I have a problem. I just bought my wife an eBook reader for our anniversary (5 years!). It's a pretty good little gadget. Very simple to use, basically plug and read. The software is slick, and ties directly to their store. And their store is pretty closely tied to our local big-box bookstore.
I live in Canada, so our big book store is Chapters (slash Indigo, slash Coles... It's practically a monopoly of meat-space book selling, but that's another rant). The eReader is a Kobo.
Now buying books has gotten complicated. Morgan and I share a fairly large library already. Our tastes in literature overlap quite a bit, and often we'll both read a book shortly after buying it. However, as we step gingerly into this brave new digital world I am becoming worried that who owns what will hinder our enjoyment of our books.
Right now we have one eReader. Specifically she has an eReader, so things will work okay. She can buy eBooks through Kobo's website, sync them to her reader, and generally enjoy her new toy. If I want to read something she has bought in digital form, I'll just have to beg her to let me borrow the Kobo. Otherwise I'll stick to the Guttenberg versions.
But I don't think it will be very long until I get my own eReader. I can feel the gentle pangs of tech-jealousy already. Frankly, I've wanted an eReader for a while now. (I actually want a magical device that doesn't exist yet and does much more than a simple eReader could, but I'll settle for something with eInk). This is where things get complicated.
Do I have to use her account to get books she's bought onto my device (which may, or may not be a Kobo as well)? What happens when I want to buy a book? Where is the shared library? It used to be over on the other side of my living room on several Ikea bookcases. Now it resides online (under who's user ID?) or on PC (hers or mine?).
DRM works great from a single user perspective. A single person can buy stuff, move it about his various devices, and generally enjoy his content. DRM fails once the number of people sharing the content goes up to two. Either everyone has to use a shared account, or everyone has to buy their own content. Neither is what I want, especially since I like to centralize all of our shared content in a shared network location but we both contribute to the library individually. DRM makes that hard to do too.
I have no illusions that DRM is going to be around for a while. But to make this easier for everyone the DRM services have to get smarter about connecting people's content. Basically, what I want to do is connect my DRM account to Morgan's DRM account. I can buy content, and she can buy content, but we both have access to it because the accounts are linked. I can manage the DRM on my devices, she can manage hers. We can even have private content that we don't share. The point is that we can still have the shared library, which is the important part.
Someone needs to get on this now because not too long from now my son Damian is going to want to get content of his own, and have access to mine. If I have to buy DRM protected content, then at least make it easy for me to share it with my family. And this doesn't just apply to eBooks (Adobe Digital Editions, I'm looking at you) but to music, movies, and video games as well. Apple needs to add this to iTunes, Microsoft needs to add it to the Xbox Live service. And anyone else thinking of locking their content to a single user account needs to re-think their approach. Not everyone is a unit, single and apart. Morgan, Damian and I are now three people that make one family, who share our content.
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Video Games Are the Rules
This a rebuttal to Yehuda's post: Why Don't Video Games Tell You the Rules?
Firstly, a declaration: I am a video gamer and a board gamer. I love to explore any system that has rules and systems. However, there are fundamental differences between the organization and execution of each type of game that alters not only how we perceve them, but also how we play them. Most of these have to do with the social spaces of the games.
Walking The Path
I am going to object to the use of The Path as an example of video games because it does not represent even a fraction of experimental (and I hate to have to make this particular distinction) "art" games. I have not had the chance to play The Path, but from eveything I have read it is less a game and more a narrative exploration of a theme with in a environmental framework. Like a living story.
The rules of the game are deliberately hidden because the entire game is about exploration of the space as part of the underlying metaphor. As you discover how the world works you are also discovering the narrative that has been hidden, and are able to piece together your experiences (fabula) into a cohesive story that is unique to your understanding of the game space. That includes how you understand the game world's rules.
The Path is to most video games what Mao is to most card games: a deliberate exploration of rules and game space.
(For those of you who don't know, Mao is a card game for a moderately large group of people that primarily involves making up and figuring out the rules without explaining them out loud. It can get very strange, be very confusing to someone who doesn't know how to play, and will always be different. You may not even understand all the rules in play during a single session until it ends.)
Reason 1: Don't Tell, Show
I love complicated rule systems in my games. I own one board game that has a 30 page rule book. It's so complicated that it comes with an 8 page comic as a Quick Start Guide. I would rather explain the rules first than (or at least the basics) than just jump in with a confused (and often bewildered, wide-eyed) new player. However, the thing I most often hear is, "Let's just get started and they can pick it up as we go". So I wind up explaining both rules and strategy periodically as we progress and new situations come up.
But what if I could not only explain as we went, but show you without pausing? What if I could make strategies easy to understand by putting them in context as we play? In a board game I'd have to explain that Unit X can move 3 spaces and Unit Y can move 4 (but only over water tiles), but in a video game you could see that when you clicked on Unit X that 3 spaces in every direction were lit and allowed you to move there and that 4 spaces were lit for Unit Y, but only over water. Sure, both games might have a little icon with a 3 or 4 and a little wave icon for Unit Y, but the video game enforces the rules whether you know them or not. But I suppose that leads to Reason 2...
Reason 2: Crunching the Math
In Settlers of Catan you know exactly what the probability of rolling to get resources from any single hex is every time you roll (so long as you understand some basic probability and statistics). That doesn't mean you understand how the math plays into the overall strategy of the game. 6s and 8s are mathematically the best tiles to own, but if you don't diversify you may wind up just as stuck as if you chose 2s and 11s. Of course, the rules don't explain that, you have to play the game to understand the strategy.
In a video game you may not know the exact probability of hitting an enemy, or the exact damage you will do. The math may be hidden or obsured by other numbers or mitigating factors (like resistance). Same games may show this, some may not. This does not mean that you cannot make educated guesses and intuit strategies that work. All the while, developing a deeper understanding of the systems that underlie the combat. Of course that can't happen until you start to play. Whether the rules are detailed and understood before or hidden and revealed later, strategy only develops from playing and experience.
Any game you play (video or otherwise) that has poorly defined goals, indications of progress, or insufficient feedback is squarely in the fault of the design and not the medium. However, that does not mean you have to understand the math or the entire underlying system to play (or even to win). As a new game player, I would only know all the cards in Pandemic if I looked at them first and read the rules on how they worked. Many games have similar resources, should you be interested enough to look.
Reason 3: Concession is a House Rule
I will freely admit that one drawback to playing a video game over a board game (especially when playing a video game remake of a board game) is that there is no support for house rules. The computer will always mediate the situation; it is immutable. Variations must be added by the designers, but even these cannot be strayed from.
Concession is one such variation. Is there a way to concede in the rules of Monopoly? Risk? Only if the players agree. Is there a way to concede in a video game? Only if it is programmed in. My suggestion: tell your designer friend that it is good option to add.
Are there thoughtful video games, with explicit rules and goals, where the game is played, round by round, to calculated victory?
Short answer: Yes, of course there are.
Long answer: I'm actually a little disappointed that this is even asked. Are there board games with any depth and strategy? Ones that don't just have a rule system with a theme slapped on them? Of course there are, if you care to look for them. But if all you've seen are Hasbo games at Toys-R-Us, then you're not seeing the whole picture.
Judging video games by a scant few on the edge (an Art/High Concept game, a web game in development, and some second-hand FPSs) is hardly fair to the depth and breadth of gaming.
What would you like to play? Tactical game, management game, action game, strategy game? Real-time, turn-based, online? How much time do you have?
Firstly, a declaration: I am a video gamer and a board gamer. I love to explore any system that has rules and systems. However, there are fundamental differences between the organization and execution of each type of game that alters not only how we perceve them, but also how we play them. Most of these have to do with the social spaces of the games.
Walking The Path
I am going to object to the use of The Path as an example of video games because it does not represent even a fraction of experimental (and I hate to have to make this particular distinction) "art" games. I have not had the chance to play The Path, but from eveything I have read it is less a game and more a narrative exploration of a theme with in a environmental framework. Like a living story.
The rules of the game are deliberately hidden because the entire game is about exploration of the space as part of the underlying metaphor. As you discover how the world works you are also discovering the narrative that has been hidden, and are able to piece together your experiences (fabula) into a cohesive story that is unique to your understanding of the game space. That includes how you understand the game world's rules.
The Path is to most video games what Mao is to most card games: a deliberate exploration of rules and game space.
(For those of you who don't know, Mao is a card game for a moderately large group of people that primarily involves making up and figuring out the rules without explaining them out loud. It can get very strange, be very confusing to someone who doesn't know how to play, and will always be different. You may not even understand all the rules in play during a single session until it ends.)
Reason 1: Don't Tell, Show
I love complicated rule systems in my games. I own one board game that has a 30 page rule book. It's so complicated that it comes with an 8 page comic as a Quick Start Guide. I would rather explain the rules first than (or at least the basics) than just jump in with a confused (and often bewildered, wide-eyed) new player. However, the thing I most often hear is, "Let's just get started and they can pick it up as we go". So I wind up explaining both rules and strategy periodically as we progress and new situations come up.
But what if I could not only explain as we went, but show you without pausing? What if I could make strategies easy to understand by putting them in context as we play? In a board game I'd have to explain that Unit X can move 3 spaces and Unit Y can move 4 (but only over water tiles), but in a video game you could see that when you clicked on Unit X that 3 spaces in every direction were lit and allowed you to move there and that 4 spaces were lit for Unit Y, but only over water. Sure, both games might have a little icon with a 3 or 4 and a little wave icon for Unit Y, but the video game enforces the rules whether you know them or not. But I suppose that leads to Reason 2...
Reason 2: Crunching the Math
In Settlers of Catan you know exactly what the probability of rolling to get resources from any single hex is every time you roll (so long as you understand some basic probability and statistics). That doesn't mean you understand how the math plays into the overall strategy of the game. 6s and 8s are mathematically the best tiles to own, but if you don't diversify you may wind up just as stuck as if you chose 2s and 11s. Of course, the rules don't explain that, you have to play the game to understand the strategy.
In a video game you may not know the exact probability of hitting an enemy, or the exact damage you will do. The math may be hidden or obsured by other numbers or mitigating factors (like resistance). Same games may show this, some may not. This does not mean that you cannot make educated guesses and intuit strategies that work. All the while, developing a deeper understanding of the systems that underlie the combat. Of course that can't happen until you start to play. Whether the rules are detailed and understood before or hidden and revealed later, strategy only develops from playing and experience.
Any game you play (video or otherwise) that has poorly defined goals, indications of progress, or insufficient feedback is squarely in the fault of the design and not the medium. However, that does not mean you have to understand the math or the entire underlying system to play (or even to win). As a new game player, I would only know all the cards in Pandemic if I looked at them first and read the rules on how they worked. Many games have similar resources, should you be interested enough to look.
Reason 3: Concession is a House Rule
I will freely admit that one drawback to playing a video game over a board game (especially when playing a video game remake of a board game) is that there is no support for house rules. The computer will always mediate the situation; it is immutable. Variations must be added by the designers, but even these cannot be strayed from.
Concession is one such variation. Is there a way to concede in the rules of Monopoly? Risk? Only if the players agree. Is there a way to concede in a video game? Only if it is programmed in. My suggestion: tell your designer friend that it is good option to add.
Are there thoughtful video games, with explicit rules and goals, where the game is played, round by round, to calculated victory?
Short answer: Yes, of course there are.
Long answer: I'm actually a little disappointed that this is even asked. Are there board games with any depth and strategy? Ones that don't just have a rule system with a theme slapped on them? Of course there are, if you care to look for them. But if all you've seen are Hasbo games at Toys-R-Us, then you're not seeing the whole picture.
Judging video games by a scant few on the edge (an Art/High Concept game, a web game in development, and some second-hand FPSs) is hardly fair to the depth and breadth of gaming.
What would you like to play? Tactical game, management game, action game, strategy game? Real-time, turn-based, online? How much time do you have?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Press X to Not Die
The Minigame Court (an offshoot of Chris Bateman's blog Only a Game) currently has Quick Time Events (QTEs) on trial. For the game uninitiated, QTEs encompass any action where the player must suddenly (and sometimes repeatedly) hit a button or series of buttons to preform an action during a non-gameplay moment. It has, perhaps most famously, be characterized as "Press X to Not Die".
You may read the prosecution and defense here: http://tinyurl.com/89qdvh
Vote here: http://tinyurl.com/8w6jqd
My comments become so meandering, I decided to post them here.
----
Quick Time Events for the sake of keeping the player awake are a gross misinterpretation of their original purpose. QTEs were intended to provide game designers a means to include complex, often context sensitive actions, without the benefit of a complex interface or simulation.
Let's go back to their origin: Dragon's Lair. This is a game about simple controls resulting in complex action. To rescue the princess, Dirk (the stalwart hero) must dodge, jump, attack, avoid, and many other action-y things. The interface is a single joystick and a single button. A direction and an action. As the game context changes so does what the direction and/or action mean. But that's okay, because that is all that the game ever asks of you, pick the right direction or action to continue.
Fast forward to today, where in many games you have a wide range of controls available throughout the active gameplay segments. In many 3D platformers, shooters, and action games there are as many as a dozen different verbs given to the player at ANY time via the increasingly complex controllers. Movement on one joystick, camera view on another. Then jump, shoot, use, pick up, drop, equip, etc. The user is expected to do many things through the rich interface provided.
Until the game reaches a cut scene and promptly removes all control. Then the game demands you press a button, or complete an input sequence (sometimes randomly generated), to continue.
The complex control for complex actions is suddenly suplanted by a simple control for a very specific complex action. That sudden shift of interface and control is the killer leap.
Press X for Lazy Design
Truth be told, I don't hate QTEs all that much. I understand (sometimes) why they are used. However, in many cases they are used an excuse to be lazy and not design a better metaphor for interaction.
Case in point: I've just started playing Bioware's Mass Effect. I'm a self-declared Bioware fanboy, but certain choices made in the interface of this game are already starting to irritate me.
Hacking, for instance, is done via a short Simon Says mini-game. A QTE that scales in difficulty with the lock strengths and your skill attributes. And to some small degree it meshes with the metaphor of the task without pulling the user out of the game too much. But at the same time it could have been better. Repeating the sequence steps, as they appear, within the limited time turns the job of hacking into a skill of reflex instead of intellect. Fail to have the reaction time needed and you suffer the penalty of using onmigel (in-game resources) to overcome your failure. It makes me wonder how much I'll simply be relying on omnigel to get things done as I progress through the game.
Alternatively, Fallout 3 uses a system where hacking takes you to a terminal-style screen. You have to examine a jumbled output of data/text/randomness and try to guess the password by playing Master Mind. Words highlight as you select them. Choosing one gives you an idea of how much of it was right. Finding matched braces in the jumble can also help you by removing bad options or resetting the screen. Solving these takes a lot more skill, or sometimes luck, than a QTE, and fits better with the narrative world that it exists in.
-----
My, now much belabored, point is that QTEs are fine so long as they make sense within the interface, context, and overall storytelling method that your game employs. Too often though they are used as gimmicks or cheap challenges to replace real game design. This shouldn't be so. Most of all, though, is the argument that if you are going to include QTEs, then make them a regular part of the game. Introduce them often and use them regularly. Give the players a fighting chance of getting them right, and if they fail, perhaps provide an easy exit so they don't have to suffer your poor design choices to continue.
You may read the prosecution and defense here: http://tinyurl.com/89qdvh
Vote here: http://tinyurl.com/8w6jqd
My comments become so meandering, I decided to post them here.
----
Quick Time Events for the sake of keeping the player awake are a gross misinterpretation of their original purpose. QTEs were intended to provide game designers a means to include complex, often context sensitive actions, without the benefit of a complex interface or simulation.
Let's go back to their origin: Dragon's Lair. This is a game about simple controls resulting in complex action. To rescue the princess, Dirk (the stalwart hero) must dodge, jump, attack, avoid, and many other action-y things. The interface is a single joystick and a single button. A direction and an action. As the game context changes so does what the direction and/or action mean. But that's okay, because that is all that the game ever asks of you, pick the right direction or action to continue.
Fast forward to today, where in many games you have a wide range of controls available throughout the active gameplay segments. In many 3D platformers, shooters, and action games there are as many as a dozen different verbs given to the player at ANY time via the increasingly complex controllers. Movement on one joystick, camera view on another. Then jump, shoot, use, pick up, drop, equip, etc. The user is expected to do many things through the rich interface provided.
Until the game reaches a cut scene and promptly removes all control. Then the game demands you press a button, or complete an input sequence (sometimes randomly generated), to continue.
The complex control for complex actions is suddenly suplanted by a simple control for a very specific complex action. That sudden shift of interface and control is the killer leap.
Press X for Lazy Design
Truth be told, I don't hate QTEs all that much. I understand (sometimes) why they are used. However, in many cases they are used an excuse to be lazy and not design a better metaphor for interaction.
Case in point: I've just started playing Bioware's Mass Effect. I'm a self-declared Bioware fanboy, but certain choices made in the interface of this game are already starting to irritate me.
Hacking, for instance, is done via a short Simon Says mini-game. A QTE that scales in difficulty with the lock strengths and your skill attributes. And to some small degree it meshes with the metaphor of the task without pulling the user out of the game too much. But at the same time it could have been better. Repeating the sequence steps, as they appear, within the limited time turns the job of hacking into a skill of reflex instead of intellect. Fail to have the reaction time needed and you suffer the penalty of using onmigel (in-game resources) to overcome your failure. It makes me wonder how much I'll simply be relying on omnigel to get things done as I progress through the game.
Alternatively, Fallout 3 uses a system where hacking takes you to a terminal-style screen. You have to examine a jumbled output of data/text/randomness and try to guess the password by playing Master Mind. Words highlight as you select them. Choosing one gives you an idea of how much of it was right. Finding matched braces in the jumble can also help you by removing bad options or resetting the screen. Solving these takes a lot more skill, or sometimes luck, than a QTE, and fits better with the narrative world that it exists in.
-----
My, now much belabored, point is that QTEs are fine so long as they make sense within the interface, context, and overall storytelling method that your game employs. Too often though they are used as gimmicks or cheap challenges to replace real game design. This shouldn't be so. Most of all, though, is the argument that if you are going to include QTEs, then make them a regular part of the game. Introduce them often and use them regularly. Give the players a fighting chance of getting them right, and if they fail, perhaps provide an easy exit so they don't have to suffer your poor design choices to continue.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Seeing Pink
I'm a guy and I like to window shop. I think I get it from my mom. When I was younger, we would go shopping together. It was a time to bond and talk. Most guys get bored with wandering the endless aisles, and become laconic and brooding when dragged to malls just to shop. Not me. I love to browse.
Anyway, my wife and I were out doing some lazy Saturday window shopping. At Toy's R Us, as it happens. My favourite sections of the store are the board games and the video games. They are my passions and I like to see what has become "mainstream". The current big thing for board games is co-branding. If you have a hit TV or Movie IP then you need to get it on a board game.
Some of these make great sense: like Dora the Explorer in Candyland. That's an awesome idea to bring a favourite (and often beloved) children's game to a new generation of players. Most of the co-branding makes little sense, and is basically unnecessary: like Transformer's Stratego. It doesn't really do anything for the game except add a novelty that might get you to play the game, but will do little to make you want to re-play it. The novelty of branding wears thin the older you get (... usually).
I browsed through the games, smiling and shaking my head. Then I saw something that stopped me dead. Something so awful that I had to share it. This.
This is Monopoly Boutique Edition. It claimed to be a Toy's R Us exclusive, but a quick search reveals you can also purchase this abomination from Amazon. In case the picture isn't graphic enough, here is the product blurb from the TRU website:
This is why games are never taken seriously. This is why girls are relegated to a mythological place in gaming. This is why someone is currently developing Pink Princess Pony Adventure 3 for the DS. THIS.
Before my vision goes completely pink, let me just say a few things about why this kind of game marketing (for board or video games) is a bad direction to take. Ignore the pink, ignore the stereotyping, and ignore the misogyny that oozes from these "Games for Girls". Marketing these games is almost always a cover for making bad games, but trying to trick the consumer into buying them anyway.
Games should never need to be developed for a market so exclusively that they lose track of what really makes a game enjoyable. If someone wanted to make a game about shopping at a mall, then they should have built it to reflect how malls work, and what makes malls interesting. Oh, wait: someone already did. Of course, if that game was really fun then shouldn't there be a version where you have to get all the latest electronics?
Slapping a name or a recognizable face onto a game in order to slip a few dollars from easily distracted individuals may be good marketing but it's bad business. Failing to make games that are fun to play, and get others to play, will only lose you future players. We who know there can be more to games already have to work twice as hard to change our friends' and colleagues' minds, and get them playing again. Too many people have "grown out of games" because (mainstream) games never grew with them.
And painting a game pink just demeans us all.
Anyway, my wife and I were out doing some lazy Saturday window shopping. At Toy's R Us, as it happens. My favourite sections of the store are the board games and the video games. They are my passions and I like to see what has become "mainstream". The current big thing for board games is co-branding. If you have a hit TV or Movie IP then you need to get it on a board game.
Some of these make great sense: like Dora the Explorer in Candyland. That's an awesome idea to bring a favourite (and often beloved) children's game to a new generation of players. Most of the co-branding makes little sense, and is basically unnecessary: like Transformer's Stratego. It doesn't really do anything for the game except add a novelty that might get you to play the game, but will do little to make you want to re-play it. The novelty of branding wears thin the older you get (... usually).
I browsed through the games, smiling and shaking my head. Then I saw something that stopped me dead. Something so awful that I had to share it. This.
This is Monopoly Boutique Edition. It claimed to be a Toy's R Us exclusive, but a quick search reveals you can also purchase this abomination from Amazon. In case the picture isn't graphic enough, here is the product blurb from the TRU website:
This is Monopoly like you have never seen it - dressed up in pink and all about things girls love! Buy boutiques and malls, go on a shopping spree, pay your cell phone bill, and get text and instant messages. You and your friends will adore the funky tokens, cool buildings, and cute illustrations. Best of all, the game is stored in a beautiful keepsake box which doubles as a jewelry box. Cool game features include: 8 collectible tokens just for girls, keepsake storage box with removable tray and mirrored insert, pink gameboard with fun properties, pink and purple translucent boutiques and malls instead of houses and hotels, Instant Message and Text Message cards instead of Chance and Community Chest, pink Title Deed cards, redesigned Monopoly money, flocked banker's tray, 2 pink dice, and instructions. Paint the town pink with Toys R Us Exclusive!
This is why games are never taken seriously. This is why girls are relegated to a mythological place in gaming. This is why someone is currently developing Pink Princess Pony Adventure 3 for the DS. THIS.
Before my vision goes completely pink, let me just say a few things about why this kind of game marketing (for board or video games) is a bad direction to take. Ignore the pink, ignore the stereotyping, and ignore the misogyny that oozes from these "Games for Girls". Marketing these games is almost always a cover for making bad games, but trying to trick the consumer into buying them anyway.
Games should never need to be developed for a market so exclusively that they lose track of what really makes a game enjoyable. If someone wanted to make a game about shopping at a mall, then they should have built it to reflect how malls work, and what makes malls interesting. Oh, wait: someone already did. Of course, if that game was really fun then shouldn't there be a version where you have to get all the latest electronics?
Slapping a name or a recognizable face onto a game in order to slip a few dollars from easily distracted individuals may be good marketing but it's bad business. Failing to make games that are fun to play, and get others to play, will only lose you future players. We who know there can be more to games already have to work twice as hard to change our friends' and colleagues' minds, and get them playing again. Too many people have "grown out of games" because (mainstream) games never grew with them.
And painting a game pink just demeans us all.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Marketing Gap
I ran across this in a Wal-Mart the other day, and it made me shake my head. A quick bit of research later (ie - two minutes of Google searching) and I'm even more baffled.
I'm standing there, browsing the DS games. There is little order behind the glass; a haphazard attempt at alphabetization at best. My eyes skim over title after uninteresting title. Past Harvest Moon DS, which I take note of because I think Morgan might like it. Then on, to the end of the row and back across the next. Then I spot Harvest Moon again. Only "Cute". Harvest Moon DS Cute.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that marketing a game for a wider audience is fine. However, this boggles me. I know that, traditionally, the Harvest Moon series has had male protagonists. Since the game centers around making a living and finding a wife, I can see how this might limit the number of women who would want to play. Opening the game to a female protagonist sounds like the perfect solution.
But why two releases? Animal Crossing didn't need to have two releases to firmly land the coveted female game market. So why the *shudder* Cute release? The cases are nearly identical. Both have a variety of cute farm animals. Both have your agriculturally adept lead. One just happens to be a girl, and have the word CUTE, in pink, slapped over the corner of the Logo. Inside, from what I understand, the games are nearly identical too. Was there really too little room on the cartridge to put options for both male and female protagonists? Wait, the cute version also appears to have a few more ways to customize your clothes and house. Boys don't get to accessorize? No Queer Eye for the Game Guy? These options couldn't be added to the standard release?
And, icing on the already too-sweet cake, the games seem to have different prices. My Wal-Mart (Canadian) had the cute version of the game priced $10 lower than the standard version. Gamestop.com (US) has the cute version $10 more.
Sometimes I wish we could stop spending so much time marketing games to squeeze every last dollar out of the "new gaming markets".
I'm standing there, browsing the DS games. There is little order behind the glass; a haphazard attempt at alphabetization at best. My eyes skim over title after uninteresting title. Past Harvest Moon DS, which I take note of because I think Morgan might like it. Then on, to the end of the row and back across the next. Then I spot Harvest Moon again. Only "Cute". Harvest Moon DS Cute.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that marketing a game for a wider audience is fine. However, this boggles me. I know that, traditionally, the Harvest Moon series has had male protagonists. Since the game centers around making a living and finding a wife, I can see how this might limit the number of women who would want to play. Opening the game to a female protagonist sounds like the perfect solution.
But why two releases? Animal Crossing didn't need to have two releases to firmly land the coveted female game market. So why the *shudder* Cute release? The cases are nearly identical. Both have a variety of cute farm animals. Both have your agriculturally adept lead. One just happens to be a girl, and have the word CUTE, in pink, slapped over the corner of the Logo. Inside, from what I understand, the games are nearly identical too. Was there really too little room on the cartridge to put options for both male and female protagonists? Wait, the cute version also appears to have a few more ways to customize your clothes and house. Boys don't get to accessorize? No Queer Eye for the Game Guy? These options couldn't be added to the standard release?
And, icing on the already too-sweet cake, the games seem to have different prices. My Wal-Mart (Canadian) had the cute version of the game priced $10 lower than the standard version. Gamestop.com (US) has the cute version $10 more.
Sometimes I wish we could stop spending so much time marketing games to squeeze every last dollar out of the "new gaming markets".
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Expectations
There has been a lot of Nintendo news in the last couple of days. But the more I look at the bigger picture that Nintendo is painting, the more worried I get that it does not have the Gamer, (Indie) Developer, or Newly Addicted Casual Player at heart. Now, I must confess, I was never a Nintendo Fanboy. Sure the early systems were amazing, but I was one of the few who always found that the potential held by the competition was better than the success in mediocrity that Nintendo was achieving. Lately, Nintendo has been stretching itself creatively, and succeeding in both the market and in design. I went from owning no Nintendo systems to buying a GameBoy Advance SP, a Nintendo DS, and finally a Wii in the span of 3-4 years. I have great expectations, I just have a cynical nature... See below.
WiiWare
The biggest WiiNews since the name change. Nintendo has announced WiiWare, a downloadable content arcade open to indie developers as well as larger studios. The new downloads are slated to work in a similar fashion to the Virtual Console titles. Read the Scoop, and the Press Release for the reported low-down.
So is this the killer app everyone has been hoping for? Will it open the doors wide to the creative and dedicated new talents of the indie developer community? Will the walls of traditional gaming come tumbling down under the onslaught of small studio content revolution? In a word: No. There are two very clear reasons why not.
The first is that Nintendo claims it will not be vetting content. I can hear cheers rising from the wings already. The downside is that this means that small developers are going to have to fork over the cash and time to get ESRB (or equivalent) ratings. This is a big hurdle for small studios that are not positioned, and have never needed, to deal with the big market players. This also means that AO (Adults Only) content will be shunned by Nintendo,who still hold the keys to the Mushroom Kingdom.
Speaking of keys, Nintendo will also be determining pricing. I'll make the cynical assumption that they will also likely determine how much of that trickles back to the developer. Hoping to release your game as free-to-play? Not unless Nintendo says so. And why would they release free content, when they hold the means to distribution? Expect to pay for those arcade titles, and indie titles, and don't expect to see anything that is inventive and creative just for the sake of experimentation.
The idea is sound. In fact the idea is fantastic. Nintendo is just being a little conservative. By not offering an in-house, or cheap alternative rating system they are going to block a lot of first-time and small-scale developers. By controlling the means of distribution, they are ensuring that only the content they approve will really be available, even if they claim otherwise. It's what they have always done. Nintendo has always been careful of what they sign their name to, and that isn't going to change any time soon. The doors have not really been flung wide, just opened to the select few Nintendo thinks might be a good investment. You are still going to have to look and talk right to get into their party.
Battle Revolutions
If I say "Pokemon" you will either smile wistfully or cringe. Either way, you'll know what I'm talking about. With the release of the umpteenth edition of Pokemon for the DS, the series continues unabated for another generation. And for a second time (third, fourth?) it attempts to leap from hand-held to console, debuting on the Wii. My complaint isn't with Pokemon. I can't play the game, it drives me nuts. Between my obsessive compulsive nature and the repetitive collection mechanic, it both irritates and addicts me to the point of obsession and boredom. I've learned to avoid things like this (well, except for Animal Crossing, and I think I've kicked that habit now).
But back to my complaint. Why is the first game on the Wii that uses DS connectivity and WiFi gameplay not really a game. Not only is it not really a game, it's merely a sales vehicle for a completely different system. If you buy Pokemon Battle Revolution without first owning a DS and a copy of Pokemon Diamond or Pearl you will find yourself in the possession of a shell of a game. You will be able to play with a "Rental Pass" (their term) and use a slimmed down selection of Pokemon. Basically the game is telling you to go out and buy a Pokemon DS game.
Gamers have waited expectantly to use the unique touch interface of the DS on a full-sized game, and the first thing we are fed is a fancy visualizer for another game. While the game supports upto 4 players (each needing a DS) each player needs their own DS Pokemon cart.
It seems to me that Nintendo is ignoring the opportunity for new gameplay, and community growth in favour of selling more product. Their first priority is a game that will merchandise rather than a game that will evangelize. I guess it was too much to hope for a change in corporate policy.
Disenfranchised Generation
I never owned a GameCube. Now I don't have to. After all with full hardware backwards compatibility I can play all the GameCube games I want on my Wii. There are dozens of great looking games that I have played, and want to play, that should only be a trip to the local GameHustler away. Except that Nintendo has all but killed their GameCube support. Releases for the system are hard to find (are they even pressing new discs anymore?), with selections in the scant dozens from a library of hundreds. And I can't find a WaveBird anywhere.
Why include a backwards compatible option on a system designed to capture new users if you don't intend to support -- or even make available -- that existing library of games? Why provide hardware ports if you can barely find controllers for them? Why make a wireless controller and then stop when everything has gone wireless? This seems to me like a dumb way to support your older content, and your new players.
Sony (back when they were sane, and capable of making a good business decision) built the PS2 to be backwards compatible because they new it would snow under the competition. When everyone was releasing new systems and had only launch titles to satisfy the rabid masses, the PS2 had a huge, and well supported library of games to fall back on. Buying a PS2 right away was smart because you had things to play. And Sony supported the library. For a good long time. I think Nintendo forgot that last part.
WiiWare
The biggest WiiNews since the name change. Nintendo has announced WiiWare, a downloadable content arcade open to indie developers as well as larger studios. The new downloads are slated to work in a similar fashion to the Virtual Console titles. Read the Scoop, and the Press Release for the reported low-down.
So is this the killer app everyone has been hoping for? Will it open the doors wide to the creative and dedicated new talents of the indie developer community? Will the walls of traditional gaming come tumbling down under the onslaught of small studio content revolution? In a word: No. There are two very clear reasons why not.
The first is that Nintendo claims it will not be vetting content. I can hear cheers rising from the wings already. The downside is that this means that small developers are going to have to fork over the cash and time to get ESRB (or equivalent) ratings. This is a big hurdle for small studios that are not positioned, and have never needed, to deal with the big market players. This also means that AO (Adults Only) content will be shunned by Nintendo,who still hold the keys to the Mushroom Kingdom.
Speaking of keys, Nintendo will also be determining pricing. I'll make the cynical assumption that they will also likely determine how much of that trickles back to the developer. Hoping to release your game as free-to-play? Not unless Nintendo says so. And why would they release free content, when they hold the means to distribution? Expect to pay for those arcade titles, and indie titles, and don't expect to see anything that is inventive and creative just for the sake of experimentation.
The idea is sound. In fact the idea is fantastic. Nintendo is just being a little conservative. By not offering an in-house, or cheap alternative rating system they are going to block a lot of first-time and small-scale developers. By controlling the means of distribution, they are ensuring that only the content they approve will really be available, even if they claim otherwise. It's what they have always done. Nintendo has always been careful of what they sign their name to, and that isn't going to change any time soon. The doors have not really been flung wide, just opened to the select few Nintendo thinks might be a good investment. You are still going to have to look and talk right to get into their party.
Battle Revolutions
If I say "Pokemon" you will either smile wistfully or cringe. Either way, you'll know what I'm talking about. With the release of the umpteenth edition of Pokemon for the DS, the series continues unabated for another generation. And for a second time (third, fourth?) it attempts to leap from hand-held to console, debuting on the Wii. My complaint isn't with Pokemon. I can't play the game, it drives me nuts. Between my obsessive compulsive nature and the repetitive collection mechanic, it both irritates and addicts me to the point of obsession and boredom. I've learned to avoid things like this (well, except for Animal Crossing, and I think I've kicked that habit now).
But back to my complaint. Why is the first game on the Wii that uses DS connectivity and WiFi gameplay not really a game. Not only is it not really a game, it's merely a sales vehicle for a completely different system. If you buy Pokemon Battle Revolution without first owning a DS and a copy of Pokemon Diamond or Pearl you will find yourself in the possession of a shell of a game. You will be able to play with a "Rental Pass" (their term) and use a slimmed down selection of Pokemon. Basically the game is telling you to go out and buy a Pokemon DS game.
Gamers have waited expectantly to use the unique touch interface of the DS on a full-sized game, and the first thing we are fed is a fancy visualizer for another game. While the game supports upto 4 players (each needing a DS) each player needs their own DS Pokemon cart.
It seems to me that Nintendo is ignoring the opportunity for new gameplay, and community growth in favour of selling more product. Their first priority is a game that will merchandise rather than a game that will evangelize. I guess it was too much to hope for a change in corporate policy.
Disenfranchised Generation
I never owned a GameCube. Now I don't have to. After all with full hardware backwards compatibility I can play all the GameCube games I want on my Wii. There are dozens of great looking games that I have played, and want to play, that should only be a trip to the local GameHustler away. Except that Nintendo has all but killed their GameCube support. Releases for the system are hard to find (are they even pressing new discs anymore?), with selections in the scant dozens from a library of hundreds. And I can't find a WaveBird anywhere.
Why include a backwards compatible option on a system designed to capture new users if you don't intend to support -- or even make available -- that existing library of games? Why provide hardware ports if you can barely find controllers for them? Why make a wireless controller and then stop when everything has gone wireless? This seems to me like a dumb way to support your older content, and your new players.
Sony (back when they were sane, and capable of making a good business decision) built the PS2 to be backwards compatible because they new it would snow under the competition. When everyone was releasing new systems and had only launch titles to satisfy the rabid masses, the PS2 had a huge, and well supported library of games to fall back on. Buying a PS2 right away was smart because you had things to play. And Sony supported the library. For a good long time. I think Nintendo forgot that last part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)