Multiplayer Meat Grinder

Ever notice the online play in most games basically consists of a lot of people randomly murdering one another? Either that or team matches which amount to nothing more than two gangs if thugs fighting an endless war of attrition.

My hope is online play will eventually evolve beyond these mindless digital slaughterhouses into something with a bit more depth. For now we’ve seen some baby steps in a good direction with increased co-op play and interesting variations of what we traditionally consider online multiplayer in games like Demon’s Souls. But as of now there have yet to be any non-MMO triple “A” titles that have really pushed the boundaries of online play.

Even excellent games such as Red Dead Redemption suffer online from a lack of truly significant innovation, particularly with respect to the default online mode “Free Roam.” To give a clear example of what I’m getting at here let’s say instead of just having players randomly blow each other away only to re-spawn seconds later in RDR how about implementing a bounty system similar to what is used in the single player experience? So, anytime one player kills another without just cause “The Law” places a bounty on that murder’s head. Of course if the murderer gets killed there won’t be a bounty placed on the player that shot the murderer since that’s simply justice served true to the style of the Wild West.

Of course there can still be settings for death match, team death match and pure co-op for those who want it, but at the very least the Free Roam setting would greatly benefit from this relatively simple action/consequence mechanic. If such a thing existed players would have to consider the long term results of violent acts and the Wild West concept of bounty hunters and outlaws will doubtlessly be reinforced.

While it’s not likely we’ll see this kind of system in the near future perhaps Rockstar Games will consider such an idea for their next big sandbox title. Personally, I’m hoping for a GTA meets Mount & Blade, but that’s another story. Until then I look forward to That Game Company’s Journey and beyond.

DLC & Modular Gaming

Down Loadable Content (commonly abbreviated "DLC") has become an increasingly popular addition to the gaming industry. Aside from extending the life of a particular title it also offers a chance for publishers and developers to squeeze a little more profit out of their franchises. Recently DLC has also been used as a means to combat piracy in the form of free additional content to those who purchase a game through legitimate channels. A strategy which, I might add, is much more rewarding for gamers than the restrictive and largely ineffective DRM schemes that are all too often employed.

So, based on the above DLC seems to have a definite future in the gaming industry, right? I would say "yes" under the condition that gaming companies continue to innovate DLC in ways which benefit the people who play games. Particularly, if developers take the basic concept of DLC and run with it a bit further we could see some very interesting changes in the not so distant future.

Take for example the first DLC to be released for Mass Effect 2. Put simply it adds a new vehicle to the game which for some people is a bonus and others an unwanted nuisance. The nice part is because the content is offered via DLC players can choose to include or ignore this particular part of the Mass Effect experience. I believe that this is a clever idea because much of the controversial content in gaming titles such as vehicle segments, quick-time events, side quests, turret sequences, rhythm mini games and so on tend to be the fiddly bits of gaming that players either love or hate. Such features should be offered in the form of DLC because the game can then essentially become modular in nature. Allowing players to tailor the gaming experience to their liking, albeit in a limited way.

I think it's safe to say gamers like choice so why not go one step further still and split the single player and mutiplayer experience into two separate components which can function independently of each other? Let's face it some gamers only buy games to play on-line with their buddies, other prefer to only engage in the single player experience, and there are those who like both. So, why not let each gamer pick the arrangement they like best?

Of course there are a lot of pitfalls. We've already seen them in the form of "day one DLC" and it's ugly twin "content that is already on the disk (you just pay to unlock it)." Worse yet is DLC which is buggy, under-polished or simply doesn't bring anything interesting to the game. At the very least DLC needs to be cheaper than it is now, but despite this there is the potential to allow gamers to customize their games the way they like. Modularity in gaming could offer a lot if done right. For the good of the industry let's hope there are some developers and publishers out there that figure out how to make it work.

Video Game Awards

Well, it’s the end of the year so we’re starting to see a variety of award events across the internet (and TV if you count Spike’s VGA show). The problem that I have with these ceremonies is their tendency to be the same when it comes to award categories; Best [PS3/Xbox360/Wii] Game, Best Graphics, Best Music, Game of the Year. They all have it and it isn't terribly original. So, why not come up with a few new categories? Let me present to you ten award categories that I would like to see:

• Avantgarde Award: The game with the most original or downright bizarre concepts.
• Backlash Award: The game that received the harshest criticism.
• Brutality Award: The game which offers the greatest challenge at the highest difficult setting.
• Canvas Award: The game which makes the best use of colors other than grey and brown.
• Ecology Award: The game with the most recycled content and cliché themes.
• “Engrish” Award: The game that gets the most creative with the English language.
• Esoteric Award: The game with the longest and steepest learning curve.
• Lemon Award: The game with the most glitches and bugs yet is still considered playable.
• Testosterone Award: The game with the most gore, profanity and nudity.
• Underdog Award: The game which is low on marketing hype, but high on quality.

Of course some of these awards are rather dubious, but a list such as the one I’ve presented here might actually be informative to the viewer instead of just giving out pointless bragging rights. And when you get down to it most gamers have already decided what their favorites are so why not throw a curve ball and give people something different?

One Game to Rule Them All

Having the biggest launch in entertainment history, I think it's safe to say Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sits atop the coveted throne of video games. One might note that this seat previously belonged to the Grand Theft Auto series and perhaps Final Fantasy before that. But rather than debating the details, I have to ask the question "Is it really a good thing that one video game title (or series) becomes so popular it dominates the market? Is it really good for gaming as a whole?"

The problem (as I see it) with having the industry dominated by one massively successful game is many developers inevitably gravitate to that game's genre. Thus, at your local retail store it becomes increasingly common to find inferior clones in that genre. This is a major loss in that many of these development teams could have been pouring their time and resources into something original or new.

By keeping the industry diverse it's possible to create some real gems. Particular instances of cross pollination have produced interesting results over the last couple of years. Titles such as shooter/RPG hybrid Mass Effect or Puzzle/flight-sim hybrid Flower are excellent examples of this. But despite the relative success of these games they pale in comparison to the juggernaut which is Modern Warfare 2, and that makes me sad.

I think the end result of having the industry dominated by a handful of titles is that it stifles innovation and encourages formulaic game design. So, if your reading this blog do your fellow gamers a favor and try some games outside the genre (or genres) you normal play. And don't be afraid to play a game just because it didn't get a high review score. For the record most of my favorite games tend to land in the 7.0 to 8.5 review score range.

PC Gaming

I think it’s safe to say that PC gaming is in a state of decline. Not a particularly shocking revelation, but what never fails to surprise me is how many people have an oversimplified view on the matter. Probably the most common reason I hear for the slow death of gaming on the PC is “Pirates (Yarr!).” While there is some validity to this point there are a significant number of other reasons. Allow me to present six other causes, and please note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list:

#1 DRM. I know what your probably thinking. Isn’t DRM the result of piracy? Well…yes and no. It’s true that DRM is a means in which to fight piracy but it does a lot more to hurt PC gaming that you might initially think. I won’t bother talking about how DRM schemes tend to screw with your computer or the fact that they’re (in some cases) a violation of consumer privacy. Instead let’s just break this down into three key points; trade, borrow, resell. Say I buy a game for the PS3. If I want I can lend it to a friend, or trade games with said friend. Plus, I can resell the game and recoup some of the cost of my initial purchase. All of these things would be very difficult, or down right impossible to do, if I had bought the same title for the PC thanks to DRM.

#2 Non-standard Hardware and Software. I’ll lump these two together simply because they’re kind of the same problem. PC’s can come with a variety of motherboards, CPUs, graphics cards, hard drives, etc. all of which have their own operating specs. Trying to make a game on the PC that is compatible with all these types of hardware configurations is a real pain for game developers. It’s also a headache for people who play because every time they install a game on their computer and try to run it they have to cross their fingers and hope that it doesn’t crash right back to the desktop because of some incompatibility. Couple this with having to hunt around on-line for troubleshooting guides or driver updates. Then top it off with the fact that operating systems ranging anywhere from Linux to Windows 95 all the way up to Windows 7 (not to mention all the versions of Mac OS) and you got yourself some serious range to cover.

#3 Higher Cost. At the time I’m writing this article the PS3 and Xbox360 are going for $300 a unit. I think it’s safe to say that an up to date gaming PC is going to cost two to three times that amount. Granted PCs can do more, but I think not unreasonable to point out that a lot of people don’t feel the need use their computer for anything more than Facebook and Email.

#4 Lack of Support. Let’s face it. Up until very recently Apple has done their best to not support gaming on the Mac and since the arrival of the Xbox360 Microsoft has done their best to kill gaming on the PC in an attempt to sell more consoles. Maybe that will change when Google releases their new OS, but for now the big two providers of computer operating systems are basically against gaming on the PC. Oh well…we still got Flash Media games to count on…I guess.

#5 Laptops. Let me start by saying that I don’t have anything personally against laptops. I use one regularly and I can see why many people would consider their compact and portable design a key factor in purchasing one over a desktop. That said they’re not a very good platform when it comes to gaming. I’m not entirely sure why this is, but I am entirely sure that a lot of PC owners out there have a laptop and not a desktop.

#6 On-Line Gaming. This used to be a PC exclusive. If you wanted to play on-line games you had to do it on your PC. But since the introduction of services such as Xbox Live and PSN it has become possible to enjoy on-line gaming on non-PC platforms. Hence PC gaming has lost one of its big advantages over the competition. One wonders what would happen if they introduced keyboard and mouse support to the PS3 and Xbox360.

All the points I have mentioned above interrelate to some degree. In fact I would go so far as to say they interweave to create a tapestry enveloping and slowly smothering PC gaming to death. Some cling to the hope that digital distribution will somehow save PC gaming industry (which I might add pioneered the kinds of games we enjoy today). Frankly though, I don’t see it. As long as the trend of “pay more, get less” continues it will just be one nail in the coffin after another.