Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
12 Feb 05
One quick clarification, contest entries over 1000 words will not be disqualified. They are subject to editing. Simply, if you want your words pristine and untouched, keep it under 1000 words. If you have a bigger story to tell, go for it, but don't complain about any editing changes.
11 Feb 05
You just have this weekend and Monday to get your contest entries in. Late entries won't be accepted. Good luck to all entrants.
I wanted to explain a little about the contest. It's fairly obvious that this place is about the stories you create from the games and that getting more stories here adds to the site. What may not be obvious is why prizes are being given out by random drawing rather than ranking the entries. Let me explain.
First, ranking is hard. I'll get this out of the way first. Should you put a less well written story that's more interesting above a story that's impeccable in style, but mundane in substance? What about entries that are rather more nuanced than that? Should a great story from a weaker game be above a great story from a game with a rich narrative background? Those are tough questions and whatever answers I chose would be hard to defend especially to an author who loved their own work.
Next, I'm biased. I know. You're all shocked. I'm not completely impartial keeping my opinions to myself. Really though, should someone win because they wrote about a game or setting I like? Should someone lose because they remind me of an author I don't like? Sure this place may be nominally mine, but the goal has always been community.
Which brings me to my next point. This isn't the home of gaming stories written to amuse me. It the home of gaming stories. There is no subtext here that I have to like everything that goes up here. As long as it follows the site rules, it's welcome here. The last thing I want to do is scare off any potential authors because they think that those type of stories are welcome here. Ok, if by "those type" you mean slash porn, you're right that's not welcome because this is a family site. If you need to go darkly postmodern to describe a session of Fallout Tactics, go for it.
Finally, I believe the best way to get better at writing is writing and getting feedback. And so it is with gaming as well. I don't want people to have the out that "I like that game, but I'm not good enough at it to write a story." Or "I can play well, but the words have to be painfully extruded from me." Just write. You'll get your shot to win. We'll tell you what we like about it. If you're brave enough to ask, we'll even tell you what we didn't like and how to improve some things.
If you need some things to think about while procrastinating on your entry, I'll help you out. I don't know about you, but even though I try to keep up on technology it still seems that for some things I'm the last to know. Not this time. If you have a wireless 802.11b system you're thinking of upgrading to G, you might want to know this. They're working on a new standard, the N standard. N will be faster, backwards compatible and provide better signal at longer ranges. Look for it next year. You can read more Here.
To wrap things up, I suggest you read this article from IGN. It's about Freedom Force 2 and Irrational's decision to self publish. It's a good read. All you City of Heroes fans should thank Freedom Force for breaking the comic curse and paving the way for better comics based games to follow. For Freedom.
Jason
Comments?
10 Feb 05
Well, you're down to about four days left to get your contest entries in. I just thought you should know that.
I wanted to expand on something I mentioned in passing yesterday. The Adrenaline Vault (back from the dead) has an interesting article on what makes a good reviewer. One of the things the author mentions is the ability to work in the review environment which is different from the competitive gaming environment. That's true, and there are some interesting implications from this.
I stated yesterday that the CGW RTS award seemed skewed toward multiplayer. On the surface there's nothing wrong with this, but what about all those people who don't play online or multiplayer? While LAN parties have become more popular, there still only a small minority of players who've gone to one. And online, I think now we've gotten to the point where most people have played online. How many of them make that their primary experience of a game?
I may be out of touch, but in my experience, most gamers still focus on the single player aspects of a game. Even though they may buy many games during the year, at any one time they're only playing a game or two online. If time becomes tight, it's easier to give up multiplayer than a game you can save anywhere. This isn't a bad thing either. Most games out there still focus on the single player experience first.
But then look at reviewers for major publications. They tend to work in gaming environments with LAN's set up for gaming. They have easy access to other gamers and hang around with gamers after work. All Xbox consoles have Live. All PS2's have online adapters. If they feel like a game, someone is always up for it. Of course, playing with people you know is always more fun than a random internet game.
That's why I feel that the big (online and print) Game of the Year awards tend to skew towards multiplayer. I don't think it's intentional. It's just when they look back on the year, their fondest memories are more likely to be beating up on so and so in that game. There's more intensity there.
So we see games like Halo 2 and Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War winning Game of the Year honors even though many people had serious complaints about the single player campaigns. I guess that's why we hear people call for separate single and multiplayer scores. The problem is that not all multiplayer experiences are equal. Just something to keep in mind when reading reviews and Game of the Year lists.
Jason
Comments?
9 Feb 05
I haven't been overwhelmed with contest entries yet. Don't procrastinate too long. There's probably some magic formula for getting people entries in early enough so I don't have a heart attack worrying about them, but I'll never figure it out.
There's been some controversy over Computer Gaming World's Game of the Year awards. I'm not too interested in the Half Life 2 spat, but I am interested in the Strategy categories. They created a "general" category to separate it from the Real Time Strategy games. I'm pretty sure the RTS winner was Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War. Slightly controversial, but you can make the case especially if you weight things toward the multiplayer side.
The general category was the one I wanted to talk about. They gave the award to the Sims 2. Then they have the nerve to complain that RPG's are dying and needing a revival like strategy games saw this past year. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. It's simple, the Sims 2 is the new paradigm for RPG's.
You could argue that the original Sims was a strategy game. You had a very limited resource, time, and had many things to accomplish. Most of your time eventually got bogged down in bodily functions. Your goal was to progress in your career and skills to improve your house to free up more of your time. Then you could use that time for fun.
What Maxis realized was that people liked having their sims have fun, but they didn't like the tedium. So they de-emphasized that part in the sequel. The purpose of the game shifted from optimizing operating efficiency for maximizing free time to creating dynamic and interesting relationships among your virtual people. The great thing is you can do it however you want.
What Maxis created was a free form RPG. You have a core character or party (family) that you follow their story. You have overarching goals (quests), but no clear path on how to get there. In fact, choosing the path is telling your story. The gameplay is about advancing your character, environment and relationships to achieve your goals. There are a lot of sub goals (side quests) that you can choose to do or not. The satisfaction comes not necessarily from achieving the goals, but from the journey there.
All these things make it more of a RPG than a strategy game. There are no consistent winning strategies for the Sims 2. Even making a series of "stupid choices" doesn't ruin the game or end it. It merely sends it down a different path that might be just as enjoyable.
I think there are some obstacles from people seeing this straight away. First is people expect a long, written narrative in a RPG. If you look at pen and paper RPGs, you can play a written module and have fun. Or if you have a creative Game (Dungeon) Master, you can play a free form game and have just as much fun. The Sims 2 swings completely to the free form side, but that doesn't disqualify it.
The other thing is that many gamers think that RPGs just aren't played like that. That's not true however. Take a look at This. It's a website for a RPG. There are no elves, magic or war there. People all take celebrities and pretend to be them. They create virtual relationships and feelings for the celebs. They tell a free form story based on those relationships and feelings. Then they add in real events from the gossip pages. Sure, it might not be your or my type of game, but it clearly is a Role Playing Game.
Reviewers are often claiming that gameplay is the key. Well, maybe they should take a more critical look at the actual gameplay. There is a lot of convergence in game design today. Elements from many genres are used, but it is the responsibility of the reviewer to understand where the heart of the gameplay lies. I think they need to do a better job especially if they're going around handing out awards.
Jason
Comments?
8 Feb 05
I have just a couple of quick hits for you today. For reference, there are still less contest entries than prizes. That bodes well for the final odds if you get your story in. How many of you have complained that you never win anything? Don't blame me; I'm trying to help.
Anyone have any interest in Jade Empire. It's Bioware's upcoming RPG. Normally that's a must buy for many people, but this time they've changed a few things. It's an action RPG and it's for the Xbox. I don't believe there's been any announcement if they will release a PC version. It might not translate well since few PC gamers have and use gamepads.
What I really wanted to talk about was the Limited Edition. They're offering an extra character and a new fighting style in the LE. The price is the same. We've seen this before with PC games. In fact, the new Freedom Force game has a similar offer going on now. The difference is that if they want to Irrational can release the bonus characters at a later date for free on the web. Assuming that Jade Empire even has a Live link, it would cost them money to release the content over live and less than 10% of Xbox owners have Live. Given the way Jade Empire is shaping up, it looks like the bonus content is a pretty major addition to the game.
Next up, the cell chip has hit the web. While details are still scant, there's now more than speculation. Bill has put up a good summary. I think the big question that no one is asking is what will Microsoft's response be. The simple person might say that the cell is powering the PS3 and MS will want to stay far away. If the cell really turns out to be the top processor on the market, will Microsoft support it?
The point is that IBM is talking about the ability to run multiple OS's simultaneously. If it's really that ridiculously overpowered, it could emulate Windows at performance levels that match top processors available now. Microsoft will not want that. They won't want to miss out on the potential future of that market. Yes, they're not friends with any of the three, Sony, IBM and Toshiba, but they are very good friends with money.
The other thing that no one talks about is that Microsoft is constantly looking for ways to get people and businesses to upgrade their computers. A new processor with a new architecture at blazing speeds would be just that ticket. If Microsoft makes that bold move, it could completely shake up the PC market. It'll be interesting to watch.
Jason
Comments?
7 Feb 05
It would be a real shame if we didn't get enough contest entries in to give away the prizes. I'm sure most of you are waiting until the last minute, but perhaps some of you could throw me a bone here. Of course, I don't want anyone entering if the prizes are not to their liking or if they just want someone with a little more need to win. Regardless, if you are entering, please get your entry in before the deadline. Contact me with any questions.
In case you didn't hear, there's a new Darwinia Demo out now. It adds a more detailed tutorial for people who don't like figuring out the arcane on their own. It also crushes some bugs. Grab it Here.
Speaking of new, Amazon announced a new service recently. It's their Amazon Prime membership. In the interest of full disclosure, we do have an Amazon link here. If you use that link and make any purchases on that visit to Amazon, we get a percentage. So there is a bit of an incentive to drive people to Amazon, but that's not what this is about.
I want to talk about the strategy itself which I find rather clever. Amazon wants to be your shopping portal for everything. They have tried to cover many areas of consumer goods and tried many methods to make shopping easier. One might regard 1-click shopping as one of their noble failures. The idea was that Amazon would remember you. You'd find an item you're looking for and one click later it's on the way to you. The problem was shipping. With one click each item was a separate order. You had to pay shipping on each item. That quickly became expensive and unwieldy. Who wants to pay $6 shipping per item on a $5, a $10 and a $12 item? If you didn't use one click, you could put them in your cart and pay about that $6 for all of them.
Then Amazon introduced super saver shipping. If your combined order was full of qualifying items and was over $50 total you could get free shipping. It was usually the slowest form of shipping and discouraged impulse buys since you had to find a couple of items to get over $50.
Amazon thinks they've come up with a solution to these problems in their Prime Membership. As you can guess from the name it's an annual paid membership (currently $79). What do you get for that? Unlimited two day shipping for free on all qualified orders. Or you can choose to overnight your purchase for $3.99 per item. With free shipping, there's no need to combine orders and one click makes sense. Without a minimum purchase, it's easier to make that impulse buy. As a bonus, that impulse buy gets to you in two days.
So what does Amazon get out of it? Hopefully more shopping from prime members. Members also have an incentive to shop Amazon first since it's always fast, free shipping. Even when you find someplace cheaper, it might not be cheaper after shipping. Plus it's a membership, so even if you don't use it to the full potential, they get your $80 every year.
What's the catch? Primarily it's the exclusions. Large or special shipping items aren't eligible for the free shipping. You also can't use third party stores. So if you want to buy a game, for instance, you have to buy from Amazon games not Toys R Us. I've already mentioned the annual fee and automatic renewal. You also can't use it to run a business. Overall it's nice to see that Amazon is taking chances again. We'll see how it works out.
Speaking of working out, can you imagine how proud Netflix must feel after Blockbuster not only drops late fees, but announces their own mail subscription service. What a victory.
This week's game should let you experience the thrill of victory. It's Act of War: Direct Action (official site) from Eugen Systems. You play as the US Army fighting a frightening new type of terrorist. They're better trained, better armed and carefully coordinating strikes on US soil. Use all the technology at your disposal to stop the terrorists in highly detailed US cities. Look for the terrorists to attack next month.
Jason
Comments?
© Talk Strategy 2005