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.
Showing posts with label playstation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label playstation. Show all posts
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)