MMO Hijinks (APB Edition)

(Image from GameHavoc)

There's a lot to be said about MMOs on and incoming to the market today. For that reason I'm starting a labelled series for my little monologues regarding them. There's no key unifying theme, no single line of thought or approach, but thoughts from one seem to bleed into the other, so grouping them together seems an apt idea.

Realtime Worlds is in a whole world of trouble. All Points Bulletin, their big flagship project released back in June, siphoned the life out of them to the point of 'administration' (a.k.a. bankruptcy). Some interesting reading is featured in an ex-developer's blog posts, composed of not one, not two, but three parts, with claims of a tying conclusion to follow. The scope of Luke Halliwell's musings well exceed what I had personally observed through the on-going development, testing and eventual releasing of All Points Bulletin.

A little upon my experiences with All Points Bulletin. I do freely admit that I had fallen prey to the hype and marketing of APB. Inherently that is not such a bad thing. To be thoroughly excited for a product is a non-issue if the product delivers upon expectations. Through beta testing, while marred by some significant issues (that are irrelevant at this stage), a lot of my hopes were decently fulfilled. I in fact would have purchased it if there was a server center in my region of the world. Unfortunately this was not the case.

Luke discusses a lot about the internal corporate issues that stifled APB development. A nutshell take is that the big business structure for what was a little company was an ill suited fit that contributed to inefficiency. This is all of course locked away from the prying consumer eye. The only issue with the developer that I have personally witnessed (and could possibly have encountered) is a seeming lack of connection between the community and the developers. I had personally emailed official RTW support on multiple occasions with mannered queries, but never obtained any response. Forums were well alive, but the forum community managers only really involved themselves deeply when the payment-model bombshell dropped on the community.

And how devastating that payment model was. While any reasonable and rational consumer would expect (and thus not mind) a pay-to-play model, the developers had built up beliefs for a buy-to-play approach. While in the strictest sense, it was 'possible' for a player to play the game without regular payment, any core content would needed to be earned through very successful player-market engagement. To call APB plausibly 'buy-to-play' in the long term is like calling EVE Online 'buy-to-play'. Possible but anything but definitive.

With the community up in arms about the nickel-and-dime payment for a game called 'buggy' and 'unfinished' by the critcs within the testing community, we all foresaw a rough landing. Launch day rolled by, and the community's lukewarm reception was what started this dangerous trek to where Realtime Worlds and All Points Bulletin stands now.

It's very disappointing. An ambitious game if there ever was one, dying faster than any of the other lackluster and derivative MMOs. What does this serve to tell the industry? That WoW-clones die, but not nearly as fast as something original and creative? That developers should stick to tried and trusted formulae than invent their own? These are what the many may see and assume on face-value, and are of course the wrong lessons to learn. APB's consumer support died because of a terrifying community mishap, and their ability to rectify it was muddled by a 'too much bureaucracy, too soon' within the developer. I'm not trying to defend APB to be a stellar game, for it is flawed on various degrees, but it held legitimate, good ideas. To die so soon, it shouldn't happen - at least not like this.

So we meet again.

Back from a terrible writing grave, it's Wiener, bringing you a little something today.

Having spent a lot of time on Star Craft II as of late, the competitive spirit runs deep in my veins. Skilled or proficient, I am not, but between the brooding nature of laddering and the many tournaments that have been on (Intel Extreme Masters in Cologne, MLG and right now GOMtv's TG-Intel StarCraft II Open), there's a lot of game to be played and to be watched.

Speaking of MLG and competitive gaming, the Razer Onza - a third party Xbox 360 controller, has been banned from competitive play by MLG.

While I'm not particularly interested in the direct ramifications for Razer's first foray into console peripherals, it does pose an interesting issue. How should unconventional technologies be treated in the competitive scene? It was the Onza's auto-fire capabilities that largely outlawed it from MLG play, but for the PC scene, keyboard macros, even mouse macros are analogous if not superior in function. Are these functions severe to the point that they are unsuitable for a competitive league?

The degree of customization and programming that can fit behind some of these macro buttons is quite impressive. While the cheaper, simpler versions on keyboards or mice can only manage a key press or two, most premium products offer a much more precise experience. They can offer programming for a timed sequence of any number button presses that is fully reproducible with each use of the macro. Some even allow for mouse movement, which can prove valuable for bread-and-butter motions like rocket-jumping. It becomes a science, allowing (near) inhuman execution of actions.

Some argue that such technology is widely available, and that choosing not to utilize it is merely a waste of what is considered the new standard. Others also say that it takes as much skill to prepare and code a macro. Yet others rationalize their macro use by only using recorded macros - that which they can physically perform, to eliminate the advantage of computer-perfect timing. Their opponents cry foul by stating that macros are the most obvious inequality between players, which is only too often rebutted by what would have been the rift of disadvantage during transitions between ball mice to optical mice, and later, optical mice to laser mice. All these arguments are thrown around heatedly in discussion of competitive play.

In the end, I cannot definitively say that these technologies should be made illegal in all competitive scenes. For an 'as-equal-as-possible' approach that console tournaments (e.g. MLG) uphold, third party products are perhaps very jarring. On the other hand, the PC competitive scene has, for a long time, allowed players to find what input devices are most suitable for them. It's unorthodox for a PC tournament to disallow personal choice of headphones, keyboards or mice.

However, that is not to say I approve of complex macros in competitive games. The programming behind it offloads the responsibility, and the actions required, for the player using them. A person reliant on perfectly coded macros to play a game properly, to win competitively, is a person who innately does not have the skill to play or win the game. You strip the player of his special equipment, and he cannot perform. A player who practices traditional, physical execution of all his moves can perform his best even without such equipment.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever make heavy use of macros. However, you'll never catch me off guard with a mouse that doesn't have a 'reload' key bound to its side. It's a fine line we walk, but my conscience rests easy. Even if it means I lose StarCraft II matches like no tomorrow.

Hail to the King

One thing I can and will say though...

Always Bet On Duke.

(Image from Shacknews)

See you on the other side of my little hiatus!

Series of Unforseen Circumstances

So, dear readers, you may have noticed a sharp decline in blog posts recently.

Let me explain myself. A whole host of wonderful games, and a not-so-wonderful, but still very engaging MMO beta has been draining time from my schedule. In addition, my extraneous work agenda has also been billowing like a smoke grenade set off in a paper bag. For that, I will promise a post by month's end. Perhaps a bit earlier, but don't hold your breath.

 - Wiener

The Flesh and Spirit of Role Playing Games

"You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG."

This struck me as a bold statement to make. And as bold as it is, I feel that there is an amount of truth in it. I do not unconditionally agree with this Mr. Erickson, and my explanation should be sufficient reason why.

The first thing one would ask oneself upon reading that statement is "What is an RPG?". Role Playing Games, at its most literal level, is any game where players assume the role of an individual. For all intents and purposes, such a legalistic approach is useless. Mario is an RPG, Halo is an RPG, Fallout is an RPG, Gran Turismo is an RPG. Almost all games today involve the player 'being' a character in the established fictional world of the game. To what the industry and the consumers consider an 'RPG', such a face-value approach has no point.

But where did RPGs come from? They were of course popularized by the famed pen-and-paper game, Dungeons & Dragons. To those unfamiliar with the geek hit-sensation, D&D involved physical congregation of human players, of whom one was a Dungeon Master - to drive the narrative and establish the fictional world. The rest were player characters, each representing an individual in the adventuring party. Gameplay revolved heavily around dice, and role-play, and persistent character advancement through experience and equipment. It is upon this rich base that many of the first role-playing video-games borrowed ideas and inspiration.

Fast forward to today, and we see games labeled (casually or otherwise) as 'JRPGs' to denote RPGs from Japan, and 'WRPGs' for Western Role Playing Games. Rabid fans on either side claim throne to being the better style of RPG, and much dispute is rife through the far-reaching branches of the Internet.

If you ask me, the divide is quite clear, simple, and fair.

JRPGs in their modern, current form, focus heavily on statistical character progression, inventory management (with marginal upgrades and 'enchantment'), and for many, turn-based combat. WRPGs on the other hand, have been emphasizing storytelling, player-freedom and for lack of a more purposeful term, role-play. Dear reader, do you see where I go with this?

Japanese Role Playing Games seem to adhere very closely mechanical conventions from D&D. The use of computer dice-rolls to determine turn-taking, success rates and damage all hearkens back to how role-play worked in the early days. Western Role Playing Games however are all about the narrative, and how the player wishes to act out their character in the fictional world. Thus they are more representative of the creative, free-form end of Dungeons & Dragons.

So back to the original quote. Is the modern JRPG still a Role Playing Game? In the most straightforward sense, yes - players play the predetermined, preset role of a (most likely teenage and male) individual who must embark upon grand adventure. In the mechanical sense, yes - it borrows and leans very much from the classical approach of 'game' from Dungeons & Dragons. In the 'role-play' sense (a.k.a. the Daniel Erickson sense), no - the typical JRPG makes no concession for player-choice and freedom in the same vein as D&D. If that's enough in your book to be disqualified from being a 'role playing game', then you have your answer.

Is it short-sighted to use D&D as the sole deciding factor on how much a game is a Role Playing Game? Perhaps, but I'd like to hear of a role-playing game that's outdoes D&D at its own game.

We Game Alone

Might as well get cracking, given how bad a track record I have for writing anything in a remotely regular fashion. I wrote this right after I published my last post, and it probably won't be posted until much, much later.

An increasing trend for games seems to be the multi-player focus. Games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Bioshock 2, or even Portal 2 whose predecessors were a strictly single-player narrative are turning to at least include a multi-player mode, whether cooperative or competitive. At the core of this shift is the desire for game makers (developers and publishers alike) to extend the longevity of their product - which is a noble enough aim. Where single-player is limited to the extent of the content created by the programmers and the designers, the crux of multiplayer lies in human-to-human interaction, which is a dynamic that rarely rests stagnant.

Multiplayer has changed a lot as the years pass. Most notably the shift has been made where we expect multiplayer to be online, and not local. This is not inherently a bad thing. One rarely gets the opportunity to play games with a faraway friend were it not for the Wide Area Network. Online play also means learning (through competition or cooperation) with a higher skill ceiling as we are not limited to getting smoked by the smartest or fastest kid in the neighborhood. What it does mean though, is a physical segregation of people, which at times can feel almost counter-intuitive to the purpose of multi-player - the bringing together of players.

The most relevant example that comes to mind must be the hot-from-the-oven (and in this respect, controversial) Blizzard title that is StarCraft 2. While LAN parties have become a less relevant through the past couple years, omission of a LAN mode from StarCraft 2 caused for outcry and weeping for both the casual and serious tournament scene (if a casual tournament is at all possible). First Person Shooters like Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 whose earlier installments considered LAN play to be part and parcel shipped without. Racing games like Burnout Paradise also have no local multi-player, save for a content update that allowed for pass-the-controller, turn-based play.

Why is this happening? I would hazard the guess that for the most part, it is the exertion by the publisher to increase sales, increase the number of unique units to be bought and played. Where LAN mode is available, a single copy of the game is sufficient for a group. Where there is split-screen play, one copy can usually cover four people at any given time. The business mentality might just be that sales could easily quadruple or more if everyone had to purchase a unique copy.

Consider me an old man for still valuing the traditional game enjoyed with friends in-person. A game in particular would be New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which features old-style shared-screen local multi-player. It has become my 'go-to' game when friends are around, and it would seem that time-and-time again, it excels as a game experience. Half its effectiveness lies within the video game, and the other half lies within the players and their interaction in the physical environment.

(Image from Destructoid)

While it definitely seems conceivable that a game experience could be impaired through physical separation of its multiple players, I don't think the inverse holds true. While online play is still very important for convenience's sake, to thin the already-existent ability for people to play together in a close (and closed) environment seems like a pirate-paranoid, cash-hungry tactic to me.

Addendum: A new look courtesy of Blogger's new template tool. Still nothing 'original', or saussage-relevant, but that may just come in time.

1:1 Motions, why not?

This little talk is way overdue. Sorry to all my numerous, horde-like fans out there who clearly have been hungering for the latest morsel of thought only to be sorely disappointed.

Now that all the big players in the home console market are preparing to unleash motion-controlled terror in the living room (or in Nintendo's case, continue to unleash said unfathomable terror), many are evaluating the merits and demerits of each solution. One particular element to be considered is the degree of fidelity that each system brings. What seems to be considered the Holy Grail of fidelity is 1:1 motions, where motion in the physical space is perfectly recreated in-game. While I would agree that this is more impressive on a technical level than the 'waggle vigorously for effect' that plagues many uninspired mini-game compilations for the Nintendo Wii, there are some very fundamental problems to liberally applying 1:1 motions in upcoming video games.

My primary point that is to be brought up is how video games exist to contrast and differ to what is represented in reality. This is not a jab at saying that games are unrealistic, merely that what is being portrayed on screen, as the environment in the video game, is almost always different to the environment where the video game is being played (most likely one's living room). Thus motion that is possible in the living room environment, that is not possible in the video game environment, will cause the 1:1 experience to break as the user does something 'impossible' in the game.

While I'm not a fan of using a very specific example to illustrate my point, it might just be necessary to explain myself. Consider a scenario where the 1:1 motion mechanic involves wielding a sword (or melee weapon of choice). This has been demonstrated on both the Wii and PlayStation 3 platforms, and with a bit of a stretch of imagination, may well be possible on the Xbox 360. Consider where the user decides to swing his weapon in a spacious living room. If in the game, there are no obstructions, the game can fully mimic what motions are being inputted to the system. However, if there is an obstruction (e.g. a wall) to the path of the weapon, then one of two things must occur, and in either case the experience breaks. Either the weapon does not yield to the physical obstruction, and clips straight through to maintain 1:1 motion, or it hitches upon the barrier and 1:1 motion is broken as the user continues to do the 'impossible' in the game environment that is still possible in the living room. Unless said weapon is of unstoppable quality, able to pass through all materials in the game environment, at some point a concession to the impossible must be made, and the 1:1 perfection must be broken. Then there's the possibility that the fancy flourishes every aspiring living room swordsman wants to demonstrate may very well sever the limbs and and cranium off their own character in game if recreated in full detail.

So with all honesty, when people say they want 1:1 motion controls in the latest hack-n'-slash title, they might be better off saying they want 1:1 motion controls with a lot of compromise. Compromise that might involve animations that end abruptly and snap back to the player's position, or compromise involving a more forgiving (read: less accurate) interpretation to do what the system thinks the player is actually trying to perform.

Of course, where games occur in environments that aren't as ridden with obstacles, perhaps like Echochrome 2 for the Playstation 3, or skydiving in Wii Sports Resort, 1:1 motions are less likely to encounter any breaks in the experience. For these sorts of titles, 1:1 motion may work sufficiently with minimal adjustment.

While 1:1 motions are becoming less and less a technical pipe dream, I for one would always vouch for a functional game experience - whether that needs 1:1 (in its strict meaning) really shouldn't be all that important for anything beyond an immersion factor.

Late E3 reflections, Part S

Trying to talk about E3 keynotes was a bad idea. So much other stuff I want to write about instead.

Sony's keynote was the only one which I didn't watch live. I watched EA's, and even Ubisoft's (color me regretful), but Sony's was one I couldn't make. However I did manage to catch it through GameTrailers coverage. Was fairly content with the quality of both their livestreams and their replay coverage.

Sony's keynote focused on 3D, and Move. 3D for big titles like Motorstorm Apocalypse, Killzone 3 and Gran Turismo 5. 3D technology can be hit-or-miss, and whether games receive it warmly is still perhaps unknown. The immersion can be great, but stands to come at a cost - nausea and discomfort are all possibilities.

Sorcery was an on-stage demo showed for the PlayStation Move. A quirky title with some smart mechanics to showcase the technology, but the rest seemed a bit thin. I am more impressed by the Move's ability to cater to traditional games, beyond Xbox's Kinect. It would seem Sony seems to be aiming to lay its foundation in core games, while Kinect hopes to diversify with the casual short mini-games.

A significant mention for third parties, in particular Electronic Arts, showed a strong partnership for PS3 as platform of preference for titles like the upcoming Medal of Honor or Dead Space 2, to receive more comprehensive bundles.

And then there was Valve. Gabe Newell's 'surprise', which many rabid Half Life fans (read: me) interpreted as a non-Portal 2 announcement, ended up being... a Portal 2 announcement. To be honest, Valve only explicitly stated that the original schedule for a Portal 2 announcement was gone. However, it is a gross (and I must stress this) misstep on their behalf to leave an open mystery surprise. Valve has a rich back catalog, and should have anticipated the hype and subsequent disappointment that would accompany their announcement. Back on topic though, Valve announced some degree of Steam support for the PS3's version of Portal 2, details withheld. Certainly an interesting idea, but without any details, a very flat 'surprise'.

PlayStation Plus, a paid premium service is also a new Sony venture. Subscription-bound freebies, and early and exclusive access to demos were both perks mentioned as part of PlayStation Plus. While there will certainly be opponents to the concept, I cannot see monetizing the services causing any direct harm so long as 'early' is strictly earlier than before. Cutting into the date margins for non-paying users is not outside the realm of possibility, but incredibly devious.

Of all three keynotes, Sony's seemed to have the least 'big news' to deliver. Microsoft had their new Xbox revision, along with the first reveal on Kinect titles. Nintendo had their new platform - the 3DS, as well as big titles to follow. Jack Tretton, Kevin Butler and a whole host of video montages (seemingly lacking in the other keynotes) worked well in delivering the otherwise undistinguished keynote.

Late E3 reflections, Part N

This will take me forever, but I'll soldier on. Something like a week of lag time is terrible performance on my part though.

Nintendo's keynote was fairly straightforward. First were the games, and then was the 3DS. That was about it, but there was just so much in both. Nintendo threw around some pretty big names - Zelda and Metroid were there as expected, but a new Kirby, Donkey Kong Country and Goldeneye (which was rumored earlier) seemed like a blast from the past. Dragon Quest IX to the DS was also predictable, whilst Golden Sun Dark Dawn was more of an expected, but interesting detailing. Not a 3DS title as I had guessed.

The 3DS looked fairly on-par with early speculation leaks. Hardware seems to follow a 'DS but more' approach. The adjustable 3D slider  and the slide pad (analogous to the PSP's nub) seem like necessary but well thought out amenities. There's something rough about the unit's look, perhaps due to the double front-facing cameras for 3D snaps, the sharper beveled edges, or the strong color tones it intends to release with, but it might just be a matter of conservative design in the older DS.

Fuel for excitement comes from the software more than anything else though. Mention of third-party juggernaut titles like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Ninja Gaiden and Professor Layton are all bound for the new platform. Nintendo seems to be breaking out some callback pieces, we're expecting Zelda - Ocarina of Time, Star Fox 64 and Paper Mario. Also fresh titles like a new Kid Icarus, PilotWings and Animal Crossing seem to round out the pack.

Having only on-stage demos of The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Epic Mickey lead to a lot of room to drop names for big titles. While certainly only a sliver will be out for the holiday season - predominantly Wii titles, Nintendo put emphasis on letting everybody know that they got game(s).

Could've done with some more specific details like launch date/price of the 3DS, but we all knew that'd be content for the Tokyo Game Show, did we not?

Late E3 reflections, Part M

Sorry for not actually throwing anything out there while E3 was still ticking away. Wasn't really sure on what to write about. We'll start with the Microsoft keynote, and how it wasn't really all that impressive.

I was giddy as I watched along with everyone else, but perhaps was more excited about E3 in general than what the keynote was actually made of. The keynote started with a very quick run-through of existent and known games. Call of Duty, Gears of War, Halo, were all very stunning, but were too transient - there was a short demo or trailer, but very soon passed along to the next title. There was no real surprises - Halo Reach alluded to some outer-space dogfighting, but nothing all too stunning. The big titles that would usually receive a large slice of attention were hurried along.

Then it came to Kinect-hour. It was during this hour that Microsoft summoned the actor/model families - a bunch of 'regular' people enjoying the experience we once called Natal. It was unnerving - they had somehow found a way to manifest the uncanny valley right there in the theater. There was a lot about the Kinect already known - both from official releases, as well as leaks and insider previews. Quite a few of the game titles seemed interesting enough, if not particularly original. If anything, I was more impressed by third party ideas like Harmonix's Dance Central, or even Ubisoft's Your Shape Fitness Evolved. Some of the features I, at the time, thought would be interesting as augmentations to the traditional hard-controller, but more on that later.

Perhaps the most eye-catching thing about Microsoft's keynote was the reveal of the new Xbox 360 model, a sleek glossy little brother to the older machine. As Don Mattrick revealed it, having been sitting under the shell of the old design, which had been sitting on stage the entire time, I couldn't help but grin. Microsoft's lenient pricing also proved to sit well with the members of the press, who were all given a unit for free for being at the keynote. Of quirky note, the new model forgoes red LEDs, meaning they literally cannot RRoD.

The Microsoft keynote failed to deliver for me - it lacked a showing of the core catalog of games, but redeemed itself in part by introducing a quieter, more efficient system. Kinect doesn't impress me as much as it used to - the limitations of the system seem a bit too great. I'll save that for another day.

Speculative Suppositions

Have to drop my thoughts fast, keynotes are hitting real soon, and it'd be a shame if I missed out on the opportunity to have my say early.

First, what's already documented in known quantity: Microsoft Natal is now known as Kinect, and is releasing with a couple other Kinect-centric games. The press conference, keynote, media briefing, however you wish to portray it, starts in a mere few hours, and people are quite antsy. I definitely think that Kinect will be the crux of most of the keynote, but it would be unlike Microsoft to not tout its big flagship titles. In particular I think Gears of War 3 will be a big hitter, along with Call of Duty: Black Ops. A new Xbox model is also speculated, but seems to be far from a downsize version we're used to as far as hardware revisions go. Looks like, out of the three big players, Microsoft has the most 'splaining to do. Definitely monumental - I foresee a lot of heated argument to the degree of 'casual' that Kinect will bring to the platform.

Nintendo is the next of the three to proclaim its goodies to the masses. The 3DS (speculative render/details) will of course be the show-stopper: an entirely new platform is to be unveiled, chasing after the success of the juggernaut DS. Perhaps the most crucial point is how well the sans-glasses 3D effect works. My gut hunch is that we'll hear of a title called Golden Sun 3-DS. After all, announced last year, with it not showing any significant in-game assets or content, it might just be a flagship launch title (though it does seem a risky proposition). New Zelda game seems to also be set in motion - I do not think we'll have any repeat situation as with the originally GameCube-bound (but later shifted) Twilight Princess. Aside from the 3DS, Nintendo might spend most its time on software titles.

Sony is the last to have its press conference, just like last year. With Microsoft pushing Kinect real fierce, it would make sense that Sony dedicate a lot into its counter-proposal, the Move. There are rumors of a new SKU for the PS3, likely to be a new bundle, with possible hard-drive upgrades. The PS3 front will likely be flaunting 3D, with Killzone 3 being the big title to reference off of. Otherwise, the rumor mill has been fairly silent for Sony - which could mean a dull conference, but also leaves room for big surprises. I'm placing my bets on the former, however. There are no real indications of any successor to the PSP and upon that, Jack Tretton needs to dance around the PSP Go numbers - sounds painful already. Any stage-time Kevin Butler can net however, will prove beneficial. I expect news from Square Enix about both FFXIV, but I'm a slight bit worried about the exclusive FFXIII: Versus that Sony fans are entitled to. My lack of Sony-knowledge leaves me with no real insight on the keynote.

What else can we look forward to? A lot of hopeful shooters to (at least be detailed) this year, in the fallow year where Infinity Ward does not actually develop a big title. A lot of fanboy fecal-slinging as to who has become the most 'casual'. Most importantly, many poor-sleeping nights for me as I suffer to watch keynotes in a most inappropriate time zone. Regardless - E3 is right on our doorstep, and I'm ready.

Addendum: My most anticipated part of E3? Valve's 'big secret'. So very hyped, yet also so very cautious for possible upset...

Sure is quiet 'round these parts.

A week of blog silence. With E3 coming up, this really should not be the case. I'll try and cover some stuff here in rapid order just to lay down some foundations before the show really beings. Will split it up just to keep those tags and labels clean.

So first, news breaks of Obsidian Entertainment taking up Gas Powered Game's Dungeon Siege franchise to the new Dungeon Siege III. I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. I enjoyed the Dungeon Siege series, and while it clearly hasn't been garnering much buzz in recent years, I fail to understand why Obsidian needs to work on this IP.

For a little background, Obsidian as we know it has worked on, or is working on, the following titles - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, Neverwinter Nights 2 (and associated expansions), Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas, and now Dungeon Siege III. Only one of these big-name titles (Alpha Protocol) originate from Obsidian as we know it, the rest are sequels of games developed by others (if we exclude the fact that Obsidian is composed of remnants of the long gone Black Isle Studios - those behind the original Fallout games). 

KOTOR II was a thoroughly weak and bugged experience compared to the first in the series (and now being succeeded by Bioware's MMO iteration - Star Wars: The Old Republic), Neverwinter Nights 2, though a good attempt, was also a bit diluted on flavor. Many of the fans of the original games cannot safely say that these follow ups were much satisfying at all. Alpha Protocol is an original game, and while it does seem to succeed in a few notable areas like narrative and voice acting, is terribly marred by some fundamental gameplay issues. This worries me for both Fallout: New Vegas and the known-by-name-only Dungeon Siege III.

It makes me wonder why Obsidian is so involved in developing sequels of other IPs. While these types of arrangements do not happen without agreement or cooperation between developers/publishers (at least in a legal sense), it too easily causes strife in the fanbase. Unless developers approach a sequel with the exact same direction and attitude as the former team, zealous and expectant fans have open opportunities to flame vigorously. Without letting a new wind blow through its sails, sequels are only lateral reiterations, featuring no innovation. The evolution of critically acclaimed titles, with improvements and refinements, should be done by the original developer - the developer who knows their product and IP best, the developer that has had to face the brunt of criticisms with which improvements are required. It's this disconnect when a sequel swaps hands, where a game can be fumbled and left disappointing.

There are many instances of this. The Call of Duty franchise, first developed by Infinity Ward, has been the metaphorical bong, being passed by its publisher Activision to Treyarch and now Sledgehammer Games for its full-feature titles, and Amaze Entertainment, Rebellion Developments and n-Space for its ports and offshoots. Speaking of Activision, they also own Neversoft, the folks who took up the Guitar Hero franchise after Harmonix left (and subsequently produced genre-rival Rockband).

Of course, a franchise that changes developers is not destined to fail. Fallout 3, while still much despised by a seething loyal underground fanbase, has had fantastic reviews, despite being a sequel developed by Bethesda Softworks, rather than the initial developers, Black Isle Studios. (Which is of course, being again passed down to Obsidian Entertainment.)

I don't want to come off as too negative towards Obsidian Entertainment. Alpha Protocol, though flawed (and in honesty, borrowing of Bioware's Mass Effect), is a good effort. Fallout: New Vegas also seems to fill in spaces that Fallout 3 missed out on. Dungeon Siege III, perhaps we will hear something about come E3. I just hope that the guys at Obsidian decide to spend more care in play-testing, bug-control and general QA. Perhaps find confidence in original IPs. That would do them many wonders.

Before I say anything, please take a look at this video:

Sunday, June 13, 2010. A pre-E3 show called Experience, with contributions by Cirque Du Soleil will be Microsoft's grand reveal for the dressed up Natal. Let us all hope their scripted, directed and choreographed videos turn out better than this one.

My first reflection is how similar this seems to the execution and reception to the Wii. The keynotes and press conference thoroughly dressed up the experience. Then the 'real' (read: 'embarrassing' videos hit the internet, and the haters flamed along while the fanboys (and fangirls) threw out all their defenses at the comical play style. When the Wii hit retail shelves, every new owner looked stilted, either stiff or agitated as they played. While the haters will never truly relent (i.e. 'haters gonna hate'), most people soon settled down, learning to be more proficient and exact. Amongst them, the lazy soon accustomed to competent play with a brisk waggle whilst seated snugly on a couch.

Hopefully the Natal will follow suit, at least in its users' adaptation to awkwardness. Perhaps the more pertinent question is how Natal will differ from a next-generation (PlayStation) EyeToy, but the exact criticism can be applied to the Move, an amped-up version of the Wii remote. Ultimately something that will be understood in due time, as E3 draws near, as details are still scant at best.

Definitely keeping close tabs on E3 this year. Thankfully the rest of my agenda seems to line up just right - by the time I'm done with my current set of work, the show will have just kicked in. Hoping to catch all the keynotes live, and deliver some insight fresh from Los Angeles.

Newell's Novel Notion

Let me be the first to say that I do not expect to update daily. Due to fortunate circumstances however, boredom has pushed me over the edge, and thus you have a little something to read today.

I had additions to yesterday's reflections on Battle.net 2.0 for StarCraft 2, but today I might just go for variety and talk about something completely different.

This is far from news, but head-honcho of Valve, one Gabe Newell had once mentioned in an interview (skip to 7:26; first part is here if you are interested in the rest) of an interesting business idea. At its core, he was interested in allowing consumers the option to contribute in funding developers to produce games. By pledging to the development of a game, developers would be getting financial support and a direction for the game, while the customers can guide developers to producing a game they will most enjoy. This serves to tie developers closer to the community, working upon the strengths of the symbiotic relationship. This idea is not exactly new - indie developers have often sought community donations, and liaised thoroughly with donators and community. Many private servers for MMORPGs adopt this business model as well.

This idea is not without problems, however. Too often I have seen promising developers and their titles fall through. If the average gamer were to lose his investment through such a case, the result can be incredibly stinging. It needs to be strongly stressed that the consumer is not just buying a vote in the game development process, but investing in a company that can flop in its entirety. Then there is the issue of monetizing community feedback to developers. The strongest opinion a developer could heed is the one that has the most money behind it. This seems unfair to those who may not have had an opportunity to invest, regardless of whether they care for the game or not. This could complicate the path of a developer, who usually aligns with a publisher to provide them with funding, to deal with market research and discover what consumers (and more importantly to some, the stockholders) want. It's cutting out the middleman to some extent, and that can be either good or bad. I suppose a possible solution is to reward via the game itself, lack of monetary gain will probably deter those looking to make a buck.

I would love to see the idea work. I love to support my favorite developers (and to some extent, publishers), and if I can pay to see them make a better game, I am quite willing to do so. Great care needs to be take however, to ensure we don't spawn forth a horrible investment model monster.

...And a not so quiet follow up

With the (rough and crude) formalities out of the way, I feel I must speak my mind.

The recent interview of StarCraft 2's Battle.net 2.0 has left me shocked. In a nutshell, features like chatrooms, LAN capability, online replays and cross-realm play have been omitted. While LAN play has been denied before, what is most mind bending is the lack of cross-realm play.

The implications of lacking cross-realm play are incredible - each region's StarCraft 2 is locked to play with its own region. Essentially, one must purchase the EU version to play with the Europeans, the South-East Asia version to play with Asia (with Oceania bundled in), and the US version to play with the North-Americans. In addition, each copy must register its own Battle.net account, such that there is no universal account that can handle different region versions. Given that StarCraft 2 is a three-piece epic, this implies that to be able to play the full experience with everyone, one must buy the three pieces, for each of three regions. That's nine StarCraft 2's. Now that the popular thing to do is to bump PC games up to $60USD a pop, that's $540USD for the comprehensive (vanilla, not collector's) package. We'd better hope that for that kind of price,  each part is content-packing enough to warrant buying three whole separate times.

Frank Pearce blames internet infrastructures for poor latency, resulting in poor gameplay as reason to cordon off continents. From what I know, this has not stopped any other RTS game in history from allowing cross-ocean connections. If Blizzard is concerned about latency, then they should develop a means to filter out faraway countries like a sane developer. Those with buddies can still connect at their peril, but at least also at their discernment. For a game franchise that is arguably as competitive as it gets, to split continents away from each other is counter-intuitive to too many degrees. What matters is choice, and Blizzard has chosen to remove it in their new infrastructures. This is effectively (i.e. with caveats) region-locking for the PC platform. Nigh unprecedented in history, and introduced, from all people, Blizzard, for a flagship product twelve years in anticipation.

Upon all this is lack of fan-craved online replays, chatrooms and LAN. While I do not play StarCraft competitively (or to any competent degree at all), those who are serious about the game often talk of chatrooms as a crucial point from which clans and groups co-ordinate and form. LAN play is by far the most 'pure' competitive experience, and to disallow such is a worrying trend in too many games. Each of these deserves to be an issue in its own right, but I will spare thee the lengthy prose.

Given what's been presented, I cannot say I have high hopes for the competitive, serious nature of play in StarCraft 2. I am not arguing that the core mechanics of StarCraft 2 is in jeopardy, but rather fear for my resolute brethren who desperately yearn for a unifying competitive RTS experience. Regardless of the outcome it'll be a gangbuster sell - StarCraft by name holds enough water that a hundred holes in the metaphorical bucket can do naught to stop it. Activision is simply a large powerhouse, and if consumers are to blindly buy what they have been marketed, we reward those who do not deserve it. And that of all things, dear reader, is most worrisome.

(P.S. For the piping-hot discussion, Team Liquid is as good a start as any.)

Quiet beginnings

A warm and delicious welcome to our (my) reader(s)!

This weblog is about video games in all its many forms. So please pardon us if we have misled you to believe that we are at all about food. There is much appreciation to be had for culinary delights (such as the Frankfurter, or the typical corn dog), but alas this blog only does so much as to ride on its coat-tails more than anything else.

I suppose introductions are in order. I, Wiener, have an alias that may not withstand probation. My hope is that this blog will reach far and wide to all platforms of video games. I have strong feelings and views for my hobby, so with any luck, my insight will prove an interesting article from time to time.

An aside: The blog is still (noticeably) very much under construction. I do not have excessive amounts of spare time in the week or two period to come - a great time to start blogging, indeed, but more effort will be put in soon.