Wordpress

As of today, I will be moving from Blogger to Wordpress. I prefer their customization system, and such new posts will be found their. For now I will recycle some of my old posts that are still relevant.

The address is http://syntarusgames.wordpress.com/

Creating a Tabletop RPG World

If you are a game master in a campaign world of your own devising, it is essential you develop your world for your players. Doing so well is actually a lot of work, as I'm discovering. Their are some basic things you need to do though. Note: These steps could be used for creating a video game RPG world, but, as I doubt many of my readers are game developers, I will use it primarily relating to tabletop games, particularly fantasy games.

1. Create a general map of the area for the campaign or adventure. This does not have to be detailed, but should have major locations and landmarks. This will help not only the players, but also you in your creation of the story and adventures.

2. Get a general idea of the plot and tone for the campaign, and elaborate on the first map as necessary. Create notes for possible important characters or specific, but unmappable places (like other dimensions.)

3. Create individual maps of important areas, like the main town, and any dungeons they enter. The dungeon maps especially will help you with running your adventure. Do this later in the process, when you are more sure about what the adventures will be like, and therefore do not waste time making maps you will not use.

4. Create a list of NPC's you plan to use in the game. This should cover important characters, as well as shopkeepers. Keep a couple of extra names you can use for anything you need, in case something you never thought of comes up. This will help you avoid needing to come up with good names on the spot, which can be difficult. It is for me at least.

5. Create a list of events that are not related to the main story directly, but the player characters may act in. Use these randomly or when is feels appropriate. Examples include a foreign dignitary visiting the capital, or a bandit attacking a caravan. This increases the believability of the world, making it seem like events happen even when the characters are not around.

The following are not necessary, but are very helpful and will add to the depth of the world.

6. A unique pantheon of gods. You might take some gods from the original, or create your own entirely. Decide upon their followers, what actions they do (or don't) take in the world. At it's best, this allows for adventures and settings rich with mythology and folklore.

7. A political system. Often high ranking political figures appear in RPG games, be it barons, bishops, or kings. Be sure to have some on hand. Another important thing is relations between the races. How do Orcs and Elves get along? Halflings and Humans? This matters in the campaign world.

8. A military system. Decide upon the rules related to the armies in this setting. Different races may have a complete separate military, and therefore different rules. If two races or countries are at war, you will need to keep track of how it's happening, the important figures of each side, and how to use it for your adventures.

9. Create unique races, monsters, classes, and items. A unique world is almost always populated with unique creators. They may also have entirely different jobs or rolls available. They also likely have created unique items designed to act in concert (or against) their environment.

These are some stepping stones towards creating a good world. Some small changes can also be made, such as refining, or changing the monetary systems, using names with roots in specific languages, and so on.

Thomas Was Alone, and Awesome

Thomas Was Alone (TWA) is a beautiful game about friendship and A.I.s, told by a narrator while two-dimensional quadrilaterals move around various levels towards the end points. It is available on many systems for a small fee. I played it on the Vita, obtaining it from Playstation Plus for free (as it still is).

The gameplay of TWA is interesting. It's a puzzle game, where you have various blocks with various powers, and have to use them to get towards the exits, which are different for each block. The gameplay is fun, but it is pretty easy, and nothing truly original. No, the genius of TWA lies in it's narrative.

The story of TWA is beautiful and unique. Several A.I.s awaken, the first of them being Thomas, who becomes their leader. Thomas, Chris, Laura, John, and Claire, the characters you end up with after the first third are interesting in their reactions and actions towards one another. How they act, even though they are not super developed characters, is important and affects the player. The way the story is told, with small made up quotes before each section, and with a narrator reading about the conversations and thoughts being had within the game between the characters is done nicely as well.

Spoiler paragraph. This paragraph will have spoilers based on things within the game, up until the end. You have been warned.

The second act, introducing James and Sara, is also interesting. In it Thomas and the others work to release the other A.I.'s into the universe and sacrifice themselves to do so. Other characters appear, and can pass through certain elements to get the powers of some of the original group. This is interesting, and rather fun. The quotes reveal some about the "emergence," or the release of A.I.s into the word. It's actually emotional, despite the blocky shapes of our protagonists, they feel like people.

Spoilers end.

The art in the game, while minimalistic, is pleasing, and allows you to easily play. It is entirely consistent, and mostly just well made strait lines. The music is good, and fits the relaxing pace of the game perfectly.

All in all this is a great game that should not be missed, despite some elements of repetitive gameplay. I give it 8.75/10.

Soul Sacrifice Review

A game I recently received from PSN (freely, through PlayStation Plus) is the Vita exclusive Soul Sacrifice. It's extremely dark, but is actually rather fun, and plays around a lot with the idea of morality.

The story is somewhat unique. You are a prisoner, slated to be sacrificed to the sorcerer Magusar. The story is told through a journal, and you go on various missions to stop monsters. The story is told in the pages you read between the missions. Their are six or seven story segments, with twelve side segments with generic quests and no real story, and five side story segments. Along side this, their is the option to fight Magusar at any time, although choosing to do so early in the game will invariably lead to defeat. Their is a good amount of content, and all of the DLC is free.

The characters, while far from deep, are interesting. I am interested in the interactions between the main character and Magusar, his partner turned villain. The side stories revolving around the extra characters are also interesting, but I have only played through that of Carnatux, the "Wicked Sorcerer." I'll say only that it played out differently than the straightforward story I expected of it.

The creatures that you fight in this game look like they came out of the mind of a madman. The boss creatures, or "archfiends," were all originally human, but at some point became desperate for something and sacrificed their humanity, and something else valuable to them, to get something. When you defeat an archfiend, you can choose to sacrifice them, an act of justice (that gives you bonus items and increases your magic level) or you can save them, an act of mercy (which allows them to assist you in later quests, and increases your life level). Of course, the crimes committed by each person is variable, from kidnapping to assassination and the like, to even just laziness, and there are times when you have to sacrifice something or someone. 

Almost invariably I choose save. I feel bad even in games if I kill people, and I feel like I need the defense bonuses more than the offense bonuses anyway, because I really kind of suck at it. It will probably extend my playthrough quite a bit though. The combat is done through using "offerings," which give your character various powers. They allow you to create weapons, form armor, fire off projectiles, or do various special abilities. They add a unique element to the game, and it is by far the most interesting part of combat.

I do like this game, far more than I expected given it's gruesome nature. I find it to be challenging, yet passable, and the story is engaging, if told in a matter-of-fact rather slow way.

If you have PlayStation Network Plus, and a Vita, I recommend picking up this game, if only because it's currently free. If not, try the demo first and see if you like it. It can be rather fun to play.

SAO: Hollow Fragment

Now that I have done a basic run down on Sword Art Online, I want to talk about it's upcoming game, Hollow Fragment. Fair warning, this will be filled to the brim with spoilers comparing it to the anime, but they shouldn't extend past the third episode of the Alfheim Online segment.

The base story is exactly the same. In fact, it is exactly the same until Kirito fights Heathcliff. After he beats him, there is a bug in the game. It doesn't end. Everyone then has to fight their way up to the 100th floor and complete the game the way it was originally intended. This part is actually just an insert of the previous SAO game, Infinity Moment. Infinity moment was never released outside of Asia, and is part of the new game, Hollow Fragment. This part of the game is almost identical to Infinity Moment, but has streamlined features, and probably some new items and such.

The second part, after you clear floor 100, is the Hollow Fragment chapter. I am not entirely clear on how this part works, but their are six new areas, new bosses, and presumably new items, characters, and storylines. It appears to be quest based, with you selecting a mission and going to the area to complete it.

The combat system for the game is similar to how it appears in the anime. You have access to weapon skills, and can choose to use different weapons. In the base game, your character, Kirito, can go up to level 200. The max level will be expanded to 250 with a large bundle of DLC to be released later. However, it is likely you start at a level much higher than 1, as you represent Kirito at the end of the anime. It is entirely possible your base level is 100.

There are also some social activities you can have with the NPC's. You can hold hands and pick up any character, including Klein, Asuna, and Leafa (and walk around town holding hands with your in game daughter Yui, which is adorable.). There are also ways to have chats with them, and build up a friendship. You can use one of several characters as your partner, and can bring more with you on certain activities, like boss raids.

There is one thing that I am nervous about regarding this game, which is the inclusion of Sachi. Sachi appears somewhere in the Hollow Fragment chapter. Those who have watched the anime know that Sachi dies in episode three, and it is essential for the development of Kirito's character. If done extremely well, it could be nice, but more likely I will choose to ignore that part of the game.

I plan on buying and playing this game as soon as it is released in America, which will be sometime this summer (it's a Vita exclusive) on PSN. This game was recently released in Japan, and for those who cannot wait the Asian version (not Japanese) does have an option for English subtitles.

Trapped In A World Of Swords

I watch few animes, and here isn't usually the place to discuss them. However, one I greatly enjoy is centered around video games, and I am thus justifies in describing it (plus their are some tie in games, mostly Japanese only, with a Vita game coming this summer).

Of those who've heard of it, they could, between the title and my last sentences, easily tell what this series it. SAO, or Sword Art Online. This is a reasonably popular show (or manga), but has some haters, and I'm okay with that. To each their own.

Sword Art Online's first season revolves around people stuck in a game of the same name. If they die in the game, they die in reality, and the only way out is for someone to beat the game. This was a trick set up by the developer, and they end up stuck inside for years. The main character is Kirito, an ex-beta tester and a loner. While none of the characters face a large amount of development, they are interesting, and their backstories remain secretive until the anime decides to tell us. The second season is very controversial, and while I like it (though not as much as the first), not everyone does, especially because of some uncomfortable scenes that happen later on.

There is a romance plot, and it overtakes the second half of the show. I find the romance plot nicely handled, and not as complicated as many are. They are a boy and a girl who clearly like each other. Stuff happens, they get in a relationship. It makes sense too, in context, because she's just about the only person he talks to frequently (other than certain minor characters, mostly off screen).

The series also loves to give you emotional pain. Be prepared in the third episode to cry manly (or feminine) tears. Their are many touching moments, and many sad moments. Be prepared for anyone to die, and for anything to happen.

There is a good amount of action in the series, and pretty  much all the weird things that happen can be justified by "they're inside a video game." This causes many silly events to happen, and often provides a decent amount of entertainment for the viewer, who sees it in third-person, and occasionally in another characters eyes. When viewed through another's eyes, all characters have health bars and indicators above their head. Players can move their hands in a certain way to bring up a menu. There's even a way to "sleep PK" people, where someone moves towards someone whose sleeping, challenges them to a duel, and then moves the sleeping person's hands to accept the request. They can then basically murder the person. Items have durability, and their is a humorous part where Kirito drops a sandwich, it breaks on the ground, and he falls to his knees in mourning.

Sword Art is really as interesting as it is because of the setting, and of the quirks of certain people. You might see someone do something and wonder "why did they do that?" Several times, it's not explained. Their appears to be a twist here, but you have to wonder why that happened, or why they did that, because the anime won't tell you. The art and music is beautiful, and the animation is great.

I do want to read the light novels, especially because they are supposed to be a little better. If more attention is give to the supporting characters, that would be great.

I recommend this to fantasy game or MMO players. It's really good in my opinion, but again, some people dislike it. It can be found on Netflix or Crunchyroll, both are in Japanese with English subtitles.

Postscript - I would like to apologize for the quality of my last (the one before this) post. It was clearly lacking, and I needed some filler to keep up on credits for class, and I happened to be very tired.

Another Type of Game

On this blog I tend to talk a lot about video games, with the occasional table top rpg or collectible card game, and even a couple times board games.

One type of game that has not been mentioned is sports. Sports are a very important type of game, one that facilitates exercise, thinking, and teamwork.

I'll be the first person to say I know nothing about sports. The only time I say "Get the Quarterback" is when I am advising a friend on how to make change. However, I respect and acknowledge the important role they play in our society.

Sports are a constant source of entertainment for the easily bored human mind. A single game usually is close to two hours, occupying us with something to do.

The players are provided with careers (therefore money), and sometimes fame. They also get to do the things they love, as most professional athletes, aren't professional athletes without wanting to be so.

Finally, it provides an insight into our culture. When watching the Olympics, you can tell things about each country based on what sports it's good at. Canada tends to be good at hockey, fitting that they happen to be in the northern most part of America.

Sports are very important, and well never go away. While I personally may not be the type of person to compete in them, they can be fun activities for just a while, and make great entertainment. The bonus of exercise is great too.

Magic: The Gathering - Card Colors and Archetypes: Mono-colored

The popular card game Magic: The Gathering has five different card colors, each with it's own strengths and weaknesses, and each leaning towards specific styles and abilities.

With this installment I will cover one color (mono-colored) basic decks.

I'll start with green, as it is very basic. Green decks have a large number of giant creatures, and are the best at dealing raw damage, with no tricks. Most instants and sorceries (spell types) of this color make your creatures stronger, either permanently or for a time. Green also tends to have cards that are capable of removing artifacts and enchantments, or occasionally take out a creature with flying.

Black, while not without creatures of considerable raw power, mostly gains it's clout from it's abilities to directly destroy things using spells. It's most famous cards include Doomblade, Go for the Throat, and Murder, all of which allow destruction of creatures (within certain limitations). Many of blacks creatures also have "deathtouch" abilities, which allows them to kill creatures they fight no matter how much damage they do.

Both green and black have cards with "infect." Infect provides a different way to win the game, in which you deal ten of a specific type of damage (infect) and you win. Under most circumstances infect damage cannot be healed. Additionally, infect damage, when dealt to creatures, makes them weaker.

Blue is a type that revolves around control. It has many cards that let you cancel the abilities of other players, take over their cards, and can force them to get rid of the cards in their deck, offering a unique strategy often called "milling." If a player has to draw, and has no cards in their library, they lose the game. Blue also tends to have many creatures with the "flying" ability.

Red is a very aggressive color in Magic. It has a large number of spells that deal damage directly, and can take out many things as easily as black. Red creatures tend to be offensive focused, and many have damage output bonuses such as double-strike (dealing damage twice) and haste, which allows them to attack the same turn they enter. As such, many red cards deal a good amount of damage, but less than green, and make up for it with special abilities.

White as a color has many cards geared towards defense and the gaining of life. "Lifelink" is common among white cards, which allows you to gain life whenever they deal damage. Vigilance, which allows you to attack without tapping, and flying are also very common. While many white cards are very effective for defense, white angels can be very formidable foes, and often defeat a deck rather quickly.

While that covers the five types of mana, and colors, their are also "colorless", or artifact cards. While technically not colored, artifacts have some of the most unique abilities, and are the only one's with non-creature cards that you can re-use every turn without continuous abilities. This comes at a cost, artifacts have no instant or sorcery spells. Although you can encounter a deck made solely of artifacts, it is far more likely to encounter regular decks that use them. In fact, most effective decks have a few artifact cards in them that enhance their abilities.

Women Oversexualization in Video Games

When one thinks of women in video games, two names invariably come up. Lara Croft, of Tomb Raider, and Samus Aran, of Metroid. These characters are totally different, but, while they may be strong women in the end, they also are often portrayed in over sexualized ways.

Lara Croft, at her inception, was little more than bait for hormonal teenagers to purchase the game. She existed as breasts on a stick figure, and was the first video game character to become a recognized sex symbol. The most recent games are quite a bit better, adding large amounts of character development, and even bringing her breast size down a smidgeon.

Samus Aran is praised for being thought of as a guy by most people until the end of the first game. Essentially, the better you did in the game, the less clothes she would where in the win screen. Still though, as soon as she was seen without the suit, as "Zerosuit Samus", she was in a  sexy skintight suit that emphasizes her breasts.

These are some of the better characters out there, as they were given back stories, and goals other than just guys, and are also very capable. While games like Bayonetta (Similar to Devil May Cry) feature capable women, they are very thinly veiled as sex objects.

Some games are capable of doing it better. The Uncharted games (think Indiana Jones), for example, often include you working with a sexy woman who is just normal, but also highly capable on their own. In Uncharted: Golden Abyss this is Marisa Chase, a treasure hunter who is searching for her grandfather who disappeared in pursuit of his life's work.

The last approach is ideal. While they can (and probably always will) be attractive, they should also have personal goals and stories as any other character and any other medium. Video games are rather unique in the ways they make you the protagonist, you are not watching them, you are assisting them in performing them. In this way, they have a very good way of helping one identify with a female character, one that should be used more often.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KaitlinTremblay/20120601/171613/Intro_to_Gender_Criticism_for_Gamers_From_Princess_Peach_to_Claire_Redfield_to_FemSheps.php?print=1

Next Gen Consoles - Which is Best?

Much debate has gone into whether the Xbox One or Playstation 4 is better. While this issue is mostly a matter of preference, I believe the Playstation 4 is the superior console, for many reasons.

One simple reason is that it is a full hundred dollars cheaper than the Xbox One, although it does not come with support for motion controls. The Playstation 4 also allows you to record your gameplay without a member ship, and the membership for Playstation (now required for online) is ten dollars less than that of the Xbox.

Playstation Plus is generally better than Xbox gold as well, due to the large amounts of free games you get for just subscribing, with no time to wait. These include the popular titles Knack, and the like. The Xbox though, does offer more cloud storage for those who need it, and is more useful as a home entertainment center than the Playstation.

Additionally, the Playstation 4's controller (the DualShock style) is generally considered more comfortable than the Xbox's, and offers more features. It provides it's own sound and allows you to directly share things from your game. It also has it's own touchpad which can be used for various things. Additionally, the Playstation 4 allows you to record your play without a membership, as well as use some internet features.

Finally, the Playstation 4 has generally better graphics, and is more capable of running graphic-intensive games. Though I am the last person to truly care about graphics, it is nice to have relatively good ones.

A side note: It is interesting that Blogger's spell check recognizes Xbox as a word, but not Playstation.
EDIT: It does, but only if you capitalize the 'S.'
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/09/xbox-one-vs-playstation-4-the-console-specs
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/playstation-4-vs-xbox-one-the-controllers
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/14/xbox-one-vs-playstation-4-the-system-software

The Ins and Outs of Game Mastering

The Game Master (GM), or Dungeon Master (DM), as it's known in some RPG's, is the core of a group of tabletop RPG players. The Game Master creates the story, acts for the NPC, and keeps track of the rules. They are, in essence, the leader of the group. Of course, being the leader puts a lot of pressure on them, and there are many things you have to do right. Here are some basic ones.

1. Be punctual. A Game Master needs to be on time, or a little early, for every meeting. You cannot have a role-playing game without someone to run it.

2. Be consistent. Rules you apply to your monsters you should generally apply to the players as well. Any time you make a decision about an unclear rule, or edit it for balancing or convenience, write it down so you know to make the same change the next time it comes up. This rule can be bent occasionally, provided it is not unfair to the players.

3.Solve arguments. If an argument arises regarding a rule or other game play feature, look it up or make a ruling. If it's about something out of game, request they take it outside, or restrain themselves temporarily.

4. Be fair. Similar to being consistent, you need to keep in mind the players limitations and capabilities, and challenge them accordingly. You want to feel difficult, but not impossible.

5. Be firm. The GM's rulings are final, and you need to enforce them. If a player disagrees, remind them that you are the one doing a majority of the work, and prepared all of this for them.

6. Know the rules. Know the basic rules for skills and combat, as they will come up often, as well as any rules pertinent.

7. Know the source material. You need to have a good grasp of the location you are playing in, and the story you are using. If it's a pre-made adventure, read it a few times. If you are making your own, prepare the necessary details, and story elements beforehand.

8. Have the necessary materials. You usually need dice, pencils, and paper to play, along with the rulebooks. Be sure to have these, as well as your notes on what you will do for the session.

9. Allow the players to make their own decisions. Never force a player into action. If they start to do things you didn't expect, roll with it. The best GM's can improvise well.

These are basic and simple, but proven effective (courtesy moi, and pretty much every GM I know) rules. If you want to be successful, and for everyone to enjoy themselves, remember and follow them. After this, the rest will come in time.

Creating a Role Playing Game Group

Finding a new tabletop RPG group to join can be difficult, and it can be easiest to start a new group among your friends. Assuming, of course, you can find a group of four or five others, there are several things you have to consider.

NOTE: This is intended for those who will host the meetings, which is often the game master/dungeon master (GM/DM).

One important one is location. There needs to be a place everyone can reach. Often the game master can simply host at their house, but sometimes that is inconvenient. Talk with the members of the group to decide if your house is a good location. If not, many larger towns have tabletop game shops with tables set up for people to meet. This is often nice as people can buy dice, or rulebooks, if they need too.

While deciding the location, deciding the time is also important. Saturday nights are often ideal, and having a weekly or biweekly schedule is usually best, as it keeps it fresh in the players minds. Fours hours is a good play time, though two works as well (especially in a weekly schedule). Occasional meetings of longer amounts of time are okay as well. It is very important to talk with members of your group about this, and to plan ahead of time. It is easier to cancel something than to plan it, and things come up. You pretty much always want at least four people playing, so if you would end up with less than that, it's probably a good idea to cancel.

Another very important thing is food. As you will likely be meeting at night, you probably want to eat something, or at the very least have something to drink. Beer and pizza is great for older people (or so I hear) with soda and pizza being the counterpart for minors. It it's past dinner time, than chips and drinks are great. Occasionally you could even role-play them into the game (give the players drinks, mark which people drink, and later say that those who drank got drugged).

As for actually playing the game, you will want a big table, large enough to lay out charts and other important information, and  for everyone to sit around. A dinner table usually works, but larger tables are even better. A large square is better than a rectangle of the same area because it keeps people closer together, and easier to communicate. I use a pool table with a hardwood cover I place on. 

Finally, its very important that the game master has the required materials, and a plan for what to do. There is nothing worse than a game master screwing up a pre-written campaign by not reading first. Also, if you write your own campaigns, prepare the things you will need beforehand, mark the pages of the monster manual you need and so on.

Basically, prepare, and everyone will have fun. Trust me, I've done it before.

Adapting Games to Other Media

Every once and  a while a game becomes such a big hit, it manages to grow into mediums other than games. Heck, an entire movie was based off of Battleship (or seemed to be, based on the commercials. I never found that movie interesting enough to watch fully.) How should this be done and what makes it successful?

Games in Japan quite regularly get Manga or Anime adaptations. Persona 4 has a manga, anime (with a followup "true-end" movie), and had two live action stage shows (each half of the game). Now, I know not how successful the anime was (presumably very, to get dubbed and released in America), but I do know it's quality. It is the best show based on a video game I have seen, including the few video game movies that exist. Why though, is it good?

It took the rough plot of the game. The general plot stayed the same, which is very good. People who were unable to play the game were able to watch and understand it rather easily, and those who had played it were in a familiar area.

It also added some things. Many little jokes were added, and the Protagonist, by necessity mostly silent in the game, talks, and has a very sarcastic sense of humor. Some jokes were lifted from the game, but they were usually the funny choices, as oppose to the good ones when you got to choose. Small subplots were added, although many from the game were altered slightly, or completely remade in order to fit the time constraints and the format.

It was animated. I feel like, generally, movies or shows based on games need to keep roughly the same art style. Persona 4: The Animation was consistent with the games artwork and cut scenes. While this is partly due to it being an Anime, it makes sense. As the characters look the same, you get the sense that they truly are the same characters.

The voice actors were the same. Similar to the above, it gave you the feeling these were the same characters as in the game.

It stayed true to the spirit of the game. Everything that happened would have made sense to have happened in the game. None of the characters had traits changed (though some had them explained more) and one particular added character was referenced heavily as a joke in the game and brought into the anime.

Finally, it didn't take itself too seriously. This was an anime based on a game, and it is pretty clear. The animation itself isn't the best, but it makes up for it with great writing that is funny. This truly makes it fun to watch, and even in serious situations you're never more than a minute away from a joke.

While this applies particularly to animated movies based on games (perhaps the best choice, as game engine technology becomes better), most could also be taken to live action films. Resident Evil wasn't my favorite movie because it was confusing, and relied on knowledge of the first game (which I did not have, I had knowledge of the second game). Still, as games increase as a media, so will film and t.v. adaptations.

The 1% of Gamers

This 1% isn't the rich (although they may very well play games). No, this is different. Very few gamers actually spend time reading reviews, or on a game blog for example. I am of these "1%," and if you are reading this, you are too.

This isn't made up. Monthly 17,500,000 people visit IGN (source here). That is the most popular game focused website in existence, and of the other websites on the list provide, probably 99% of the people to visit those have also visited IGN.  This may seem like a lot, but many, many more people than that own consoles. 82 million total units for the Playstation 3 have been sold (source here) Say we assume a 10 million are replacement units. That leaves 70 million, discounting people with just the Xbox, or that play games on a PC, which would add quite a few. Roughly a third then are regular viewers of video game websites.

So why does this matter. Well, those third tend to be "connoisseurs" of games. While some may buy three or four games a year, these people probably buy more, and may look at reviews and stuff before they buy them. While others may buy the new Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto, they will pick those up, and some more obscure titles. Game creators target these people specifically, as they consume the most games. Anyone who plays niche games, other than first person shooters or sports, are likely to fall into this, as they need to look at the new, less publicized titles that cover their interests.

While the 1% may really be more like 30%, the idea still stands. Only a fraction of those that play games look into things like my blog, or video gaming websites. Thus, these websites are tailored towards them. They are not immune to the Call of Duty craze, but may be more even handed with it than other sources, or the average FPS gamer.

This is actually something I did not know until very recently. I assumed most gamers were like me, and looked at articles about games and stuff. If you didn't know, welcome to the 30%. You're home (likely, unless you are reading this in another location, in which case, you're there.)

Explorers: An In-Depth Exploration

This marks my climactic conclusion to my epic posts about Bartle's gaming types. Here is Bartle's original article, and my response to it. My posts on Killers, Socializers, and Achievers, are linked under such. My primary sources here are my own experience, and of course, Bartle's article on the subject. Please read my response to Bartle's article before reading this, as otherwise it will make little sense.

This post will focus on Explorers. I self-classify as an explorer, and am very intrigued by the niches within the group. I will be exploring the sub-classes that I have observed in my experience playing games, and as such, this is open to interpretation by various means. I also do not claim it is an exhaustive list, and admit that many more subtypes are possible.

First is the Cartographer. This Explorer likes to look around and find new things in the game, especially secret or hard to reach areas. These are the people that now the fastest way to get anywhere, and are often capable of very quick speed runs of events or quests due to their knowledge of the location. This role remains the same between online and offline play.

Next is the Historian. Historians explore the lore and history of the game, as opposed to the land itself. They look at the backstories of the characters, the history of magical or special items, and the even past events between players of note. They are likely to know the sorts of things a character would do, or are able to predict the trend in item abilities and such. These Explorers are very useful to achievers, or power minded killers, as they know where to find powerful artifacts. Offline Historians know a lot about the history of a game, and may spend time working on those games Wiki's to distribute their knowledge. Online Historians may have a role chronicling the history of a guild, or keeping track of which player managed which in-game exploit and when. They may be looked upon to solve arguments between players about past events.

Of course, there exists an Explorer who just likes to mess around with things. This is the Experimenter. Experimenters find items, and try to use them to do various things. They, like Cartographers, are likely to find hidden areas. However, they do so by messing with all the things in a room and accidently causing a hidden door to open, rather than actively looking for it. They also are the first to discover what unlabeled items do, and the practical uses for seemingly pointless items. Some Experimenters may have a greater purpose or overall goal (finding all the items in game, or mixing all possible potions, for example), while others mess with things just for fun. Offline Explorers may add their knowledge to an online database, while those that play online may be called upon to help others discover what they can do with something.

Finally, there are Hackers. There are two types of hackers. One is the "hack to win" idea, which are usually unskilled wannabe achievers, or griefer-type killers who want everyone to die (For my purposes, lower case "hackers). The other, which is the Explorer Hacker (upper case "Hackers), goes into the games code to better understand it. Their hacks are rarely as destructive as the first group, and often result in the creation of an unusual item with strange effects, or to simply see how editing what they can will change the balance of the game. The Hackers need not actually do any hacking, they may simply manipulate glitches and such to see how it effects the game. Offline, hackers and Hackers are relatively harmless. Online, however, hackers of both types often receive lots of hate. For hackers this is definitely deserved. Explorer Hackers may not deserve it so much, but their experiments in glitching the game can have detrimental effects on gameplay, which makes it usually not a good idea.

Explorers as a whole are mostly out to learn about the game. They enjoy it immensely, and tend to become some of the best people to ask about features of the game. One game can keep them busy for a long time, especially if it allows many opportunities for discovering new things.

 

Articificial Intelligence: Priorities of Game Making

In the current gaming market, graphics are a big deal. Everyone worries about how nice the new game will look; how pretty the explosions will be, how detailed peoples faces will be. However, something far more important than this, which is rarely emphasized, is the A.I. part of the game. A.I. requires significant computing power, as well as very good programmers.

A.I. is one of those things that can make a game truly great. Too often now the formula for success in an FPS is "Shoot at enemy. He jumps in cover. Wait for his head to come up. Shoot at enemy. Enemy Moves to cover. Rinse. Repeat." However, a clever designer could give them  other options.  Sneak around to another area is possible, or put just their gun out of cover and shoot wildly, or even just run the heck away after getting hit. This would add to the realism, and to the challenge of the game. Decision making in A.I. is often decent, but very few games reach the excellent mark.

Another part of A.I. that needs to be implemented is evolutionary learning, or learning to take different actions based on it's outcomes. In fact, this already exists to a degree (check paragraphs seventeen and eighteen). But it is very rarely used because it requires a large degree of research and understanding on the developers part. They must understand how people play the games, as too implement this formula correctly, and they must also account for a wide range of possible behaviors, creating animations for them, and variables, and etcetera (I'm still not an expert on how game programming works, beyond the ideas of cause and effect and such. Someday I'll get there). However, doing this would cause gamers to be challenged in ways that they have never been before.


Link used above, in case it won't work.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/08/whatever-happened-to-video-game-ai

Toukiden II - A Review (and Analysis)

I posted once regarding my excitement in the (then) upcoming game Toukiden - Age of Demons. Now that this game is released, I've played it quite a bit. I spent a good eight hours in the demo, most of which was spent trying to get all the possible equipment, which takes a while. The full game, which I ordered online, arrived yesterday. This accounts for my late post, I was very busy playing this amazing game.

It plays like Monster Hunter, with a little bit of Soul Sacrifice, and even a smidgeon of mechanics resembling those in games like Persona (Using Japanese heroes to back you up, friendship mechanics). It's great fun, and has more of a story than Monster Hunter has ever had.

This game was quite clearly inspired by Monster Hunter, and takes many similar mechanics. However, as the saying goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The weapons are easy to use for anyone who has played Monster Hunter, or a similar game, before. However, they all also have unique differences. The dual blades in both games are similar in their basic attacks, but in Toukiden, a big part of the style requires jumping into the air to hit hard to reach places. For the most part, you cannot block in Toukiden, so evasion is even more important.

This game is very fun, and I recommend it heartily. However, it is not for everyone. If you do not like games like monster, or are looking for something challenging, it is not for you.

Socializers - An In-Depth Exploration

This will be my third analysis of one of Bartle's gaming types, and the fourth of my post on the topic. I have posts for Killers and Achievers, as well as a general post outlining the types in its basic form. What I have I get from my online game experience, and from this article by Richard Bartle, which I have used in all of these writings.

This posts topics will be Socializers. Socializers are gamers who play a game for social benefits, "interacting with others," as Bartle would say. Socializers make up a significant market, and are the most dedicated players of games such as "Words with Friends." This may seem a pretty narrow-minded group, and there are less clear types than the others I've looked at so far, but in reality, there are several unique groups of Socializers.

Keep in mind that the following are based on my personal observations, and do not have any respectable research behind them. They are, for the most part, theoretical.

First is your basic In-Game Socializer (IGS). IGS's are more of a catch-all group than anything else. Generally, this is anyone that talks to another person in the game, for satisfaction outside of the game (no-in game reason to do so). They may talk about the game, or life, or gossip about other players. It's truly about pure social interaction for them, without any other motives.

Given the IGS's, I would also call Out-of-Game Socializers (OGS's) as a group. This may sound like an oxymoron, but allow me to explain. These people have friends in reality that also play this game. While they may not play the game with their friends, they talk about it with them. This is another form of socializing based on games. This is particularly related to the other types, as you have to do, or see things in the games to talk about them. Thus an OGS type Socializer also likely falls into one of the other main types while playing the game as well, most likely Achiever or Explorer, but a Killer type OGS may also have some interesting stories to tell.

Next are the Role-players. The Role-players are people who like to escape into the virtual world and become their characters. They will talk about things in game terms, and will try to not break the fourth wall. Often large MMO's will designate special worlds as role-playing worlds, but as this is a rare subtype, it can be difficult to find one with people who actually role-play.

Finally is the Politician. This is the Socializer that uses social action as a means to an end. They want to gain some control in the game world, through running an in game guild, establishing a following, or being known as a person to trade with for items. They thrive on being known and relied on, and are more concerned with their online popularity than traditional Socializers. The more people that know them, the better.

Socializers very rarely cause any problems in a game, besides the occasional annoyance. Additionally, knowing some Politicians can be beneficial in an MMO, as they usually have access to good information and items to sell, and their reputation benefits from helping. While Socializers might not be the most interesting or most common group, they are rather unique in their function and role in a game.


Disclaimer for Mrs. A. I was only able to complete about 250 words in class. The rest were added later.

Game Rewards Programs

Many places offer game reward systems, stores and companies alike. Xbox Live, Play Station Plus, and Game Stop Power Up Rewards are some popular examples. What do these services have to offer members, and which is, objectively, the best?

I'll start with Game Stop's power up rewards. Something nice about this one is that you can get it for free. A limited version, without any other specific benefits, gives you points for everything you buy, as well as access to some special offers. However, paying the fourteen dollars a year for the pro version is where is starts to really shine. In addition to several discounts and a bonus on your trade ins and point earnings for spending money there, you also get a free year of game informer magazine. Purchasing a year of game informer from their website is twenty dollars a year, which actually makes it cheaper to get with the game stop benefits.

Then, of course, is Xbox Live. Xbox Live does have a point reward system that works similar to the above, and is entirely free. However, this system is based off of surveys and services you use from Xbox instead of the purchases you make. However, if you have a high Gamerscore (A points total based on the number of achievements you have accumulated) you do gain points based on game purchases, up to 300 for a dollar. However, if you are not an Xbox Live Gold member, you can only earn points through surveys. This has the end result of a more stable, but less pronounced, growth of points.

Also for Xbox is Xbox Live Gold, previously mentioned above. This service has a monthly fee that's primary draw is allowing to play online using the Xbox 360 or Xbox One. This also allows you to use most internet based apps, such as Netflix, which are not usable otherwise. Xbox Gold also gives you two free games a month, which you can keep after you cancel the service, and special offers. If you have an Xbox One it allows innate recording of games, as well as Skype and some other nifty services.

Finally, of course, is Playstation plus. At the moment I write this, joining Playstation Plus (for a monthly fee) nets you the benefit of almost $400 worth of free games across the Playsation 3, Playstation 4, and PS Vita immediately, with the bulk of these games being on the PS3. New games are removed or added from this list frequently, and you can only play the games given if you continue to pay for Playstation Plus. If all you have is a Vita or Playstation 3, it grants you special beta game access, the previously mentioned free games, game discounts and some online save data storage for you games. If you do have a Playstation 4, Playsation Plus allows you to play online (online play is free on the Vita and Playsation 3).

If nothing else, and you go to Game Stop at all, you should get the free membership. There is no reason not too, as it allows you to get bonus items (eventually). If you have an Xbox, there is nothing to lose by getting the live reward program either, although it is very slow. However, I would personally recommend the Pro game stop membership, if only for the game informer magazines, which I love. I also find Playstation plus to be better in principal than the Xbox Live gold, but if you want to play online on an Xbox, you need to drop the money for it.

Sources used are below -

https://www.gamestop.com/poweruprewards/

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/rewards

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live

http://us.playstation.com/playstation-plus/

What Makes an Effective Game Trailer

Recently, I took a class on video game marketing and design. In addition to doing some basic game creation, we looked at what made certain marketing strategies effective. Among the ones we looked at were Skyrim's teaser trailer, and the Assassins Creed III E3 Trailer. I am going to be analyzing some of the techniques used to make good trailers.

A good trailer is very important to the marketing strategy of games. It is the first glimpse the public gets at the game, and helps form an important impression with the viewer.

First, if you haven't seen it, take a look at the Skyrim trailer below.

The idea of Skyrims marketing campaign was rather simple. They released very few trailers, and of the three they released, only one, the last, showed actual gameplay footage. They wanted to keep audiences hinged, waiting for every little bit of Skyrim news they could get. The strategy worked very well, and one hacking group even threatened to hack Bethesda (Skyrims developers)  unless they released more information on Skyrim. Bethesda laughed. They also used it to break out of the niche role that fantasy games usually play. Instead of focusing on the fantasy elements that dedicated fans already knew would be included, it focused on the mood and tone of the game, which opened up its appeal to others as well. Focusing on the tone or story can garner support from people who would never have played a game of that genre otherwise. This was very effective, and the game sold almost twice as many copies as it's predecessor.

The E3 trailer for Assassins Creed III too, is impressive. You can watch it here (blogger won't let me upload it as a video). This video too, focuses heavily on the setting and themes of the game. It frames the video with shots of a bald eagle, simultaneously stating it takes place in America, and implying freedom as a theme. The voice-over confirms this. The scenes shown display the revolutionary war, as shown by the Redcoats and George Washington. This game won quite a few marketing awards, for various reasons. Opposite to Skyrim's marketing campaign, Ubisoft (the creators of Assassins Creed) practically flooded the market with advertisements. This was also effective, especially because Assassins Creed appeals to a large amount of people. People who like stealth games like Assassins Creed, People who like fighting games like Assassins Creed, and people who like games with historical influences like Assassins Creed.

As a third example, I'll look at the Toukiden trailer, once again, below.

This trailer shows a common trend among trailers released later in the marketing campaign. Specifically, not only is this a trailer, but it is also the intro video to the game. While I like this trailer, I find it less effective than the ones above. This trailer does not hint at the theme of the game, and simply focuses on what you will do in the game. However, there is another trailer for Toukiden that I feel is very good. That is its anime style trailer, found here (Again, blogger wouldn't let me upload it). This one, in addition to providing some background for the game, provides story information and shows the tone of the story. While it is a tad melodramatic (in the style of many anime's) it shows a good picture of what the game aims for story wise.

At it's core, what makes a game trailer good is not gameplay, it's the tone you give off while marketing, and making the viewers interested in the story. Additionally, clever use of trailers can be used to avoid some of the stereotypes given to certain game genres.

Sources Used (In addition to the videos above):

http://www.thecmosite.com/author.asp?section_id=1385&doc_id=243912&

http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/19/assassins-creed-3-sweeps-2013-game-marketing-awards/

Killers - An In-Depth Exploration

My teacher finally put the kibosh on the annoying question-don't answer format, so I have some more leeway now. I'll be taking full advantage of this fact.

So, as for today's topic, I'm going to go back to Bartle's gaming types. My original post is here, and my expansion upon achievers is here. Here's the original article I'm basing this off of, in it's academic format - http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm. Today I'll look at the enigmatic killers, and develop some subtypes I see as part of this group.

A killer is a player that gets their kicks by imposing themselves on others. Theoretically, this could be in a beneficial way, as someone could make it their mission to give out objects or in game objects to other players, but it more often manifests itself as the killing of other players. I, personally, see a few subdivisions in the group that I will be explaining.

First is the Griefer. This is the popular image of the killer - a player that kills other players to have fun. These people enjoy destroying others, and often prey on the week or untalented. Basically, these peoples favorite part of the game is knowing that they've angered, or at least annoyed, someone else. On a practical note, if you are playing a game, and someone goes after you to make you mad, complement them on killing you well, and giving you an interesting time. This will generally confuse them, and at least prevent them from being as pleased by killing you as they could be.

Next is the Challenger. This is a player killer who finds people who they would have a good fight against, where the battle could go either way. They then challenge them, and fight against them to see who is better. This form of the killer is focused on proving themselves and improving themselves. They tend to be less aggressive than the Griefer, and may even allow the target to leave unharmed if they do not wish to fight, or alive, if they just wanted to see if they were better. There is no real way to spite a challenger, besides perhaps refusing to fight back. They might lose fun and go away, but usually they'll kill you for being a coward. That said, they usually pick on people with a chance of beating them, so if you fight your hardest, you can sometimes win.

Third we have the Looter. The looter is motivated by stealing objects from other players, and as such they will target players wearing the most expensive equipment. These players are often motivated by greed (needing the money from the item), and sometimes laziness (getting it by taking it off of someone you killed could be, in theory, easier than getting it other ways). They target people based on what they could get (monetarily) from them. A way one can sometimes avoid them is to appear as if you are using weak items until you are far away from them, as they may pay you no attention.

Lastly, there is the Vigilante. This type of killer targets other killers (usually Griefers and Looters), hackers, and general jerks. They may see themselves as above the rules, but may also try to defend the weak. Griefers will usually be their main targets, with Looters also pretty high up. However, they may put aside their differences with the other types to take down a hacker, which will always be their target it one is exposed. Vigilantes despise those that cheat or exploit others, and so will do much to destroy them. Sometimes, the Vigilante will also kill the guy standing around being a jerk, or arguing with a bunch of people for no reason. Some Vigilantes may  also have Challenger tendencies, but will always allow the other party to back out. Generally, you will not have to deal with a Vigilante, unless you are hacking or being a jerk, in which case you probably deserve it anyway.

I would like to mention that killers that act in beneficial ways (as mentioned in the third paragraph) do exist, but I have never encountered or seen anyone do so. As such, I am leaving them out due to lack of experience.

Killers, while they can be annoying, do provide some important roles. Griefers help newer players learn skills, albeit in kind of a mean way. Those that fight Challengers generally learn a couple of things. Looters help bring rare items back into the economy, by selling some of the ones they find. Vigilantes, of course, help keep some of the other killer types in check.

This is the second post expanding upon Bartles gaming types, and I plan on finishing with the other two sometime later. If you have any ideas regarding other types of video game Killers, please post them in the comments section.

Pushing the Limits of Gaming - How Far is Too Far?

I may have mentioned before my respect for games that push the limits regarding thematic matter and controversial content (provide of course, it's handled tastefully). These games can open up powerful discussions and show that games are capable of spreading messages and tackling difficult issues.

These games need to be made more, but companies need to know the limit. Or the current limit at least. A game too controversial would be unprofitable, as well as reflect badly on the developers. However, by continuously pushing at the limit in deliberate strikes, we can slide it back, allowing games to provide important messages. However, this means the companies need to devote resources to studying current events, ethical issues, and other controversial topics. They would also have to be able to create these things the correct way. A story from the viewpoint of a murderer evading the cops would be interesting, but it would have to show a horrible life, various difficult decisions, and if the game did not glorify the action. Making battles legitimately horrifying and uncomfortable experiences would allow an amount of emotional resonance between the player and character. Some games, like Spec Ops: The Line, already do things like this to make the game effect the players more.

Companies should put more resources into figuring out topics and themes that would stretch the boundaries and make interesting stories and points rather than using the same established formula over and over again. Now I'm not saying someone should come out tomorrow with a game about infanticide, but some small indie developer with nothing to lose could find something that people don't want to talk about, like human trafficking, and make a point about using games to make useful points, or provide a new perspective on an issue. This would prove gaming as versatile a media as the television for providing moving stories with real world impact.

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes Released

With a short break from school blogging, I'll be able to post a few things without resorting to that annoying question-don't answer template, so here goes.

Well, the highly anticipated Metal Gear Solid V is here! Or rather, sort of here. Kojima has released the prologue part of the game (similar to the Tanker Chapter of MGS2, or Virtuous Mission in MGS3) However, as it is only a prologue, it is available for just thirty dollars, half the price of most new games nowadays. The good news is that this game offers new ways to use CQC, a new story, and beautifully rendered graphics (at least in the Xbox One and PS4 versions).

The bad news? It's extremely short. One speedrunner was able to complete it in roughly ten minutes, skipping all side objectives and conversations. This may be disappointing for some people. Indeed, I am rather saddened by the limited content, which is the main thing keeping me from purchasing this game. Later, when both it and Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain are released, there will most likely be a version packaged with both. For those willing to wait, this is probably the way to go, as you will save a little money in the long run. No need to worry about The Phantom Pain though, by all indications that will be many times longer (compare the length of Virtuous Mission to that of Operation: Snake Eater), with many side activities to enrich your experience.

Game Informer rated this game 7/10, mostly because of it's limited content. They said that the additions to the game were satisfying, but they just weren't enough. They do believe that there is amazing potential in it. While The Phantom Pain might live up to this potential, Ground Zeroes certainly does not. This is a sentiment that I, despite not having played the game, would agree with.

What are the Effects of Chess on the Mind?

Fair warning - I won't be answering this question, primarily because my current blogging assignment in my class is to ask questions, say why they need to be answered, and than not answer them. A little weird, I know, but that's why my recent blogs have been a little strange. For the next three to four months, pretty much all will be this way (excepting ones I right on my own, and do not add as class).

Changing the topic from video games a bit, I'm going to look at chess. Chess is one of the most popular games on the planet, and many believe it has beneficial effects on the mind. It's not a stretch by any means, even logical, as playing the game well requires good memory skills, as well as a great degree of logical thinking, which are just a few notable examples.  The question is, does this game develop the skills, or just require them? As I said earlier, it may seem logical, but science does not always follow logic.

 This question regards the psychology of games and people who play them, and so would be of great interest of researchers. Additionally, some people could use them as a tool to develop logical thinking skills, decision making abilities, and other important skills, provided, of course, chess develops these. It could  also open up discussions into what games have to provide to society besides entertainment, which is something that would give immense support to the gaming industry, which the industry, obviously, would want.

I believe that this is an important matter that needs to be researched, primarily so I can tell my parents I'm developing important skills when I play chess. Or at least know I'm telling the truth when I claim that to them.

What Makes a BGM Memorable

Some video games have music that you keep with you, in your heart or your mind, for a very long time. These BGM's may profoundly affect the way you play or look back on the game. This certaintly happened to me with the music in Disgaea, The Last Story, and, most of all, Persona. What makes these any better, or more memorable than other BGM's, and why would it matter?

Some video game music is especially memorable, even compared to regular old radio music. I believe this has to do with the context. It could form a sort of memory connection with your favorite parts of a game, which is may be why many people remember the battle theme of the last boss of a game because it is a tense and difficult battle, and usually one of the easiest to remember parts of a game. However, games also tend to try to use the "coolest" BGM at their disposal for the final boss fight as well, which could also be why it is easier to remember. I believe that gaming companies should do more research into how various BGM's become earworms, and what is required to create successful, memorable, and impactful BGM's as compared to regular music.

Why is it important that these companies know this? For one, it is to appeal to the players. If someone is spending fifty to one-hundred hours playing a game, they want it to sound nice. This would help the games creators create a top notch game, one that could gain them many awards or sales. Every little thing that makes the game just a little better contributes to it's popularity. Secondly, if the game companies could make effective, affective, and beautiful BGM's, they could gain additional money by selling CD's with a collection of the music on it. There is a rather large market for this. Japanese games, already, commonly do this, and their makers are artists when it comes to creating and using BGM's (note that all the examples I gave at the top are Japanese games). Those companies are then able to create CD's of the soundtrack, and sell them for extra money, which they do. Some video game music has even become reasonably popular in Japan, not because they are particularly enamored with video game music as a genre, but because, when they have good video game music, everyone likes it.

Finally, some individuals may make covers of the music from the games. This may at first seem like a bad thing, as listening to the covers on Youtube or something will prevent the companies from getting money, but it is, in fact, a bonus for the company. Good covers draw attention to the original product, which can indeed help your sales.

Why are Idle Games Successful?

I've previously mentioned my love of certain Idle games, like Cookie Clicker, and Candy Box. What I may have not mentioned is my disdain for certain others, like Farmville. However, these games are all wildly successful, some, like the aforementioned Farmville, even making a veritable ton of money. These games require little to no effort to play, and can be enjoyed almost endlessly, provided you allow them time to go on, and a small amount of time to update the actions taken in the game.

Why? Why are these games so addictive? Why do they succeed where other, more ambitious games fail? To understand this would be to understand a side of gaming that is rarely considered. If game creators could discover why people enjoy sitting around and just watching a game happen, they could discover an important part of what makes a game fun. There are several possibilities I see from this.

One is just the things simply happening - there's something interesting in just watching something happen that you set in motion. However, something unique about these games is the ability to walk away and let it do stuff for you. This could be a major bonus in some games. MMO's with long, difficult ways to grind could possibly allow you to do something where the game just runs, and you gain the XP at a much slower rate (maybe 1/25th to 1/100th, if the MMO want's to be stingy, which they usually are), which is similar to how Cookie Clicker works.

I suppose one of my favorite things about Cookie Clicker is that you can open it in one tab, and then forget about it for a while. This is very nice, and allows to do many other things while it is running (I confess to have written most of my blog posts with Cookie Clicker running in the background). Do I understand the point of that game? Not really, but I have fun with it. In fact, the only time it becomes boring is when other people call it boring, and don't understand it. Even then, the feeling lasts only ten or so minutes, and by the next time I play, the game is very fun again. This feeling of playing, but forgetting, and then coming back and being pleasantly surprised with the results could be a very important part of the idle game.

This is very important to ask, particularly for the future of the gaming industry. Could idle games, games where you can just walk away, or sit and watch, be a large part of the future? They already hold a large part of the casual market, with Farmville and similar games making large amounts of money for Zynga. Implementing some sort of casual system in games could allow for a much larger audience, if it was studied and people figured out how to do so effectively. However, it would have to be optional in most places, as the more hardcore gamers would certainly not appreciate it as a necessary part of the game. However, even they might appreciate a little respite from repetitive and endless grinding, even if it goes slower than it would if a player was directing it.

Knowing the answers to these questions, and implementing them effectively in games could make "hardcore" games more accessible to the average person (which I suppose could ruin their appeal to some, if they were made easier), allow you to have fun while not needing to deeply engage yourself, and make large, long games less monotonous, as long as you allow it to just keep going in the background.

Effects of Viral Games

Every once and a while a game comes out that goes truly viral. Flappy Bird, for example, became extremely popular very fast, despite being created by an unknown (at least to the west) developer. However, what do these viral gaming patterns suggest about games as a whole?

The big question here, obviously, is why are all these people playing these games, and what does it mean? What is it that attracts people to these simple games? Farmville, Cookie Clicker, Words with Friends, and now Flappy Bird? What do these games creators and marketers do right? Is it a coincidence that they do so well? Or is there something in their business model that we need to learn from?

These are importance questions to ask, as viral games need to have something about them that make them especially attractive. To learn what the specific mix is that make them so popular. To figure out if the secret to a successful game is science, or luck. However, this would be a strong power. If a game was created that combined the very best attributes of the above, that was that addicting, imagine the chaos that would unfold. People would skip work to spend time playing this game, and would never stop.

However, incorporating just a little bit of their improvements into every game, could greatly increase enjoyment, or it's appeal. However, it couldn't work with everything. Games with long winding narratives would obviously not benefit from a small mobile platform, or from the simple style of play used in Flappy Bird.

Most importantly though, is how these games made themselves known. The real success was nothing in gameplay, but in how the game was advertised. A few key individuals promoting the game in unique ways, as well as the sheer amount of people that responded, and continued the chain of promotion is what lead to the success. Now, these strategies could work for anything, and, at worst, could only increase the chances. But how exactly did they do it? That is definitely something worth knowing.

How Does "Binge Gaming" Affect Your Health?

Recently, almost all of the gaming I've done has been what I (and what probably most other people) would call "binge gaming." That is, playing for long periods of time, usually only every once and a while. This is what I do. I tend to be so busy doing other games, that if I find only a short time to relax, I don't bother playing games, and may read or just sit for a bit. However, with longer available time, I often spend it playing four or five (or more) hours at once. This happens about three times a month.

Now I previously mentioned some of the health benefits gaming gives you (look here, it's provided in small amounts throughout, mostly regarding mental health). These were found using people who played for a small amount of time, regularly. Where binge gamers may play for roughly the same amount of time total, they play in large, irregular, chunks. This is similar to the way binge drinking works. Now, games and alcohol share very few similarities, so in this respect the analogy fails. However, the behavior I am explaining is very similar.

Binge drinking is, of course, very dangerous. While a beer, maybe once a day at dinner, does have it's own problems, drinking seven beers one night a week is far more dangerous. This is because your system is not made to handle the overabundance of toxins entering the body. But does a similar effect come into place with binge gaming? Gaming for a little bit every day lets off steam, and allows relaxation. However, what side effects could doing it all at once bring?

This is an important thing to consider for the future of gamers. What health problems could this bring? I know many  people who follow a similar regimen of game playing, where they are usually too busy to play. Research needs to be done to establish the effects of these binging sessions. As people in their youth begin with these, we need to know that it will not affect anything later on. I very much hope their are no long term problems.

Just, you know, to make me feel better, and for my future health, I would like it to be confirmed.

Online Co-Op Vs. Offline Co-Op

Some games measure worth in their deep story,  or strong single player mechanic. Others are strong because of the ability to play with others. However, HOW you play with others also makes a big difference.

Many games allow you to play with a friend in the same room, or with friends in different houses using the internet. Some allow both, to one or another degree. So you're playing with one another, whats the difference if your in the same room or not? I believe, quite a lot.

I have played online games with friends somewhere else from the comfort of my home, and greatly enjoy doing so. It is a nice way to play, especially with people who are far away. You can each be in a comfortable place, and don't have to worry about having people over. Additionally, this can happen easier, without the need for planning, or even thinking ahead. You may go online and see a friend playing and say "Hey, lets play together."  However, there are some problems with it. Effective communication requires Skype, and  a strong internet connection. Additionally, in many of these games (particularly online RPG's), you and your friends must be of similar levels, which can prevent you from  playing with each other.

I have also played games with friends that were at my house at the time. There are many advantages to this as well. Ease of communication, as well as the comfort and genuine enjoyment of human company. There is also no need to worry about unstable internet connections which can be troublesome (my internet is often very bad, and this often provides a problem when trying to play online games with others). These often also allow you to play with another person of any skill level. Again, their are also problems. You need to plan ahead more for this, and be ready. This also prevents you from playing with people who are far away, or otherwise unable to visit. Additionally, many local co-op games utilize split screen, which can make it difficult to see what is happening on smaller screens.

Very recently, I was able to play Monster Hunter (among other games) with a Japanese foreign exchange student that was staying at my house. The version we played no-longer has online support, but it caused me to reflect on which was more fun. The answer, ultimately, was playing with another person on the same console. The real interaction with a person was the deciding factor. The face-to-face contact allows far more than simple communication. The experience feels even more shared than before, and provides lots of options. Also, you are of course not limited to video games. When you are done playing, you can continue to hang out while doing things like eating pizza, or listening to music. While it can be fun to play with others online, playing offline is even more enjoyable, if possible.

Do Video Games Contribute to Social Isolation?

A stereotypical young gamer sits alone in a dark room, staring at a computer. His hands furiously type on the keyboard, and he mumbles occasionally into his headset. Some may worry that this child has difficulty interacting with others, or making and keeping friends. These people would be, in almost all circumstances, wrong. While this person may not outwardly appear sociable, they are likely conversing with online friends, and may be strengthening bonds made with people in the real world.

Online games have the unique benefit of allowing you to gain friends in a rather different way. Because everyone you meet in the game shares at least one interest with you, the game itself, it is very easy to initiate a conversation with the other players. This, and continuing to play together allows trust to build up, and a friendship to form. Having played games with friends myself, I find that it is much more satisfying when you share your victory with another person. Data collected in a study led by Dr. Daniel Johnson of the Queensland University of Technology found that many younger gamers find their online friends to be easily comparable to their offline friends, and sometimes even better (Australia 6). Having friends who you have no physical contact with can actually be a relief. Because there is likely little to no overlap with the friends you met online and your real life friends, you can easily relieve stress, or vent some complaints about recent events without the fear of them coming back to you. People with introverted tendencies may feel more comfortable talking to a small group of people from the comfort of their home, rather than going to a large dance, or sporting event. Finally, online friends can be nice, reliable sources of advice, allowing for comfortable dialogue where you can get perspectives from people potentially hundreds of miles away.

Gamers maintain and build these relationships. Often when one of these online friendships begin to form, you place them on a friends list, or similar system. Later on this allows easy communication and the ability to work together further. The collaboration and quick decisions you make while playing a game with another person allows you to see how they think, and how they cover and assist you helps greatly to build a feeling of trust. A study printed in the American Psychology Association magazine mentioned that in addition to strengthening current bonds through playing with one another, it becomes easier to function socially in real life (Granic 73). I believe this is because the quick judgments of trust you have to make while gaming allow you to better judge the trustworthiness of people in reality.

Dr. Johnson’s team also found that as pre-existing friends (such as a friend you have in school) play games together, it strengthens their friendship. (Australia 6). Fighting a monster with someone, or working together as part of an assault team in an FPS, even if it is entirely fake, undeniably creates a bond between the members, often in the form of shared experiences, inside jokes, and the like. Planning for these missions requires a degree of teamwork and responsibility, and the collaboration allows for deeper understanding of your friends. Additionally, as previously mentioned, you often begin to trust them more, because of how they helped you during the session of play.

You can also play online games with friends hundreds of miles away, allowing you to maintain your relationship in ways few other things allow through constructive interactivity. A personal friend of mine regularly plays the popular MOBA League of Legends with friends he knew, but that moved to distant states. He plays very frequently, but also manages to balance his offline friends, clubs, and grades. He is far from dysfunctional. The study conducted by Dr. Johnson’s team also suggests that gamers as a whole have better attachment to school, a closer connection with their family, and more comfortable friendship than non-gamers (Australia 6).             

The biggest dissenters of this idea point out that excessive gameplay will prevent social interaction, particularly through taking up time and preventing normal face to face interaction, and may eventually lead to depression or the like. This is true. The study led by Johnson previously also showed that excessive gamers show an increase in social dysfunction, and general mental health status, as well as some specific problems like anxiety and insomnia. However, it also found that non-gamers as a whole have the poorest mental health (Australia 5).  This negates the argument against moderate play, and the positive points given above would offset any negative effects obtained even in extreme play.

Given these examples, and the fact that non-gamers can suffer health issues, it is clear that gaming does not increase social isolation, with it actually encouraging and facilitating further interaction among friends, and potentially creating new bonds with other players they meet along the way. Next time you think of the teen sitting in front of a computer, apparently alone, remember that there is likely a whole different social environment they are immersed in, one not immediately visible to the outside observer.

Australia. Young and Well Cooperative Research Center. Videogames and Wellbeing. By Dr. Daniel Johnson, Associate Proffesor Christian Jones, Dr. Laura Scholes, and Michelle Colder Carras. N.p., 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2014

Granic, Isabela, PhD, Adam Lobel, PhD, and Rutger C. M. E. Engels, PhD. "The Benefits of Playing Video Games." American Psychologist 69 (2014): 66-78. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

 

I wrote this as a persuasive essay for my A.P. Lang class, hence the long and developed writing. Thanks for reading!

Gaming Classification Debate

Today I address  something commonly argued about, especially on forums. What is the best way to classify a gamer? Casual to hardcore? Using Bartle's theories? Or the Markzewski type pioneered off of Bartles version? First, though, I answer the question of a poster on the IGN boards.

Can't I just be a gamer?

Yes, yes you can. This person brings attention to the fact that, however we classify ourselves, we are all still gamers. Therefore, this is nothing to fight with other people about violently.  "Casual" should not be used as and insult, and a "Hardcore" person shouldn't assume they are better than others. This applies to other classifications as well.

To fully understand this debate, you need to understand these systems. Allow me to explain them.

First, there is the "Casual-Hardcore" axis, between casual, hardcore, and intermediate players. This defines players by the games they play. It's generally agreed that games that provide a one-time disposable experience are casual games. By this I refer to games like Bejeweled, where you play one game with little or no bearing on the rest of the game and few dynamic options with one goal. Casual gamers would then be people who would play these games. Here the quality (how casual the game is) of the game is worth more than the quantity of time playing the game for judging purposes. Some one may play seven hours of bejeweled a day and still be a casual gamer. Now a "hardcore game." Hardcore games are significantly harder to define. Generally games that require fast reactions, adaptive strategies, and/or large amounts of time to complete or master. At least two of these categories should be met to consider it a hardcore game. Hardcore gamers are people that play these games, but there are more restrictions on being hardcore than casual. Hardcore gamers must both play hardcore games, and play them much and frequently. An intermediate (sometimes called "avid") player would be between the two, playing a mix of the types.

Secondly, their is Bartle's game classification. Here there are four basic types, an achiever, killer, socializer, and explorer. An achiever is a player who hopes to master the game, or get the most awards. There is some relation here with the hardcore gamers of the previous model. A killer is a player out to kill things, generally other players, but it may be expanded to include other destroyable or killable things or NPC's as well. A socializer is someone who plays the game to talk to people, and generally participates in MMO's or the like. Finally, the explore tries to find the secrets of the game. Contrary to the achiever, their goals are created by themselves, as opposed to given to them by the game.

Third, and last among the choices I give, are Marczewski's user types, which will be abbreviated to MUT. MUT is similar to Bartles, and was formed as a response to the previous. Here there are socializers and achievers that function as Bartles do. Then he has free spirits, whose goal is to create and explore, similar to Bartle's explorers. There are then players, people motivated by rewards. There are philanthropists, players motivated by improving the lives of others. Disruptors are people who want to change the system, either by introducing unknown elements, or doing unexpected things, slightly similar to a killer. The final two, as well as the socializers, primarily inhabit online multiplayer games.

First, I believe that the Casual-Hardcore model does not work. It is far too narrow and does not account for players behaviors. Additionally, people often form stereotypes from the terms, and may use the term "casual" in an insulting manner. The self diagnosed hardcore players become rude, and tend to develop a sense of entitlement and superiority. This system would work best as part of another, as in a "hardcore explorer" or a "casual achiever."

That brings me to the Bartle system. Bartles system is good, but is limited. It does not cover mischievous people whose focus is not necessarily the other players, but the designer, or the world itself. It also does not apply to people who play only for the satisfaction of continuing on, not for achievements, but because the game rewards you for it. It attempts to cover all, but falls slightly short, which is where the MUT system falls in.

In my opinion the MUT system is the best of the classifications. It takes Bartle's system and adds some essential missing parts. In addition to the gaps mentioned in the above paragraph, it also provides the position of Philanthropist, which covers a small but important group that many would easily overlook. Needless to say, MUT provides all the key parts. All that is, but one I believe is necessary.

 There are some people who play games more for the story for anything else. So a story driven type is necessary. An argument could be made that this is a reward driven view (play the game for the reward of finding the story) but I believe that it falls distinctly separate, and is large enough to warrant it's own group. I myself have found the story the strongest reason to continuously play a frustrating game.

Given the above examples and explanations, I stand firmly on the side of MUT, with Bartle's version too narrow, and the hardcore-casual axis too vague and controversial. MUT manages to fit all foreseeable types, with a notable exception above, and still make sense and provide a grouping that is not offensive or vague. The MUT system is clearly the most sophisticated and advanced, and applies to the current times more than the others.

The following are solely for me and my work on making this into a full paper for citation reasons. My information was gathered from the below variably. Due to the nature of the topic, most are expert opinions, or hypothesis/theories formed by experts.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/29/246747168/hard-core-and-casual-gamers-play-in-different-worlds

http://ask.metafilter.com/108110/Casual-vs-Avid-vs-Hardcore

 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131397/from_casual_to_core_a_statistical_.php?print=1

 http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

http://marczewski.me.uk/user-types/#.UvbIbPs3lC8

 http://voices.yahoo.com/why-hardcore-casual-game-labels-worthless-6447066.html

 http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/woods

Hating to Hate

When a gamer doesn’t like a game, they quite often use the same excuse – “It’s been done before” or “It’s not innovative” or more often “It’s just a copy.” This is rarely true – virtually every created game brings something new to the table. It is that these people refuse to see this, often because they dislike the game being discussed.

I admit, I myself have been guilty of this in the past, especially regarding Call of Duty and Pokemon (neither of which I particularly like, but am now at least willing to try), of which I considered each iteration of the game to pointless, and mostly the same. Having read some peoples zen gaming views, worked through my own gaming philosophy, and actually approached first-person shooters myself (I haven’t played Pokemon yet, but Emerald is definitely on my bucket list), I know this not to be true.

When gamers don’t like a game, we are all too quick to blame the game for being unoriginal, or not innovative enough, at least if we haven’t played the game. If we have played it, people have a tendency to blame controls, graphics (way too often graphics), and other features. However, many people look at a game, particularly any first person war game and see it as the same. I often do so myself, and force myself to look beyond the obvious.

This is why I always try to be objective in my reviews, even though they are games I have played and especially like, I try to recognize their faults as well. I would do the same with games I didn’t like, mentioning all their weaknesses, but pointing out their strengths as well.

Basically, every game introduces something, whether it's a character, or a place, anything new can be considered "innovative." Literally every game, except for a straight copy brings something innovative. No game with new content can be considered a copy.

In conclusion, I believe that if you are trying to denounce a game, come up with something more original than "it's been done before," because very likely, not all of it has.


On a side note, thanks to all the viewers that brought my page views over 1000! I'll go for 10000 next, however long it may take.