Gaming Roundup 9/4/08: Un-Fun Fair

Posted 09/04/08 at 07:54:04 PM | by Nathan Grayson

In the past, I've clambered to the top of my soapbox tower in order to wax ludological about why games should be fun. While riding back down the escalator from atop my exceedingly ritzy box, I gazed upon my audience, hoping that I'd at least imparted one tiny nugget of info: I don't care about difficulty -- I'll even turn a game's masculinity meter down to "Very Easy" -- if it means having a good time. Lucky for me, many of today's game developers seem to agree with my sentiment. They hold our hands like an overprotective mother herding her child across the street. They give us failsafes for our failsafes. They design their games to be "fair."

But therein lies the problem. Personally, I think games should flip us a double-sided coin every once in a while. If the scales never tip, then what impact do our choices have? Take, for instance, BioShock. Whether you saved the Little Sisters or ended them, you still gained roughly the same amount of Eve, and bonus powers were negligible. BioShock was supposed to have us wracking our brains every time we made a choice. Your life versus the Little Sisters' -- power because of necessity versus mercy. Instead, though, the whole thing was a sham.

More recently, Mercenaries 2 made a similar mistake -- essentially replicating its weapon set across the game's different factions, making your choice of gun-toting employer basically meaningless.

And guess what? The onus for this trend rests on our shoulders. If the aliens have nicer weapons than the humans, we hop on message boards and join in a chorus of variously pitched whining. Single-player or multiplayer, if a game isn't perfectly "balanced," we get uppity.

So maybe we should just ease off our "!" key and let developers flex their creative muscles from time-to-time. A few failed attempts would be well worth the successes other games might reap.

But what say you, MPC readers? Should games continue down the sterile road toward same-same fairness, or would you prefer developers give some meaning to our choices, even if it means ruffling some feathers in the process?

Either way, this installment of the Roundup is just what you're looking for -- mostly because you're already reading it. Today, you'll find news about a wicked-cheap font from which X-COM now springs, a good reason to nab an Xbox 360, and episodic gaming's great failing.

Get the full scoop after the break.

Bethesda's Pagliarulo: Episodic Gaming 'Just Doesn't Get The Press'

"Episodic content has proven to be great, but it just didn't get the press," he says. "People talk about the quality of writing in Oblivion, how it's a little schizophrenic. But if you read the reviews of Shivering Isles, the expansion, people rave about the quality of the writing. It's a tremendous step up. But nobody thinks about that -- it's in the expansion."

"You've got companies like Valve and Blizzard who say, 'PC gaming is great!' I think that's a little misleading," he says. "It's great for them, because they're Valve and Blizzard. Valve has Steam, the most important PC distribution network in the world. It's fantastic."

"I don't think a lot of games have that opportunity. That's why I think [Xbox] Live [Arcade] is great. [For] smaller games like Braid, it's a great avenue."

Lordy, this guy has some interesting stuff to say. I'll be printing off copies of the full interview for all of my friends.

Tecmo rejects Square offer, in serious talks regarding Koei merger

“In our company’s source of revenue, as a result of a guarantee with our capable workers, a guarantee of steady game development and the preservation of our brand, there is a high possibility of improvement… Thus, our Managing Board declines the offer,” said Tecmo in a statement.

But Koei, maker of such hits as Dynasty Warriors 1-6, as well as the Dynasty Warriors Swimsuit Issue, may soon be getting some love from Tecmo.

"Under these circumstances, [Koei and Tecmo] have excellent financial positions, strengths and the ability to take advantage of each other in order to improve profitability and solidified the foundation of a worldwide leader," read Tecmo's statement.

But don't fret about a possible face-off between Dead or Alive's cast of voluptuous vixens and Chinese Warlord Lu Bu atop a snake monster; both companies aim to respect each other's individuality.

Xbox 360 US price cut is not about turning “profit today”

Yes, it's finally official, but it's probably going to put a dent or two in Microsoft's wallet.

“Microsoft wants to drum up demand for the holiday,” analyst Toan Tran said. “Microsoft’s long-term vision for the Xbox is not to turn a profit today.

“It’s a way to get a foothold into people’s living rooms.”

But, if you enjoy making progress in your games, you'll probably want to plunk down $80 for a proprietary Xbox 360 hard drive to go along with the cheapest Xbox SKU. So let's not start a pity-party for Sony and Nintendo just yet.

‘Halo Wars’ Designer Wants To Play ‘EndWar,’ Hadn’t Considered Voice Control

“It’s right over there,” he said of Ubisoft's Endwar while at PAX. “I really want to go play it. I’m anxious to see it. I’ve got to admit it’s a pretty unique idea and we didn’t think of that.”

But, he added, traditional controllers are still better than voice control in the RTS arena, as esteemed titles like Command & Conquer and Universe at War have proven. This, he clamored, after admitting that he hadn't even played the voice controlled RTS in the first place. Hmmmm.

X-COM Comes To Steam (And Wicked Cheap Too!)

Raving Rabbid Figures, Now Yours To Buy

My most anticipated anything of ever.

*Nathan was too busy taking advantage of this excellent deal to actually write anything about how you can now purchase X-COM: UFO Defense, X-COM: Apocalypse, X-COM: Interceptor, X-COM: Enforcer and X-COM: Terror From The Deep on Steam, bundled together for the low, low price of $13.49.

COMMENTS:: 10
TAGS:: gaming, microsoft, Software, news, Steam, ubisoft, Tecmo, Koei

Comments

COMMENTS

This all depends on you
Submitted by Muerte on Fri, 2008-09-05 11:49

This all depends on your definition of fun. I like games that challenge my twitch skills as well as my ability to think orouthink my opponent, most of the time.

I hate when you play a game do what you need to do to get to the top and then the makers nerf what it takes to get there so everyone else can make it too.

Yes I know not everyone can put the same amount of time into a game as I can and some can put more time than me. If you don't like it there is always checkers.

Login or register to post comments

This doesn't make sense
Submitted by BaggerX on Fri, 2008-09-05 10:03

Having 2 sides that are identical makes it easy to balance, sure. But doesn't really make it interesting or challenging. The idea of adopting different tactics and strategies for different sides or different classes or weapons is one of the things that can add a lot of depth to a game. Yeah, it needs to be done well and carefully, and I guess that's why we don't see it very often. It's just cheaper and easier to make each side a mirror image of the other.

As for the difficulty of games, what I'd like to see is for developers to make actual games instead of this dumbed-down, lowest-common-denominator crap that we see so much of now. They make it hard to fail. My cat could probably beat some of these games, and I'm talking about the dumber cat, not even the slightly smarter one.

I understand that they don't want to frustrate some players and that they want to allow them to experience the full game, yadda yadda. Fine. Give them options to make it easier. Give them auto-aim that they can turn on. Give them hints about how to proceed if they request it. Give them extra health, ammo, whatever. Make all these things available to them if they really need it. But don't take the game away from those of us that actually want to play a game!!

Login or register to post comments

Yes, games are too easy
Submitted by Shalbatana on Fri, 2008-09-05 08:37

Yes, games are too easy when it comes to dying. Starship Titanic (An interactive fiction/adventure game) had a bomb that if it got to zero was supposed to blow up the ship. You could "distract" it now and then though resetting it to 1000. Well guess what happens if you don't... nothing! Not only is that no fun but I had been running back and forth for a good half the game before figuring it out. Lame!

Games are games, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. None of this pee-wee T-ball we don't keep score mentality for me!

_______________________________

"There's no time like the future."

Login or register to post comments

The real measure of balance.
Submitted by Cache on Fri, 2008-09-05 07:04

Ultimately everybody says they want balance--they like the idea of going one on one with another player and besting them. This is a nice, quaint idea that has roots all the way back into medieval times where knights would joust to see who is best on equal terms. Life, however, is anything but equal.

When I fight an enemy I don't want to just best them on equal terms--sure, a kill is a kill--but I want to taste real victory. I want to take down a baddie whose gun outclasses mine, whose goals are not necessarily my own goals. Especially if their goals are not my goals. The modern FPS game is about diametrically opposed sides where 'we' need to beat 'them'. There's no grey area, there is no traitor in the midst, there isn't even a price for the vehicles, guns, manpower that we use. Can you imagine the dynamics of a game where each user could take from a common pot (whether through a commander or simply on demand) so that sure--you could buy that helicopter, but as funds dwindle you may have to make the choice of whether or not you want to have enough for guns and ammo near the end of the game. How about if one or more players were traitors--working for the benefits of the other team until found out and killed? So yeah--you could end up with a team that plays conservatively, letting the other team be left with nothing but a pistol and combat knife, and then take them out with machine guns. Unfair? Perhaps, but a hell of a good story. Even moreso if the underdog wins because THAT is what makes us cheer most.

There is a tremendous range of things we can and should be doing with game stories. Get rid of the 'Side A has a rocket launcher, and side B has a similar weapon that does the same amount of damage'. That doesn't make me want to take out a bad guy. Getting a better gun than I have? Oh yes, now that requires a little more skill. And as a gamer I respect skill--otherwise it's just luck.

Login or register to post comments

I agree, too much whining!
Submitted by lostcause64 on Fri, 2008-09-05 06:52

Now, I know this is before alot of you were even born, but... Back around '90, there was this miniatures/board game from FASA called Battletech, though most of you would remember it better by its electronic versions - Mechwarrior. FASA released an expansion back then called The Clans, with all new tech, better weapons & equipment, and better pilots or mechwarriors than what the game had previously. Two things happened. Most of the existing players jumped on the bandwagon to use the new toys, with most of the remaining players whining about how the Clans were too powerful a factionand it was unfair and no fun. A few of us did neither. We adapted our tactics (read - USED tactics) and continued to kick ass... names didn't matter! That's how I play pc games today. I want to be challenged and surprised, and not just by uping the number of monsters while cutting down on the amount of ammo.

If the game is "too hard" for you, practice! Adapt your play style and find a way to win. Just stop whining...

John

Try to be smarter than the object you're working with! It will make things easier, and might just save your life...

Login or register to post comments

It's like my great
Submitted by sirphunkee on Thu, 2008-09-04 22:08

It's like my great grandfather used to say, "you can't write perfect code for all of the people all of the time."

I think what gramps was trying to get across is that no matter what path development takes, from just status quo all the way up to "WAAAAAY the hell outside the box. Miles", you're never going to produce something that pleases everybody.

Personally, I'm happy when different games/developers take a stab at the same theme/plot/story...I think this is when the truly innovative ideas come out*...when they tackle something stalwart with a whole new perspective or approach.

*the entire star wars gaming franchise nothwithstanding

Login or register to post comments

Different games for different moods
Submitted by Queenof1 on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:39

I agree with the poster below me. There are times when I want to unwind not think.

BTW, doesn't Madden 09 have some sort of AI that adapts as you play, that is, the game "learns" your method of play and adapts?

Login or register to post comments

Nunc est bibendum! I've
Submitted by Asterixx on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:28

Nunc est bibendum!

I've always been of the opinion that a game should be fun above all else. That's why Carmageddon was and still is my all-time favourite game. The game had no real point except to kill as many people and fellow racers as you could, in the most creative ways you could think of doing it. Any racing game with a power up called "Pedestrian Electro Bastard Ray" has GOT to be fun. No impossible-to-achieve "Missions", no "follow the checkpoints or else". Just drive the car and kill people. It was almost impossible to die in the game (only if you ran out of time, but additional time was freely given). You could smash the holy bejeesus out of your car, put it in a lake, or whatever, and getting back on the road and damage free was a mere key stroke away. The fact that you could roam freely throughout the city was a big bonus (I hate playing Need For Speed, seeing something, and thinking "Gee, I'd like to hit that" only to be disappointed that I can't leave the track). I've played it so much I've opened every track and every car. Racing in the cop car is ridiculously easy - one smack and the other racers die. This opens up a whole new way of playing: Deliberately trying to avoid winning, so you could focus on killing pedestrians. This meant avoiding the other racers, because even though you kill them with a mere touch they still hunt you down. I pray (in vain) for the day that somebody updates Carmageddon with modern grahics and physics but leaves the actual game play the hell alone. Carmageddon II and III sucked because they took the fun out of it. You could no longer kill with wanton abandon - you actually could be killed, and you actually had to do stuff like find checkpoints. No thanks.

When I want to unwind by playing a game I don't want to be frustrated by it. I don't want to think about strategies. I don't want to race a clock. I don't want to memorize eleventy-two billion shortcuts or key strokes. I don't want to think. Real life requires enough thinking, thankyouverymuch. I just want to kill things.

Login or register to post comments

simple answer
Submitted by BaggerX on Fri, 2008-09-05 09:52

"No impossible-to-achieve "Missions", no "follow the checkpoints or
else". Just drive the car and kill people. It was almost impossible to
die in the game (only if you ran out of time, but additional time was
freely given). You could smash the holy bejeesus out of your car, put
it in a lake, or whatever, and getting back on the road and damage free
was a mere key stroke away."

What you want is God mode, not a game. You want the sandbox with no rules. That's fine, but it's really not a game. It's just you screwing around doing whatever you feel like doing. Games have rules and choices and consequences. Without those there is no game. Just a sandbox. As long as game devs include cheat codes, you should be happy. Now I wish they'd start including a game so that the rest of us could be happy too.

Login or register to post comments