go back to where I died and get my stuff, and then I can turn it off.

And, unlike Civ, I felt no pain when I paid for it. I felt good handing over my money. This is a guy who deserves our support – as opposed to, say, 2K, who’ve been actively screwing over everyone, and particularly Australians, on the new release. Ha! We’ll lock a civilization away as DLC so you have to pay extra for it! Ha! We’ll charge Australians 60% more! Ha! We’ll lock the Steam copies in Australia – even long after people can just physically buy it in the store! (I still can’t play it for another three hours, apparently – an arbitrary, stupid restriction that is all the more annoying for its lack of any kind of plausible justification.)

UPDATE #2: The Minecraft Song:

I am embarrassed about all my Minecraft efforts after watching that.

UPDATE #2: Via Rohan – a 16 bit ALU running in MineCraft:

I don’t even have the words for how awesome that is.

GOG’s death highlights problems with DRM

Monday, September 20th, 2010

According to a sudden message posted on the site this morning, apparently DRM-free PC game digital distributor Good Old Games is shutting down:

We have recently had to give serious thought to whether we could really keep GOG.com the way it is. We’ve debated on it for quite some time and, unfortunately, we’ve decided that GOG.com simply cannot remain in its current form.

They say they’re going to enable those who’ve purchased from them to re-download their games, but that won’t last long and support will then cease.

Why is this happening? Looks like more publishers and management parasites cutting off their nose to spite their face:

Sometimes it’s really hard being DRM-free… hard to keep things the way they are and keep management and publishers happy :(

The mindset of those bullying GoG over its DRM-free philosophy appears to be: those customers who will not buy DRM crippled games? We don’t need or want their money! We must destroy the entities that highlight how unnecessary and awkward our DRM process is. And if that means driving customers away, so be it. OUR BUSINESS MODEL IS FLAWLESS.

The thing is, the shutting down of GoG is actually a very clear demonstration to gamers of why DRM-locked content is transitory and much less worth our money. Imagine if GoG was a DRM-based site, as the industry would apparently prefer it to be. In that case, its customers would now be up that brown creek without a means of recovery. And don’t try to reassure me “oh the publishers would still support their customers” – no, they wouldn’t. Any DRM that requires checking in with an online server is inherently transitory and unreliable. These companies do not last forever, and they do not bother supporting old products forever. They turn servers off to save money, they abandon their old titles – not legally, no, they still want the power to prosecute the people who care enough about their games to keep them alive and functioning, but effectively, since they’re not charities, they’re businesses, and the historical and cultural value of their products is a side-effect the managers who run them couldn’t care less about.

GoG’s apparent death is just another example of how flimsy your relationship with any of these companies is, and how you’d better hope that your continued enjoyment of the product for which you’ve paid is not dependent on them into the future. Which it would be if it had DRM. Thank God GoG’s wares didn’t.

ELSEWHERE: Steam Unpowered think that GoG will be back, but it isn’t looking good. And the point remains – if you think this could never happen to DRM-based distributors, I admire your faith.

UPDATE: Lazygamer look at the corporate shenanigans currently involving the GoG parent company.

UPDATE #2: It appears to have been a mystifying ruse on the part of Good Old Games to increase attention for their full, post-beta launch, by making customers fear their games being cut off at a moment’s notice without warning. BRILLIANT.

Easily avoiding the MoH “controversy”

Saturday, September 18th, 2010

You’re EA. You’re releasing a modern-warfare themed videogame which will feature both sides of ongoing conflicts in which US soldiers are currently serving. There’s going to be multiplayer, and thematically one of the sides is going to have to be the Taliban or Al Qaeda. You know that the media will take the idea of fighting for the Taliban and bang it into the ground. You, presumably, don’t mind this happening a little bit for publicity, but not to the point where stores are refusing to stock your product.

So what do you do? You could try arguing that it’s just like kids playing the robbers in cops and robbers, or the Nazis in WW2 games, but the difference is that the Taliban are killing hundreds of US soldiers now.

Well, I’d have thought the answer was obvious: you do exactly the same thing that the US military’s very own America’s Army game does: you skin the player’s team as the US, and the enemy as the Taliban. This is being displayed by a computer, and there’s no reason why the system can’t render a player differently to opponents as to him or herself and allies. Whatever side you’re on look like US soldiers, sound like US soldiers; and any hostile players are rendered as the Taliban.

Did that just genuinely not occur to EA? Isn’t it an absolutely obvious solution?

UPDATE (2/10): EA has backed down and renamed the Taliban in the multiplayer mode as “Opposing Force”.

Well, glad that’s over. Now, to tackle the diabolical Need For Speed developers who are proposing to let players DRIVE CARS OVER THE SPEED LIMIT AND EVADE POLICE OFFICERS.