Video games traditionally follow a simple format of beginning, middle, and end.  Like most things, they conclude eventually.  However, the MMO genre breaks down those restrictions and allows for the story to be continued.  So why is it the stories in MMOs struggle to continue, evolve, and engage the players?  Developers.

Yes, the developers are the problem.  But, it isn't because they aren't working hard enough to develop updates or additional content.  Instead, it is because they've created an impossible scenario for themselves by creating a "game" and not a "world."  To help explain this concept, let me define the two terms.

A "game" is what you immediately think of when someone says the words "video game."  Games are designed by developers to lead the players through an experience.  Traditionally, this path they create is in the form of a story, written and developed by them for the players.

A "world" is also something designed by developers.  However, the key difference is that the developers don't create a path for the players.  This development style is comparable to the "watchmaker" theory, which reasons that God created the world, placed rules and restrictions on it, and then stepped back and let us do our thing.

Most MMORPGs like Star Trek Online, World of Warcraft, and Lord of the Rings Online were designed by developers using the "game" philosophy.  And, the success of these games have been mixed, but that isn't the issue here.

To better break this down, let's recall the main advantages MMOs have over other video games.

• Neverending story because of developer updates
• Players interact with the world, changing it based on their actions
• Persistent world never goes away, even when players aren't there
• Player interaction on a much larger scale

The biggest problem with the MMO "game" philosophy of development is that, as a developer, you are responsible for continuing the game's story for the players.  Moreover, there is typically only ONE story being told, although some MMO developers have successfully created variations of stories, based on what the player chooses to do, but these variations are very minor. 

In the end, the experience of one player in an MMORPG such as WoW, is almost identical to that of another by the time they finish the last bit of content created by the developers.  They talk to the same NPCs, receive the same quests, rescue the same princesses, kill the same raptors, etc.  This is what many MMO writers and critics refer to as the "everyone is the hero philosophy."

Suddenly, because developers are creating "games" instead of "worlds," they are faced with two very difficult problems:

• How do you make it so each player's story and path through your world is unique, while simultaneously making each player feel powerful, even when compared to each other?
• How do you develop your story fast enough to keep up with the speed at which the players will complete what you've already done?

The answer is that you can't do either, not with a "game" mentality that is.  No developer can create content fast enough to keep up with the most die-hard players.  No developer can create enough unique stories and paths to satisfy their gamers, either.  I'll give you an example.  If Blizzard wanted to create a unique experience, path, and story for each of its players in its next content update, it would have to somehow generate over 10 million unique stories.  Even if Blizzard had 100 writers on staff to develop these stories, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year, writing at about 100 stories a month, with each story being about 10 hours worth of gameplay... well you get the idea.

What you've done is set yourself up for failure.  MMOs are supposed to be large, evolving worlds that never cease to exist, and where the story continues without end.  But, how can that actually happen when it relies on developers to continue it?

The alternative to this is for developers to create "worlds."  Instead of spending time creating NPCs, stories, dialogue, cinematics, and all the other content that goes along with developing a story, why not create in-game tools, rules, and player-interaction systems?  Build a living and breathing world that players must help create and evolve.

User-generated content has been a bit of a failed practice so far.  The reason?  Because it relies on users to create something that actually contributes to the game world.  And, in most cases where MMOs have experimented with this, such as City of Heroes, the user-generated content has existed separate from the world completely, which makes it relatively irrelevant to the bulk of the players.

In the case of building "worlds," user-generated content needs  to be relevant and practical.  Developers need to make sure the systems they created aren't being exploited to create things that ruin the experience, break the immersion, or create instability.  For example, developers could create a "shelter-building system," for the world.  This system would allow players to create shelters, whether it is shacks, homes, skyscrapers, etc., based on a set of requirements, qualifications, regulations, and interface options.  The developer would set the basics of the system, but allow it to be flexible so that it can also be affected by other systems, such an economic system.

Building a world also means eliminating most of the world's character NPCs.  In a "world," the players are/should be the only characters that contribute to the story.  Therefore, develop a system that allows the players to determine what the current quests and missions are.  Make it so the rewards for those player-created missions and quests are determined by a variety of other factors, such as economic and political factors.  NPCs should then fill a more passive, hands-off role.  NPCs would take the form of animals, creatures, and monsters--designed to roam, attack, defend, or even be domesticated.  Make them a resource for the players.  And, yes, human NPCs could still exist, but the same rules applied to other NPCs should remain in effect.

If a developer can successfully achieve building a "world," instead of a "game," they will have placed the story in the hands of the players.  This allows the developer to step back and take on a different type of development role--a role where they spend less time creating content and more time fixing and tweaking their game world and systems.

I'm sure you're thinking, "Great, Alex.  All of this is well and good, but it seems a little too out of reach at the moment."  And, yes, there really isn't a hugely successful example of a developer creating a "world" instead of a "game," that I can point to.  However, there is a game that is pushing the "game" boundaries and it goes by the name Face of Mankind.  Sure it's not pretty, and has a lot of flaws, but it is one of the first games I've played that really places the world in the players' hands.

To better understand this "game" vs. "world" concept, imagine these scenarios:

• Your faction leader being a real player, and not an NPC that just stands in a castle all day, handing out quests from time to time depending on your level.
• Imagine that all the game's land can be explored from the beginning, and where even starting areas can be important and relevant no matter how long you've been playing.
• Imagine no more linear-style advancement, where levels no longer determine whether you can only kill wolves, or whether you can kill large monsters.
• Imagine your faction city as a cluster of player-built houses, taverns, walls, and guard towers.
• Imagine that you don't want to belong to a faction at all, and you can simply walk into a forest, build yourself a small hut, and hunt animals alone.
• Imagine starting your own mining company, where you either setup agreements with nearby faction cities or choose not to.
• Imagine crafting your own weapons, or simply buying them from a local merchant.
• Imagine exploring a map that is completely uncharted, only to stumble upon a small player-created faction settlement next to a river.
• Imagine being attacked by an unknown faction army and having your city burnt to the ground.
• Imagine being defeated by an enemy faction and being given two options: join the conquering faction or go into exile, being forced to fend for yourself.
• Imagine being exiled, only to begin creating a new faction city from the ground up, always vowing to one day gather enough strength to take revenge against the faction that exiled you.
• Imagine climbing to the tallest part of a mountain with your friends and living there, out of the way of large, war-like factions.

These are the types of freedoms a "world" provides.  Endless possibilities and player-driven stories.  Paths created out of options rather than by developer decisions.

Compared to both the original and Aliens vs. Predator 2, this remake is true to the series.  The visuals and sound effects are top notch and help create the atmosphere needed for a game like this.  The deathmatch game mode does seem a bit stupid, as all three factions have no loyalty to one another.  With that said, one of the games I was playing last night had a group of Marines working together anyway, while the Aliens and Predators seem to play solo, which was pretty cool.

There are two big things I have a problem with:

• Matchmaking is used in the demo!  Ugh!  Worse yet, they actually said whether they'd have dedicated servers or not.  So, I noticed a decent amount of lag when playing, which was even more apparent when trying to play as the Alien, which relies on moving extremely fast.
• The controls aren't as smooth and reliable as I was hoping.  However, some of this could be the result of matchmaking lag.  For example, there are "grab" attacks Aliens and Predators can do when they get right behind an opponent that allows them to perform an instant kill, usually by impaling their enemy.  This looks awesome, but can be visually disjointed.  There were very few instances while playing as an Alien where I successfully grabbed someone without a visual glitch.  Most of the time, they'd appear to be a few feet away when I already hit the grab button.  Then they'd suddenly be in my grasp anyway.

I've already pre-purchased the full version on Steam.  And, despite my misgivings about matchmaking on the PC, I'm going to follow through.  Aliens vs. Predator 2 was one of the first FPS games I played on my first powerful PC.  Considering this seems to be a decent follow-up (despite the apparent lack of dedicated servers), I can't resist.

Anyway, here's some gameplay of the Marine.  Once again, I love the sound effects.  Most notably when nothing was around me and I heard the environmental woosh of humid air and a faint Alien noise.  Very cool.

My character is sitting at level 50 right now and only 10 levels away until I hit the max.  While they give you the option of switching factions once you reach 60, I'll probably decline.  Of course, that means I'll miss out on the Platinum trophy, which requires you to reach level 60 with each faction, but I still laugh at the notion of "trophies" at all.  Setting up the trophies that way seems contradictory to the idea of having "faction loyalty," which was something I thought was a major theme.  Regardless, I could do "Veteran" mode, which lets me start over from level 1 with Raven, but the only benefit is a shiny gold icon that tells everyone, "Hey, look how awesome I am!"

In the meantime, remember Aliens vs. Predator?  I sure do.  I also remember talking with my friends about how awesome it would be if there was an Aliens game that featured a co-op mode similar to Left 4 Dead.  In fact, I was waiting for someone to mod L4D and replace the zombies with Xenomorphs, but that hasn't happened.  But, that doesn't seem to be an issue now that Rebellion has put up a trailer showcasing AvP's Survival mode!

Finally, even if the single-player campaign isn't the greatest in the world, at least they are indulging one of my favorite fantasies... if defending waves of Xenomorph attacks with fellow marines could be called a fantasy.

Although, this does make me wonder what exactly holds for the future of Sega's OTHER game based on the popular movies, Aliens: Colonial Marines.  If AvP seems to be covering all the basics, what will the other title offer that is different?  Or, will it even come out at all?

So, while I wait for the opportunity to scream "Game over, man!  Game over!" and "Why don't you put her in charge!" I've starting putting time into the Bad Company 2 beta for the PC.  And, surprisingly, my impressions are mixed.

First, it seems that Bad Company 2 is a tad more difficult to run than most of my other games.  It requires a decent amount of hardware power.  This has more to do with my 2-year old equipment than the game itself, but games that remind me that I don't make enough money to keep my PC updated tend to leave me resentful.

With that said, the game does look really nice, especially running at 1920x1200.  Now, I played the PS3 beta of BC2, and I feel it is necessary to draw a comparison here.  The PS3 beta did seem... smoother, both visually and in the controls.  However, both could be the result of an aging PC.  After a little tweaking to the video settings, I was able to find a comfortable level of play.

I have only played an hour or two so far, but it is fun.  Again, only one map is available during the PC beta, but at least it is a different map from the one during the PS3 beta.  One thing I can say, Bad Company 2 (PC) is everything Modern Warfare 2 should have been and more, and this is coming from someone who has loved every Call of Duty since the original filled the void let by Medal of Honor: Allied Assault's fade into history.

I'll have more on all three of these game once I have them in my hands.

January 26, 2010.

I bought Uncharted 2 over the break and started playing it.  Without hesitation, I jumped straight into the multiplayer first.  It's a pretty fun experience and reminds me of a more polished version of Socom.  The multiplayer experience also has an unlock system attached to it, but it really only provides you with extra skill bonuses--no extra weapons.  Instead, all the weapons are simply scattered around the map for you to pick up and use.  It is a rather old school method of giving players a variety of weapons, but it doesn't decrease the fun factor.

After I had my fill of the multiplayer I decided to jump into the single-player that had reviewers throwing 10 out of 10s in every direction.  The game was fun, extremely well acted, and challenging.  It also provided a lot of really cool visuals and sequences that are sure to create fond memories.  It really is... like watching a movie.  I remember playing the first Uncharted briefly at a friend's house, but since I didn't have a PS3 at the time, I never got into it.

I also bought The Saboteur for the PC.  I've played nearly every WWII game on the market with the exception of all the flight simulators, and I haven't played very much of it yet.  I suppose it has to do with the fact that I was in the middle of Uncharted 2, I had just started Dead Space (PC), and the MAG beta has been running since January 4.

My initial impressions of it is that it is a cool game.  The shooter portion of it doesn't seem very tight as the controls can get rather complicated.  The voice acting isn't terribly great either, which wouldn't be so bad if the main character's Irish accent didn't seem fake.

The open world aspect of it is fun and really gives the game a Grant Theft Auto spin.  On the other hand, I've noticed that my current PC doesn't run it very well, but I'm doubting that is because of my hardware.  The Saboteur does feel like a console-to-PC port, but at least Pandemic Studios gave us mouse control over the menus.  In the end, I don't know if it is worth the current full price tag.  You'd probably be better off waiting until you can get it at a discount.

I'm also playing Valkyria Chronicles, an anime game for the PS3 that uses turn-based action as it core gameplay.  My favorite part of Valkyria Chronicles is its WWII style.  Europe is Europa...the Germans are the Imperials, Belgum is Gallia.  Considering most anime either embraces ancient time periods, modern periods, or futuristic periods, seeing one that puts a twist on a real-world location and time such as Europe, 1930-1940 is really cool.

The game itself, on the other hand, is fun, but lacks gameplay elements that would probably appeal to a majority of gamers.  This is not a game younger gamers would probably appreciate, as the turn-based action is more about strategy and planning than anything else.  Veterans of Final Fantasy, Suikoden, and games similar to them might find Valkyria Chronicles' gameplay to be excellent.

And, finally, the game that has soaked up nearly every evenings since I've returned from my break is the MAG beta on the PS3.  MAG is a first-person shooter game that features 256 (128 vs. 128) multiplayer.  It features an experience point-based system and a classless progression system.  The game is also highly team-oriented, as all players are placed into squads automatically, given objectives to complete, and VOIP to make it easier.  Each squad consists of 8 players, and there are 4 squads that make up a platoon.  That are squad leaders, platoon leaders, and then company leaders, all of which represent the command structure during larger games.

I'm loving this game.  The gameplay it provides more than makes up for its scaled-back visuals--a necessity given the scale that is present.  This game really isn't for the solo-gamer.  If you don't have a microphone for communication, it could very well lead you to being ridiculed by your squad mates, or even kicked from the game.  There is a huge focus on communication and teamwork, a refreshing combination for an FPS to have considering a lot of the one-man shows games like Modern Warfare 2 provide.

Today is officially the last day of the beta, at which point the servers will be shut down until it releases on January 26.  It will be interesting to see how this one is reviewed.  For me, however, it is a must buy.  The fact that it is a PS3 exclusive makes my decision even easier to make as I don't have to worry about which platform I'd rather play it on, unlike Bad Company 2, which I'll probably get for the PC.

Anyway, back to MAG!

Thank you Uncle Steve for all you've done and all you continue to do in the service of this country.  And, thank you to all the service men and women overseas at this very moment.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

If you are one of these fickle, self-righteous individuals, then relax because you're probably already familiar with the details in my Guide to Destroying Video Game Development.  But, if by chance you are not, then pay attention!

Bioware's latest RPG, Dragon Age: Origins, is a resounding hit.  It's big, bloody, long, and full of interesting characters.  Considering the controversy that arose when Bioware's Mass Effect featured both a lesbian and gay sexual scene, depending on the player's choices, you'd think the company would get more credit when they explore even more sexual encounter options in Dragon Age.  Unfortunately, it just isn't ever good enough for some.

Acid for Blood describes her immediate issue with Dragon Age prior to launching into a full assault on the "supposed and intended" marginalizing of people seeking an equal number of different sexual encounter options:

At this point in the story, there are three NPCs in my party who I know Thurkear can try to romance. However, Thurkear is attracted to the only person she can't have: Morrigan. This is frustrating, as Morrigan represents the most natural and ideal NPC my character would be attracted to, given the background I've thought up for Thurkear. As a player, I really like Morrigan. I was gutted when I discovered that Thurkear's affections would go unrequited.

I can sympathize with her issue, but so can anyone.  Morrigan is certainly one of the coolest characters in the game, and would definitely be attractive to any straight male or any gay female.  Unfortunately, Bioware didn't write Morrigan's character as being bisexual or homosexual, and that is just the way it is.

Life is the same way, and straight males run into this problem just the same as gay women.  What if a straight guy really likes a girl.  He approaches her, they become friends, and then he asks her out.  But, instead of a typical scenario playing out, she tells him that she is homosexual.  Suddenly, he is torn to find out that his affections would go unrequited.  But, that's life.

Acid for Blood takes it to another level when she puts up a correct breakdown of the sexual options available to players based on their own preferences:

There are four NPCs available as romantic partners for your player-character: Morrigan, Leliana, Zevran, and Alistair. Both Leliana and Zevran are bisexual. Both Morrigan and Alistair are heterosexual.

• If you have a heterosexual femaleplayer-character, you have two romantic options: Alistair and Zevran.
• If you have a heterosexual male player-character, you have two romantic options: Morrigan and Leliana.
• If you have a bisexual female player-character, you have three romantic options: Alistair, Leliana, and Zevran. Morrigan will never return romantic affection to a female player-character.
• If you have a bisexual male player-character, you have three romantic options: Morrigan, Leliana, and Zevran. Alistair will never return romantic affection to a male player-character.
• If you have a homosexual female player-character, you have one romantic option: Leliana. Morrigan will never return romantic affection to a female player-character.
• If you have a homosexual maleplayer-character, you have one romantic option: Zevran. Alistair will never return romantic affection to a male player-character.

Having played Dragon Age, I can confirm this is accurate information.  But when she goes on to lament that there are more heterosexual options than not, and that there really aren't any homosexual options, but merely bisexual ones, I lose my patience.

She then attempts to squash the debate by stating that she already knows what the common counter argument is (emphasis mine):

One of the most common defenses of the lack of diversity in videogames and the denial of player choice (a common example: not providing female playable characters), is raising the issue of the creative process. Morrigan and Alistair are heterosexual because that's just the way those characters are. Let's not forget that this is a videogame we're talking about. Every single detail and every single aspect of the game and its characters were designed and created, right down to the sexual orientation of NPCs a player-character can romance. If it wasn't an arbitrary decision to make Morrigan and Alistair straight, if the creative process dictated Morrigan's and Alistair's sexual orientations, and by extension the denial of player choice, then why wouldn't it make sense to create a homosexual NPC that only a player-character of the same sex can romance? Having homosexual NPCs as romance options would deny players romantic choices to the same degree that heterosexual NPC romance options do.

First, nobody believes it was an arbitrary decision.  However, to imply that Bioware purposefully made Morrigan's and Alistair's sexual orientations heterosexual simply to deny the player a homosexual  or bisexual choice is idiotic.  Who in their right mind believes this conversation happened at Bioware?

Dev #1:  We've made Morrigan and Alistair heterosexual to make sure we deny choices to players who have bisexual or homosexual characters.

Dev #2: Good work!

To answer the question about why it wouldn't make sense to create a homosexual NPC to provide options... because not everyone sees the things the way you do.  Not everything is viewed through the lens of victimhood.  The developers at Bioware are more interested in creating unique and interesting characters than making sure feminists "feel good" about sexual orientation choices.

She concludes her thoughts (emphasis mine):

Given the existing romantic options in the game and the respective sexual orientations of the NPCs one is able to romance, it appears that it's okay to provide more choices for straight player-characters than for queer player-characters.And it's this disappointing situation that gamers find themselves in if they play a character that is not straight.

Wrong again.  The fact that there are more choices for a straight player-character doesn't mean it's okay or that it isn't okay.  Actually, it doesn't mean a damn thing.  Thinking otherwise entertains the notion that the developers at Bioware believe that straights are better than queers, and that their games reflect that view.  This conclusion is based entirely on a narrow-minded ideology (feminism), which acts as a lens through which she views her entire world.

Most people don't view their world through such specialized lens.  They don't see everything from the viewpoint of a so-called marginalized woman.  They don't look at a group of people and start counting how many are white, black, Asian, heterosexual, homosexual, and the rest.  They don't pretend to hold up the banner of equality while simultaneously pointing out everyone's differences.  No, these individuals, just like the developers at Bioware, live their lives and view the world through a human lens.

And that's life.  Don't like it?  Create your own video game development company and do things differently.  Oh, that reminds me.  Time for some educational material!

A Guide to Destroying Video Game Development

Ensure that your video game company, rather than hiring based on qualifications and experience, hires based on diversity only.  Not enough black women on your development team?  Fire some of those pesky, rich, and entitled, white women who think they own the world and make room.

When sitting down to develop your game, it's story and characters, be sure to constantly ask the question:  Will narrow-minded feminists, racists, and anyone who finds it easier to blame others like this?  If the answer is no, then your game is probably too good, and you probably haven't fired those snobby, white female developers yet.  What are you waiting for?

When creating characters for your game, be sure to set a quota for the number of different types of characters you have.  Make sure EVERYONE is EQUALLY represented.  Here are a few examples of the types so you can get started.

• White - Male - Heterosexual
• Black - Female - Bisexual
• Asian - Female - Homosexual
• Black - Male - Bisexual

Oh, and don't forget those fantasy classification as well!

• Elf - Black - Male - Bisexual
• Dwarf - White - Female - Homosexual

Remember, the creative process is a joke, as well as artistic expression.  These are the constructs of privileged men.  Instead, the only things that matter during development are "fairness," "equal representation,"  and making sure not to accidentally offend the player, regardless of who they are.

Creating extra and irrelevant characters to meet the needs of your quota can be fun!  Turn it into an after-work game.  Make flash cards and mix them up to create really fun combinations.  Make some popcorn, sit back, and just watch as you find new and exciting ways to water down your plot.

You can NEVER have too many characters in your game.  Remember, if you have 4 heterosexual options, you better damn well have 4 homosexual and bisexual options too!

Ignore your budget!  Someone in accounting is trying to tell you that there isn't enough money or time to make sure you have equal representation?  Politely remind this narrow-minded, upper-class, white, elitist, entitled male that you have a job to do, but don't expect them to understand.

Ignore your customer demographic and target audience because they are just a bunch of bigoted, heterosexual, white men who don't understand the morality of your cause.  Let's face it, wouldn't you rather have 100,000 marginalized, unrepresented individuals love your game, then 1.5 million people who may or may not be victims of such injustice?  Of course you would!

Never design villains based on marginalized groups, minorities, or offensive stereotypes with one exception: evil, white men.  If you want to be creative and use a different type of villain, make sure to make it an alien or monster, as these are pretty neutral and keep you on the moral high-ground.

Issue all your employees to wear special lenses that allow them to see things from varying perspectives.  Worried about what feminists might think?  Issue the feminist lens.  Worried about blacks?  Give them the black lens.  Always make sure you have a wide variety of lenses just in case.  You can order these lenses for your company at www.lenses4victims.com, now with bulk discounts for racists!

Congratulations!  You're now ready to start creating morally sound video games based on diverse and equal representation. 

All satire aside, this is something people need to realize.  The creative process is not about meeting quotas, creating diverse enviornments, or fulfilling some nonsenical and twisted sense of "morality."  Instead, it is about acheiving artistic success. 

For writers, it is about fleshing out your ideas on paper and turning them into a compelling and interesting stories, or not, depending on your intention.  For video game developers such as Bioware, it is about sitting down and creating an RPG that tells a great story, giving players options to dictate the course of that story, and, from a business perspective, meeting the budget and selling a lot of copies.

In the end, history has proven that when the creative process and common sense are trumped by something like diversity for diversity's sake, then quality is destroyed.  This isn't to say that quality and diversity can't coincide, but that the drive for quality must come first and must be one's peak interest.

Altitude is a fast-paced, online multiplayer aerial combat game with 2D physics-based gameplay and a cartoony aesthetic. It features 5 unique planes, a perk system inspired by CoD 4, crazy powerups, a map editor, and an account system that helps you find friends for maximum enjoyment.

That comes direct from the YouTube video, which you need to watch.

It's definitely good enough to warrant the 16.2 hours I've already put into it.  While the game does offer up the standard FFA and TDM gametypes, I rarely enjoy playing them, especially for long periods of time.  Instead, the core reason for Altitude's fun gameplay lies in the Ball gametype, which places two teams fighting over  a ball that must be passed, bounced, moved back and forth on a map until one team scores a goal.  The first to 6 goals win the map.

The 2D physics really add another element to the game too, such as stalling.  If your plane is moving too slow or trying to climb too high, it could stall, forcing you to afterburn out of the stall.  Players are given a limited amount of energy, which is taken when afterburning or firing weapons.  Knowing when to afterburn, fire, pass, slow down, etc., is important.  Energy management is key to success, as is timing the powerups and health powerups that spawn on the maps.

And, as more of a funny fact, Nimbly Games decided to do the anti Infinity Ward approach to marketing.

Dedicated servers unlike COD: MW2

It would seem that even small-time, two-man development teams are capitalizing on Infinity Ward's hailed development blunder.  Does it really help drive marketing efforts?  Probably not, but that doesn't mean that dedicated servers aren't a better way to go or that it isn't a funny comment to make.

Make sure you at least give the Altitude demo a try.  It's available on Steam.

It looks like Iron Man 2 is back to reinforce this great thinking.  Here is a brief dialogue between Mr. Stark and a poltician, emphasis mine:

Politician:  "Our priority here is to have you turn over the Iron Man weapon to the American people ."

Stark:  "Well, you can forget it.  We're safe, America is secure.  You want my property?  You can't have it."