Michael Abbott has an interesting post up positing that sports games are a neglected niche of gaming criticism.  Frankly, I think he overestimates the extent to which sports titles change from year to year, and though he argues that the notion that sports games require less imaginative design is a “flawed” premise, I don’t really see much evidence that this is the case.

Gaming critics, in general, are interested in the most creative forms of gaming development (story, art, mechanics, themes).  Simulations, when done correctly, simply can’t lend themselves to as much creativity as other genres.  This is because simulations must mimic their real-life counterparts as effectively as possible in order to be valuable as simulations themselves.  Consider Madden ‘08, which recently came under fire because the results that it presented were simply unrealistic - how much more criticism would it have encountered had its players been cell-shaded and cheered on by Donkey Kong?  Although alternative control schemes, like Madden Wii, may add some additional immsersion to the mix, they’re fundamentally covering the same game and mechanics.

Let me suggest a final problem with sports criticism: that no sports game is able to transcend its own boundaries; if you don’t like soccer, you’ll never like FIFA, no matter how well it’s presented.  Although challenging, I’d suggest that some games can do this; Braid had plenty of detractors, but many people admired it despite not really liking it, because parts of the experience were so different and new.  I suspect the same is not true of MLB ‘XX. 

For example: Abbott makes a valiant effort to find something to say about MLB ‘09, and notes a bit about their immersiveness and ability to self-generate a story.  Unfortunately, I don’t think these comments are actionable.  They can’t be generalized beyond a sports game; several titles have explored the idea of a player-generated story as a concept, but as a whole, the fully-open ended concept is restricted to simulations, where the process and experience are more significant than the goal per se.  I have a hard time seeing what the sports angle in particular lends itself to that many other titles do not.

And there’s the rub - there’s no reason to go out of one’s way to write about these games specifically, unless you already have an interest in those games as sports games, because the lessons which can be generalized are readily available elsewhere.  I happen to love Madden, FIFA, and various baseball games - but I don’t know that I can write much of substance about them.

Gaming’s Longest-Running Punchline Retires

3D Realms is closing up shop, and Duke Nukem Forever is no more (dare we hope?).  As happy as I am that I’ll no longer have to read bad jokes about the game, I truly loved Apogee’s games, and even several 3D Realms titles.  In memoriam:

• Crystal Caves
• Duke Nukem
• Rise of the Triad
• Commander Keen
• Wolfenstein 3D
• Blake Stone
• Wacky Wheels
• Xenophage
• Duke Nukem 3D
• Shadow Warrior
• Prey

And those were just the good ones.

Echo Chamber

I spent a whlie trying to find some intriguing thing to write about today and discovered that there was very little that wasn’t a rehash of arguments we’ve been having for some time.  In fact, as much as I know I have my own pet issues, it’s a little disheartening to see that we’re basically passive creatures, sitting around to await the latest press clippings and re-litigate the same battles.

Is this because we have no meaningful input to contribute, or because we lack a way to communicate it effectively so that it impacts publishers, developers, and other gamers?  I’m not really sure.  But I’d like to see a conscious effort on the part of all of us to try to pick some new topic of interest and raise it up (whether on our own sites or via comments elsewhere).  Any takers?

Selling Memories

This may not surprise anyone, but I thought it was interesting to see the video comparison of Marvel Vs. Capcom 2’s “filter options” on Joystiq.  It’s fascinating to me how many gaming features today play to gamers’ own nostalgia rather than being value-added in and of themselves: there are few other entertainment industries where fan service plays such a critical part of a game’s marketing efforts. 

This seems to hold true whether in the form of easter eggs, sequels, remakes, “de-makes”, or simply the inclusion of older games in the form of newer ones.  Even to the extent that older games are packaged with a new one (e.g., in Shenmue), the value is much more in the fact that people get to re-live their old gaming experiences than in the innate desire of people to play the old games per se. 

I bring this up not because it’s new exactly but because I think it’s become institutionalized to some extent, moving from being a nice option to being almost mandatory in all sorts of newer games.  Thoughts?

Bye, MTV Multiplayer

I was a little shocked to find out that Stephen Totilo is leaving MTV Multiplayer for Kotaku, effectively shutting down the blog.  After N’gai Croal’s departure as well, this has been a tumultuous period in gaming journalism.  And although no doubt both are moving on to bigger and better things, I can’t help but be a little disappointed that some of the more unique voices in the genre are being subsumed into larger enterprises. 

I am sure that Totilo will continue to have a strong identity at Kotaku, and obviously this is a sign of success rather than failure, but Level Up and Multiplayer Blog were fairly different entities and the fact that the gaming sphere was able to support both for a time was a sign to me of increased maturity in the industry.  (I love Kotaku, and wish it well… I just think the more the merrier.)

So congratulations, Stephen, but I hope you impact Kotaku a little more than the reverse.

Bad Economy, Bad Games?

This Joystiq post, quoting consultant Nick Gibson, suggests that VCs are getting more hesitant about funding game companies because of worries about additional risk in more experimental games.  As a result, games are going to be more traditional and less able to push boundaries.

The argument seems like a perfectly logical one to me, but let me suggest a counterintuitive argument for pursuing riskier games, albeit smaller ones.  First off, although people are buying fewer games, there’s a few reasons that a AAA title will be more likely selected over a cheaper or more risky one: more money for promotion, more evidence that people like that style of game, and a larger market than for a niche game.  That said, you can produce 2 or 3 smaller games for the cost of a AAA title, and you only need one or two of them to be successful to make your money back.  So I could easily see that approach working.

The problem, of course is that this only works in a portfolio approach.  If a new developer comes out but is too small to be able to develop more than one title, then it’s far, far riskier - you’re more likely to end up with an unsuccessful game and bankrupt the company.  So sadly, it’s more likely that small developers with a highly focused interest are less likely to get funded.  But I would encourage bigger companies to take a look at them… maybe they can be integrated into a broader product portfolio.

iPhone Update

Technically, an iPod touch update, but the software is more or less the same.

My DS and PSP are basically defunct - I have little to no interest in Chinatown Wars, mainly because the entire GTA style leaves me cold.  But I’ve been surprised at how entertaining a few random iPhone apps can be at keeping me amused for a few minutes here and there; particular notice should go to Oregon Trail, Galcon, iDracula, and Flight Control (I assume I’ll be paying for Zen Bound soon enough).  The collective cost is under $15 for all of these games combined.  I say this not to try to make some silly argument that handheld gaming is fundamentally changed somehow, but rather to wonder if a lot of creative energy previously focused on AAA Game Boy titles is being focused on the iPhone platform instead right now.  (The microtransaction format also makes it much easier to spend $15 in bits and pieces, which is sort of the point.)

Regionality & Gaming

Have you ever noticed that gaming has a lot of different companies but not a lot of truly global ones?  This probably bears some explanation.  Gamesetwatch recently had a link to an article arguing that globalization in gaming was largely illusory - that globalization is simply a code word for the imposition of Western preferences on other cultures.  I tend to disagree with that theory, simply because the ascendance of Western developers was preceded by a long period of Japanese dominance that seems to belie it.  That said, I do think there’s an important observation being made indirectly here.  

In short, gaming has been characterized by eras of imitation, where one region’s preferences have tended to dictate the general style of games for a majority of the world.  This started with Nintendo in the 80s and has shifted westward, but in general has tended to have one of two effects on “foreign” developers - either they imitate the trend (often slavishly) or they fight to differentiate themselves and remain largely marginal players in the industry for some time.

My point is that even now, though, there are very few companies that sell globally but design their products regionally… at least, beyond some basic localization around languages and naming conventions.  Look at the gaming titans of today, Activision and EA: although they certainly do sell their games worldwide, the number of titles that are uniquely tailored to specific markets is highly limited.  For example, they have few titles targeted towards the eclectic Japanese handheld markets of today.  Rather, the model is to export homegrown titles and hope they find an audience overseas.  Similarly, in the past, the JRPG was the standard RPG model for years.  Clearly, based on the rise of Fallout-style or Dungeons-and-Dragons role-playing games, there was a substantial market for different types of titles, and they were often seen on the PC.  Yet until the locus of development momentum shifted to the Western developers, they didn’t see a huge number of console releases relative to the Final Fantasy style.

I have to wonder if there’s an opportunity here for game companies to become more localized in some markets and thus sell more games to more people.

Fallujah, Art, and Ebert

I wanted to add some of my own thoughts in addition to Geoff’s excellent post on the game 6 Days in Fallujah.

I generally agree with what Geoff has to say, but I think the “controversy” arises from a feeling that maybe you shouldn’t be having “fun” with something that’s actually happening now (or in the past, I suppose), where people are actually dying. In the brief Joystiq impressions they mention the developers seemingly want to emphasize the “realism” and note that buildings are modeled down to the “brick” level, so that when they’re destroyed you can destroy them brick by brick.  At the same time, though, they mention that your teammates can seemingly absorb an infinite amount of bullets without flinching, and you will also magically regain your own health if you just wait a few seconds in cover (like most FPS games on the market now).  Do these “gamey” enhancements that ultimately make the experience more “fun” disrespect those actually fighting (or who have fought) in the war?  And if this doesn’t constitute disrespect, is there a point at which the “gamey enhancements” do?

Read the rest of this entry »

6 Days, Fallujah, & War Games

This is a sensitive subject, but here we go anyways.

It appears that 6 Days in Fallujah is a particularly controversial war game, igniting numerous calls for it to be banned, although it should be noted that such criticism is hardly universal.  I can understand why people would be concerned in general with the depiction of war, but I have a hard time understanding why this particular game is coming in for controversy - in principle, if not in practice.

Video games have a long history of depicting wars and conflicts throughout the world, from World War 2 to Vietnam to much older battles.  Most of these have come in for little criticism, at least directed at their subject matter rather than their violent content per se.  Yet 6 Days is notable for being a lightning rod.  Why?

I assume that most of the problem comes from a confluence of factors: the fact that the conflict is still on-going, making it a more recurrent reminder of non-gaming concerns; the general controversy over the Iraqi war itself, which makes it particularly controversial as a setting for any game of any type; and the simple fact that the game takes a point of view in an attempt to portray the soldier’s view of the Fallujah battles.

I would note, however, that there’s no real logical reason for this game to be a specific problem.  So here’s a question: is it disrespectful, as a rule, for games to allow the player to act as a foot soldier in a violent conflict?  I would say no, but I’m curious to hear other perspectives.