Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
30 Sept 05
If anyone has some Rome: Total War: The Barbarian Invasion impressions, please send them in or post them in the forum. I'd be interested to hear. I might pick up a copy at Fry's this weekend, but my free time has been so limited, I've hardly had any gaming time. Of course, the rolling blackouts didn't help either.
One of the things I brought up when discussing creating worlds was Nintendo branding. The latest version of the Escapist also touches on this topic Here. While I endorsed creating worlds, I'm lukewarm on the idea of branding itself.
Branding, specifically turning characteristics or stars of a game into a series, isn't necessarily good or bad. Branding is just another way to sell a product with perhaps a benefit in reduced costs. The branding doesn't automatically reflect on the quality of the underlying product. The risk lies in the crutch effect.
The crutch effect is where a perceived weak product is propped up by a popular brand. For instance, Nintendo seemed to have concerns about Dinosaur Planet. Suddenly with some new art and flying levels, Nintendo released Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet. The crutch effect can also work in reverse when a game is planned as branded game, quality might be allowed to slip since they know they have a built in audience.
I think the broader the branding, the more independent the quality will be. For instance, when Disney releases a major animated feature, they will release products of all kinds with branding from the film. There's no real guarantee of quality. The products sink or swim on their own merits with only sales as a whole boosted by the branding. That's a long way of saying that trends toward branding don't bother me.
I do think the cost savings that can encourage branding in the gaming community should be the same forces that encourage world creation. With expensive licenses like the Lord of the Rings, half the world creation is already done and sharing assets only makes sense to keep costs down. We'll see how it plays out.
Ok, we finally have a game of the week. I knew I was forgetting a big game, so here it is. It's Age of Empires III (official site) from Ensemble Studios. Again this is a historically themed RTS that picks up right where the last one left off. You are creating an empire in the new world for your home country. While you fight for various regions, you're also building up your home city. That city, in turn, provides you with bonuses and resources to continue your conquests. You'll notice the move to a fully 3D engine with destructible buildings and terrain. You'll fight against cunning historic personalities to try to conquer the new world. AoE3 will be available very soon.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
29 Sept 05
I feel really behind. Today was our first day without rolling blackout. The friendly power company says they could return without notice. Gee thanks. It's hard to get things done with the power on the blink. I'll do my best.
A quick email update first, Bill assures me he's not pessimistic about games in the future. It's the gaming industry (as a business) that he sees as a black hole of villainy and despair.
Anyway, I'll try to get back on track with the discussion of hardcore gamers. This line of discussion came up last week in the widely read (and discussed here) Lost Garden blog on Nintendo. I had noted that his definition of hardcore gamers left me out. So I decided to put together a list of some of the different definitions of hardcore gamers.
Let's start of with the easy one. A hardcore gamer is someone who plays games more of the time than his peers. By playing a lot to the exclusion of other leisure activities, this gamer gets their hardcore title. This level of dedication is usually reflected in conversations and invitations to play. These might be the gamers who pull LAN parties together.
Moving on we have the highly skilled players. These players excel at the games they play. One or more of these is probably an above average difficulty game. Skilled hardcore gamers rely on natural ability, instincts and quick learning. These players are often fun to watch playing.
Next we have the librarian hardcore. They know games. They know lots of games. They fondly remember games most people have never heard of. They can reel off the titles of a dozen WWII FPS' and name their favorites. They might have a favorite platform, but even then, they probably have knowledge of top games on other platforms. Regardless of how they play, they talk a great game.
Up next are the hardcore genre masters. They know their chosen genre inside and out. They've probably mastered a game or two in the genre. They've likely played or demoed most of the major competitors. Those they haven't played, they likely have a good reason why. Grognards might be a good example of this.
The Wizards wow us next. The term carries over from the old arcade/pinball days. This player knows one game inside and out. This is usually either a deep or difficult (or both) game. These players find features (exploits) that even the developers didn't know were in the game. They might move sequentially from game to game, but they're rarely playing more than one game at a time. They use terms like 'flawless' and 'speed run' without embarrassment. These players are also fun to watch.
The next group is a bit nebulous, but it's still important. These hardcore players are members. They belong to some gaming group that not just anyone can belong to. Whether it's the PS2 gamers advisory panel or a member of a closed beta or a skill based clan, they take pride in their membership. These groups often have inside jokes and slang.
Next up are the critics. They know every design flaw of a game after mere moments of play. They may not know good design if it hit them upside the head with a stick, but they can detect weakness beyond the draw distance. Naturally, these people end up sounding both knowledgeable and negative about a game shortly after release (and sometimes before if there's a demo or open beta). They can add a lot to a gaming discussion, but you can't help but wonder if they even enjoy gaming any more.
Who's next? Oh yeah, the critics opposite number, the design gurus. These hardcore gamers instantly notice any new, innovative or just plain well executed idea in a game. They will find the proverbial rose in the dung heap if necessary. If these gamers can't find something good to say about a game, stay far, far away from it. These people generate a lot of 'aha' moments (and I don't mean smashing from line drawings into the real world). They can articulate what you always liked about that game everyone else hated.
You can argue whether the next group really counts as hardcore gamers. These are people who simply outperform expectations and/or hail from groups that are unexpected. So you might have the young kid who wins at complex wargames. Or you have grandma that always wins at Mario Party. Fortunately, female gamers have left this group behind.
Finally, we have the 1337 gamers. These are gamers from any group or community that has their own rituals and jargon. The difference here is that the group is usually open to anyone willing to learn the ropes. It's easy to pick on the stupid excesses, but really this applies to any gamers who end up using a lot of acronyms, jargon and slang. This could be you if you throw around phrases like, "You might get eaten by a grue," "TILTOWAIT," "You spoony bard," or others.
So there's the rundown. What did I forget? Let me know the usual ways. I guess we'll have our game of the week tomorrow. Cheers.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
28 Sept 05
Pretty much every time I started to write this I lost power in these rolling blackouts. I'm starting to loathe them. They're starting to feel personally insulting. No need to inflict this foul mood on you. I'll just point out that there are reports that Disgaea 2 is in the works. Dragonshard is getting surprisingly good reviews given the horrible reception the demos received. Finally, based on limited experience, both Rebelstar Tactical Command (GBA) and Battalion Wars (GCN) seem to be worth their asking price. I'll report back on how they hold up.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
27 Sept 05
Tomorrow I want to discuss hardcore gamers, but today I'd like to go over the future of game development. I'll start with an aside. Bill Harris and I like to argue about gaming. We agree about a lot of things. We ignore those. We usually argue about trends and the future since those can spawn a long debate (and the possibility that we'll both be right). Sometimes I think he posts some items on his blog just to start one of those arguments. When confronted about this in the past, he's just laughed rather than issuing a denial.
As you can see from Bill's recent entry, he's often pessimistic about the future of games. Those of you around here know I think gaming keeps getting better, though not with Pollyanna blinders. I see lots of good trends. I see tons of great games. I tend to think things are good and getting better.
Time for another aside. People often wonder how the Pentagon can spend $800 on a wrench. One of my jobs in the Air Force involved supporting the U-2 and SR-71 aircraft. You may recall that they were custom designed by the Lockheed skunkworks. They were designed to do amazing things, but they were very complex. Any time you wanted to do something different or change the way you do something, you'd have to consult with Lockheed to see if that would inadvertently mess up something else.
It was even worse if it involved the pilot taking something up to altitude in the aircraft. If that was the case, an engineering tiger team was assembled. They would come up with the tool solution. Then usually several engineers (each billing at hundreds of dollars per hour) would design or review the design of the tool. The tool design would be computerized and the precision cut. The Air Force would pay the cost for all that in the prototype (if approved, if not approved, it would start all over doubling the cost). Each subsequent copy would only cost slightly above the price of raw materials. Usually the total purchase was a small number (let's say ten for example). So if the prototype cost around $7900 and the rest cost around $10, some Congressional budget cruncher would add that up, divide by the purchase number and determine that the Air Force was buying $800 wrenches.
What was the point of all that? I think I've forgotten. Just kidding. Really, the point was that if you could have just run down to Sears and bought wrenches off the shelf, it would have saved the Air Force a ton of money. The key is knowing when you need a custom designed wrench and when you can use the one from Sears. In a safety oriented place like the Air Force, you can guess which side they usually landed on.
Back to gaming, development has become too much like that. It's over engineered. How many times have you heard some company is using their own custom developed engine? I'm going to switch my analogy back to one of my favorites, the movie industry. Development today is too often is like the producer and director not only building custom sets and costumes, but literally having engineers custom design cameras and film for their movie. That's wasteful and stupid.
This is where I think the genius of Nintendo begins to shine through even in this generation. Nintendo is a brand. Each of their staple characters are brands. This generation particularly they started letting outside developers play around with their star characters. Look at Metroid Prime and some of the Mario games. That can be taken much further.
What if Nintendo went on to literally creating worlds? Sure Mario's mushroom kingdom won't look much like Link's Hyrule or Samus' space, but what if they gave the developer not only history and character sketches but everything? High resolution character models, worlds, color palettes, scenery, weapons, sound effects and a flexible gameplay engine that included all the cool lighting, physics and sound toys, Nintendo wraps it up and gives it to developers to play with.
Over here, one developer is making a Mario vs. Bowser turn based strategy game. Over there, Mario is platforming. Another place, he's riding Yoshi in a first person shooter. Filters and lighting models can change the look and feel of the games, but there's a consistency to them since they all happen in literally the same world.
Perhaps the best part is that developers spend all their time on creating the gameplay experience they want gamers to play. They also have a built in audience ready for their game launch. Sure they pay additional licensing costs to Nintendo, but they get so much in return and cut so much waste out of their development cycle, they come out ahead.
So what does Nintendo get? They get more games and more games out more quickly. They strengthen their brand recognition. They broaden the types of games available to their audience. They keep developers happy by keep down development costs. Each time they launch a new 'World', it's a major event.
What's to stop Microsoft and Sony and EA and Tom Clancy from stealing this idea? Nothing. Publishers get more titles (and perhaps more episodic titles), developers get lots of toys and reduced complexity and cost. Gamers get more and different games (hopefully with some at different price points). Everybody wins. It's not that hard to be an optimist.
We'll get a game of the week up eventually. Thanks for your patience.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
26 Sept 05
I think we'll try to return to regular programming tomorrow. I'm way behind and rolling blackouts left me without a computer or connectivity today. I'll try to regroup for tomorrow. There's a lot to talk about and a lot going on, but I wouldn't mind some help. If you want to start a story or a discussion in the forum, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for understanding. Cheers.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
© Talk Strategy 2005