The importance of death...

Peril is a crucial part of most story telling.  Even though we all know that there is very little chance that the protagonist of our favourite stories can fail in their journey, it's very important to believe that they might.  Whether it's Harry Potter at the end of JK Rowling's books or Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings, we need to believe they could die..

What's got me thinking about this is the distinct lack of peril in games.  For example, I love Skyrim and have spent around a hundred hours in the remarkable world created by Bethesda.  As my level 50 warrior strolls around clad in Dragon Bone armour with swords and shields suitably enchanted, the chances of me meeting anything that should even begin to bother me is minimal.  However, even early in the game the thought of backing away from a confrontation is virtually zero. Why?  Well, if I should die when charging brainlessly in to battle then I simply reload from a few minutes before and avoid the battle entirely or approach it in a different way.

Anyone who has played a Call of Duty game online is well aware that people charge around like they're Superman, shooting anything that moves for 10 minutes or so and likely get killed by nearly as many people as they kill (everyone would of course tell you their Kill Death Ratio is much better than 1:1 though).


Imagine if you will though, walking across one of Skyrim's beautiful vistas and seeing a dragon circling on the horizon but instead of charging in fearlessly, ducking behind a tree and hoping the majestic beast hasn't seen you.  Why?  Because dying in the game has real consequences.  Perhaps even the permanent death of a character that has seen you through 50-100 hours of gaming.

The joy inherent in this tension has struck me following hours spent playing XCom: Enemy Unknown and indie hit FTL (Faster Than Light).  In both games death can be a genuine consequence of making poor choices.  In XCom my 15 hour, 70 kill, top level Heavy Colonel could be brought to an untimely death through one simple and poor move on my behalf leaving a genuinely somber tone as you imagine poor Colonel Wang's little children.  Recognising this emotion Firaxis have taken a step further with their global Facebook Memorial Wall found here.  The level of feeling attached to what should be virtual cookie-cutter soldiers wouldn't have felt nearly as touching had Firaxis made it easy to keep these characters alive or reload an earlier save.

Now, I'm not stupid of course and realise that most gamers would be put off in an instant by perma-death of a 70 hour RPG character or if death in Call of Duty multiplayer meant a 24 hour lockout of the multiplayer component but perhaps there should be an option or rewards for selecting this most hardcore of hardcore gameplay styles.  I worry that without it games and gaming lack an edge of excitement that they could have.  

The Walking Dead by Telltale games managed to make you fear death throughout its first season and never left you resting on your laurels.  Perhaps this is why the game has garnered such positive reviews and the delight in not knowing who would make it to the next episode kept many playing (and voting it as their game of the year).

I know that this is a post that will mean nothing to most and in fact, death is becoming less and less of an issue in gaming.  From near constant autosaving forcing the loss of a few minutes of game time in most games through to the actually impossible to die 2008 Prince of Persia game (which was excellent), the aim to gather more casual gamers will likely make death more and more unlikely.  I just state for the record, I would like more peril in gaming as it's what makes story-telling exciting.

As always, love to get your comments and thoughts.

DLC the Future of Gaming



Recently I have been playing Skyrim: Dawnguard and Civ V: Gods and Kings, both good DLCs in a world of mixed output.  With the advent of online consoles has come one addition to the hobby that is both a blessing and curse.  DLC (downloadable content) began on consoles with the Dreamcast and Xbox but, since the advent of large hard drives and broadband internet on the 360 and PS3 has become a completely necessary income stream for almost all developers.  Gamespot journalist Guy Cocker recently stated that DLC was his worst 'advance' of the current console generation and I have to agree in large.  Here are some of the good and the bad of the DLC history.

The Good

Some meaty DLC has released over the years for a variety of games.  Most of the good DLC is lengthy and adds a large amount of new content.  Adding content that hasn't been possible in the history of gaming is a good thing.

GTA IV's The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony both added lengthy, new stories and new weapons to the excellent 2009 game.  They came in 6 month intervals after the release (timed exclusively to 360, more on that later) and they weighed in at a fairly weighty 1600 MS Points (around £12).  In similar hefty story DLC, Bethesda released the Dawnguard expansion for Skyrim.  Adding a new story, game area and weapons amongst other things to Skyrim it is certainly on the good end of the spectrum but weighing in at 1600 MS Points, my first few hours have been slightly disappointing.  This could be because Skyrim is so incredibly generous with its content (that I doubt many have completely finished) that it's hard to be overly impressed by what is offered.  Also from Rockstar was Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare.  A DLC that offered a whole new story, game areas and completely new play style to the Wild West epic.

Also something positive about the much-maligned EA (really)!  The recent Euro 2012 tournament would normally have brought a full game with a full price tag to UK and European stores.  In an interesting change EA released the Euro 2012 tournament as DLC for last year's Fifa 12.  At a pretty reasonable £15.99 (1800 MS points) added stadiums, kits, commentary, game modes and a Euro 2012 skin to the game.  I have to admit to not having played it but believe it is a reasonable addition that is certainly better than the full retail World Cup games of the past.

The Bad

Most of the bad for me can be summed up in one (long) word - microtransactions.  Games companies, and perhaps gamers, seem to be convinced that spending a small amount on something fairly useless or pointless is quick and impulsive.  It is a system that has worked to great effect on the App Store and iTunes where 69p games are bought in huge quantities.  I'm not writing about whether the business side of it makes sense, I'm wondering whether it is good for gaming. 

From the infamous horse armour to costumes for everything in many games microtransactions exist in most games in some form or another.  A recent piece of work by Gamesradar.com, showed that buying everything for PS3 hit Little Big Planet 2 weights in at an astonishing £304.65.  How much of this content could have (should have) been included in the original game or at a vastly cheaper cost?  Is this purely about monetising and exploiting hardened fans of any series.  The release of map packs has become regular big business for the likes of Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 and the recent influx of 'Elite' season pass systems means charging in excess £35 for an unspecified number of map packs and various other advantages.  Without the access to map packs it can create something of a haves and have nots society on line and for those who want to be included in clans and groups the pressure to buy is large.  The upcoming Fifa 13 is set to trial micro DLC by charging customers to download classic kits amongst other things.  Unnecessary but certainly something that taps in to a fans desires.

On disc 'DLC' is another controversial aspect currently hitting the gaming industry.  Capcom sparked controversy when admitting that 'downloadable' characters were actually included on the disc and unlocked on purchase of a download code.  Whilst the anger around this centred around paying for something that had already been bought, I think people missed the wider problem.  Capcom aren't going to start giving these characters away, they are simply going to not include them on the disc and then release them as genuine DLC in future.  The wider issue is the holding back of finished content to release it at a later date.  Where is the line with this?  Ridge Racer Vita released at a reduced price and you bought the content you wanted.  Buying all of this content meant that the game eventually weighed in at a regular Vita game price (£30.84) and I guess there is an argument for buying the game you want, tailored to your desires.  This is a confusing addition for more casual gamers however and perhaps serves to make gaming more hardcore in an age of more casual games.

The final bad for me is exclusivity of releases.  Again I'm sure that this makes great business sense for Microsoft and Sony but can leave consumers left out.  Many consumers can only afford one console and the idea of timed exclusive content for a game that is out for multiple consoles it does cause me some concern and widen the console divide. 

Overview

DLC is here to stay.  It makes too much money for publishers for it to go anwhere and sadly microtransactions and 'freemium' gaming (free game and paid microtransactions) might become an increasingly regular business model. Freemium is already regular on mobile games and Cevat Yerli CEO of Farcry and Crysis developer Crytek, believes that free to play games are the future.  Microtransactions will be necessary to compete in most games.  Will this lead to a total cost that out weighs the current off the shelf cost of games?  If it does, will it be a development that kills the industry as people feel that they can't compete unless they're willing or able to pay lots of money? 

I'm already concerned by the direction single-player, story based gaming is going as online multiplayer becomes a more important business model to combat trade-in.  If companies are able to make huge amounts of money by releasing identikit, microtransaction based games then what will the future hold for single player or offline experiences? 

As always, your thoughts about free to play games would be appreciated and replied to.

Do online sales make sense?

 

Due to the paucity of Vita games at my local major supermarket and my incredible inpatience I took an unprecedented move in my gaming history and last week paid full price for a digital download of Gravity Rush.  The price was pretty reasonable clocking in at £29.99 when the boxed product of the game seen in HMV a few days later was £34.99 without the DLC that was included with the download product but I did immediately suffer a touch of buyers regret. 

The game itself is fantastic (I will post a review in a few days) and the purchase itself isn't what I regretted, it was the digital purchase. 

According to a recent BBC story digital downloads now account for 25% of gaming sales and gamers by their nature are surely one of the first demographics to get on board with this sort of purchase.  PC markets such as Steam are doing very well with convenience and reasonable pricing (particularly during regular sales) but there are several things that don't tally well for me with the way consoles are selling their products.

Firstly, the cost.  Boxed products must be physically created, shipped around the world and sold from stores that demand a cut of the profit.  Why then is the cost of a digital download usually very similar or often more expensive than boxed products, particularly when sold through online retailers.  Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo can obviously take a bigger cut through their own online stores but a quick comparison of best prices found online and Xbox Live or PSN is included here:

The difference is quite striking on this fairly random selection of recent releases and top sellers climbing as high as a ridculous £30 difference.  

Second problem (and the one that should make publishers want me to buy digitally) is the lack of ability to trade in.  For gamers whose income is limited the ability to trade in is surely a must and when digital downloads cost as much or more than boxed products why would people buy them.  My copy of Gravity Rush sits on my memory stick and can't be loaned to friends or traded in.  The money is spent and never to be seen again.  I don't trade in a lot of games these days and have a growing collection of boxed games on all of my home consoles but I know I could trade in any of them if I wanted to.  Pre-owned games is currently big business for high-st retailers, generating billions of pounds worth of revenue worldwide. Money that isn't making it to the games creators or publishers.

The third problem for me is the actual lack of a boxed product.  As a gamer I quite like having the product on my shelf, showing an impressive collection of games.  I also like having the instruction books and 'stuff' that go with buying a boxed product.  Where would I be without my lovely big map of Skyrim or Liberty City to help me find my ways through the early days?

Another issue is the worrying existing of who holds the digitial rights to downloaded games.  Amazon's Kindle faced ownership issues when it digitally deleted two George Orwell books over copyright issues.  Could Microsoft or Sony pull an Amazon and delete or remove a game if an issue becomes a problem?

Finally the actual cost falls to me for providing a storage medium.  This is less and less of an issue but with the cost of a PS Vita memory card costing £25 for an 8 GB card it only takes a couple of games to fill this.  My aging 360 that came with a once adequate 20 GB hard drive is struggling to have room for the DLC I want, let alone full games.

What benefits to digital download? 

It means that I can get the game I want, when I want with very short wait time and without getting off my couch.  Online stores demand a wait for delivery although this is negated slightly by the fact that preorders are often shipped and arrive before or on release date from major online retailers.

The only other benefit I can think of is being able to get difficult to find games.  Vita games are currently very poorly stocked at most stores near me and I live in central London and my 'local' stores are flagship Oxford St outlets of Game and HMV.

Now I understand that PSN or Xbox Live is simply selling at RRP but why are the games manufacturers shackling themselves to a price that other retailers simply do not.

At the moment console manufaturers are slightly beholden to games stores and undercutting them completely is probably not wise but at the moment they're not even competitive.  With the vast difference in boxed prices of games and downloadable games and the actual product that you buy, downloadable games on consoles are a tough sell.  I would doubtlessly be more tempted to make online purchases of big titles more regularly if they were more reasonably or competively priced (I'm as lazy as the next man). 

I do worry about a time when console manufacturers take the choice out of gamers hands.  With the ill-fated PSP Go, Sony ventured in to the digital download only market.  The iPhone and Android devices are proving that games can be sold en-masse to gamers in downloadable form.  What's certain is that games companies are trying to take more control of their own market with the increasing prevalence of extra codes to play games online and the rumours that just won't go away about one use games on next gen-consoles.

If games were noticablly cheaper through PSN or Xbox Live then I would buy more games from them as price is without doubt more important to me than the other issues I've mentioned here.  Let's hope that the future of our industry sees good changes to the way games are sold and pricing.

(*All prices taken on 18/6/12 from PSN, Xbox Live, Shopto.net, game.co.uk and amazon.co.uk)

Take play seriously!

Is the mainstream media's view of gaming range from the short-sighted to laughable?  This week CNN, one of the world's biggest news outlets, published a peculiar report from E3 asking whether the Wii's new controller (the Wii U) would breathe new life in to the ailing console.  There was no mention that this was a completely new console or new hardware for the Wii and will doubtlessly lead many millions of Wii owners down a distinctly misinformed area.  Would similarly poor reporting be accepted with regards to other areas such as sport, news or even movies?  This terribly misinformed article made me think about other views of gaming in mainstream media.

Ranging from the horribly misinformed, and infamous Alan Titchmarsh video games conversation (I couldn't find one without captions) through to an array of horribly negative reports in a wide number of mainstream publications, is enough positivity or even balance given to our increasingly popular hobby?

The Times UK has separate film, music, books, TV and stage sections on its website.  The BBC makes some effort with it's Click section available under the 'technology' heading, not in the 'entertainment and arts' area of the website.  The BBC does devote a regular BBC one TV show to a mature look at movies but nothing specific for games.  CNN reports on films, music and TV under its 'entertainment' section and again any scant gaming news is placed in 'technology'.  The Daily Mail includes film, music and theatre reviews without a look at games at all; if you search for the word game on the site one of the top stories to appear is a negative story about Carmageddon's kickstarter project.  There is some effort made by some national newspapers online sections with The Sun, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror containing reasonable sections on gaming although from my experience the amount of space given to gaming within the newspaper is minimal.

Is it fair to compare gaming to other areas with regards to the amount of coverage it deserves?  The statistics seem to suggest that yes it is.  Global video games revenue is certainly comparable to that of the movie and music industry and, from a business stand point, is significantly more profitable than movies.  Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 beat Avatar to a billion dollars worth of sales by a day and through ongoing sales, map packs, and Call of Duty: Elite continues to be a cash cow for the publishers.  Finally the average gamer is reported to be in their 30s and close to 50% of US homes own a dedicated gaming console.

Why then, is gaming viewed so negatively in the mainstream?  Obviously a number of violent video games are made and sold although reports suggest that only 5% of game ratings in Europe are given 'Mature' ratings and only 4 of the top selling computer games in 2012 were rated at the highest age rating.  How different is this to movies with such films as the Saw films, Hostel and The Human Centipede gracing the UK recently.  Although it shouldn't really matter what the rating of the game is.  With an average gamer age of 30, isn't it up to the parents of gamers to manage what children are playing not up to games to be pilloried for violence.  In a strange twist, violent movies such as Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds get nominated for numerous Oscars and the Daily Mail review calls for more scalpings but the same newspaper contains dozens of stories about the effect of gaming.

I personally want gaming to be treated with more balance in the mainstream media.  The games industry is still in it's infancy in comparison to music and movies and there is plenty of room for growth.  I hope that as the current generations grow up, it will be viewed in closer terms to other entertainment and artistic businesses.  As an adult working in a professional job, colleagues and friends are still somewhat surprised by the fact that I still choose gaming as a primary hobby and the idea that perhaps I should have moved on is noticeable (no such prejudice exists when I say I'm going to watch a movie however).

Game design by numbers.

Having seen both the Sony and Microsoft conferences over the last 24 hours, I can't help but feel a worrying convergence in the games market.  Only a few of the games weren't big number sequels or copies of other, already popular games.  Playstation All Stars: Battle Royale looked like PS3 Super Smash Brothers (with less lovable characters), as I said yesterday Forza Horizons looks like Need For Speed or Burnout and the similarities between COD, Battlefield, MOH Warfighters and Ghost Recon Future Soldier are startling.

Some of the stand out games of E3 (Beyond, Watch Dogs and The Last of Us to name the top three from Sony's conference) were new IPs and both doing something different to the rest.  With many of the games sticking to accepted formulae how do we expect to find the next big thing?

I worry we're stuck in something of an 80s action movie era.  The films came thick and fast with various muscle-bound, wise cracking heroes and sure, there were some hits, but the majority were forgettable movies with a by the numbers plot that could practically be interchanged.  Save the world... blah blah... kills the bad guys... yeah yeah... get the girl... and so on.  This could be said of many of the current set of hits.  Take a heroic protagonist/group of soldiers, put them in a world ending conflict and blow stuff up.

Why does this problem exist though?  I can only suggest that it's our fault.  Probably not yours if you're reading this as it's a pretty obscure gaming blog and only likely to be read by hardcore gamers.  But is it the masses of gaming that cause this.  Call of Duty sells like the proverbial hot cakes every year no matter how bad it's considered by the majority of players and why wouldn't EA, Ubisoft and co all want a part of that action?  Forza 3 (Metacritic 92) sold less than 4 million copies but Need for Speed The Run (Metacritic 68) sold around 4.6 million, it must be noted that NFS, whilst much worse, is on all formats.  Why wouldn't the excellent Forza try to become more like the mediocre Need for Speed if it can boost sales?

How do we change this problem then?  I implore everyone who reads this to try something different in gaming.  Go and download Journey on your PS3, The Walking Dead on everything, To the Moon or Frozen Synapse on PC.  Support smaller developers and let them give us games that take risks.  This has happened in movies with smaller indie film makers rising up to give us such film beauties as The Royal Tenenbaums, Lost in Translation and Up In The Air.  I'm not saying that I don't want to play the next Splinter Cell, (I really, really do want to play it) but I am saying get out there and try something little and give it a chance. it may surprise you.

Day of Reckoning

The sad collapse of Kingdom's of Amalur developer 38 studios this week made me think about the incredible short-sightedness and immaturity of games developers.  The movie industry seemed to realise a long time ago that there was a limit to the number of films in any particular genre that people could watch.  Studios seem to work together to ensure that big movies stay well out of each other's way and a movie costs around ten pound to go and see and lasts two hours.  Games cost around £40 new and, in the case of many RPGs, can take long over 50 hours to complete.

Sadly Kingdom's of Amalur: Reckoning released a few months after the behemoth that is Skyrim and a few weeks before another RPG beast, Mass Effect 3.  Now I have to admit to not having played Kingdom's of Amalur and understand from its reviews that it isn't that similar to Skyrim but it surely suffers from seeming similar and releasing in the wake of such an enormous RPG.  If RPG fans were ready to dive in to another expansive world I imagine most would, as I did, wait for Mass Effect 3. 

Now, I understand the difficulty of releasing a new IP at any time but how can games companies continually get it so wrong.  We wait through a bigger drought than has hit the south of England in June, July and August.  Suddenly in September the games start coming thick and fast.  We're expecting the likes of Halo 4, COD Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, Medal of Honour: Warfighter, Resident Evil 6, Far Cry 3, Hitman: Absolution to name but a few of the big name, big number sequels.  How many perfectly good games, and more sadly perfectly good games companies, are going to get lost by trying to go up against these hugely succesful franchises.

Until game companies start to think more sensibly about the way games are released then I worry that we are going to continue to see losses like this.  People don't have the resources and time to play through games as quickly as they can watch a movie.  There is a limited amount of time to play big AAA titles and new IPs need to be releasing under a different model to the big outlay games.  Whether it's episodal content, cheaper pricing or subsidising pricing through advertising something needs to be done to get companies thinking more professionally about the business they are in and stop the sad loss to people's livelihoods and futures.

No need to cry.

Quanitc Dream's David Cage said this week that we didn't need a new generation of consoles yet and set an ambitious 2017 date on the requirement of 'the next gen'.  Anyone who saw Kara, the remarkable video from the studio, will certainly agree that Cage is doing something that many don't.  However, is he correct that the current generation of consoles is too tilted towards violence and RPGs and that we don't need a new generation of consoles for another five years?

Firstly, are we oversupplied with violence?  To get an idea of this I took a look at the top selling games on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC.  Thirteen of the top fifteen 360 games could be construed as violent or RPGs and eleven of the top fifteen PS3 games fit in to to the same category.  This certainly does seem to back-up the idea that we are perhaps oversupplied with these games but is Cage taking too simplistic a view on things.  Perhaps the games being made are there because they sell.  Hardcore gamers complain about the likes of Call of Duty and its identikit clones but perhaps that is because we, the gamer, continue to buy them.  Quantic Dream's own Heavy Rain sold well at around 2 million copies (as of GDC 2011) but this doesn't begin to touch COD MW3's 6.5 million day one sales in the UK and US or MW2's 18 to 20 million total sales.  Perhaps game designers aren't lacking imagination as Cage said, perhaps they are simply caught by the unavoidable fact that our hobby is many people's business.

On the second suggestion of no new consoles until 2017, I'm torn.  The most interesting games I have played in the last few months have not needed more polygons or better hardware.  To The Moon, Journey or Lone Survivor have all been interesting, quirky, different and thrilling in their own ways.  The industry is full of people and teams pushing boundaries and finding new and exciting way to use the hardware they are given.  I believe that David Cage and his team are capable of doing remarkable things with the current generation of hardware and I can't say I'm too ready for more.  After seeing the Wii U and it's difficult to comprehend tablet controller, I worry that one day we will pine after this generation of controller based gaming.  Without some brave souls I worry the ever increasing expense of console manufacture and game design will drive developers to need to appeal to the chattering masses.

What do you think?  Do you want more David Cage and something from Kara or are you happy to see more COD and it's itterative sequels?  Do we need a new console generation or are those wanting it setting us up for an incremental decline to casual gaming?

And here is that video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-pF56-ZYkY

The Walking Dead - The adventure game I always wanted.

I write this first post whilst keenly awaiting the second episode of Telltale Games 'The Walking Dead'.  I have wanted to love adventure games all my life, having attempted to play a huge number over the years.  The only one I can remember completing from start to finish is Grim Fandango and, despite starting Sam and Max, several Monkey Islands, Full Throttle, Leisure Suit Larry (to my shame, but I was of an age) and the more recent Back To The Future and Puzzle Agent, they were never the game I wanted.

Where The Walking Dead gets it right and so many others failed is character.  From the stark opening dialogue with a cynical US cop through to the shocking finalé of this opening chapter I was living Lee Everett's life.  I didn't have to labour through obscure puzzles, linking up strange objects and jumping through far-fetched logical links.  I didn't have to spend a long time in the same three room setting.  I did get to make genuinely troubling moral decisions.  I did connect with an array of well written and scripted characters in a mature and well-paced storyline.

Of course, this is a zombie game and there is the chance to smash undead skull but I'm not coming back for the action.  I'm coming back to find out what happens to Lee, Clementine, Carley and company and to find out if Lenny is going to get his just desserts.

Sadly I've only been able to play through the short few hours once because I want my snap decisions and reactions to be the ones that I must live with without being tempted by other (possibly more attractive) outcomes.  I'm looking forward to coming back though when all five episodes are released and playing through the whole story with some different outcomes. 

Hopefully Telltale can manage to keep the pace, variety, tough choices and great cast entertaining me throughout the remaining four episodes.  I trust that they will.