4. There's no going back...

   Some of the first video games I played at home, like most people, were sidescrollers such as Mario Bros. and Altered beast/Sonic the Hedgehog a generation later. Recently I have realized this ideology has continued to dominate the industry ideology. Now as soon as I have made this statement I can hear the distant cries of "your wrong look at the modern games, like how Skyrim is so much a sandbox, your allowed to do non-linear play and follow story line at your own pace!" While this is true, I am referring to a more general trend in gaming: When was the last time you plugged in your NES (assuming you even have it anymore) and played The legend of Zelda? That game is one of the most notable games ever designed for a myriad of reasons, but unless your truly nostalgic your more likely to be playing the new release of the Legend of Zelda or another title. The point is that older games (especially when you go back a generation or more in systems) simply cannot compete with the advances in new game design and the fact that the games are in fact NEW.

   Now I don't want to throw old games under the bus, in fact the games that are played owe nearly everything to previous generations of games (from creating a fan base to technical elements). But when was the last time you played a Playstation game instead of a new PS3 release? The answer most likely is: not often, if ever. Certainly many of us have games that we love so much no matter how old the game is we can go back to them and give a honest play through but these are exceptions to the rule. With games that are multiplayer like (Mariokart 64, Supersmash bros.) and especially true for FPS's (Goldeneye, Halo, Call of duty MW2) it is much easier to go back. The reason being is what made the game challenging was the dynamic of player on player contest. You wanted to see who was better, you or your friends, but in RPG's or story line based gaming once you have completed the story arc that is it. The game is over until the next expansion or edition. This trend holds continuity for FPS's and other multiplayer based games as well, when Call of Duty MW3 came out, a huge number of players stop playing the older version, obviously there are new weapons, new challenges, new maps to test your skills on and the player base movement creates momentum that carries more gamers to the new system. Even if you really loved the older version you are very likely to convert to the new game. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. We all have finite amounts of time: Even professional players cannot play every game, "real life" happens, we get busy, and thus the game or mode of a game that is most enjoyable/challenging becomes the focus of our attention.

2. Once accomplishment is achieved there is little 'real' benefit to continue playing: There has been an upwards trend toward refuting this, take for example the prestige system linked to Call of Duty line, once you complete the highest level of achievement in the multiplayer mode you are allowed to 'start over' again which allow you to make new unlocks that are not available, however the prestige system does not give technical benefits that you can only unlock certain modes of the game through 'prestiging up', its only an honorific to the player. 

3. Systems are typically not backwards compatible: Systems simply cannot support older games, as such you need to have a functioning archaic system, now this is not true in some cases, the most famous being the first edition of the PS3, was backwards compatible player for PS2 titles, but the subsequent PS3's do not play PS2 games, even though the platform could certainly do so.  

4. The new game is better!: This is not always true, but often games are improved with each subsequent version, bugs are reworked, characters are refined. Game-play is smoothed/streamlined etc. etc. This is the most obvious reason for a player to convert to the new game, its in their best interest!

  So the trend is pretty clear, new games are developed and players convert to the new system, what is so wrong with that? Actually nothing is wrong with that, it is the certain and inevitable march of 'progress' however what I believe is a highly overlooked and underestimated factor is the incentive for possible 'recursive play'. With major game titles such as Halo, Gears of war, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Call of Duty, there is going to be another title following the current one, as such there is room for legacy interaction. No game-line series (to my knowledge) has designed content for a game that can be unlocked by going back and playing earlier editions of the game. There has been no series of benefits like this designed before and as such players/designers don't do it. Now in some titles (i.e. Mass Effect, Halo) there is unlocks to story-line/game-play if you have already played the previous game, that is when you begin your new character in mass effect 3, you can load a previous character profile from ME2 but there is no such thing as unlocking game content for ME2 via play in ME3. I propose that in new game development of major games there be inclusion of 'Easter eggs' (hidden content) that be unlocked only within the 'old content'. This could be as simple as an additional story line embedded in the code, that once you go through the new game a mode is 'unlocked' in the old content. Honestly the game content would not have to be extensive, but it would encourage bridging between older and newer games, or possibly content that is only available to a player has advanced from a previous game. After all the majority market of player for a new Call of Duty is going to be the majority of the population coming that played the last game. Reward the players for continuation of the game play within the game itself and I feel the game production and fan base will be very pleased with the outcome. The sales of the game would increase if this were a known element in the game, and players would have more content to explore. 

   I envision the system of 'legacy' game play working something like this: (both examples are simply hypothetical in nature). 

   RPG example: A player plays "Mass Effect 4" while in game play the lead character has a flashback, the player is prompted 'Please insert Disk 2 from Mass Effect 3 or press X to continue' If the player inserts Disk 2 from ME3 they are allowed to play a previously unavailable content in the old game line which relates to a previous story that was present (for example Vega's story line about the collectors).  If the player chooses not to load the older game content instead they are just given a cut scene which gives a synopsis of the material that would be missed instead.

   FPS example: Why not make a play option for legacy style combat in COD MW4? Allow the players in MW4 to play a MW3 Map (against players actively using MW3), the premise of the game and mechanics are nearly identical. If new features of the game (like new weapons or content) are not programmed into the old content, simply make the 'Legacy' version (when you are playing on older maps) restricted to the more limited version of combat. 

The above versions are simple suggestions on how I imagine a game to incorporate 'recursive play or legacy play'. The simple premise is about bridging newer games to older ones. 

   

Next topic: Taking trophies, digital versus physical awards...

Thank you for reading and please feel free to comment or make suggestions for topics/trends within gaming. 

3. Zombie, Magic and Spaceships...

  What do these three things have in common? Other then they are all awesome?...nothing really, except they all exist in fictional worlds and that these are the types of things gamers talk about. The thought came to me the other day that when gamers speak to one another we will commonly use examples, metaphors and content from a extremely broad variety of sources. I was sitting discussing the possibilities of having games that function both in the material world as well as the virtual world. But what struck me is that we were using a myriad of different games as examples, quoting movies, and above all talking about many different genre within the same topic. This may not seem so odd, but if compared to other subjects say sports the entire conversation may revolve and produce evidence from within the game itself. In gaming conversations, their seems to be a unique incorporation of a myriad of elements. If you too are a gamer, think back to the last conversation about how you described your game to one of your non-gaming or gaming friends alike. I imagine the conversation went something like: "Munchkin is just like a simpler version of D&D" (Then having to explain what D&D is/defending D&D as being an incredible game). OR "Mass Effect 3. . .its kind of like star wars/trek but the bad guys are zombie automatons" etc.

  There seems to be a massive cross pollination that has occurred within gaming. To be a gamer, often times there is a set of verbal dueling comparing one system to another "I like 3.5 better, fourth edition is just awful, its just like playing warhammer". The point is not which is actually better, but that a modern gamer is often necessitated to be conversant in a myriad of games and even unrelated trivia, its Expected! Many times when I have been playing a game with friends, references are made to an incredible depth and the trivia range from Sci-fi to fantasy, Movies, television shows, books, and other games. Any conversation could spontaneously turn to a debate about who shot first Han or Gredo. Now I personally love this type of verbal sparing about a myriad of subjects but my question is why? Why do gamers in particular spend so much time discussing the minutia of seemingly non-related genres? My contention, is that often times when you are part of the gaming community, you are expected to be conversant in many different facets of gaming, and this is because having greater knowledge is generally prized in these communities. There are several elements that contribute to this:

  1. It can aid comprehension: If I am explaining to one of my friends who I typically play Magic with, how to play a board game, I will revert to using common terminology. "Its just like how lands produce mana...Tap your card each time you use it." The use of other game/movie trivia is often employed to make something clear very quickly by using a shortcut that has already been established. If I know that you have watched The Walking Dead, I might try to explain whats happening in a game by giving an example of how Dale behaves. When we have a pre-existing context to base understanding off of it makes communication easier, this is not so different then how classic tales of myth have been quoted before "its like Robin Hood -or- Just like Sherlock Holmes would have done it". The thing that is different, is the modern gamer quotes/paraphrases what is most recent and clear within their own mind which happens to be other games/movies/television, because these are extremely real visceral experiences that both parties have common ground.

 2. It demonstrates mastery and improves your own social hierarchy: When one player says to another gamer something akin to: "Yeah but did you ever play Advanced D&D?" The first gamer is inferring both that he has played an older edition of the game (showing he has more experience) and that the second gamer is less knowledgeable (thus inferior). Improving one's own status or placement in social hierarchy is important in most societies. Typically there is some type of rituals that people compete at to increase their own prestige. This however can be oppressive, even to fellow game enthusiasts, and most gamers have had at least one bad experience. The important part of this though that typically greater experience, and knowledge about the subject matter is generally revered and expresses a certain level of mastery. A professional basketball player would probably not call someone else a basketball player if they couldn't dribble the ball down the court. The same is true with gaming, by citing examples of gaming related trivia the individual expresses first inclusion into the community (I am a member) then to varying levels will express their own mastery (I really know what I am talking about, or more obnoxiously I know MORE then you).

 3. It's what they are interested in: When was the last time you had a conversation with someone about algebra but absolutely hate math? The simple answer - probably never, unless the conversation went something like: "Yeah I barely passed college algebra, because I hated it." People, gamer or not, are always interested in talking about their hobbies and the things they find fun. So with gamers it is only natural for them to want to talk about the games they enjoy, and the movies they enjoy, and anything else they really like. Gaming is a fairly inclusive activity that relies on a lot of communication, anywhere from directing teammates on your favorite FPS to explaining a dramatic situation in a game of Shaowrun. Oral communication is imperative as most games are expressed primarily through that method first and foremost falling back on visuals and text afterwards. The inclusion of talking about all these other things interests are not necessary to the game, but are included because that is what the individuals want to spend their time doing.

  I suppose that my shock at realizing these inter-related elements comes together in I have never analyzed how I talk to my friends. I had always thought about the conversations I had been apart of as: It's just what we are interested in, and that is all. But honestly even with my friends whom I have known for a long time I see elements of all three factors, its what we want to talk about, we are expressing mastery and continued interest, and we use a lot of different examples of unrelated materials that facilitate understanding. Try to keep in mind these features next time you talk to one of your friends about games, you might just be struck by the oddity of the conversation as I was.

2. DLC: Crutch or Clutch?

  Many of my recent discussions have revolved around DLC (Download content) for various console games. The conversations tends to be about how poorly executed a recently released game is. Other times it is not a discussion of poor execution of the game itself, but how bad or useless the DLC content is, and finally there is always the occasional promised fix that will be sent out via DLC. In all the cases other then the last, the DLC is something the gamer has to pay for, it is generally never earned with in game progress, and only occasionally used as support for the game. Most typical is that if you pre-order or purchase at midnight releases you are then able to qualify for the extra content or if you buy special collector editions these copies often come with some DLC code to unlock different content. The simple premise of today's discussion is: Is it worth it and to briefly analyze DLC.

    I believe that DLC is really neither a good or bad thing in and of itself. It is in fact a simply a tool, a new strategy at employing the common technology that we as modern gamers are blessed with. DLC is most visible when it is being purchased by the game/console owner to augment their own play experience. In other cases DLC is employed by the production teams of the games and system manufactures, but these are typically framed linguistically as 'updates' because there is typically no cost to the user. So when Bioware sends out an 'update' this is in effect DLC because it is changing the gameplay experience, but most often players quickly dismiss these fix's and choose instead to concentrate on the type of DLC that is purchased. Not that many years ago there was no DLC, systems could not update software easily, and thus if a game was buggy or plagued with issues their would need to be a recall, or simply the game sales would drop due to bad reviews.

  More recently I have been hearing a great number of games have been having issues at release, that the players themselves feel 'cheated' or let down by the content of the game, while simultaneously upon release of the game DLC is already generated! A prime example in my mind is Street Fighter X Tekken, when the game released in early march of 2012 there was 14 characters already slotted for DLC. Now lets take a step back from the situation, DLC is a win win right? The production company gets to generate more income for a game already sold to a player which typically costs $60 USD, and the player gets to expand their experience in the game they love. However when taking a large portion of the content of the game out and 'reserving' it for DLC purposing, the production company leaves the gamer with a sour taste because their experience has been diminished. As such the game which would typically hold its price at the release price stays at approximately $60 USD for 6 months to a year depending on popularity of the game and the market interest. Within 1 month of its release Street Fighter X Tekken dropped its price, first $10 then another $10 in certain retail locations. Instead of the game generating profits of $60 from each sale, it is cut down to $40, not to mention the number of players who have resold the game after being disappointed therefore not purchasing DLC. Now I am not discussing whether the game is of good quality or not, but rather the reason behind profiteering, and the long term effects of a decision to make so much paid DLC instead of either core content or free DLC. What is the total loss in profit, and sales due to a decision such as this? More indirectly, does this translate to a worse gaming experience without the DLC thus creating a bad name for the companies future releases?

  Another recent complaint arose shortly after the release of Mass Effect 3, the highly anticipated title (which I was also waiting for eagerly) dropped in Early March. The game has some excellent features, and offers fans the next chapter (and supposedly last) chapter in the story. However as gamers ripped through the content at a furious pace since the midnight release quickly active online discussions appeared on how poorly executed the ending of the game is. I personally have still not finished the game (unfortunately) but the major complaint is that the end of the game is unfinished. Bioware announced that in the upcoming summer they will offer a free DLC 'extended cut' ending to give more detail to the games conclusion. First off, I want to compliment Bioware for acknowledging the fan outcry and taking appropriate action, by attempting to rectify a known issue! Not all players are going to be happy with the development of a game, and the direction that is applied to characters they become intensely fascinated by, however in this case Bioware taking note of the complaint is stepping up and taking action. That being said, did the game get released without being finished? Was the ending that was released really what was envisioned for the ending of the game? My contention is that prior to DLC becoming as popular as it now is, most games when released used to be completed! There seems to be a disturbing trend that is taking place that the full game as envisioned is not actually released. It is forgivable, and entirely understanding that some content needs to be reworked after release, and patches for content need to be released because of errors in delivery/programming, but something as intrinsic as a dramatic conclusion to the ending of a game IS important.

   I believe the case is clear that in some cases DLC has begun to become abused by production companies to exploit game profits. In others it is being offered to placate the fan base and make corrections which is certainly of great value to both the player and the producer. The company helps to repair its tarnished name by 'giving' away content, and the game player is given additional content to let them explore the storyline more. But this is again not the real purpose behind DLC, the player is getting what he wants with the original release of the game but well after the fact and the Company is not making money nor expounding upon the already established game experience in a 'new' fashion. Bioware, has released DLC for other games successfully even on their Mass Effect titles previous to #3, and these were successful! I am certainly not complaining about additional content being released, or it being free, on the contrary I am very grateful but I believe that companies must hold game development to a higher standard, to ensure that the game play experience is complete before looking to DLC to fix the game.

  So back to the core issue, how should DLC be used? I believe that DLC can and should be continually used to fix errors in game-play/experience, but the augmentation of game play needs to become the focus. One of the best cases that exemplifies the use of DLC that I personally came across was with the game Borderlands. This game was incredibly successful in the game play, a fully developed story-line, and the various DLC packages that were offered allowed a vigorous continuation of the game content. The DLC was not something that was so shallow as to play through in only an hour or so, and really gave additional flavor to the game which in itself was complete, an additional note: I did not mind paying for it! This is because I was fulfilled by the original game experience, but also satisfied by the DLC too! Although this game may not be the best example out there, it stands out in my mind as a prime example of how to successfully employ this tool. Again my conclusion DLC is simply a tool which must be used properly, and if done so will encourage players, and profits simultaneously. Gamers don't mind spending money on games, assuming that the play is fun, the game is accessible and works the way it is designed, and we like new content, new games, new features, that is why all gamers are not still playing original Super Mario Bros. or other games. Gamers don't mind paying for the experience because there is inherent value to the individual, but make it good and worth our while. Discussing how to determine value will be up and coming. I hope you enjoy please feel free to comment or email me about any technical errors.

A brief introduction to...me

   This is my second attempt at blogging, my initial attempt Travel Like This... was rather successful in both sharing some of my travels through Thailand and created a notebook to look back upon. Well in this blog I hope to explore the ideas and culture of gaming. I returned from Thailand in August of 2011 and since have been working and attending graduate school full time. I have settled on the idea of pursuing gaming as my area of interest in Anthropology (my undergraduate major and now graduate major). The main reason for choosing this is this is what I have done nearly every day to some extent or another for the majority of my life. I love playing games! Talking about them and making friends who do the same. No one has to pay me to sit down and play a game, I will read books, magazines, articles or watch anything I can about them just because I am interested in them. Before I begin discussing gaming issues for those interested I want to give you some background on my experience so the reader can understand that I have a fairly extensive background when it comes to games. Personally I always like to know a bit about the source, and that it is credible. Also I wish to share this information to demonstrate that I am interested in and conversant in many different types of gaming.

  I have been playing casually, semi-competitively and competitively in various forms really since late 1993. My interest had begun prior to 1993 but I can honestly say I began taking gaming much more seriously in my life since that point. In late 1993 MTG re-released the original card set and this was my introduction to gaming at a larger scale. Ever since being introduced to Magic during Beta I have been playing the game on and off over the last 20+ years. A few short years after the release of MTG, Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) was released in 1995. Due to the inclusion of story line elements and the fact that at our local card shop had greater interest in this game I focused on L5R, this was really the beginning of my semi-professional excursion into CCG's (Collectible Card Games). I began practicing and playing every day and traveled locally and around the state competing and winning tournaments, including winning Origins in Chicago 1997. During this period of time, L5R was tracking player ratings and ranked them in order of play and according to an alignment system known as clans, at age 13 I was the number 5 player in the Lion clan (according to the Imperial Herald publication). Which meant I was certainly within the top 30 players in the country at the time. Since that period of time I have had several successfully showings at larger CCG tournaments. In 2009 I finished 9th at a PTQ (pro-tour qualifier) at navy pier Chicago (a tournament of several hundred). I had a feature match at Magic GP Minneapolis 2009 (which I unfortunately lost, the picture above). And obtained an overall rating of just under 1900 in the old player DCI points system, which granted is not the 'true' professional level but I was a full time student working on two degrees at the time.

   For brevity's sake I will just say that throughout my life I have been playing PC/Console games continuously, although I have not received any special awards or recognition for any of that play. Our first system that my family owned in 1988 was the Nintendo NES, since then I have escalated in order to SNES, SEGA Genesis, PC games, N64, Playstation, Xbox, Plastation 2, Playstation 3, XBox 360 (now with Kinect). Although I really cannot list all the games I have played, the highlights from the systems/games for me have been:
TBS: Dune(PC), XCOM(PC), Dawn of War(PC).
MMO: WOW(PC), EVE(PC).
RPG: Final Fantasy Tactics (PS&Iphone),FF VII(PS2), FF IX(PS2),FF X(PS2), Mass Effect(Xbox).
FPS: Goldeneye (N64), Counter strike(PC), Halo(XBOX), Call of Duty MW2(PS3), MW3(PS3)
Platformer: Super Mario Bros(NES), Sonic(SEGA).
Fighter: Street Fighter(SNES), Marvel Vs. Capcom(Arcade).
Action: Resident Evil (PS) Metal Gear Solid (PS).

  My 'Professional' gaming career: In 2006 I was playing as part of a team testing software and gaming accessibility for kLoOge.Werks, this primarily consisted of playing D&D and giving feedback to the code writers. In 2007 I worked for Games Workshop, and helped open the Oak Park IL location. I was fortunate to receive training from some really excellent hobbyists including painting lessons from Tim Lison who is one of the most accomplished and recognized miniature painters in the US which have greatly increased my skills as a miniature painter. I have also helped contribute to design & production for Paulson Games from 2010-present. In 2010 myself and 2 friends won best Club Table, Best 40k Table and Best overall table at Games Day 2010 when we ran our event "Ramshackle Rumble" as the 'Lords of the Horde'. In 2011 I worked as a video game merchandiser informing customers and sales reps at retail locations about games and products. In 2012 I worked for SCUF gaming first as a game tester, ensuring quality of outbound product then helped develop new lines of product (including the custom grip backs) as well as managing the graphic end of production for a short time. Currently I work as a game developer for CoolMiniorNot on such products as Wrath of Kings and a number of games yet to be released. I am also pursuing a masters degree at Georgia state University where the thesis focus will be on professional game play in the Magic community. I still continue to play CCG's, Console games, MMO's and board games, Miniature and RPG tabletop games.

   I feel incredibly blessed to have enjoyed so much time, and the company of so many fellow gamers over the years. Thanks to everyone for your support and friendship, the rest of this blog will be discussing my insights into gaming, ideas to possibly make games better and the way in which gaming has and will evolve.