With the 10-year wait for Marvel vs Capcom 3 whittled down to a mere 2 and a half weeks, anticipation is understandably building to near critical mass. While MvC2 is arguably one of the greatest fighting games of all time, it's still a decade old; new innovations have been introduced to gaming in general and the fighting genre in particular that Capcom's newest offering could surely benefit from. Here are some of the things I'd love to see in the new game. *Note: what follows is a wishlist. I have no proof of any kind to substantiate that any of this will actually be included.
Unlockable Characters
Ok, so I do know that this will be included. With the confirmation of Akuma and Taskmaster as part of the roster, Capcom is reviving the glory of the unlockable character. Sure it may be great to have a full roster of 35+ characters available to use the first time we pop the disc in, but in reality gamers like to have something to work towards. Including "secret" characters that have to be unlocked not only encourages gamers to try out many different characters (and get GOOD with them), but it feels damn rewarding to have hours of hard work pay off by being given powerful new characters to use like Akuma.
Alternate Costumes
Different "colors" are fine, but being able to unlock whole new outfits for fighters is a whole other kind of sweet. There's a ton of potential here for this game particularly, since half the roster are Marvel characters - the game is a great way to show off a bunch of cool artists' work. This begs inclusion of things like Iron Man's Extremis armor, Cap's WWII uniform, Spidey's black costume - hell, even throw Beta Ray Bill in there for Thor. Not only would new costumes add a degree of customizability to the game, but it's a great way to show hardcore Marvel fans especially that their characters are truly being incorporated as part of the game world. And new costumes just look sweet. Unfortunately, this is one of those things that I could see being sold as DLC.
A Robust Training Mode
What self-respecting MvC player hasn't spent hours upon hours in training mode? Since it's such an important part of the game (and arguably where many people will spend most of their time), let's really beef it up this time around. 2-player training would be a great way to practice moves in specific situations without having to resort to presets like "jump" or "stand". Also, why not take a page from Street Fighter IV's book - the Trial Challenges in that game not only showed how to do each character's moves, but also how to pull off some of their most devastating combos in a level-to-level progression. This simple addition is incredibly helpful, both in mastering your favorite character as well as making it easy to pick up and learn the basics with a new one. And few things can match the satisfaction felt by finally landing that huge combo and seeing a big "SUCCESS!" flash up on the screen.
Video/Theater Mode
To be honest, I think that this is something that literally every game could benefit from. But when you consider this game specifically, with all the air combos and perfectly-executed strategy, the potential for those "oh snap!" moments that just have to be shared is through the roof. Feeling on top of the world because you just owned your opponent with your #1 team? Just pull off a crazy 25 hit combo? The ability to save the match, and even to share it with friends online would enable you to transform mere bragging rights into immortality.
In-game Onlinle Profile
Playing games online these days is about more than just playing the game - it's about the community of gamers that play them. Supporting an in-game "profile" system would be like your own signature or business card that other people can view when they play you online. We've seen versions of this in other Capcom games - Tatsunoko vs Capcom let you choose your "style" (fire, ice, or lightning) to display to others how you liked to play, while Street Fighter IV displayed things like your w/l ratio and your most frequently used fighter. MvC3 could expand on this dramatically - allowing you to set not only a motto or in-game icon, but also letting people know if you like to juggle or play turtle, if you love flashy hypers or big combos. Incorporating a system like this is not only a great way to meet people, it would also help you to get the skinny on who you're about to fight, and possibly use it to put together a strategy on-the-fly for the upcoming match.
Those are just some of the things I think would be awesome in Marvel vs Capcom 3. Some of them will almost definitely be included, some of them most certainly won't be. All of them, I think, would make the game just that much better. Either way, we'll find out for sure on February 15.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Dual Edges of DLC
Ever since someone somewhere got the idea to plug a console into a modem, gaming has been irreversibly changed. From online gaming to the inherent social element and gaming communities, taking video games online has redefined the industry in ways few could have imagined. Today I'm going to talk about one element of online gaming that is at least as significant as these others, and is becoming more and more prevalent in recent years - the inclusion of downloadable content in games - and how it is both the best and worst thing to happen to gaming since motion controles and waggling.
When I played Street Fighter II as a kid, I always played as Blanka. It wasn't because I liked his style or him as a character (I didn't). It also wasn't because I was particularly good with him - at least not exactly. It was because I had figured out how to use him to win almost everytime - cannonball attacks, and electrify any opponent who got too close or jumped in. Simply put, he was cheap.
I'm not talking about a matter of player skill, where through hours of practice I became adept at pulling off devastating combos with Blanka - this is a case of the developers missing a balance issue and it slipping through into the game's release. In 1994, your only recourse was to wait until the next game came out, and hope that the issue had been fixed. Today, however, that's no longer the case.
These problems still exist, and they are myriad in number among many of our favorite games - but now they can be fixed post-release. In the age of DLC, developers can now fix glitches, balance problems, exploits, or in the case of Gears of War 2 and entire broken online matchmaking system, even after the game has come out so that it is rendered more "playable" and fun, thus extending the game's life.
Aside from bug fixes, re-balancing, and a slew of other mainly "under the hood" improvements, the real value of DLC comes in extending the life of games by adding brand new content. One of the most prevalent examples of this is the addition of new map packs in many popular fps's, but the sky's really the limit here. Games of all genres, from RPGs to racers have benefitted from this system with downloadable add-ons like new quest packs, new playable characters, new car/track packs, etc. Even completely new game modes can be introduced to a game. This system is a great way to extend the life of a game in a way that keeps it fresh and brand new, sometimes even years after it comes out. The best part is that you only pay for the stuff you want - you can literally pick and choose the content that appeals to you, and it's in this way that the rise of DLC has really flourished.
For all the good DLC introduces, there are some startling implications that must be considered as well. Game development is an extensive process, culminating in many levels of quality assurance and beta testing to ensure that the final product is not only fun, but that it is free of bugs and glitches. On the flip side of this, studios are constantly under pressure from their publishers to turn out a game more quickly or to meet a specific deadline. The problem is that where before a studio would have taken more time to release a game of higher quality, in the day of DLC the incentive to spend more time polishing a game just isn't there - it's ok if a game hits the shelves with bugs, since any major issues can be found and patched within the first month of the game's life anyway.
The implications of this are twofold: first, it implies a lower standard of quality for the games that are being released - even ten years ago the idea of knowingly releasing a glitchy game into the market was unfathomable, whereas now it's almost commonplace. Recent examples of this include Fallout: New Vegas and Gears of War 2. Secondly, and perhaps more outrageous, is that it implies exploitation of gamers at the hands of studios. Beta testing is a necessary part of game development - that's why it's somebody's job. In releasing a glitchy game and releasing patches based on feedback from the community post-launch, developers are essentially using gamers as ad hoc beta testers. Now allowing the general public to beta test a game for free is fine - but they usually receive some sort of incentive for doing it (since it is work after all), like getting to play the game before its official launch. With this strategy though, not only are gamers not being paid, but in buying the game outright, they actually have to pay the studio to be able to "beta test" a game that's already been released before it can be fixed and played for real.
I've been following the development of Marvel vs Capcom 3, paying particular attention to their revelation of the roster. I've been very surprised (to say the least) at the characters that have not been included - series stand-bys like Ken, Guile, Cyclops, Strider, and others have all been cut. It then occurred to me with more than a little annoyance that these characters would most likely be included as DLC later on, for a price.
This trend of withholding game content in order to be able to release it and charge later is disturbing, as it implies the most blatant harm done to gamers. It allows studios to release what is in effect a partial game at full price, and then take more money later on DLC. Not only is it artificially extending the life of a game by selling half of it to you post-launch; worse, it's gouging, plain and simple. Games used to come packed with content, both readily available and things that were unlockable - it was awesome, since unlocking this content gave gamers something to strive for while simultaneously extending the life of their favorite games. Simply put, unlockable content made us feel like our games had real value - like we were getting so much for our money. Nowadays, unlockable content has fallen by the wayside. Things that previously would have been accesssible through hours of gameplay are now accessible through a credit card, and I think this trend will only grow in the future.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of grey area here, as the line between intentionally withholding part of a game to release post-launch and the release of brand new DLC content to support a game's launch is so fine as to be almost invisible in a lot of cases. While it's easy to fault a studio for selling us content that they were going to include (or should have included) anyway (I'm looking at you Capcom), how can you tell when a studio is holding out on us and when a DLC offering is a legitimate expansion? For example, buying a car and having to pay extra for the seatbelts is easy to target as wrong, whereas having to pay extra for a CD player....maybe not so much Where do you draw that line?
As a quick aside, some studios have become masters of using DLC strategically (and fairly!) to support their games in creative ways. Bioware's signature edition of Dragon Age 2, for example, includes scads of content, including new characters, quests, and weapons, and is FREE to anyone who pre-orders the game. This content will also be available for download on game marketplaces, for a price, to all those who didn't jump on the banddragon early. While perhaps questionable, (after all, if the content is there, why not throw it on the disc?) I can't fault them for this approach. They're not ripping gamers off, they are trying a creative approach to create hype and drive early demand for their product (and it worked on me), which is a legit business strategy. It may not satisfy you, but again this is an example of the enormous amount of grey area that this topic is situated in.
As polarizing a topic as DLC is (at least for me), my feeling is that there is still a lot of uncovered territory in the area of extra content, and that more and more interesting topics will be spawned from this seemingly simple concept. While we may have seen this type of debate before surrounding things like digital music and movie piracy, I feel that gaming more than any other medium is very strongly influenced by the "business" of the industry, and this is just the first of many examples of the gaming/business dichotomy that exists. While the future of gaming is just starting to take shape, one thing is sure: laud it or loathe it, DLC is only going to grow in scope, so get your credit card ready.
When I played Street Fighter II as a kid, I always played as Blanka. It wasn't because I liked his style or him as a character (I didn't). It also wasn't because I was particularly good with him - at least not exactly. It was because I had figured out how to use him to win almost everytime - cannonball attacks, and electrify any opponent who got too close or jumped in. Simply put, he was cheap.
I'm not talking about a matter of player skill, where through hours of practice I became adept at pulling off devastating combos with Blanka - this is a case of the developers missing a balance issue and it slipping through into the game's release. In 1994, your only recourse was to wait until the next game came out, and hope that the issue had been fixed. Today, however, that's no longer the case.
These problems still exist, and they are myriad in number among many of our favorite games - but now they can be fixed post-release. In the age of DLC, developers can now fix glitches, balance problems, exploits, or in the case of Gears of War 2 and entire broken online matchmaking system, even after the game has come out so that it is rendered more "playable" and fun, thus extending the game's life.
Aside from bug fixes, re-balancing, and a slew of other mainly "under the hood" improvements, the real value of DLC comes in extending the life of games by adding brand new content. One of the most prevalent examples of this is the addition of new map packs in many popular fps's, but the sky's really the limit here. Games of all genres, from RPGs to racers have benefitted from this system with downloadable add-ons like new quest packs, new playable characters, new car/track packs, etc. Even completely new game modes can be introduced to a game. This system is a great way to extend the life of a game in a way that keeps it fresh and brand new, sometimes even years after it comes out. The best part is that you only pay for the stuff you want - you can literally pick and choose the content that appeals to you, and it's in this way that the rise of DLC has really flourished.
For all the good DLC introduces, there are some startling implications that must be considered as well. Game development is an extensive process, culminating in many levels of quality assurance and beta testing to ensure that the final product is not only fun, but that it is free of bugs and glitches. On the flip side of this, studios are constantly under pressure from their publishers to turn out a game more quickly or to meet a specific deadline. The problem is that where before a studio would have taken more time to release a game of higher quality, in the day of DLC the incentive to spend more time polishing a game just isn't there - it's ok if a game hits the shelves with bugs, since any major issues can be found and patched within the first month of the game's life anyway.
The implications of this are twofold: first, it implies a lower standard of quality for the games that are being released - even ten years ago the idea of knowingly releasing a glitchy game into the market was unfathomable, whereas now it's almost commonplace. Recent examples of this include Fallout: New Vegas and Gears of War 2. Secondly, and perhaps more outrageous, is that it implies exploitation of gamers at the hands of studios. Beta testing is a necessary part of game development - that's why it's somebody's job. In releasing a glitchy game and releasing patches based on feedback from the community post-launch, developers are essentially using gamers as ad hoc beta testers. Now allowing the general public to beta test a game for free is fine - but they usually receive some sort of incentive for doing it (since it is work after all), like getting to play the game before its official launch. With this strategy though, not only are gamers not being paid, but in buying the game outright, they actually have to pay the studio to be able to "beta test" a game that's already been released before it can be fixed and played for real.
I've been following the development of Marvel vs Capcom 3, paying particular attention to their revelation of the roster. I've been very surprised (to say the least) at the characters that have not been included - series stand-bys like Ken, Guile, Cyclops, Strider, and others have all been cut. It then occurred to me with more than a little annoyance that these characters would most likely be included as DLC later on, for a price.
This trend of withholding game content in order to be able to release it and charge later is disturbing, as it implies the most blatant harm done to gamers. It allows studios to release what is in effect a partial game at full price, and then take more money later on DLC. Not only is it artificially extending the life of a game by selling half of it to you post-launch; worse, it's gouging, plain and simple. Games used to come packed with content, both readily available and things that were unlockable - it was awesome, since unlocking this content gave gamers something to strive for while simultaneously extending the life of their favorite games. Simply put, unlockable content made us feel like our games had real value - like we were getting so much for our money. Nowadays, unlockable content has fallen by the wayside. Things that previously would have been accesssible through hours of gameplay are now accessible through a credit card, and I think this trend will only grow in the future.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of grey area here, as the line between intentionally withholding part of a game to release post-launch and the release of brand new DLC content to support a game's launch is so fine as to be almost invisible in a lot of cases. While it's easy to fault a studio for selling us content that they were going to include (or should have included) anyway (I'm looking at you Capcom), how can you tell when a studio is holding out on us and when a DLC offering is a legitimate expansion? For example, buying a car and having to pay extra for the seatbelts is easy to target as wrong, whereas having to pay extra for a CD player....maybe not so much Where do you draw that line?
As a quick aside, some studios have become masters of using DLC strategically (and fairly!) to support their games in creative ways. Bioware's signature edition of Dragon Age 2, for example, includes scads of content, including new characters, quests, and weapons, and is FREE to anyone who pre-orders the game. This content will also be available for download on game marketplaces, for a price, to all those who didn't jump on the banddragon early. While perhaps questionable, (after all, if the content is there, why not throw it on the disc?) I can't fault them for this approach. They're not ripping gamers off, they are trying a creative approach to create hype and drive early demand for their product (and it worked on me), which is a legit business strategy. It may not satisfy you, but again this is an example of the enormous amount of grey area that this topic is situated in.
As polarizing a topic as DLC is (at least for me), my feeling is that there is still a lot of uncovered territory in the area of extra content, and that more and more interesting topics will be spawned from this seemingly simple concept. While we may have seen this type of debate before surrounding things like digital music and movie piracy, I feel that gaming more than any other medium is very strongly influenced by the "business" of the industry, and this is just the first of many examples of the gaming/business dichotomy that exists. While the future of gaming is just starting to take shape, one thing is sure: laud it or loathe it, DLC is only going to grow in scope, so get your credit card ready.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Games with the Worst Stories
Game stories have come a long way in the past 20 years, from simple "rescue the princess" yarns to vast cinematic operas spanning multiple games. However, with all of the recent storytelling "hits" of gaming, there's bound to be a few "misses" as well...Here are some of the games I think have the WORST stories. Oh yeah...spoiler alert.
Street Fighter (series)
So there's this dude, Mike Ty...er, M. Bison, and he's eeeevil. He's a despotic dictator who rules over Thailand with an iron fist, and he possesses the powerful and mysterious Psycho Power, making him one of the most formidable warriors in the world. His master plan? Take over the world...by hosting illegal underground street fighting tournaments.
Forget marching on the major world superpowers, steamrolling through waves of troops and tanks with one Psycho Crusher after another, this guy clearly prefers economic domination - after all, there've been so many Street Fighter games that he's bound to have made a pretty penny in illegal underground street fighting tournament entry fees, right?
Assassin's Creed
This series is unfortunate enough to actually contain two stories in one. Oh, the core stories are just fine - Altair seeking to bring order to the Middle East by assassinating dangerous Templar rulers, and Ezio seeking to eliminate a team of conspirators plotting to set themselves up on the papal throne, while simultaneously avenging his family's murder. But the whole "present day Desmond" thing - we've got modern-day templars, an underground society of assassins (think Kill Bill, not Wanted) with a subscription to the history channel, mind control apples, pseudo time travel, conspiracy theories, end of the world disaster movie type stuff...oh yeah. And aliens.
I would much rather the games just be self-contained stories of the individual assassins, situated in their own time periods. Ezio's quest for family vengeance is interesting and empathetic. This whole Desmond/Abstergo trainwreck is just a mess.
Gears of War 2
The problem with the story in Gears 2 isn't that it's bad, it's that the whole story element is just so poorly handled. The war with the Locust was established in the first game, so in the second game we'll actually explore why we're fighting, right? Nope. Gears 2's story is business as usual - the Locust is still killing us, though we're not sure why. We also learn that the Locust are capturing humans and imprisoning them in little metal coffins underground. Why? They're not using them as labor, since they just sort of sit there, they're not eating them, since the prisoners all just waste away. The only thing they ARE using them for is torture victims - which means that the Locust have just decided to go with the cartoony evil route.
They come so close in this game - introducing the Sires hints that maybe the humans and Locust are closely related, or maybe that somehow the humans had a hand in the Locust development. But instead of using the remaining 2 acts of the game to explore the whole secret Sire production facility, they just leave it hanging. The Locust Queen looking and sounding totally human - you'd like some background into what's going on there, wouldn't you? Too bad. The story in this game is just a series of events that get introduced, never explored, and forgotten. Though Epic tried their damndest to get us to empathize with their protagonists this time around....MARIA!!!
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Now see if you can follow me here - Vader, your master, kills you, and then brings you back to life and uses you to help him plot against the Emperor, while you are secretly plotting with the Rebels to kill both of them, and it turns out that the Emperor orchestrated the entire thing the whole time. The problem with this game is that it Forrest Gumps a lot of the classic Star Wars story - Starkiller is directly responsible for the creation of the Rebel Alliance, which would be fine, if there weren't already a backstory that discusses that in great detail.
The most insulting thing about the story is when it's revealed that Palpatine was the guy pulling all the strings, all the way down to creating the Alliance, which aside from being completely non-canonical doesn't make any sense - he creates an opponent for him to fight a war against which ends up killing him. Maybe I'm just a crazy Star Wars purist (ok, I definitely am) but that's a bit of a stretch by any account.
Bayonetta
You're an Umbran Witch/bounty hunter/borderline prostitute - one half of a light/dark balance of power thing, and you spend your time killing angels/Lumen Sages/birds with baby faces until you're killed/not killed/locked at the bottom of a lake(?) by your own people. Then you're found by a man who inadvertently frees you and you kill him/don't kill him/disappearance plot device him, and you're chased by his journalist son who wants the truth/your bod.
In your quest for answers you discover a little girl who is your daughter/you from the past, and the 3 of you learn that you were betrayed by your mentor/secret enemy/frienemy and that you are/possess/have heard of some ancient artifact that will awaken god/bring on the apocalypse/allow David Bowie to take over the world.
Honestly, I think they just stopped trying to write a story after the second act. Towards the end, not only does it make no sense but it just keeps going. There are literally like 5 final boss fights in this game. It seems like Platinum has some closure issues.
What the hell is the Left Eye anyways??
Modern Warfare 2
It's Red Dawn.
Only without the 80's red scare or Patrick Swayze to make it charming in retrospect. Considering this is a series that strives for realism, the story is almost completely implausible - a U.S. spec-ops agent infiltrates a Russian-based terrorist cell who attacks a Russian airport. You're found out, and they kill you and leave you there so it looks like American elements randomly attacked a bunch of Russian civilians.
The Russian president, rather than, you know, picking up a phone ("Yo, Barack, what gives?"), just decides off the cuff to launch a FULL SCALE INVASION OF THE U.S.
And the invasion is successful.
Yeah. I know. All we needed is for Price to yell "Avenge me!!"
So as these examples illustrated, for every game that's got a crack team of writers working on the story, there's one that turns out like a giant brainstorming session. I didn't even take aim at older games from generations of consoles ago, because that would just be too easy in a lot of cases. Fortunately, story, while a big part, is still only part of a game. Many of the games that made this list are still very fun to play - they just won't be winning any pulitzers any time soon.
Street Fighter (series)
So there's this dude, Mike Ty...er, M. Bison, and he's eeeevil. He's a despotic dictator who rules over Thailand with an iron fist, and he possesses the powerful and mysterious Psycho Power, making him one of the most formidable warriors in the world. His master plan? Take over the world...by hosting illegal underground street fighting tournaments.
Forget marching on the major world superpowers, steamrolling through waves of troops and tanks with one Psycho Crusher after another, this guy clearly prefers economic domination - after all, there've been so many Street Fighter games that he's bound to have made a pretty penny in illegal underground street fighting tournament entry fees, right?
Assassin's Creed
This series is unfortunate enough to actually contain two stories in one. Oh, the core stories are just fine - Altair seeking to bring order to the Middle East by assassinating dangerous Templar rulers, and Ezio seeking to eliminate a team of conspirators plotting to set themselves up on the papal throne, while simultaneously avenging his family's murder. But the whole "present day Desmond" thing - we've got modern-day templars, an underground society of assassins (think Kill Bill, not Wanted) with a subscription to the history channel, mind control apples, pseudo time travel, conspiracy theories, end of the world disaster movie type stuff...oh yeah. And aliens.
I would much rather the games just be self-contained stories of the individual assassins, situated in their own time periods. Ezio's quest for family vengeance is interesting and empathetic. This whole Desmond/Abstergo trainwreck is just a mess.
Gears of War 2
The problem with the story in Gears 2 isn't that it's bad, it's that the whole story element is just so poorly handled. The war with the Locust was established in the first game, so in the second game we'll actually explore why we're fighting, right? Nope. Gears 2's story is business as usual - the Locust is still killing us, though we're not sure why. We also learn that the Locust are capturing humans and imprisoning them in little metal coffins underground. Why? They're not using them as labor, since they just sort of sit there, they're not eating them, since the prisoners all just waste away. The only thing they ARE using them for is torture victims - which means that the Locust have just decided to go with the cartoony evil route.
They come so close in this game - introducing the Sires hints that maybe the humans and Locust are closely related, or maybe that somehow the humans had a hand in the Locust development. But instead of using the remaining 2 acts of the game to explore the whole secret Sire production facility, they just leave it hanging. The Locust Queen looking and sounding totally human - you'd like some background into what's going on there, wouldn't you? Too bad. The story in this game is just a series of events that get introduced, never explored, and forgotten. Though Epic tried their damndest to get us to empathize with their protagonists this time around....MARIA!!!
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Now see if you can follow me here - Vader, your master, kills you, and then brings you back to life and uses you to help him plot against the Emperor, while you are secretly plotting with the Rebels to kill both of them, and it turns out that the Emperor orchestrated the entire thing the whole time. The problem with this game is that it Forrest Gumps a lot of the classic Star Wars story - Starkiller is directly responsible for the creation of the Rebel Alliance, which would be fine, if there weren't already a backstory that discusses that in great detail.
The most insulting thing about the story is when it's revealed that Palpatine was the guy pulling all the strings, all the way down to creating the Alliance, which aside from being completely non-canonical doesn't make any sense - he creates an opponent for him to fight a war against which ends up killing him. Maybe I'm just a crazy Star Wars purist (ok, I definitely am) but that's a bit of a stretch by any account.
Bayonetta
You're an Umbran Witch/bounty hunter/borderline prostitute - one half of a light/dark balance of power thing, and you spend your time killing angels/Lumen Sages/birds with baby faces until you're killed/not killed/locked at the bottom of a lake(?) by your own people. Then you're found by a man who inadvertently frees you and you kill him/don't kill him/disappearance plot device him, and you're chased by his journalist son who wants the truth/your bod.
In your quest for answers you discover a little girl who is your daughter/you from the past, and the 3 of you learn that you were betrayed by your mentor/secret enemy/frienemy and that you are/possess/have heard of some ancient artifact that will awaken god/bring on the apocalypse/allow David Bowie to take over the world.
Honestly, I think they just stopped trying to write a story after the second act. Towards the end, not only does it make no sense but it just keeps going. There are literally like 5 final boss fights in this game. It seems like Platinum has some closure issues.
What the hell is the Left Eye anyways??
Modern Warfare 2
It's Red Dawn.
Only without the 80's red scare or Patrick Swayze to make it charming in retrospect. Considering this is a series that strives for realism, the story is almost completely implausible - a U.S. spec-ops agent infiltrates a Russian-based terrorist cell who attacks a Russian airport. You're found out, and they kill you and leave you there so it looks like American elements randomly attacked a bunch of Russian civilians.
The Russian president, rather than, you know, picking up a phone ("Yo, Barack, what gives?"), just decides off the cuff to launch a FULL SCALE INVASION OF THE U.S.
And the invasion is successful.
Yeah. I know. All we needed is for Price to yell "Avenge me!!"
So as these examples illustrated, for every game that's got a crack team of writers working on the story, there's one that turns out like a giant brainstorming session. I didn't even take aim at older games from generations of consoles ago, because that would just be too easy in a lot of cases. Fortunately, story, while a big part, is still only part of a game. Many of the games that made this list are still very fun to play - they just won't be winning any pulitzers any time soon.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Daily Affirmation (sort of)
I liken getting sick to a tower defense game. The waves of virus or bacteria just keep coming, and you have to combat it by building "towers" - drinking orange juice and taking cold medicine. As towers degrade you have to upgrade them to keep them effective. Neo Citron is like a leader power.
I'm no good at tower defense games.
I'm no good at tower defense games.
Monday, January 3, 2011
How Video Games Make You Smarter
The other night I was looking on as my girlfriend played through Epic Mickey (which is surprisingly good by the way). During one of the platforming sections she became increasingly frustrated as she was unable to figure out the correct series of jumps that needed to be made to successfully traverse the level. As she wrestled with the jumping puzzle (she eventually gave up and my roommate took over for her), I observed the screen and very quickly figured out the correct sequence of jumps that needed to be made. It's not that I'm more intelligent than she is, and it's certainly not that I'm more coordinated than she is (as anybody who knows me will dismiss as laughable). The advantage I had in that situation was that I have been playing video games for the better part of my life, whereas she (like most normal people) has not. That is not to say that I am merely "better" at video games than she is, but that in my 2 decades of gaming I have gotten ample practice at the specific types of thinking and problem solving that is unique to video games.
Video games are characterized by a couple unique features that make them ideal for the development of problem solving; they contain challenges (in the form of puzzles, etc) that are [usually] challenging, and these challenges, regardless of difficulty, are always solvable. What this means is that a persistent gamer, when confronted with a difficult task in a game, will keep constantly attempting to solve the problem, approaching it from all angles and trying a variety of different ideas, since he knows that there is a solution; his failure to solve the puzzle does not mean that it is impossible, it just means he hasn't found the correct solution yet. This contrasts the real world, where it is not a given that all challenges have solutions; thus people would be more likely to denounce a challenge as "impossible" after exhausting the more common possible solutions. In games, there is always a solution, and the gamer knows this, so he will never give up trying new and different ways to solve puzzles. Whether that challenge is a tricky platforming section in a Mario game or a difficult assassination target in the latest Assassin's Creed title, gamers know that these challenges are possible, and will keep trying things just a little differently until they find the perfect solution to beat the proverbial "high score."
Another interesting feature of video games that makes them make you smarter is that they are completely closed systems. What this means is that in any given game, you control your character (duh.) This character has his or her inventory containing specific items, and maybe a repertoire of special abilities that he or she can carry out - that's it. Like a carpenter or a plumber, you possess a "toolbox" of items and abilities, and it is solely through this toolbox that you interact with the game world. You are given a challenge, whether it be a puzzle or a difficult enemy to defeat, and a "toolbox" of items and abilities, and you must figure out a solution using only this toolbox. If at first a challenges seems insurmountable, it means that you have not fully explored all the options that are available to you with your current toolbox (remember, no challenge in video games is impossible!). All that is required is that you get a little more creative with the tools you have. My roommate and I refer to this as the "Zelda mentality", since that game really drives home this point: every dungeon poses new challenges that require the creative use of a finite set of items to overcome. If a solution does not present itself, it merely means that you must use your items and abilities in different, more creative ways (yes, the boomerang can be used to knock flying enemies out of the air, but did you know that it can be used to activate series of switches in particular orders too?). Because video games are a closed system, it forces you to focus on the tools you have available, and explore new and creative ways of thinking in order to make the most out of the tools that you already have. Like a child using a pile of Lego bricks to build a submarine or a dinosaur, it forces us to get creative, and to thoroughly examine all options when faced with a problem.
As I hinted earlier, I am thoroughly and depressingly uncoordinated. I didn't build my first Transformer until I was 12 (it was Starscream by the way). But my hand-eye coordination has improved drastically over the years, and this is in large part due to all the video games I play. Not only am I more coordinated, but a lifetime of playing video games has made me a better problem solver, a better critical thinker, and more creative, as well as granted me a knack for strategy and tactical planning (thank you competetive Halo). Forget the protests of angry parents who don't understand, I firmly and truly believe that video games, on top of being the fastest growing entertainment media on the planet and just a lot of fun to boot, really truly do benefit people on an intellectual level - they really do make you smarter.
Video games are characterized by a couple unique features that make them ideal for the development of problem solving; they contain challenges (in the form of puzzles, etc) that are [usually] challenging, and these challenges, regardless of difficulty, are always solvable. What this means is that a persistent gamer, when confronted with a difficult task in a game, will keep constantly attempting to solve the problem, approaching it from all angles and trying a variety of different ideas, since he knows that there is a solution; his failure to solve the puzzle does not mean that it is impossible, it just means he hasn't found the correct solution yet. This contrasts the real world, where it is not a given that all challenges have solutions; thus people would be more likely to denounce a challenge as "impossible" after exhausting the more common possible solutions. In games, there is always a solution, and the gamer knows this, so he will never give up trying new and different ways to solve puzzles. Whether that challenge is a tricky platforming section in a Mario game or a difficult assassination target in the latest Assassin's Creed title, gamers know that these challenges are possible, and will keep trying things just a little differently until they find the perfect solution to beat the proverbial "high score."
Another interesting feature of video games that makes them make you smarter is that they are completely closed systems. What this means is that in any given game, you control your character (duh.) This character has his or her inventory containing specific items, and maybe a repertoire of special abilities that he or she can carry out - that's it. Like a carpenter or a plumber, you possess a "toolbox" of items and abilities, and it is solely through this toolbox that you interact with the game world. You are given a challenge, whether it be a puzzle or a difficult enemy to defeat, and a "toolbox" of items and abilities, and you must figure out a solution using only this toolbox. If at first a challenges seems insurmountable, it means that you have not fully explored all the options that are available to you with your current toolbox (remember, no challenge in video games is impossible!). All that is required is that you get a little more creative with the tools you have. My roommate and I refer to this as the "Zelda mentality", since that game really drives home this point: every dungeon poses new challenges that require the creative use of a finite set of items to overcome. If a solution does not present itself, it merely means that you must use your items and abilities in different, more creative ways (yes, the boomerang can be used to knock flying enemies out of the air, but did you know that it can be used to activate series of switches in particular orders too?). Because video games are a closed system, it forces you to focus on the tools you have available, and explore new and creative ways of thinking in order to make the most out of the tools that you already have. Like a child using a pile of Lego bricks to build a submarine or a dinosaur, it forces us to get creative, and to thoroughly examine all options when faced with a problem.
As I hinted earlier, I am thoroughly and depressingly uncoordinated. I didn't build my first Transformer until I was 12 (it was Starscream by the way). But my hand-eye coordination has improved drastically over the years, and this is in large part due to all the video games I play. Not only am I more coordinated, but a lifetime of playing video games has made me a better problem solver, a better critical thinker, and more creative, as well as granted me a knack for strategy and tactical planning (thank you competetive Halo). Forget the protests of angry parents who don't understand, I firmly and truly believe that video games, on top of being the fastest growing entertainment media on the planet and just a lot of fun to boot, really truly do benefit people on an intellectual level - they really do make you smarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)