Let's Rock!

All Because of an Axe

Respawn Entertainment (makers of Titanfall) released a game a little while back called Apex Legends.  It's one of those Free-to-play multiplayer titles capitalizing on the battle royale craze that is sweeping the online shooter market.  By most accounts it's a good example of the sub-genre, but there has been one big catch; the parent company of Respawn is none other than Electronic Arts.

Yup...EA, the video game publishing company that has become the embodiment of bad business practices is pulling the strings.  So, unsurprisingly after reviews had come out praising the game, the dev team decided to introduce an "event" involving pricey cosmetic DLC sold via loot boxes.  Introducing "surprise mechanics" in video games still seems to be EA's modus operandi despite all the controversy and backlash surrounding this particular monetization scheme.  Predictably, there has been a lot of community friction recently.  To say things have become ugly would be an understatement, I think.  What caught me off guard though was the development team's reaction.  After trying the "we're sorry (but not really)" approach certain employees at Respawn decided to vent their wrath on customers.  Basically, the counterattack headed by the community manager and project leader has been spearheaded by claims that the player base is being overly hostile and abusive.

It's accurate to a degree, but doesn't address the fundamental issue - exploitative  monetization practices.  Complaining about socially inept basement-dwellers being mean on twitter or reddit feels suspiciously like an attempt to deflect criticism and draw the discussion away from what started the problem to begin with.  It's also worth mentioning that some of these toxic elements are teenagers who are irate because they are being psychologically manipulated.  Are these kids being articulate when it comes to expressing frustration with being treated like idiot cash-cows?  In many cases certainly not, but in their defense they're not adults.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure everyone working at Respawn and EA is in their 20s and 30s (if not older).  Yet, some these people who hold positions of power in a multimillion dollar corporation sink to the level of irate children when called out on their scummy behavior.  It's a sad state in that the opportunity for a grown-up conversation has been lost because of all the temper tantrums.  Sign of the times, I guess...

Of course Vince Zampella (the president of Respawn) eventually did step in and attempted to clear the air with an apology message...which failed to address the fundamental issue of quasi-gambling in-game microtransactions in any way shape or form.  Instead, the discorse is entirely framed around who's the victim here - gamers or game creators.  The truth is both are...at the hands of triple-AAA publishers like EA. 

It Should Have Been A (Video) Game

Normally when I do one of these, I call out films that I think would have been better as games.  This time though I want to focus on a tabletop RPG, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.  Unlike the 3rd or 5th editions of the game, this particular take on Dungeons and Dragons placed a huge emphasis on miniatures and grid-based battlefields.  It wasn't a bad game, but it didn't feel like it had much in common with all the other versions of Dungeons and Dragons that came before or after.  It was also really heavy on rules with a lot of exceptions baked into the design.  In turn, this placed a major burden on the players and the Dungeon Master to memorize a bunch of "powers" -  special rules for all sorts of modifiers and effects that could be going on at any given time.  Here's the thing though...if you're going to go that route, why not make it into a turn-based tactical RPG video game instead?

The reality is 4th edition was designed to capitalize on the popularity of World of Warcraft.  Even a lot of termanology, "agro-drawing Tanks," "high-DPS Strikers," and "nerf/buff Controllers" became a regular component of conversations about the game.  Unlike MMORPGs though, 4th Edition didn't have an integrated computer program to deal with the bookkeeping.  Thus, players tended to suffer from the dreaded "analysis paralysis" that happens when there are too many details that have to be considered at any given time.  Combat could stretch out into multi-hour battles.  Hit point bloat didn't help in this respect either.  Particularly, certain monster sub-classes (usually referred to as "brutes") were tedious-to-fight punching bags...oh and leveling up required a lot of time and energy to figure out as well.

Now, I get that rolling dice is a big appeal of tabletop gaming. However, I think there is a nice compromise in the form of what Tharsis did.  It's not the same as rolling actual dice, but there's a nice tactile quality to Tharsis that definitely feels more enjoyable to engage with than say the bare-bones RNG program used in Dicey Dungeons.  Gathering together a couple of friends in the same physical space is a tricky proposition these days, but having a online multiplayer component could solve that problem.  Alternatively, it's pretty hard to play Dungeons and Dragons by yourself, but a video game version of it could have a solo campaign in the same vein as Final Fantasy: Tactics, Vandal Hearts, or Shining Force.  Heck, if you really want to go all out make a Dungeon Master construction set complete with interlocking tile sets, encounter builders, treasure tables, etc.  A tutorial could go a long way toward teaching newcomers the ropes.  Dungeons and Dragons is not an easy game to learn, especially when you're not familiar with tabletop RPGs...as a video game though, it could have been a much more approachable product.

Curmudgeon Creep

As I grow older, I find myself increasingly annoyed by little inconsistencies in video games with respect to the IPs they are adapted from.  Maybe I'm being grumpy or maybe I'm just overly picky, but I'll try to get at the heart of what's bugging me by talking about three different properties.

Acid for Blood

Alien, as a franchise, has always made a big deal out of their xenomorphs bleeding highly corrosive molecular acid.  It was shown that facehuggers have this biological defense in the original film, while the second confirmed that the queen and adult forms also possess this trait.  It has never been demonstrated in any film that the same is true for chestbursters, but I imagine it would be best to assume so.  Despite all this, video game adaptations of the IP seem to largely ignore what is a defining aspect of these creatures.  Only a small number of the games in this franchise account for splash damage when dispatching xenomorphs at close range.  As I recall, Aliens vs. Predator 2 (the game, not the movie) is the only title that visually shows the effects of acid blood by having little hissing clouds of vapor rise from the corpses of slain xenomorphs.  In truth the most accurate approach would be to have dead aliens sink into holes of their own creation.  More dramatically, acid eating through the flooring of a spaceship is almost guaranteed to be a disaster - electronics, plumbing and ventilation damage leading to fire, flooding, decompression, etc.  Yet, pretty much all Alien-themed games have the player running around blasting xenomorphs without any of these consequences.

Sabers of Light

Star Wars has demonstrated time and again that the only thing a lightsaber can't cut through is an energy field.  Sometimes it's like a hot knife through butter and other times more like a chainsaw through oak, but the fact remains; if it is matter then energy swords can slice it.  When it comes to video games though it seems like beating enemies (particularly bosses) repeatedly over the head with a lightsaber is the only way to get results.  It's almost as if these iconic weapons of the Jedi and Sith are only slightly more lethal than a wiffle bat.  Of course the reason for this is Star Wars games being rated "T" for "Teen" and not "M" for "disMeMberMent"...(Rated "MMM"?).  As for inanimate objects, it's much like the acid blood problem in that game devs really don't want to tackle the the challenge of poliginal deformation.

Command and Control

While not quite in the same league as the previous two problems, RTS titles (especially ones taking place in a pre-modern setting) almost always handwave how giving/receiving orders is accomplished.  Historically speaking, battles fought up until the later half of the 20th century were plagued by miscommunication or outright failed communication.  Obviously, pre-planning was important as well as delegating responsibilities to subordinates.  Nevertheless, pretty much every RTS gives players complete and instantaneous control over every unit on the battlefield.  To their credit, the makers of the Total War franchise do include the option to toggle on a limited area-of-control sphere centered around the field commander unit.  While I appreciate the gesture, in classic total war fashion it doesn't do much to address the more fundamental problem of dimwitted A.I.

Now, I'm sure if any developer were to read this blogpost they would dismiss my complaints with a flippant comment along the lines of "it wouldn't be fun."  Maybe...maybe not.  However, video games are an interactive medium and far too often developers treat their game worlds more like an amusement park or museum rather than sandboxes and a toolkit.  "Look, but don't touch," feels like a guiding principle of environmental design "because anything else would be too much work."  It's a shame, because games like Mario and Minecraft are what has proven to be successful...not FMV rail-shooters like Sewer Shark.  We have the technology.  We have the hardware.  Let's make the next generation of gaming more than just the same thing, but with 4K resolution at 60fps.       

Definition of Insanity

The second post I ever made on this blog was way back in April, 2009.  The topic was about "OnLive".  Essentially, It was a cloud gaming service in which people could purchase games and play them on a variety of streaming devices.  It launched in June 2010, but failed to gain much traction and by August 2012 all of the employees had been laid off.  It was bought out for a tiny fraction of its previously estimated value.  Sony then resurrected the service in March of 2014, only to shutdown OnLive for good in April 2015.

Sound suspiciously familiar?  Google Stadia is basically the same thing.  Actually it's worse from a consumer standpoint in that there's a monthly subscription fee on top of having to buy games.  All the same technical problems remain; bandwidth shortages, data caps, infrastructural limitations...the list goes on and on.  Then, there's the issue of less customer freedom.  People using Stadia (much like OnLive) can't borrow, lend or trade games.  They can't resell games either.  If the service ends then say goodbye to all those games you bought.  Yes, Google is a big company, but have you taken a look at a website called "Google Graveyard"?  There are over a hundred-and-seventy projects that the company has abandoned or shutdown over the years (no reason why Stadia couldn't become one of them).

I've also been seeing some odd comparisons to streaming movies or music (from the director of the project no less).  First off, neither of those forms of media are interactive.  Second, the amount of time invested in watching a movie or listening to a song is typically orders of magnitude less than the time spent playing a single video game.  Even small studio indie game experiences are almost always longer than big Hollywood blockbusters.  Aside from some techno and classical music, songs typically don't go on for more than a few minutes.  If anything the closest media relative of video games are books...possibly choose-your-own-adventure books.  Guess what?  There aren't any streaming services for novels.  Sure, Amazon has their E-book reader and distribution system, but if you buy a digital book from them and download it to your Kindle (or whatever device) it's yours as much as buying and downloading a game from GoG is.

Perhaps the best question to ask is, "who's this service for?"  Hardcore gamers aren't going to go for it.  They want their own personal software library and some tricked out piece of hardware to run anything in it...the possibility of input lag alone will be enough to turn most of them off right away.  Casual gamers aren't going to go for it either...the service is too expensive.  Plus, the only place you're going to get the wireless bandwidth you'll need is via a 5G network...but here's the catch - transmitters for 5G have a really short range meaning that it's really only going to be available in the downtown parts of big cities.  If you live in the suburbs or (heavens forbid) the countryside then no Google Stadia for you.  Don't worry though I suspect it will go the direction of OnLive in very short order...a pity that Google doesn't seem to realize how ludicrous the idea of a cloud gaming service was and still is.