I dislike Monopoly, and I am proud to say it. A classic board game invented by the Parker Brothers in 1935 (originally a derivative of 'The Landlord's Game' by Elizabeth Phillips) is a game about being the biggest asshole in the room. Oh yes, this game has made me cringe and roll my eyes in tedious, mindless repetitiveness for many years until the day my sister and I somehow both came to the conclusion that playing it was an utter waste of our time. People don't like to admit they hate things, especially when it comes to entities that existed in a 'high culture' or golden age of society. Holding reverence for classical things seems to give people a sense of importance and a feeling of being more civilized. Whether this be books, music, poetry or in this case ... board games, having respect for the aging and popular things in life qualifies you as a normal person in our glorious modern age of humanity.
For this particular case, Monopoly, I do not respect. I do not like it, and I will explain to you why.
1. It is slow
First of all, I have both won at the game and lost at it. Winning involved me being younger, less opinionative and more excitable, essentially being blinded to its flaws. It also involved everyone just giving up. Losing involved me being exactly the same, except me being one of the ones giving up. The giving up process usually took between 3-4 hours. Most of this time was spent looking at people moving various board pieces, counting their money or counting my own. Or in jail. It takes so long for things to get into motion and so long for anything even remotely resembling a winning condition to emerge that most people remember just how slow the game is and .. give up.
2. It is boring
For the most part, it is a game of attrition. Unless you are playing with people who are not solely relying on the action packed experience of observing a pile of cardboard and plastic for 3-4 hours, you are going to be bored completely out of your mind. Monopoly is fine if it is played with some light, off topic discussion, but mostly people are so engrossed in the experience of doing virtually nothing that they find conversation disruptive. They take the game so stupidly seriously!! You can pretend all you want that you are forming a winning strategy in the back of your mind, but you know you are in the same boat as everyone else. Waiting for your turn to roll so your heart can light up or flop when you land on a spot on the board. Which leads to my next point being that ...
3. It is driven completely by the roll of the dice
I am a Guru for games with skill and balance, and this game has virtually none. It is all luck. You could pretend to be the best monopoly player in the world and get trounced by a newbie learning the ropes with a consistent stream of unlucky dice rolls. Who lands on Mayfair first is not determined by you, and should you get it, you know you did absolutely nothing of worth to get there. Luck. It does not equal skill. And I think people know it, whether they admit it or not. Why? Because ...
4. The game encourages cheating and sleazy behaviour
A presence of luck sets off some part of people's minds that make them become cheating sleazebags. This is particularly true in games or events that actually do require skill and when a player KNOWS they are not going to win without cheating. Steroids in sports are the same as aimbots in FPS games (albeit a significant physical component). In monopoly this translates to giving incorrect change, overcharging, stealing or even innocently landing on someone's property and hoping they don't notice. These are all behaviours you would be fined and possibly sent to jail over in real life. Apparently these activities are "part of the game" and "how its meant to be played". If that's true then this game is sick and I want as little to do with it than I possibly can.
5. It is not a friendly game
Grinding your friends and family into the dust over hours of questionable game-play is sure to create tension. Conflicts can arise, disputes over properties and cheating and getting unlucky. I don't know about other people, but I don't like watching people suffer or be miserable for extended periods of time. This may be the hunter in me talking but giving your prey a quick and painless demise is more humane than torturing them to death. It is also honorable, showing a lack of negative emotion and some personal consideration for your foe, even in death. As much as I hate people in general, I don't like dragging out victories or defeats for hours on end. This just leads to more frustration and more bursts of unqualified glee for whoever it is who thinks they are winning. You are not winning. You are being a wanker.
6. It delivers a terrible message
People living in high society have traditionally had an incredible misunderstanding and under-appreciation for the working class citizens. Look at Marie Antoinette for a prime example. The picture of upper class rich bastards debating and competing for land which possibly houses thousands of citizens while sipping wine glasses and adjusting their monocles is an image I find incredibly disturbing. Depending on your point of view, actual real world monopolies can be a bad thing. Take Microsoft for example. Sure they have made a platform from which the average PC user can globally use and unite, but they completely control that sector of the market. Without competition they have all the say concerning the price of their products (i.e. ridiculously overpriced) and just what gets released.
Want an example? A recent project which was hoping to deliver cross platform gaming between Xbox and PC users was canned when PC users were found to be too dominant. Why? Well the only logical reason is because they want people to keep playing on the Xbox. This shuts down the market for a lot of PC developers in terms of demographics and forces players to play certain games on only one exclusive platform (i.e. Halo - Xbox). Because they control Xbox Live, the (paid) networking interface for the Xbox console, they can simply do whatever they want. There is nothing we can do otherwise.
7. Gambling
I hate gambling
8. It makes me want to punch people in the face!
This is really the main point of this whole post. For all the above reasons, whether people are oblivious to it or not, when I roll that stupid dice and land on your stupid property and have to look at your stupid smug face with its stupid smirk, I literally have to hold myself back from smashing it in. This game makes me incredibly angry, for all the wrong reasons. It is supposed to be a competitive game and yet sometimes there is nothing you can do from being slowly beaten down over time. It is different from the anger I will feel in say, a fighting game. I may tell my friends how much I hate them (jokingly) and how that round was total bullshit, but I know I could have done something about it if I was quick/clever enough. It is my fault. But in monopoly? The reason I am angry is not because of me. It's all on you, you selfish, cheating, poncy, arrogant bastard!
So that is why I hate monopoly. I have rarely enjoyed it. It is one of the few things I actually truly dislike. If you were to play it casually for an hour with some beers and light conversation some time then sure, count me in.
If not, then you are going to want to be real careful playing that game around me...
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Anonymity of the Avatar
This post is a little... muddled, but whatever.
"I love Alma's red eyes. They make her sexy! Who cares if she is a child, she is dead! Fuck her all night long!" - Terminator, Action Trip video comments
I found the above comment by a rather vulgar Action Trip reader to be ... incredibly funny. Not because of the content of the matter, but because of the incredibly straight-forward and easy going manner in which this individual addressed his/her desire to fornicate with an underage girl. Or should I say, ghoul. I imagine your everyday soccer mum, not used to the horrible things people say on the internet, would find this behaviour unacceptable and demand that this pedophile be put to justice. For the rest of us, we just smile, shake our heads and read the next obnoxious comment...
We all know that what people say on the internet is not a good reflection of how a person behaves in society. Being anonymous is a shield, a big sign in red letters informing you to be a douche-bag. Hell, I've done and said offensive and terrible things online before so I am not exempt. For the most part it was actually pretty fun, letting the illogical, frothing-at-the-mouth cave troll side of the human mind come forth in all its glorious stupidity. And all its horror! I can imagine for some, saying completely ridiculous and terrible things can be a form of stress relief (or something). Although for some people, what they say may actually be what they believe/intend to be true :S
Anyways, this got me thinking about people's anonymity in games. I already know some people play games just to be tools. Ganking and corpse camping in WoW, a form of Schadenfreude in gaming format, is a prime example. But that is negative behaviour, reinforcing the idea of being anonymous. There are many other types of player behaviour when gaming, besides this. Some (and hopefully most) people play competitive games to do well, to the best of their ability. Some are genuinely helpful, serious in their attempts to make others understand and improve their game. Some are even so helpful that they may even turn the act of helping into a game of their own:
I think players of games are generally less inclined to be douche-bags primarily because they are required to interact directly with other people. They can be punished, so to speak. Assuming you are not cheating, any game mechanics you exploit can be turned on you. Anything you say in chat, no matter how offensive, is ignorable as it is not the focus of the game. This is of course unless you are actually a good player though (very rare!).
/offtopic
I like to think most people would avoid using 'cheap' tactics in gaming so as not to belittle themselves by once AGAIN using a dominant strategy. This is not always the case however as I found not so long ago in the terribly imbalanced and skill-capped multiplayer of Modern Warfare 2. Noob-tubing, the act of using a grenade launcher attached rifle in combination with the 'Thumper' M79 grenade launcher itself to guarantee yourself at least 4 near instant kills per spawn. Combine this with One man Army and you have a lot more chances. Grenades kill anyone, dead, at any range (except point blank) and at any health. I estimated nearly 70% of players in some of the last games I played using this 'strategy', sometimes with the argument "everyone else is doing it". You could argue that this is equivalent to the AWP wars that Counter-Strike turns into after 15 mins, but I disagree. You spawn from the very start of the game with Noob-tubing equipment in MW2 whereas AWP snipers must play for at least 15 mins, building up their cash for the ultimate weapon. Should they die, they lose it. That's called balance. It disturbs me that modern games developers have totally lost the plot when it comes to it in their games...
Getting back on topic, when you are playing games with friends or in real-life, you try not to be a wanker. People don't like to be associated with their gaming behaviours and disposition. You only have to look at the recent hiatus about Blizzard's real ID system on their forums to understand that. This is because it is either a) not what they like to see themselves as, or b) gaming is generally not seen as a positive thing in the eyes of others. It's still the 'childish' activity of immature people according to older generations. Hell you only have to ask my parents opinion of it to get an incredibly ignorant and biased view on it.
Most people in this world are genuinely good people, even if they don't know it. As ill behaved and awful as they may be online, whether through forums, chat rooms or gaming, they probably are not like that in the real world.
But then again, there are some people who are just ... jerks! Anywhere and everywhere.
"I love Alma's red eyes. They make her sexy! Who cares if she is a child, she is dead! Fuck her all night long!" - Terminator, Action Trip video comments
I found the above comment by a rather vulgar Action Trip reader to be ... incredibly funny. Not because of the content of the matter, but because of the incredibly straight-forward and easy going manner in which this individual addressed his/her desire to fornicate with an underage girl. Or should I say, ghoul. I imagine your everyday soccer mum, not used to the horrible things people say on the internet, would find this behaviour unacceptable and demand that this pedophile be put to justice. For the rest of us, we just smile, shake our heads and read the next obnoxious comment...
We all know that what people say on the internet is not a good reflection of how a person behaves in society. Being anonymous is a shield, a big sign in red letters informing you to be a douche-bag. Hell, I've done and said offensive and terrible things online before so I am not exempt. For the most part it was actually pretty fun, letting the illogical, frothing-at-the-mouth cave troll side of the human mind come forth in all its glorious stupidity. And all its horror! I can imagine for some, saying completely ridiculous and terrible things can be a form of stress relief (or something). Although for some people, what they say may actually be what they believe/intend to be true :S
Anyways, this got me thinking about people's anonymity in games. I already know some people play games just to be tools. Ganking and corpse camping in WoW, a form of Schadenfreude in gaming format, is a prime example. But that is negative behaviour, reinforcing the idea of being anonymous. There are many other types of player behaviour when gaming, besides this. Some (and hopefully most) people play competitive games to do well, to the best of their ability. Some are genuinely helpful, serious in their attempts to make others understand and improve their game. Some are even so helpful that they may even turn the act of helping into a game of their own:
I think players of games are generally less inclined to be douche-bags primarily because they are required to interact directly with other people. They can be punished, so to speak. Assuming you are not cheating, any game mechanics you exploit can be turned on you. Anything you say in chat, no matter how offensive, is ignorable as it is not the focus of the game. This is of course unless you are actually a good player though (very rare!).
/offtopic
I like to think most people would avoid using 'cheap' tactics in gaming so as not to belittle themselves by once AGAIN using a dominant strategy. This is not always the case however as I found not so long ago in the terribly imbalanced and skill-capped multiplayer of Modern Warfare 2. Noob-tubing, the act of using a grenade launcher attached rifle in combination with the 'Thumper' M79 grenade launcher itself to guarantee yourself at least 4 near instant kills per spawn. Combine this with One man Army and you have a lot more chances. Grenades kill anyone, dead, at any range (except point blank) and at any health. I estimated nearly 70% of players in some of the last games I played using this 'strategy', sometimes with the argument "everyone else is doing it". You could argue that this is equivalent to the AWP wars that Counter-Strike turns into after 15 mins, but I disagree. You spawn from the very start of the game with Noob-tubing equipment in MW2 whereas AWP snipers must play for at least 15 mins, building up their cash for the ultimate weapon. Should they die, they lose it. That's called balance. It disturbs me that modern games developers have totally lost the plot when it comes to it in their games...
Getting back on topic, when you are playing games with friends or in real-life, you try not to be a wanker. People don't like to be associated with their gaming behaviours and disposition. You only have to look at the recent hiatus about Blizzard's real ID system on their forums to understand that. This is because it is either a) not what they like to see themselves as, or b) gaming is generally not seen as a positive thing in the eyes of others. It's still the 'childish' activity of immature people according to older generations. Hell you only have to ask my parents opinion of it to get an incredibly ignorant and biased view on it.
Most people in this world are genuinely good people, even if they don't know it. As ill behaved and awful as they may be online, whether through forums, chat rooms or gaming, they probably are not like that in the real world.
But then again, there are some people who are just ... jerks! Anywhere and everywhere.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
On Lazers and Explosions...
StarCraft 2 has a game within the game (greetings canine!). This game is called Lost Viking, an arcade game booth found in the Catina within the single-player mode. Despite what everyone keeps telling you, it is NOT a 'secret' game. It is placed directly in clear line-of-sight of the player, so anyone playing the single-player should stumble across it. Secrets are not placed directly in front of you.
Anyways, I decided to give it a go one boring night. Having given it about 10 seconds previously before stopping and continuing my campaign, I can honestly say it is a good bit of fun and shows off the modding capabilities of Blizzard's WarCraft 3 Mk II engine (yes, you know what I mean). The game itself is ... well I wouldn't say it is difficult, but it is definitely not a walk in the park. I had no idea what I was doing but still managed to unlock 3 achievements in one hit. The unlocking of those achievements (big display on screen saying you have unlocked something) are also what got me killed. The video below is this game in action. The player is not very good :S
I will probably return to play it at some point and get the 500,000 point achievement, but only because I enjoyed playing it. Achievement whoring is not something I really like doing in games and I personally think its a cheap method of creating re-playability. But that is something I will rant about for another time. My point is I enjoyed the 'mod' which paid tribute to many a Top Down Side Scroller (or Vertical Scroller) of yesteryear. It is a genre of gaming you rarely see being made anymore, which I find disappointing. I also would like to know why.
Depending on who you talk to, some people may regard these kind of games as mindless. You usually start in a ship that shoots peas and eventually deck yourself out with enough firepower to destroy the universe. Things fly at you, you shoot them and they explode. You also move around. Mindless? Well ... yes to a degree. They can also be incredibly skillful, relying on player reactions and destructive creativity in order to a) simply survive and b) achieve the highest score possible. Some can be so incredibly skill based they can even turn people off. A popular example of this is Ikaruga, a TDSS classic where players can morph between light and dark ship variants to either absorb damage or inflict more upon the same/opposite enemy colours. The following video is of someone playing BOTH players (1+2) in this game.
Yeah ... that. That was on Normal. I tried this with one ship and failed miserably. My neanderthal brain just could not grasp the concept of changing colour to absorb incoming enemy fire as I tried to avoid everything with very low success rates. I imagine with practice I would be better, but my first play session was definetly a slap into my gun-ho, 'shoot everything!!' face.
Anyways, these games are fun. Instant fun at that. Sometimes I consider the days before storylines and character development to be the true pinnacle in gaming awesomeness, skill and enjoyment. Historically these games almost seem to have been wiped out since the birth of the First Person Shooter. It almost appears that as games have become more technologically advanced and more like movies and books, the industry has tried to shed the skin of old relics regardless of their success and popularity. Thinking about this inspired me to download Raiden 3, a game ported from the PS2 to PC quite awhile ago. It still looks awesome, is very enjoyable and will possibly cause me to have a epileptic fit sometime in the near future.
So long story short, these types of games is the game type (lol) I intend on making sometime in the near future. It is the sort of game I have been wanting to make since the last year of my degree, instead of involving forklifts and tanks. A work-in-progress Alpha is currently on standby as things are sorted out. I would like to implement a more realistic control scheme in the form of keyboard movement and mouse/controller aiming but at this point it is not set in stone. Hopefully something significant can be completed before the end of the year.
Anyways, I decided to give it a go one boring night. Having given it about 10 seconds previously before stopping and continuing my campaign, I can honestly say it is a good bit of fun and shows off the modding capabilities of Blizzard's WarCraft 3 Mk II engine (yes, you know what I mean). The game itself is ... well I wouldn't say it is difficult, but it is definitely not a walk in the park. I had no idea what I was doing but still managed to unlock 3 achievements in one hit. The unlocking of those achievements (big display on screen saying you have unlocked something) are also what got me killed. The video below is this game in action. The player is not very good :S
I will probably return to play it at some point and get the 500,000 point achievement, but only because I enjoyed playing it. Achievement whoring is not something I really like doing in games and I personally think its a cheap method of creating re-playability. But that is something I will rant about for another time. My point is I enjoyed the 'mod' which paid tribute to many a Top Down Side Scroller (or Vertical Scroller) of yesteryear. It is a genre of gaming you rarely see being made anymore, which I find disappointing. I also would like to know why.
Depending on who you talk to, some people may regard these kind of games as mindless. You usually start in a ship that shoots peas and eventually deck yourself out with enough firepower to destroy the universe. Things fly at you, you shoot them and they explode. You also move around. Mindless? Well ... yes to a degree. They can also be incredibly skillful, relying on player reactions and destructive creativity in order to a) simply survive and b) achieve the highest score possible. Some can be so incredibly skill based they can even turn people off. A popular example of this is Ikaruga, a TDSS classic where players can morph between light and dark ship variants to either absorb damage or inflict more upon the same/opposite enemy colours. The following video is of someone playing BOTH players (1+2) in this game.
Yeah ... that. That was on Normal. I tried this with one ship and failed miserably. My neanderthal brain just could not grasp the concept of changing colour to absorb incoming enemy fire as I tried to avoid everything with very low success rates. I imagine with practice I would be better, but my first play session was definetly a slap into my gun-ho, 'shoot everything!!' face.
Anyways, these games are fun. Instant fun at that. Sometimes I consider the days before storylines and character development to be the true pinnacle in gaming awesomeness, skill and enjoyment. Historically these games almost seem to have been wiped out since the birth of the First Person Shooter. It almost appears that as games have become more technologically advanced and more like movies and books, the industry has tried to shed the skin of old relics regardless of their success and popularity. Thinking about this inspired me to download Raiden 3, a game ported from the PS2 to PC quite awhile ago. It still looks awesome, is very enjoyable and will possibly cause me to have a epileptic fit sometime in the near future.
So long story short, these types of games is the game type (lol) I intend on making sometime in the near future. It is the sort of game I have been wanting to make since the last year of my degree, instead of involving forklifts and tanks. A work-in-progress Alpha is currently on standby as things are sorted out. I would like to implement a more realistic control scheme in the form of keyboard movement and mouse/controller aiming but at this point it is not set in stone. Hopefully something significant can be completed before the end of the year.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
I Can D
This is sort of an 'awesome sauce' post, just a bit more wall-of-texty. Hopefully it crits you for at least a trillion.
I have always thought the guys behind Blizzard Game's cinematics do an exceptional job. I am sure they outsource a lot of it to some pwnage CGI company, but if it is actually done in-house, then that's even more impressive. Basically it has always been ahead of its time, even back in the day with the now terrible looking WarCraft 2 intro cinematic.
Nowadays it is no different. Having recently finished the campaign in StarCraft 2, I found the non-ingame cinematics to be quite impressive, just like they were in the recent World of WarCraft games. Especially in Wrath. They are presented well narratively and have a certain visual aesthetic to them that separates them from anything else. Some people even mistook the Arthas in the Wrath introduction before he summons the Frostwymre to be a live action actor!
If there ever was to be a film about either the StarCraft, Diablo or WarCraft universes, it should definitely be digital and at least contributed to by Blizzard's cinematic department.
Nubnubnbuububnnbunbubn!!
I have always thought the guys behind Blizzard Game's cinematics do an exceptional job. I am sure they outsource a lot of it to some pwnage CGI company, but if it is actually done in-house, then that's even more impressive. Basically it has always been ahead of its time, even back in the day with the now terrible looking WarCraft 2 intro cinematic.
Nowadays it is no different. Having recently finished the campaign in StarCraft 2, I found the non-ingame cinematics to be quite impressive, just like they were in the recent World of WarCraft games. Especially in Wrath. They are presented well narratively and have a certain visual aesthetic to them that separates them from anything else. Some people even mistook the Arthas in the Wrath introduction before he summons the Frostwymre to be a live action actor!
If there ever was to be a film about either the StarCraft, Diablo or WarCraft universes, it should definitely be digital and at least contributed to by Blizzard's cinematic department.
Nubnubnbuububnnbunbubn!!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Jabberwocky Bandwagon of Unconcious Elitism
I'm not sure if the title of this post accurately portrays what I am trying to describe, and it is a little too late in the night for me to think properly and try and fix it. Whatever. The topic of this ... well, lets be safe and call it a rant now ... is simply about jumping on the elitist bandwagon of a game that appears to have wide community approval in some way or form.
That probably doesn't make sense, so I will use a few direct examples. Counter-strike. World of Warcraft. Halo. Starcraft.
All big games. All popular titles that many people play. All games that, in my opinion, are incredibly overrated.
Now if this was a forum post and not a personal blog, many a fanboy (or fangirl), without even reading the rest, would by now be hitting the reply button and appear to be fending for their lives in defence of their game they hold in such reverence. I expect I would get the full array of responses from "lol noob U sux" to more elaborate, well structured posts describing how "it is funny that you are obviously new to the game and not very good at it". As this isn't a forum, I'm glad I can completely disregard that step and move on.
So what the hell am I talking about? Besides the fact that I don't even know myself, I am mainly talking about a certain social quality your average gamer seems to exhibit. To describe this as simply as possible, I will break it into 3 steps or 'traits' of exhibition:
Back on topic however, the attitude I described is something I have run into more frequently as time goes by, especially tutoring games related units at QUT. If you were to ever raise the question "What is the best example of RTS design?", you would get a plethora of people demanding that it has and always will be Starcraft. Some of these people haven't even played the game, or if they have, justify their small playing time as priceless experience and proof towards their unconditional justification. They will state that the game is incredibly popular and 'e-sport' level in Korea, so it must be good! If you disagree with them, you simply don't know what you are talking about or don't understand. You would even find that most of these people have played very few, if ANY other RTS games at all. Hence ... bandwagon elitism.
Now I don't dislike Starcraft, or any other games for that matter. Or Blizzard, really. I think hating something that doesn't really affect you, assuming you can avoid it entirely, is stupid. I eagerly await it's sequel but I will freely admit I am not a fanboy. So me using it as an example in this next point has nothing to do with what the game is. This point is the game's unwavering popularity.
Some people like to think the game made it to where it is all on it's own, but I can tell you now, luck and force of will by Blizzard did more than you think. First of all, the timing and theme of the game were perfect. People were just getting into the sci-fi insanity of Total Annihilation and Dark Reign at the time, and releasing a Warcraft-esque version of the style was very appealing for audiences. You can argue that Blizzard stole many an idea from the Warhammer 40k universe (Protoss = Eldar, Terran = Space Marines, Zerg = Tyranid), a universe which had long been established beforehand, but that is a debate best left for someone who actually cares. At the time, Korea was also exploding into the wonderful world of inter-networking and so, in cafes and libraries all over the country, a particular game was necessary to test their now renowned networking capabilities. The game was fun and addictive, so it is quite understandable if a nation feels a certain connection to a game that in a sense, brought them into the light.
Then there is the fact that Blizzard patched the shit out of it. Still a little company at the time, cradling their new moneymaker and listening to the community was a good call in terms of its longevity. Something like over 15 patches, 5-6 of those being major balance changing additions. You show enough dedication and support to something and people will automatically assume that it must be good. The West caught wind of it's Eastern popularity and (slowly) followed. People say it's the best game ever, so more people play it. The rest is familiar territory.
The game did not introduce any revolutionary concepts or mechanics to the genre besides being (nowadays) a well balanced execution of the tried and true formula. It is not the only game out there that requires high levels of player's skill and speed in an RTS format. It just happens to be the most popular. If you were to ask a fanboy "What is it exactly about Starcraft's actual game components that make it successful?", your response would most likely be gameplay elements that exist in all games, both modern and old, that simply don't have the hype and religious fanbase behind them that Starcraft has. You will hear things like "Starcraft, now there's a game!" and have everyone in the room sagely nod their heads and stroke their beards in agreement without questioning it or understanding why...
So I guess my point after all this is that there are things in life that are really quite trivial (such as games) that are revered for qualities that are either overrated or incredibly commonplace. Some of these things (such as games) don't really matter, but should this attitude be expressed towards other aspects of life like religion or politics, then things can and do get out of hand. I guess I would just like people to think for themselves more often than not, instead of simply jumping on the Jabberwocky* Bandwagon of Unconscious Elitism.
Jabberwocky - a term used to describe something that no one really knows what it is, but whom deny ignorance of its true purpose. Also a nonsense poem about a monster by Lewis Carroll in his novel 'Through the Looking-Glass' written in 1872.
That probably doesn't make sense, so I will use a few direct examples. Counter-strike. World of Warcraft. Halo. Starcraft.
All big games. All popular titles that many people play. All games that, in my opinion, are incredibly overrated.
Now if this was a forum post and not a personal blog, many a fanboy (or fangirl), without even reading the rest, would by now be hitting the reply button and appear to be fending for their lives in defence of their game they hold in such reverence. I expect I would get the full array of responses from "lol noob U sux" to more elaborate, well structured posts describing how "it is funny that you are obviously new to the game and not very good at it". As this isn't a forum, I'm glad I can completely disregard that step and move on.
So what the hell am I talking about? Besides the fact that I don't even know myself, I am mainly talking about a certain social quality your average gamer seems to exhibit. To describe this as simply as possible, I will break it into 3 steps or 'traits' of exhibition:
- Realize a game you play or used to play is incredibly popular (for whatever reason)
- Generally pretend or forcibly become knowledgeable on the game in various ways
- Argue that said game is the best of its genre and imply that people who disagree don't know what they are talking about. This can be because of inexperience or the fact that you are simply better at the game than them.
Back on topic however, the attitude I described is something I have run into more frequently as time goes by, especially tutoring games related units at QUT. If you were to ever raise the question "What is the best example of RTS design?", you would get a plethora of people demanding that it has and always will be Starcraft. Some of these people haven't even played the game, or if they have, justify their small playing time as priceless experience and proof towards their unconditional justification. They will state that the game is incredibly popular and 'e-sport' level in Korea, so it must be good! If you disagree with them, you simply don't know what you are talking about or don't understand. You would even find that most of these people have played very few, if ANY other RTS games at all. Hence ... bandwagon elitism.
Now I don't dislike Starcraft, or any other games for that matter. Or Blizzard, really. I think hating something that doesn't really affect you, assuming you can avoid it entirely, is stupid. I eagerly await it's sequel but I will freely admit I am not a fanboy. So me using it as an example in this next point has nothing to do with what the game is. This point is the game's unwavering popularity.
Some people like to think the game made it to where it is all on it's own, but I can tell you now, luck and force of will by Blizzard did more than you think. First of all, the timing and theme of the game were perfect. People were just getting into the sci-fi insanity of Total Annihilation and Dark Reign at the time, and releasing a Warcraft-esque version of the style was very appealing for audiences. You can argue that Blizzard stole many an idea from the Warhammer 40k universe (Protoss = Eldar, Terran = Space Marines, Zerg = Tyranid), a universe which had long been established beforehand, but that is a debate best left for someone who actually cares. At the time, Korea was also exploding into the wonderful world of inter-networking and so, in cafes and libraries all over the country, a particular game was necessary to test their now renowned networking capabilities. The game was fun and addictive, so it is quite understandable if a nation feels a certain connection to a game that in a sense, brought them into the light.
Then there is the fact that Blizzard patched the shit out of it. Still a little company at the time, cradling their new moneymaker and listening to the community was a good call in terms of its longevity. Something like over 15 patches, 5-6 of those being major balance changing additions. You show enough dedication and support to something and people will automatically assume that it must be good. The West caught wind of it's Eastern popularity and (slowly) followed. People say it's the best game ever, so more people play it. The rest is familiar territory.
The game did not introduce any revolutionary concepts or mechanics to the genre besides being (nowadays) a well balanced execution of the tried and true formula. It is not the only game out there that requires high levels of player's skill and speed in an RTS format. It just happens to be the most popular. If you were to ask a fanboy "What is it exactly about Starcraft's actual game components that make it successful?", your response would most likely be gameplay elements that exist in all games, both modern and old, that simply don't have the hype and religious fanbase behind them that Starcraft has. You will hear things like "Starcraft, now there's a game!" and have everyone in the room sagely nod their heads and stroke their beards in agreement without questioning it or understanding why...
So I guess my point after all this is that there are things in life that are really quite trivial (such as games) that are revered for qualities that are either overrated or incredibly commonplace. Some of these things (such as games) don't really matter, but should this attitude be expressed towards other aspects of life like religion or politics, then things can and do get out of hand. I guess I would just like people to think for themselves more often than not, instead of simply jumping on the Jabberwocky* Bandwagon of Unconscious Elitism.
Jabberwocky - a term used to describe something that no one really knows what it is, but whom deny ignorance of its true purpose. Also a nonsense poem about a monster by Lewis Carroll in his novel 'Through the Looking-Glass' written in 1872.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Ultrakill LAN 2010!
Thanks to everyone who came to the recent Ultrakill LAN! While slightly all over the place with people arriving randomly/not at all and indecisiveness on games being played, I still consider it a success. It is good to know that LANs with >10 people are most definitely still possible. The following is a compilation video of some of the footage from the LAN. While it is unfortunately mostly from my PoV (client side demo recording :S), I have not discarded the many embarrassing and comic moments of me either doing something stupid or getting fragged by various people.
This is just a low quality temporary version for the moment. Not going to upload more than 100mb while I am not at uni :). I have a 500mb HQ version if anyone wants a copy themselves. I am considering making a redux version should I spend the time working out some demo recording tools so I can make the video look more awesome, but we will see...
I was hoping for a total number of 12 people and managed to get close to that with 11 at one given point. In any case, it is the largest 'friends only' LAN I have hosted. However, should something like it happen again I might insist we hire out a hall or larger room somewhere instead.
As long as people remember to bring a chair, fold-able or otherwise...
This is just a low quality temporary version for the moment. Not going to upload more than 100mb while I am not at uni :). I have a 500mb HQ version if anyone wants a copy themselves. I am considering making a redux version should I spend the time working out some demo recording tools so I can make the video look more awesome, but we will see...
Official LAN picture (courtesy of Panics):
I was hoping for a total number of 12 people and managed to get close to that with 11 at one given point. In any case, it is the largest 'friends only' LAN I have hosted. However, should something like it happen again I might insist we hire out a hall or larger room somewhere instead.
As long as people remember to bring a chair, fold-able or otherwise...
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
↓ ↘ → ℗
Oh em eff gee! Possibly the greatest video ever:
I will freely admit, playing a Street Fighter game has seriously warped my mind ... but I wouldn't have it any other way. For those wondering wtf they are looking at, just look at the HP bars for the majority of the fights. Some of the moves in this are downright hilarious/ridiculous and definitely epilepsy inducing (something I should be wary of).
If only all of life's problems could be solved by throwing flaming balls of plasma at them, the world would be such a better place ...
I will freely admit, playing a Street Fighter game has seriously warped my mind ... but I wouldn't have it any other way. For those wondering wtf they are looking at, just look at the HP bars for the majority of the fights. Some of the moves in this are downright hilarious/ridiculous and definitely epilepsy inducing (something I should be wary of).
If only all of life's problems could be solved by throwing flaming balls of plasma at them, the world would be such a better place ...
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Something wicked this way comes...
E3 2010 is over. I paid about as much attention to it as I usually do, mainly seeing it as a medium for various technology and games related companies to advertise their mediocre, unoriginal and sometimes terrible products as revolutionary and innovative. While some bits of media did hold my attention to higher than usual degrees, some seemed a little lacklustre and not very well thought out (e.g. Sony's Move and Microsoft's Kinect campaigns).
:S
Certain games have piqued my interest however and are making me think ahead about what I will be doing/playing a year from now. I will be upgrading my PC when Crysis 2 hits shelves, being the benchmark game for the next generation of gaming, but what components should I be looking at? I have recently revisited both GRID and Crysis (the original) on my PC which both ran slightly worse in Windows 7 than they did in XP 2-3 years ago. This makes me think about the performance differences DX11 could have and the graphical horsepower I will need to run games smoothly on a modern OS. Memory wise, 4GBs will be the bare minimum and with at least decent DDR3 speeds and clock rates (all unknown at this point). Quad core or Dual core? Should I try a SLI/Crossfire setup?
These questions all bare a familiarity to me when I made my gaming PC over 3 years ago, a machine that has lasted me to this point (and admittedly still works fine). It will undoubtedly take me into a fourth year (at which point I will retire it), however the hours of research, benchmarks, comparisons and opinions will inevitably take place several months from now. It should be something I look forward to, but at this point in time I see it little more as a bump in the road towards playing more games that do not truly satisfy my gaming needs.
The truth is, although I look forward to certain titles, part of me knows they will just end up on the shelf to my right, collecting dust alongside so many others. They will entertain me for maybe a week or two, some maybe a month, but they will never be what Unreal Tournament, Half-life, Quake 3, Total Annihilation and Red Alert were back in the day. The problem is I know exactly why...
There are too many games. For someone like me with a genuine interest in so many types and genres and the technologies used to create and run them, these games do not hold my interest for any great length of time. I am never 'stuck' with them like I used to be back in the day. There is also the fact that the vast majority of these games are not actually anything new. Oh they may offer some fancy new weapons or gameplay mechanic for killing your foes, but really, when every game does it, it kind of becomes expected lest it fade away amongst the flow of similarly done games.
There is also the fact that many of these games, particularly First Person Shooters, are evolving gameplay features that eventually become hybrids of each other. The 'ironsights' evolution is a classic example. Why does every FPS game need to have ironsights? Aiming a real gun (which I have performed countless times) is so incredibly different then what is portrayed in games it is almost laughable. Especially when using a scope. Unless you are a cyclops, aiming down a rifle in a game does not look or behave anything like it does in reality. So why attempt to emulate this feature again and again? Why burden an already slowing down genre (in terms of game speed) to badly portray this need to aim a rifle like a 'real soldier'?
Cover systems are another thing. It kind of started with the original Gears of War, but it is hard to place with so many other games borrowing the idea. This need to point out, focus and lock players into a messy system of hiding behind conveniently placed chest high walls and peek-a-boo corners is revolting. What happened to simply pressing crouch or even having lean buttons, or better yet, making a player's character actually move fast enough so their pudgy ass doesn't get blown off every time its hanging around a corner? Needing to press a button to sit behind a wall and then behave differently (take less damage, never die, cannot be seen etc) is incredibly unrealistic and something that should be abolished.
To an extent I do know the reason behind these control nerfs that are now seen as 'features' in the industry. Console gaming. But I won't bring up that point again, at least not in this post...
Nevertheless, I will end this post off on a good note. Although I think Rage, Crysis 2 and Bulletstorm will be both less appealing and successful than their respective companies previous franchises/titles, there is still hope for the genre of fighting games and RTS. Mortal Kombat is coming back and looking as gory as ever, and MvC3 is definitely something worth looking forward too. RUSE is also looking quite promising and should add a new take to an aging RTS scene.
Sooner or later, time will tell ...
:S
Certain games have piqued my interest however and are making me think ahead about what I will be doing/playing a year from now. I will be upgrading my PC when Crysis 2 hits shelves, being the benchmark game for the next generation of gaming, but what components should I be looking at? I have recently revisited both GRID and Crysis (the original) on my PC which both ran slightly worse in Windows 7 than they did in XP 2-3 years ago. This makes me think about the performance differences DX11 could have and the graphical horsepower I will need to run games smoothly on a modern OS. Memory wise, 4GBs will be the bare minimum and with at least decent DDR3 speeds and clock rates (all unknown at this point). Quad core or Dual core? Should I try a SLI/Crossfire setup?
These questions all bare a familiarity to me when I made my gaming PC over 3 years ago, a machine that has lasted me to this point (and admittedly still works fine). It will undoubtedly take me into a fourth year (at which point I will retire it), however the hours of research, benchmarks, comparisons and opinions will inevitably take place several months from now. It should be something I look forward to, but at this point in time I see it little more as a bump in the road towards playing more games that do not truly satisfy my gaming needs.
The truth is, although I look forward to certain titles, part of me knows they will just end up on the shelf to my right, collecting dust alongside so many others. They will entertain me for maybe a week or two, some maybe a month, but they will never be what Unreal Tournament, Half-life, Quake 3, Total Annihilation and Red Alert were back in the day. The problem is I know exactly why...
There are too many games. For someone like me with a genuine interest in so many types and genres and the technologies used to create and run them, these games do not hold my interest for any great length of time. I am never 'stuck' with them like I used to be back in the day. There is also the fact that the vast majority of these games are not actually anything new. Oh they may offer some fancy new weapons or gameplay mechanic for killing your foes, but really, when every game does it, it kind of becomes expected lest it fade away amongst the flow of similarly done games.
There is also the fact that many of these games, particularly First Person Shooters, are evolving gameplay features that eventually become hybrids of each other. The 'ironsights' evolution is a classic example. Why does every FPS game need to have ironsights? Aiming a real gun (which I have performed countless times) is so incredibly different then what is portrayed in games it is almost laughable. Especially when using a scope. Unless you are a cyclops, aiming down a rifle in a game does not look or behave anything like it does in reality. So why attempt to emulate this feature again and again? Why burden an already slowing down genre (in terms of game speed) to badly portray this need to aim a rifle like a 'real soldier'?
Cover systems are another thing. It kind of started with the original Gears of War, but it is hard to place with so many other games borrowing the idea. This need to point out, focus and lock players into a messy system of hiding behind conveniently placed chest high walls and peek-a-boo corners is revolting. What happened to simply pressing crouch or even having lean buttons, or better yet, making a player's character actually move fast enough so their pudgy ass doesn't get blown off every time its hanging around a corner? Needing to press a button to sit behind a wall and then behave differently (take less damage, never die, cannot be seen etc) is incredibly unrealistic and something that should be abolished.
To an extent I do know the reason behind these control nerfs that are now seen as 'features' in the industry. Console gaming. But I won't bring up that point again, at least not in this post...
Nevertheless, I will end this post off on a good note. Although I think Rage, Crysis 2 and Bulletstorm will be both less appealing and successful than their respective companies previous franchises/titles, there is still hope for the genre of fighting games and RTS. Mortal Kombat is coming back and looking as gory as ever, and MvC3 is definitely something worth looking forward too. RUSE is also looking quite promising and should add a new take to an aging RTS scene.
Sooner or later, time will tell ...
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tinman Vs Hotpies - The Ultimate Showdown
A few days ago one of my old housemates and I tried SSFIV online for the first time. The following is probably one of our better replays (close fights, not so terrible combos, Ultras etc...).
On that note I also recently purchased a Blackmagic Intensity Pro for the purpose of recording HDMI and component video from various sources. It is still not working 100% however, but it is currently better than my previous setup.
On that note I also recently purchased a Blackmagic Intensity Pro for the purpose of recording HDMI and component video from various sources. It is still not working 100% however, but it is currently better than my previous setup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)