Tangent Time!

Remember how everyone’s sister/mother/daughter/girlfriend/female friend used to be playing the Sims, and now consider what they are all doing now with that same time, Facebook or MySpace is the answer before you come up with one that I’m not about to talk about.

The next social networking phenomenon is about to emerge, I can almost feel it. Runescape had the right idea a few years ago, Second life is another not far from the mark, but they both lack something important, i.e. gameplay (obvious Runescape quip, sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Actually, to get that coveted teenage/twenty-something female socialite niche market, they need a lot more than that. What do they need?

1. Easy learning curve
2. Fun game play that isn’t repetitive
3. Social networking integration
4. A degree of customisation not as drastic as Second Life, but better than Facebook.

While writing that list in my head, in the shower where all the best ideas magically spray you from the showerhead, I first thought that World of Warcraft probably provides a lot of this, slightly disappointed at the possible roadblock facing this concept; I came up with the third point.

What if there was a Facebook application for World of Warcraft? Would it be used very much? How would it work? (I’m sorry if you’ve never used Facebook or played World of Warcraft, but these are the two I’m familiar enough to construct my point with)

I had some ideas, I first thought that, to your real friends, coming out of the WoW closet is worse than them finding gay porn under your bed. It has negative connotations to those that haven’t played it. Then I also reminded myself of the self justification that a lot of WoW players use (which I probably used once upon a time) about how it’s a social game, one that requires teamwork and coordination in order to succeed, sure, you can play on your own but it isn’t intended to.

This leads on to the social networking aspect. I’ve had this feeling in my stomach for a couple of months now that something big is just around the corner, bigger than Twitter, Facebook, or anything like that. One of those concepts you think “that makes so much sense, I could have thought of that”, well here I am hoping I have. A harmony of MMO and social networking, but there needs to be accessibility.

My mind is immediately drawn to Left 4 Dead despite its lack of ‘MMOness’. Suppose It was browser based and available in workplaces, university campuses and even (in a few years as the technology advances) able to run on mobile phones. Left 4 Dead has a simple formula. You plus three friends plus guns fight through hordes of zombies. With a little refinement to the gameplay, with a distinction between ‘easy’ easy and ‘Complete FPS noob’ easy it would gain popularity very quickly and friends would suggest a quick game of “kill the zombies” at lunchtime, while on a train journey or just because they can.

As Quakelive is proving while you read this, pretty soon the technology will leave behind the old gaming formula and take an entirely new shape. Games themselves don’t always lend themselves perfectly to advertising, but capitalism is a lot less likely to change than the way games are made. Eventually there may be conversations in board rooms along the lines of “This game would offer a solid advertising opportunity, but I don’t think we can fit the advertising into the Elfish atmosphere, however, the newest GTA 5 is expected to break all sale records, and we could definitely feature a billboard ad there”.

Perhaps eventually games will be more often based in believable advertising locations, either that or shamelessly sell out their atmosphere to keep themselves afloat. Ok, that was a little cynical, I don’t see Dalaran opening a KFC any time soon.

I have considered to myself in the past the best and worst case scenarios in the event of massive increase of in-game advertising. Correctly and tastefully done, it could help pay for server fees and fund proper patches and updates up to years after the games release (why this is still so hard for some developers I have no idea). For single-player, story-line based and RPG type games, I can imagine the advertising a lot more difficult to integrate, so I would worry that epics such as Bioshock and Knights of the Old Republic becoming fewer and far between. There is of course the aforementioned awful atmospheric aspect of advertising (sorry, couldn’t resist) that could kill an otherwise good game with bad press, although I’m sure many a game has ‘suffered’ the effects of bad press, i.e. everyone buying it to see what all the fuss is about.

I feel a rant approaching so I’ll make my last tangent brief. It troubles me how little the opinion of games journalists are taken into account when controversial games are discussed in the media. You would expect the view of someone who plays games for a living be more insightful than a politician with a chip on his shoulder on a crusade to save the world from... I don’t know, actually, what are they saving us from? I play plenty of these games, and I think films are a lot worse!

I’m just waiting for some game developer to get creative and ironic with his assignment “bad-action-movie-sequel-game” and put something inspired by the film that will raise a few moral questions. Also, where is Saw: the game? I love those films, and the ironic controversy of being able to torture people in a game but not on film would be very tasty.



Starcraft: Dawn or Dusk?

The recent battle report by blizzard (that can be found on www.starcraft2.com) has rekindled my excited child-like anticipation of Starcraft 2. But as I cast my eye over the forums and websites devoted to those with a similar feeling of hope towards the second coming, I noticed a familiar argument reappearing time and again. Perhaps many of you are unfamiliar with this disagreement, but if you ever played the original Starcraft or any RTS after 1999 (or ideally, both) this should be a concept you are familiar with.

The argument in its most direct form goes something like this:
“This individual believes that the simplification and intuitive design of user interface and basic game mechanics that have developed in real time strategy games since 1998 due to technological and innovative game design have had a negative effect on the production of a game that can be considered ideal for esports”

Simply (if very crudely) put: Many fans of the RTS genre are worried that Starcraft 2 will be ‘too easy’ to play. Part of the skill of playing Starcraft at a professional level comes with how you manage the somewhat awkward interface. There are of course those that disagree, who say that the advances in game mechanics have been a blessing that makes the entire genre a lot more fun to play.

4 main points come up time and again, all of which can usually be taken for granted as included in a modern RTS title:

MBS (Multiple Building Selection): This may seem obvious now, but Starcraft doesn’t allow more than one building to be selected, this means every time you want to create a large number of units, you must select each building individually and click or press the hotkey to create a unit. MBS significantly cuts down the number of actions to achieve the same goal.

Smartcasting: Not entirely relevant to every RTS, but definitely Blizzard ones. Warcraft 3 has a system whereby if you select a group of casters and tell them to cast a spell, one of the casters will cast the spell based on range, mana, cool down and other variables. In Starcraft all the casters will cast the spell. This is usually a bad thing, 5 psi storms in the same place is generally not useful for your casters energy.

Auto-mining: This is usually the most controversial point since manual mining is such a large part of Starcraft, you cannot simply rally a worker unit onto a resource. They will not mine it. Having to manually click and assign every workers task individually creates more work for the player, since Starcraft is such a macro and economy intensive game, streamlining this process is considered making the game less macro based.

Large group selection: In Starcraft the maximum group size is considerably smaller than most RTS games. Expanding the group size allows armies to be controlled with greater ease and efficiency. The argument goes: ‘making armies easier to control means the entire outcome of the battle is determined by positioning and unit choice, omitting a certain level of player skill’ Especially concerning the Zerg, with which part of the skill relies on how the player can handle very large numbers of units.
Starcraft is an OLD game. It’s a universal truth that old should not necessarily have negative connotations, though one side of ‘the debate’ seems unfortunately keen to make this connection. I wouldn’t like to take a side on this debate as honestly, I don’t know which side to agree with.

However, I should make it clear that while I like the micro orientated style of Warcraft 3, I am expecting and looking forward to the stark contrast of macro and heavily tactical based gaming that Starcraft 2 is promising.

So, now that I’ve set my intentions on the table, let’s take an objective look at the possibly connotations of Blizzard including or removing these features from Starcraft 2.

A lot could be said here, but a good writer will always be able to compromise between eloquence and efficiency:

“If you throw enough soufflé at a wall, some of it will stick”

In order to have a thriving esports aspect to any game, you need a solid foundation of plebs. What would Football be (the one where you kick a ball with your foot i.e. not Handegg) without millions of fans cramming into stadiums every weekend, subscribing to expensive TV packages so they can watch their favourite sport and buying lots of merchandise. Sports are held up by what the average fan thinks of the sport.

So this entire issue is supremely relevant. It’s very easy for the average person to play a game in the exact manner in which their heroes do. The same maps, rules, tactics and play styles apply. The ones holding up the professional scene are those that actually want it to exist, and who would want to be part of a gaming community where they didn’t like the game in question?
So... in order for a game to make it to esports level, it needs a considerable number of fans of the actual game. In order to reach this balance the game needs to be set somewhere between crowd pleasing and challenging. It needs to be fun, accessible and intuitive but also intricate, varied and allow for an individual’s style of play.

That last one maybe threw you a bit. That is... unless you are familiar with top level Starcraft. There is one aspect that may very well disappear with the sequel: Style.

Counter strike, Warcraft 3 and Quake 4, to take some examples, contain very little within them to differentiate between the very top players. All 3 of these games have generally accepted ‘rules’ (admittedly these ‘rules’ may change as the metagames develop) whereby the community of professional players collectively and often unconsciously decide what is worthy of their focus and attention, basically what is the ‘right’ thing to do when presented with a situation.

Starcraft is different, because the game is literally so difficult to play, and has so many different aspects to it: macro, micro, positioning, unit choices, building placement, and timing. Sure there are accepted strategies and timings, but no single player can ever perfect their game in all these, and more, categories. So what do they do? Specialize.

There are those that may argue a certain Counter Strike player’s grenades are always perfect, a Warcraft player knows the limit of the blademaster better than any other or a Quake player never misses an armour spawn. This to an extent can be true but is more evident in Starcraft than any other game. The metagame of Starcraft has developed ridiculously over its lifetime. Certain players have become feared for their micro, others become predictable by relying on ‘perfect’ timings, while another you would be afraid to let expand because of their macro efficiency.

All these aspects have developed because of the aged interface and mechanics. They have given the game soul and allowed countless players to play the game in a variety of ways and challenge themselves to change their play style in a significant way. Many fans are praying Starcraft 2 won’t mark the end of a golden age of competitive real time strategy. While others think the entire industry is about to be reshaped into something too exciting to imagine.




Blizzard only cares about the money

Those money grabbers over at Blizz HQ, what are they like? It’s all about the cash to them. Many an indignant gamer has complained about the financial decisions of this gaming giant as they are the ones so very in control of many fans’ most loved games.

It only requires a look at their business decisions of late to know that I’m right: Start with World of Warcraft, The monthly fee is an inevitable part of any MMO, so we cannot begrudge them of that, but the money goes into creating updates that the gamers are expecting, yet the same gamers who are paying these monthly fees have to pay for the expansion when its released. Secondly we have the announcement that Starcraft 2 will be split into three shipments, the latter two being expansions to the original with extra units and a continuation of the storyline. Then there is Diablo 3, is there any need for blizzard to make this game really?

The answer: No, actually, they don’t need to make this game, they don’t need to make Starcraft 2, they don’t even need to make a World of Warcraft expansion if they don’t want to. They are raking it in as it is! In actual fact, I believe Blizzard to be one of few games companies that relish in the fact that their ten year old games are still going strong, or at least a lot stronger than any other games of that period.

Yet still when I look at the many forums in the communities of Blizzard games, all I see are complaints. I wrote this article to hopefully address the 3 worst complaints, I hope I can speak for many like myself who often observe, but never find it worthwhile to comment lest our input be lost in a tsunami of outrage at something which the ‘Victim’ has very little justifiable anger for.

• “Blizzard only care about the money”
Blizzard have become a victim of their own success, with a massive money making enterprise such as World of Warcraft, how could they possibly please every single player? Myself, I hate the game, I played it up until The Burning Crusade, found the game to have lost its soul, and left. Yet I do not resent them for the single the fact that Blizzard have tried their best to meet the gamers needs. So if they only care about the money, why would they spend so much of it on new developments such as Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3? Quite honestly if you were to break down the average WoW players argument at Blizzard, it quite often is peppered with revealing cynicism and bitterness that has no justification, and therefore comes out in unsubstantiated comments on forums. To the WoW players: Blizzard does not owe you anything, and if they gave you this game for free, you would owe them an incredible amount, never forget that.

• “Blizzard do not release content fast enough”
Forgive me here, but who the hell do you think you are to expect them to use all their resources to painstakingly create new and elaborate encounters just to keep you busy? As if that wasn’t bad enough, these elitist players have the nerve to complain when Blizzard attempt to make this content more accessible to everyone, justifying their rage saying “these players aren’t good enough, therefore they don’t deserve to experience it”. You may be the worst skier in the world, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t entitled to enjoy the mountain if you pay for the holiday. Once again: Blizzard doesn’t have to respect the top tier raider, just because of their “skill” (Those inverted commas will never be large enough to encompass my dislike for the elitist attitude), they are the most expensive customers, they pay the same as everyone else, but they stretch Blizzards resources to the limit. Funnily enough, I respect the very very top level raiding guilds, as in... the top 5. There are momentary lapses, usually by a single member of the guilds in question, yet on the whole they maintain a respect for blizzard.

• “The game is imbalanced, Blizzard doesn’t care”
Bullshit. So they are taking longer than you hoped with that new Warcraft patch? Sorry to hear that, but if you prefer quicker updates, EA is probably the company for you, They just patched FIFA in October! It is ironic that all the forum posters that consider themselves an expert in their particular field of Blizzard gaming (be it “UD IS WEAK!” “MAGES GET OUTDPSED BY LOCKS!” or “SHAMANS SUX!”) are the ones whose narrow-mindedness has lasted so long it has given them the attention span of, well... it would be an insult to insects everywhere to make a comparison. Patching takes time, balancing is a laborious process. What good is it for Blizzard’s bank balance if their games are terrible?

I don’t expect this article to change your opinion, as with all sources, you're opinion shouldnt be based on one article you happened to read, however there are FAR too many gamers who either haven’t taken the time to consider another point of view or flat out just ignore it because they can't be bothered to think about it. Perhaps my arguments are far from perfect, but I consider those that I have deconstructed in this article to have more gaping holes in them. Hopefully if you initially agreed with the title of this article, you will have taken the time to consider carefully the meaning behind my words before dismissing them as invalid, as for those that share my views, Pass on your naivety and positivity to those who are in dire need of some, after all... Optimism won’t make you feel any better, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth it.

http://www.sk-gaming.com/rss/blog/TBP-Dc

• All
• March 2009 (1)
• February 2009 (2)