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.