Foreword:
I am typing this article out tonight for a few reasons. One is just for me to put out into the uniweb how I feel about the Dragon Age series of games. Two is to provide some feedback to Bioware, the developers of Dragon Age, who are starting development of Dragon Age 3. This could be a great article to read if you are interested in the series, but be warned, there will be spoilers galore. I am not going to use this article to uphold Origins and bash DA2, but I will compare them. Now, this may get long, but on with the history, good points, and bad points of my favourite games series by my favourite game developer.
Dragon Age: Origins (the good stuff)
The title of the first game in the series. Not only does it make sense as the first game in the series, but also the very unique and complex basis of the main character(s) of the game. Origins let's you select 1 of 6 distinct opening stories, depending on the race and background you choose. The choices are human noble, Mage, city Elf, Dalish Elf, Dwarf commoner, Dwarf Noble, and gives you specific bonuses to skills and strength, along with class selection (excluding the Mage story). Beyond all of the regular RPG stuff, Bioware puts its story-telling genius twist on race selection. The whole opening story, between 1 and 2 hours of game play, is entirely unique. Up until you meet the leader of the Grey Wardens, a group of warriors whose soul purpose is to quell the blights of the darkspawn and kill the Archdemon. That may all be mumbo-jumbo if you haven't played it, but it is the basic quest of the game in the fewest words possible. But even after this point, the entire game plays differently by your choice of "Origin". Each race has its own quarrels with other races. Each race looks down on another, and each race is ignorant of the ways of other races.
The way David Gaider and the team of writers at Bioware structured this game is fantastic. What better way to encourage replay? I myself have finished it three times completely, including add on DLC's and the expansion pack Awakening, and have two other files I'm working on, all unique in themselves. And it's more than just creating a new face, or wearing different armour. It is so hard to explain, yet so familiar and close to my gaming heart. But each time I've started and played a file, it has been a different experience. To say that is only because of the opening stories and "racism" would be a lie. Although those are some of the main selling points, the class selection and skill trees are very well designed. Some may say class selection is restrictive, but I spent so much time playing this game to discover every aspect of it, I would beg to differ. Choosing different skills opens up different paths of the story. Choosing different dialogue options affects more than the way your companions feel about you, whether it is a romance or a rivalry it, opens or closes different quests or missions in the game. It can result in the elimination of a companion, the loyalty or disloyalty of a companion, or the romance and romantic quests of a companion. All of your choices significantly effect the way the game plays, and ultimately plays out in the end. THAT is great story writing. THAT is what role-playing games should be.
The whole part that helped make the story so epic was the scale of the quest you were on, uniting the races and factions of a country torn by civil war, under siege by the darkspawn and the archdemon. Each area of the world where a certain race lived had its own big story to tell. Gaining the loyalty of the mages required you to enter the fade. The dwarves required you to go deep beneath the earth. The elves needed you to explore and ancient, forgotten ruin. Redcliff needed you to retrieve the ashes of the bride of the Maker, and potentially encourage the worship of or the slaying a high dragon. And these are only the main quests. The size of quests varied greatly, which provided that epic story feeling, along with that hero-of-all feeling.
Now, putting the great story telling aside, I will outline the great aspects of the game play. I always said the combat mechanics were realistic, slow, but more realistic. If you put it next to Dragon Age 2, it looks incredibly slow, but I appreciate that it felt so real. Each kind of weapon felt the way it should, heavy felt like it took a lot of weight to swing, as was the case with the lighter weapons. Taking a step back from the combat, I applaud it. The only criticism I have, which I think they knew since they fixed it in DA2, was the mage combat. Rogue and Warrior were realistic, the mage was boring and slow, and you felt like a limp noodle.
Crafting was well plotted, but I wish it extended further than making poisons and potions. The option to have a weapon maker or armour maker craft things from materials you found is all well and good, and I really wouldn't even care to see it changed in DA3. After playing Skyrim, though, I realize how much I love crafting weapons and armour myself at a forge. If they incorporated similar ways of making items and consumables, I would not protest. At the same time, I found in Skyrim that being able to make whatever I wanted left me leaving great items in chests, and took away my curiosity of looking for items and chests. Something DA never did to me. Now, I don't want to spend the entire time comparing DA to The Elder scrolls, but I know the guys at Bioware have been playing it.
Swapping out newly found equipment was very fun for me, as was equipping my companions. I got to choose their skills and abilities, what they wore, and what they used for weapons. Totally customisable team mates, I really appreciated that, especially when DA2 took the option away.
I know I already talked about dialogue, but I want to talk about the mechanics of it. In Origins, the main character is silent, you choose a sentence, and the character being spoken to takes that sentence as it is. I know its not flashy, and now that they made the main character of DA2 have a voice, they won't revert, but I preferred it. It felt more like he way saying the dialogue I chose, because he didn't go off saying something I didn't choose. It was more immersive, and more than just a Benign choice, humorous choice, or renegade choice, it was a sentence you knew would directly effect the person receiving it.
All of the DLC's for this game added so much to the story. The side story ones that allowed you to play as other characters were very entertaining. I especially liked being a bad ass darkspawn and killing everyone I grew to love in the game. The ones that added to the main story line as new marks on the map were epic. The addition of Shale the stone golem added a whole new aspect when discovering the place where golems where forged. Golems of Amgarak was intense, very puzzle oriented, and very Gorey and violent in the end. Although I did have a problem with the return of the Harvester in DA2, but I will get to that. Witch hunt was supposed to bring closure, but raised yet more questions and left huge doors of opportunity for DA3. I would love nothing more than to see a confrontation between Flemeth, the witch of the wilds, and shapeshifter who could become a dragon, and her daughter Morrigan and her son, the son of the main character, the Grey Warden. I get goosebumps just thinking about it.
On a side note, particularly the area known as the Fade, the world where dreamers go when they sleep. In Origins, part of the main quest line involves entering the fade by the hand of a Sloth Demon. You have to fight, puzzle, and shapeshift your way through 5 main areas, 3 areas where your companions are being held, and the final stage. The world of the fade is bizarre, anything is possible there, and nothing is as it seems. Demons haunt you, as well as all of your worst fears from the real world. I have talked to other players who immensely disliked this quest. I cannot understand why. It is completely different from the rest of the game. It can be confusing, frustrating, and puzzling, but that is what I liked about it. Once you piece all of the different shapeshift forms together and figure it out, slay the sloth demon holding you there, and wake up, it you feel like a hero in more than one world.
Awakening
Awakening was an expansion to Origins, and took place after the event of it. I loved the additional skills and perks, new characters, and the story was very compelling. This expansion really made me feel powerful, and at the same time made me scared when I had to escape prison without my equipment. The return to the fade was great, helping a spirit of Justice posses a long dead grey Warden. I also loved the story taught so much about the darkspawn lore. It was difficult, scary, and added a good 18 hours to the game, and I have nothing bad to say about it that I didn't say about the main game. It did lend a lot of story to DA2, which I really appreciated when playing DA2.
Dragon Age 2 (the one everyone hates on)
My obsession with Origins made my excitement for Dragon Age 2 even more. As did a lot of people's. But I can't say anything about DA2 without saying how much people bagged on this game. Quite unfairly, if I may add. Although I did not enjoy it as much as the first, I could never say I didn't love it all the same. I do see players points on things they don't like about it, but not to the extent they take it. I really believe that people in general are floaters who drift through life never able to form their own well formulated opinions on any matter. They rely on the ones who choose to voice their opinions on a matter. And unfortunately, most people who do so are negative whiners. I am not going to use this chance to bash DA2, but rather point out its upsides and downsides.
The story telling in DA2, even against the setting it was dropped in to, prevails again, thanks to David Gaider and team. I know what they intended to do with the game, and I applaud it. But I think it was a little over some peoples patience levels. The game takes place mostly inside a big city, where you are destined to rise to power from nothing but an immigrant. You do get to exit the city and go to places like the top of a mountain to seek out Dalish Elves, or a coastline to kill Qunari and bandits. Or a mine to slay dragons. And my favorite, down in to the deep roads to find treasure. It sounds like a lot, but those areas played a small role in the 35 hours of game play. I didn't mind very much, because it was all told in such compelling story. But on the other side, I will say my harshest bit right here. I don't know if environment designers got lazy or ran out of time, but certain tunnels and buildings were used over and over again, but meant to be a completely different area. That was the main problem I had with this game. I know they hired new environment design, so I really hope we see a wider horizon of areas in DA3 like we did in Origins.
I know it goes against the whole idea of the story, and would change so many things, but I was let down by not being able to choose my race. I could change Hawke's face and change his first name, but every time I play it through, he or she is going to be a human. And the whole aspect of people treating me differently based on my race is gone. One point that encouraged replay in Origins.
Combat mechanics were so sleek and smooth, and so much faster in this game. I would say the entire pace of the game is faster, too. Which is maybe why the main game is about 20 hours less time than Origins. It was all flashy and great, but I would almost say I would like to see the warrior and rogue slowed down a bit, but the mage should stay close to the pace it is. In Origins, the mage was so dull, but in DA2 the mage is my favorite class to play as. You really feel like the power of the elements is at your disposal, and no one better mess with you.
I do like the new abilities and skills. The skill trees were much easier to follow, and overall where an improvement to the first game. Except that the rogue could no longer train enough to use two longswords at a time instead of just two daggers. I felt like that gave me something to push my level up points for. It was so cool when I finally could equip 2 big swords.
The two-handed weapons were exaggerated. They have almost a Soul Calibur feel to them, which looks cool, but takes away from the realism of Origins. Exaggerated weapons makes it feel gimicky, and so does exaggerated breasts. I was surprised by how big Isabella's boobs were in this game, and was kind of put off by it. It is not essential for all female characters in the game to have enormous chests. Let's scale that back in DA3, please?
Equipment choices were downsized in DA2, taking away the ability to choose what your companions wear. You can unlock new outfits for them by completing their individual quests in each act of the game, and some by purchasing them from merchants. I do see what they tried to do, but I really disliked it. I found so many cool things in the game that I couldn't equip because of my class selection, and couldn't equip it on any of my companions. The weapon selection is still great. Some weapons are found or unlocked specifically for a certain character, just like in Origins. And also like in Origins, you can equip weapons on your companions pertaining to their specific class. I did appreciate, however, that the DLC weapons leveled up with the character. Very inventive, and when you pay for a weapon, you don't want it to become useless after gaining a few levels.
Seeing the old characters from Origins was really nostalgic. It had a sense of connection. Talking to Anders about him and Justice was really endearing, but by the time I met Zevran it seemed like they were relying on the nostalgia and the success of Origins. The one biggest return I felt was completely out of place was the return of the Harvester. Having played Golems of Amgarak so many time, I know that the story around the first enchanter become the Harvester did not fit in. I didn't like it. It should have been left where it was. Or brought back in the way that Amgarak ended.
The steps of the quests, the matter of the 3 acts in the game, and the fact that it takes 7 years to complete the game, skipping 3 years every year, all in the matter of 30 hours, was disconnecting. I would have rather seen all of the events lead to my rise to power in 3 years, or after gaining allies from areas further away from Kirkwall. The quests themselves were all very great in themselves, but they hardly made any sense all together. One thing had no effect on the next, and all of my deeds were random. Other than making friends or enemies of my companions. What I'm trying to say is the quests were not as climactic or relevant as they were in Origins, but as I said, were all great and compelling by themselves. Story writing saved the day in this one.
I found character relation and conversation much better and more complex in this game. It still held the same dynamic as the first, choosing one thing might make one companion like you, and one companion dislike you at the same time. But DA2 relations made more sense. One thing I hope to see return in DA3 is being able to have a conversation with my companions outside of their homes. The great thing about Origins was that all your companions lived in the camp with you, and you could chat with them whenever you wanted, wherever you happened to be.
The DLC's for DA2 were exactly what the game needed: epic side stories that took you outside of the close quarters of the rest of the game. Legacy was great, anything to do with the Grey Wardens and darkspawn lore is fine by me. Mark of the Assassin, starring Felicia Day, was also a great way to get away from the rest of the game and discover something new. I loved the environments in both, and the new enemies were very creative.
All of that being said, Dragon Age 2 was a great game. I really liked it, despite the few flaws. Story writing is a strong suit of the series, and saved this game. But I really hope to see a wider horizon of areas, characters, peoples, and alliances. I want a more epic, fluent feel of the story. An urgency, similar to that in Origins, and also the Mass Effect series. A bigger destiny, a larger goal than just being a great guy. I know the Chantry was at the start of its collapse at the end of 2, but it did not seem like something I directly effected. I guess what I am trying to say is I want the same feeling I got from Origins, with the mechanics of 2. Yes the game looked amazing, played amazing, and felt amazing, but there's more to RPG's than those things. Let's remember what Origins did as an RPG.
Let's make get another game where we gather allies from across the land to unite against the collapse of the Chantry, or aid in freeing the mages from oppression, but let's give the choice to the player. Let's encourage replay value with different races, and differing stories based on those choices, and bigger choices in general. Let's spend more time killing darkspawn, slaying more dragons, and spending more time in the fade. All with the main goal clear to us all, uniting a force against, or for the chantry. Keep gripping us with the story, the dialogue, the characters, and the lore and back story. Keep doing all of those things you do so well, Bioware, but with a loftier goal ahead of us. Let's conclude the events left open in the end of DA2, without continuing the story as Hawke. I could say so much more, hoping someone important is taking the time to read this, but I will leave it at this. I know Bioware will do the right thing and learn from the mistakes of both games. Show us what the fantasy world with the greatest lore ever created can do. Thanks, Tommy out.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
I'm affiliated!
Hey guys and girls, I've been dancing like a kid who has to pee about this announcement all day. I just wanted to tweet it so bad, but I decided I should wait so I can go a little bit more in-depth about this. So, on with it then.
If there's one thing that makes me happy, it's video games. The most creative and endless form of entertainment today. If there's another thing that makes me happy, it's when video game players realize both their common interests, and realize their differences of opinion, and choose to embrace them in tolerance rather than embrace ignorance. And not to say I have major disagreements with the group of fellows I'm about to mention, in fact, I am not aware of any disagreements. But we all play in different ways, and play for different reasons, and get different things out of gaming. That is why it makes me ecstatic when gamers can join in community.
So, I am pleased to announce my new affiliation with a great group of three guys from across the pond in the UK, with a passion for social gaming and gaming in general, The Udder Punch. I've been watching their gameplay videos for the last little while, and they are truly entertaining commentators who don't care what you think about them. Another reason this association with each other works so well, because I am punk at the core and could care less what you think of me. I highly recommend you watch some videos of theirs, and better yet, please subscribe. They put a lot of work into what they do and deserve a little love. I have mad respect for these guys so Check them out at http://www.youtube.com/theudderpunch and follow them on twitter: @TheUdderPunch .
And, if you aren't already and you came to my humble blog by other means, follow me on twitter as well: @tommygamerblog . I will keep you up to date on blog updates, gaming news, my view points on games in shorter form that this here blog, and try really hard to be entertaining (which does require a huge amount of effort on my behalf).
Gamers, embrace our differences, community is an import part of what we do. Let's support each other because we all love the same thing: Video. Games. Tommy out.
If there's one thing that makes me happy, it's video games. The most creative and endless form of entertainment today. If there's another thing that makes me happy, it's when video game players realize both their common interests, and realize their differences of opinion, and choose to embrace them in tolerance rather than embrace ignorance. And not to say I have major disagreements with the group of fellows I'm about to mention, in fact, I am not aware of any disagreements. But we all play in different ways, and play for different reasons, and get different things out of gaming. That is why it makes me ecstatic when gamers can join in community.
So, I am pleased to announce my new affiliation with a great group of three guys from across the pond in the UK, with a passion for social gaming and gaming in general, The Udder Punch. I've been watching their gameplay videos for the last little while, and they are truly entertaining commentators who don't care what you think about them. Another reason this association with each other works so well, because I am punk at the core and could care less what you think of me. I highly recommend you watch some videos of theirs, and better yet, please subscribe. They put a lot of work into what they do and deserve a little love. I have mad respect for these guys so Check them out at http://www.youtube.com/theudderpunch and follow them on twitter: @TheUdderPunch .
And, if you aren't already and you came to my humble blog by other means, follow me on twitter as well: @tommygamerblog . I will keep you up to date on blog updates, gaming news, my view points on games in shorter form that this here blog, and try really hard to be entertaining (which does require a huge amount of effort on my behalf).
Gamers, embrace our differences, community is an import part of what we do. Let's support each other because we all love the same thing: Video. Games. Tommy out.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
I wish someone would make a decent multiplayer
Seriously! How hard is this? Say what you want about Nintendo, but they pretty much NAILED multiplayer with the New Super Mario Bros. on the Wii. Four people can play together on one screen. It's great for people with families or real life friends you can touch (don't touch your friends, that's weird). The only thing I think would have made the experience perfect would have been if players could drop in and drop out at any time.
Many game developers make decent multiplayer games. Call of Duty's multiplayer is decent, if you're looking at the ability to play with a group of friends. But I wish I could play online with more than one friend at my side (like, in my house). I can play split screen with four people,but not online, and only two online. I could play LAN parties, but I don't have enough friends with their own PS3's or copies of the same game to justify this excursion. The online multiplayer on Battlefield 3 is great, if you don't have friends that live in your vicinity who play it. I was so disappointed when I finally had a gaming friend over, popped in BF3 and found out there's no split screen. The best we could do is stay in our own houses and play online together. Brink is the same thing.
Hunted: The demon's forge had a great idea, in my opinion. The whole game is two player dependant, although you can play by yourself you still rely on the second character. But it's so gimmicky in it's reliance on using the second player. I found the game hard to perfect and repetitive. I could play the game with a friend, or online with a friend, which is a cool idea. Dungeon Siege III has a good handle on multiplayer, it allows me to play with up to three friends who can drop in and out at any time. Cool idea, but I find it harder to connect with the game from a top down view.
The entire time I played through Dragon Age and Mass Effect I wished my wife could pick up a controller and just casually take control of one of my companions. Kind of like Tail's (Sonic the hedgehog's fox friend) in Sonic 2. In one player mode, a second person could control tails, or he could stay computer controlled, but everything was still about Sonic. I don't want the game to rely heavily on having a second or third or fourth player, I just want the option. I don't want a gimmicky multiplayer, I just want something accessible. I have real friends over to my house, and we like to play video games together, but there is very little we can actually pick up and play for a long time that has any meaning or substance.
So, game developers, are you listening?!? I really doubt any are, but if you agree with me, let's start suggesting this to game developers. If enough of us say it, they might just listen. Even if they don't, we can have some fun making some noise and them complaining about said game developers afterwards. Tommy out.
Many game developers make decent multiplayer games. Call of Duty's multiplayer is decent, if you're looking at the ability to play with a group of friends. But I wish I could play online with more than one friend at my side (like, in my house). I can play split screen with four people,but not online, and only two online. I could play LAN parties, but I don't have enough friends with their own PS3's or copies of the same game to justify this excursion. The online multiplayer on Battlefield 3 is great, if you don't have friends that live in your vicinity who play it. I was so disappointed when I finally had a gaming friend over, popped in BF3 and found out there's no split screen. The best we could do is stay in our own houses and play online together. Brink is the same thing.
Hunted: The demon's forge had a great idea, in my opinion. The whole game is two player dependant, although you can play by yourself you still rely on the second character. But it's so gimmicky in it's reliance on using the second player. I found the game hard to perfect and repetitive. I could play the game with a friend, or online with a friend, which is a cool idea. Dungeon Siege III has a good handle on multiplayer, it allows me to play with up to three friends who can drop in and out at any time. Cool idea, but I find it harder to connect with the game from a top down view.
The entire time I played through Dragon Age and Mass Effect I wished my wife could pick up a controller and just casually take control of one of my companions. Kind of like Tail's (Sonic the hedgehog's fox friend) in Sonic 2. In one player mode, a second person could control tails, or he could stay computer controlled, but everything was still about Sonic. I don't want the game to rely heavily on having a second or third or fourth player, I just want the option. I don't want a gimmicky multiplayer, I just want something accessible. I have real friends over to my house, and we like to play video games together, but there is very little we can actually pick up and play for a long time that has any meaning or substance.
So, game developers, are you listening?!? I really doubt any are, but if you agree with me, let's start suggesting this to game developers. If enough of us say it, they might just listen. Even if they don't, we can have some fun making some noise and them complaining about said game developers afterwards. Tommy out.
Friday, 17 February 2012
Third Person Vs. First Person shooters
When it comes to video games, there are a few different POV's, or points of view, that are commonplace today. The First person view, where everything is from the perspective of the characters eyes. Third person view, where the view is yours, showing the character and allowing camera control around your character. Some games do not allow camera control, like The Legend of Zelda series which just requires you to focus the view straight when it goes off. There is also 2D sidescrolling view, most noticeably in retro games like Super Mario Bros. and such, and top down view, which explains itself. If I missed one, please forgive me, for my focus today is on first and third person views.
The first 3D game I ever played was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time, as may be the case for many gamers. It was a game in third person, and a game I played through many, many times. Maybe it's just because I've been using it so long, but third person view is my desired POV when it comes to gaming. Other hardcore RPG's I've been utterly addicted to include bioware's Dragon Age and Mass Effect series, both in third person view, and both highly regarded games. A more recent RPG I've been playing is Skyrim, a game that gives you the choice between third and first person view. I have literally played the entire game in third person view. I find the first person POV in all games restrictive. I know some gamers have told me that first person view is more immersive because it represents the characters POV from his or hers eyes, putting you in their place. I understand this, sure, but I see a few issues with the FP view that I think is restrictive to real immersion.
The first thing I will mention is that in real life I have a neck. There are muscles in my neck that allow me to turn to see something without turning my whole body. This movement is also generally quicker than turning my entire body. So it seems to me that all game characters in first person mode must not have a neck. Why else would you have to turn your entire body to look beside you or around a corner? That seems restrictive to me. I know that the third person view isn't very realistic either, unless we were all sitting on a couch watching a camera follow ourselves around our day to day tasks. But, I can see a much broader horizon, and I can turn the view quickly to the right or left to look there without having to turn my entire self around to see what's coming up those stairs while I keep walking this way and not putting myself in danger. (Run on sentence, if you're reading aloud, please take a break to breath.) Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough. Maybe I'm not a true competitive gamer because I can't seem to master the art of the First Person Shooter. But I have nothing to prove to you. I play games for my own enjoyment, and if I prefer the third person view, I'm going to prefer games in third person view. Not saying I don't want to get better at FPS's, I do, but it's not at the core of my gaming life.
I know there are plenty of competitive and professional gamers who dominate shooter games that exist in the first person view world of games. I also know there are a few in the third person shooter genre, but saying the numbers are the same would be a joke. Maybe I'm wrong, but seeing as Mass Effect 3 was declared the most anticipated game of 2012, and is a Third Person Shooter game, I beg to differ. So maybe you think I'm wrong, but I feel entitled to make my own opinion here. That's all, Tommy out.
The first 3D game I ever played was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time, as may be the case for many gamers. It was a game in third person, and a game I played through many, many times. Maybe it's just because I've been using it so long, but third person view is my desired POV when it comes to gaming. Other hardcore RPG's I've been utterly addicted to include bioware's Dragon Age and Mass Effect series, both in third person view, and both highly regarded games. A more recent RPG I've been playing is Skyrim, a game that gives you the choice between third and first person view. I have literally played the entire game in third person view. I find the first person POV in all games restrictive. I know some gamers have told me that first person view is more immersive because it represents the characters POV from his or hers eyes, putting you in their place. I understand this, sure, but I see a few issues with the FP view that I think is restrictive to real immersion.
The first thing I will mention is that in real life I have a neck. There are muscles in my neck that allow me to turn to see something without turning my whole body. This movement is also generally quicker than turning my entire body. So it seems to me that all game characters in first person mode must not have a neck. Why else would you have to turn your entire body to look beside you or around a corner? That seems restrictive to me. I know that the third person view isn't very realistic either, unless we were all sitting on a couch watching a camera follow ourselves around our day to day tasks. But, I can see a much broader horizon, and I can turn the view quickly to the right or left to look there without having to turn my entire self around to see what's coming up those stairs while I keep walking this way and not putting myself in danger. (Run on sentence, if you're reading aloud, please take a break to breath.) Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough. Maybe I'm not a true competitive gamer because I can't seem to master the art of the First Person Shooter. But I have nothing to prove to you. I play games for my own enjoyment, and if I prefer the third person view, I'm going to prefer games in third person view. Not saying I don't want to get better at FPS's, I do, but it's not at the core of my gaming life.
I know there are plenty of competitive and professional gamers who dominate shooter games that exist in the first person view world of games. I also know there are a few in the third person shooter genre, but saying the numbers are the same would be a joke. Maybe I'm wrong, but seeing as Mass Effect 3 was declared the most anticipated game of 2012, and is a Third Person Shooter game, I beg to differ. So maybe you think I'm wrong, but I feel entitled to make my own opinion here. That's all, Tommy out.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Whiny gamers
Yes, whiny gamers! You are all whiners. If it's not one thing, it's another. No game developer can ever get everything exactly to your liking. So the natural response is to use social media, or the old fashioned word of mouth, to say things like "that game sucks". Did you think of that yourself? GOOD JOB! "This game is shittly made". Really? (Yes I have read in an online game chat window someone saying these exact words.) "It wasn't as good as the first". In other words, its different than the first one, and you're a baby. If this is the best you can do, save your energy. There are those of us out there who have legitimate concerns with video games that we love, hate, or are otherwise indifferent. There are also those of us out there among this group who have the willpower to phrase it in a decent, respectful, and constructive way. Why? Because we have actually given real, concerned thought into our actions.
But as I got to thinking, well...more thinking on top of thinking, on this subject I realised who the target market for these games probably is. Yeah, 13 to 21 year old kids. Probably the most petty, self entitled, hormone driven group of people on the planet. Something doesn't fit their fancy to a "T" and it means the game developer sucks. It means the game is shit. I know this isn't for everyone, I am 24, and I know many other people in their 20's to 50's who are avid gamers, but I don't hear them bitching. My most personal example I can give of this is Dragon Age 2. Now, a bit of back story, Dragon Age: Origins is my favorite game of all time (thus far), and I was literally shaking for the week leading up to the release of Dragon Age 2. I loved it. But as I got reading reviews and what people were saying about it I was appalled. It was very different from the first, and did have a few problems I didn't like, but I put all of that aside and said "I love this series and I am going to get the most out of this game." And I did! But people were sooooo nitpicky about it. It got bad reviews. I LOVED this game, not as much as the first, but I will speak no evil of it. Now I'm a pretty easy to please gamer, I genuinely like most of the games I play, and don't have much of a quarrel with them. Sometimes I really do though.
I am a whiner, too. I will come right out and say it. Sometimes (or a lot of times, feel free to judge that for yourself) I come across as whiny. One thing I do know about myself is I am a man of principle. Do right by everyone to the best of your abilities. Treat everyone fairly. Respect everyone first until given reason to withdraw that basic level of respect everyone deserves. That is why I take it so seriously when anyone, game developer or not, does someone or a group of people an injustice. ie. When Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (as if you need me to tell you what that is), I bought it that very day. I played it. A lot. I racked up hours on Skyrim faster than I have on any other game I have played. That is what quickly lead me to discover all of the flaws with codes in the game. Glitches galore, and worse yet, a problem seemingly exclusive to Playstation 3 users, framerate lag on larger save files. Yes I was mad. There should have been no way a game in development for so long, 5 years since The Elder Scrolls IV was released, should have been released with problems that should have been blatantly obvious to those testing the game. As of three minutes ago, my wife has successfully patched the game with the 1.04 update and it seems to be working. But did my gryping on twitter have anything to do with this? As a matter of fact, I think that everyone's gyping had everything to do with it. Apparently they have been listening to fans. The list of fixes that supposedly came with this patch is extensive. All things that I have read other gamers complaining about. That makes me happy.
I guess my point is, that if you're going to bitch and moan about a game it better have a point, and it better be a real reason. I do not want to hear "It sucks" as an argument ever again. I know every gamer is different. Different tastes, play styles, and levels of attention in some cases. Opinions do matter, but before you go spouting off nonsense, have you really put a lot of thought into your argument? Or made your OWN opinion about it, not being influenced by others and REALLY giving every game a chance? I'd tell you to grow up, but that wouldn't make any difference. Tommy out.
But as I got to thinking, well...more thinking on top of thinking, on this subject I realised who the target market for these games probably is. Yeah, 13 to 21 year old kids. Probably the most petty, self entitled, hormone driven group of people on the planet. Something doesn't fit their fancy to a "T" and it means the game developer sucks. It means the game is shit. I know this isn't for everyone, I am 24, and I know many other people in their 20's to 50's who are avid gamers, but I don't hear them bitching. My most personal example I can give of this is Dragon Age 2. Now, a bit of back story, Dragon Age: Origins is my favorite game of all time (thus far), and I was literally shaking for the week leading up to the release of Dragon Age 2. I loved it. But as I got reading reviews and what people were saying about it I was appalled. It was very different from the first, and did have a few problems I didn't like, but I put all of that aside and said "I love this series and I am going to get the most out of this game." And I did! But people were sooooo nitpicky about it. It got bad reviews. I LOVED this game, not as much as the first, but I will speak no evil of it. Now I'm a pretty easy to please gamer, I genuinely like most of the games I play, and don't have much of a quarrel with them. Sometimes I really do though.
I am a whiner, too. I will come right out and say it. Sometimes (or a lot of times, feel free to judge that for yourself) I come across as whiny. One thing I do know about myself is I am a man of principle. Do right by everyone to the best of your abilities. Treat everyone fairly. Respect everyone first until given reason to withdraw that basic level of respect everyone deserves. That is why I take it so seriously when anyone, game developer or not, does someone or a group of people an injustice. ie. When Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (as if you need me to tell you what that is), I bought it that very day. I played it. A lot. I racked up hours on Skyrim faster than I have on any other game I have played. That is what quickly lead me to discover all of the flaws with codes in the game. Glitches galore, and worse yet, a problem seemingly exclusive to Playstation 3 users, framerate lag on larger save files. Yes I was mad. There should have been no way a game in development for so long, 5 years since The Elder Scrolls IV was released, should have been released with problems that should have been blatantly obvious to those testing the game. As of three minutes ago, my wife has successfully patched the game with the 1.04 update and it seems to be working. But did my gryping on twitter have anything to do with this? As a matter of fact, I think that everyone's gyping had everything to do with it. Apparently they have been listening to fans. The list of fixes that supposedly came with this patch is extensive. All things that I have read other gamers complaining about. That makes me happy.
I guess my point is, that if you're going to bitch and moan about a game it better have a point, and it better be a real reason. I do not want to hear "It sucks" as an argument ever again. I know every gamer is different. Different tastes, play styles, and levels of attention in some cases. Opinions do matter, but before you go spouting off nonsense, have you really put a lot of thought into your argument? Or made your OWN opinion about it, not being influenced by others and REALLY giving every game a chance? I'd tell you to grow up, but that wouldn't make any difference. Tommy out.
Friday, 3 February 2012
The importance of used games AND digital content
Hey there, you are among the few to be reading my very first blog post. You probably made it over here by following me on twitter.com as @tommygamerblog. Hopefully this is making it out to SOMEONE real. Even if it doesn't, I am glad to have my own space to rant and rave about the video game industry and nerd culture in general. I have been considering this possible waste of time (to be added to my pile of wastes of time) for a while now. I like to talk about video games, and sometimes, no one I know is willing to listen. So here it goes.
The subject of my first post is, in a way, in response to a post on Kotaku.com that I read earlier. The post had to do with the recent complaints made by gamers everywhere in regards to game developers shipping online passes with new games. This is fine if you buy a game new. If you are "cheap" you probably buy games used from various stores that offer used game trade-ins for in store credit. That's where the frustration is arising. Companies are now charging you to buy an online pass if the redemption code from the used game you bought was used before you bought it.
Moving on from the history (as you may already know), this post on Kotaku's website was ATTACKING, outright, gamers who are complaining about this. I could see some of this posters points. But, it seemed so heavy handed and unreasonable. Like it was written by a 12 year old, spontaneously spouting off nonsense. If it wasn't a 12 year old, I guess it was an angry game developer. If neither of the former, I guess it was some game reviewer who never pays for video games, anyways. I suggest you go and read the post at http://kotaku.com/5881619/
I would like to rebut with an emphasis on why used games are important, alongside digital content. As a game lover and family man, I love my family more than my games. This, along with being sole income earner, has lead me to try to save money on my hobby where I can. Buying games I am unsure if I will like used is an obvious choice. A choice that game companies are trying to take away. I think this could be detrimental in many ways. I have bought games new that I wish I hadn't, and games I bought used that I am glad I didn't pay full price for. That being said, I have bought games used that have lead me to buy games NEW later on in that particular series. A few examples:
Call of Duty: Black ops. I sucked at FPS games, and I'm still not great, but I bought this game used for $45 to try it out. Turns out I loved it. I bought 4 out of 5 map packs, coming to a total of $60 in themselves. This also lead me to go and buy Modern Warfare 3 right when it released. I would not have done either of these things if I couldn't have tried black ops at a discounted price.
I bought Fallout 3 used, and I will buy the next fallout new, probably on release day.
I bought Mass Effect 2 used (because I loved the Dragon Age series) and ended up buying EVERY DLC. Then 3 months later, went to EB games and pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 collectors edition.
I bought Hunted: the demons forge used, and I am glad I did not pay full price for it.
I was able to make future decision on games, studios, and game series based on my ability to save a few bucks on a game. Call me cheap, but every dollar matters. It doesn't matter who you are, your hard earned money matters!
In closing, I will comment on this "war on used games" (not sure who coined this phrase, but its about as ridiculous as the war on drugs or terrorism). I will compare taking away our right to buy and sell used games and still be able to use it to its full potential to furniture. Yes, furniture.
Say someone buys a new recliner from a store for $1000. A year later, this person takes this chair to a used furniture store, who gives him $300 for the recliner. Then you go and buy this recliner for $600, and take it home. You get it settled in, sit down in front of your TV, reach to pull the recliner lever, and its stuck. You open up the chair to see a lock on the mechanism, and a note that reads "To access all of the features of this recliner you must pay a $10 activation fee." You're outraged. This is the big furniture stores attempt to wage war on used furniture sales. You can still sit in the chair. But you can't use it to its full potential. What a load of crap. Tommy OUT!
The subject of my first post is, in a way, in response to a post on Kotaku.com that I read earlier. The post had to do with the recent complaints made by gamers everywhere in regards to game developers shipping online passes with new games. This is fine if you buy a game new. If you are "cheap" you probably buy games used from various stores that offer used game trade-ins for in store credit. That's where the frustration is arising. Companies are now charging you to buy an online pass if the redemption code from the used game you bought was used before you bought it.
Moving on from the history (as you may already know), this post on Kotaku's website was ATTACKING, outright, gamers who are complaining about this. I could see some of this posters points. But, it seemed so heavy handed and unreasonable. Like it was written by a 12 year old, spontaneously spouting off nonsense. If it wasn't a 12 year old, I guess it was an angry game developer. If neither of the former, I guess it was some game reviewer who never pays for video games, anyways. I suggest you go and read the post at http://kotaku.com/5881619/
I would like to rebut with an emphasis on why used games are important, alongside digital content. As a game lover and family man, I love my family more than my games. This, along with being sole income earner, has lead me to try to save money on my hobby where I can. Buying games I am unsure if I will like used is an obvious choice. A choice that game companies are trying to take away. I think this could be detrimental in many ways. I have bought games new that I wish I hadn't, and games I bought used that I am glad I didn't pay full price for. That being said, I have bought games used that have lead me to buy games NEW later on in that particular series. A few examples:
Call of Duty: Black ops. I sucked at FPS games, and I'm still not great, but I bought this game used for $45 to try it out. Turns out I loved it. I bought 4 out of 5 map packs, coming to a total of $60 in themselves. This also lead me to go and buy Modern Warfare 3 right when it released. I would not have done either of these things if I couldn't have tried black ops at a discounted price.
I bought Fallout 3 used, and I will buy the next fallout new, probably on release day.
I bought Mass Effect 2 used (because I loved the Dragon Age series) and ended up buying EVERY DLC. Then 3 months later, went to EB games and pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 collectors edition.
I bought Hunted: the demons forge used, and I am glad I did not pay full price for it.
I was able to make future decision on games, studios, and game series based on my ability to save a few bucks on a game. Call me cheap, but every dollar matters. It doesn't matter who you are, your hard earned money matters!
In closing, I will comment on this "war on used games" (not sure who coined this phrase, but its about as ridiculous as the war on drugs or terrorism). I will compare taking away our right to buy and sell used games and still be able to use it to its full potential to furniture. Yes, furniture.
Say someone buys a new recliner from a store for $1000. A year later, this person takes this chair to a used furniture store, who gives him $300 for the recliner. Then you go and buy this recliner for $600, and take it home. You get it settled in, sit down in front of your TV, reach to pull the recliner lever, and its stuck. You open up the chair to see a lock on the mechanism, and a note that reads "To access all of the features of this recliner you must pay a $10 activation fee." You're outraged. This is the big furniture stores attempt to wage war on used furniture sales. You can still sit in the chair. But you can't use it to its full potential. What a load of crap. Tommy OUT!
Fairness in game inter-platform releases and how petty I may myself be.
Fairness in game inter-platform releases and how petty I may myself be.
This is a subject that has bothered me since Black Ops. I was so mad when I opened up the playsation store on the set release date for the first map pack and it was nowhere to be found. I know it happens a lot, much more than I am aware of. But why do game developers take money from console manufacturers to give them digital content sooner than the next? What can this accomplish, other than making money. I do understand that money makes the world go 'round, but WE are the ones forking over the cash. Our hard earned money makes the world go 'round for game developers. I get concerned when this is forgotten.
Back to the point! Digital content downloads for Call of Duty. More specifically, the recent map packs released for Modern Warfare 3. And even more upsetting, the relation of this to Call of Duty Elite Premium members (a program for connecting outside of the game, users can pay a subscription and receive added benefits *Duh*). Why this is so upsetting for me, and MANY others is this: Microsoft has a contract with Activision to let Xbox Live users receive Downloadable Content one month sooner than Playstation 3 users. That in itself is frustrating. Gaming news sources and youtube commentators talking about and showing of these new maps, an now, not just one month, but five weeks before the average joe PS3 user. Yes, one of the perks of subscribing to Call of Duty Elite Premium is that you receive these DLC's one week before the other XBL users. The problem is not just this feeling of rejection, but that many PS3 users are premium subscribers as well. This whole perk, getting to play new maps a week early by paying $50 OUT THE WINDOW. Yeah, Xboxers got to use them four weeks before you. And for the rest of us who didn't subscribe, we get it five weeks after the XBL premium members did. We paid $60 for the game, on November 8th, and we are paying the same price for the DLC's. But we aren't treated the same.
I also know that there are games on Playstation 3 that recieve DLC's a month early. Most noticeably Battlefield 3. As much as I prosper from this deal, I don't like it any better. I don't own an Xbox 360, nor do I want to. But I wish ALL of my fellow gamers fairness in game releases. I want all of us to be able to recieve the same entertainment at the same time. No one should have to wait longer than others because of a contract between two behemoth companies.
As far as I have read on the Twitter, many, if not all PS3 users are outraged. Especially the COD Elite Premium members. What a waste of money to receive map packs earlier than everyone else, but still four weeks later than a privileged group. Does Activision or Call of Duty care? Probably not. We are still going to download all the maps. And they still suckered us into paying for premium. And many of us will still buy the next COD game, and download all of those overpriced map packs. But what if we didn't? If my own curiosity and need for a new experience in gaming every month wasn't so high, my bull headed self would not allow me to support such blatantly greedy gaming empire bull crap. But I am going to try really hard to keep THIS vow. If Activision announces that the next game in the franchise will support this same contract with Microsoft, I WILL NOT BE BUYING IT! Better yet, I will go to an independent used game store and pay $20 less than the suggested new retail price and they won't get a red cent! That'll really piss them off. (If you want to know my views on this "war on used games" please read my last blog post.) Tommy OUT
This is a subject that has bothered me since Black Ops. I was so mad when I opened up the playsation store on the set release date for the first map pack and it was nowhere to be found. I know it happens a lot, much more than I am aware of. But why do game developers take money from console manufacturers to give them digital content sooner than the next? What can this accomplish, other than making money. I do understand that money makes the world go 'round, but WE are the ones forking over the cash. Our hard earned money makes the world go 'round for game developers. I get concerned when this is forgotten.
Back to the point! Digital content downloads for Call of Duty. More specifically, the recent map packs released for Modern Warfare 3. And even more upsetting, the relation of this to Call of Duty Elite Premium members (a program for connecting outside of the game, users can pay a subscription and receive added benefits *Duh*). Why this is so upsetting for me, and MANY others is this: Microsoft has a contract with Activision to let Xbox Live users receive Downloadable Content one month sooner than Playstation 3 users. That in itself is frustrating. Gaming news sources and youtube commentators talking about and showing of these new maps, an now, not just one month, but five weeks before the average joe PS3 user. Yes, one of the perks of subscribing to Call of Duty Elite Premium is that you receive these DLC's one week before the other XBL users. The problem is not just this feeling of rejection, but that many PS3 users are premium subscribers as well. This whole perk, getting to play new maps a week early by paying $50 OUT THE WINDOW. Yeah, Xboxers got to use them four weeks before you. And for the rest of us who didn't subscribe, we get it five weeks after the XBL premium members did. We paid $60 for the game, on November 8th, and we are paying the same price for the DLC's. But we aren't treated the same.
I also know that there are games on Playstation 3 that recieve DLC's a month early. Most noticeably Battlefield 3. As much as I prosper from this deal, I don't like it any better. I don't own an Xbox 360, nor do I want to. But I wish ALL of my fellow gamers fairness in game releases. I want all of us to be able to recieve the same entertainment at the same time. No one should have to wait longer than others because of a contract between two behemoth companies.
As far as I have read on the Twitter, many, if not all PS3 users are outraged. Especially the COD Elite Premium members. What a waste of money to receive map packs earlier than everyone else, but still four weeks later than a privileged group. Does Activision or Call of Duty care? Probably not. We are still going to download all the maps. And they still suckered us into paying for premium. And many of us will still buy the next COD game, and download all of those overpriced map packs. But what if we didn't? If my own curiosity and need for a new experience in gaming every month wasn't so high, my bull headed self would not allow me to support such blatantly greedy gaming empire bull crap. But I am going to try really hard to keep THIS vow. If Activision announces that the next game in the franchise will support this same contract with Microsoft, I WILL NOT BE BUYING IT! Better yet, I will go to an independent used game store and pay $20 less than the suggested new retail price and they won't get a red cent! That'll really piss them off. (If you want to know my views on this "war on used games" please read my last blog post.) Tommy OUT
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)