So here's the deal,

I was recently fortunate enough to stumble upon a failing Rogers Video that was selling its used and rented games at three for one. Ever the opportunist, I dashed in to get my grubby meat hooks on whatever scraps they had left. Seriously, I would have been happy with Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games.

But to my great surprise, I did not find Masatog on the used shelf or indeed any shelf in the store. I instead found three games that were actually worth some form of currency. For the incredible price of $40 Canadian, which for you plebes in America is about $40.40, I picked up Deus Ex basically new, as well as Bayonetta and Enslaved.

After almost literally skipping home, I slipped into the world of augments and magic sunglasses. (small sidenote, couldn't you just aug sun protection into his eyes? Anyway...) I played Deus Ex for about a week and was delighted by not only the gameplay, but the plagiarism contained within. Yes, that's the Mass Effect soundtrack you hear, which is actually the Bladerunner soundtrack. Funny how that works. Oh and in yet another effort to completely ruin the flow of this article, there's a riff in the Bastion soundtrack - which is awesome - that is 95% identical to one in Firefly, brownie points to anyone who can name the scene or at least episode it's in.



Anyway, where was I? Yes, Deus Ex. The game kept me playing for about a week and a half before I stopped coming back. This wasn't because it wasn't fun, it was, immensely. And it wasn't because it was ugly or hard to play, neither are true. I stopped coming back because the story got dull.

Now realizing that kinda shocked me. I've always waffled on the gameplay/story issue, but I never thought a lack-lustre story could keep me from coming back to a game that was genuinely entertaining to play.

Here's the catch though, this wasn't a affirmative act on the part of the game. It's not like this story actively disappointed me and I stopped playing out of spite or something, the story just completely lost its ability to intrigue me. I had stopped caring - which, if you're Om Nom initiated, is a thing that is important - so I stopped playing.

I've written and scrapped many a thousand word blog on this subject, but the long and short of it is, to be good, a game has to make you care. Doesn't matter if you care about the story, the competition between you and your friends, the characters, the challenge, whatever, if you care, you will come back.



And this is why I think people (at one time myself included) get all up in arms when the importance of story in games is attacked. A good story is not in any sense of the word necessary, or even comparatively important. Making the player care is what counts, and a good story just happens to one of the most effective, and therefore common ways to achieve that.

It can be done through gameplay just as easily, with games like Geo Wars standing as perfect examples. There's not a whiff of story or plot to be found in that game, yet people care because it's fun as shit, and because they can compete with their friends. I say "they" because I'm completely noncompetitive, never broken 250k. Knutaf's done something inhuman like 4 million or somewhere in that area, and he can do that because the gameplay and leaderboards made him care about his performance.

So the next time you're getting served by some rube in a flame war over why story is more important than gameplay is more important than characters, realize you're all arguing the same point, you just the game to give you something you can care about.

~Om nom nom nom...

PS I know this is literally a month late at this point, but I had an incredible time with you all at PAX. I met more awesome people than I could count, and it was largely because of you that that weekend was absolutely everything I wanted it to be. Next year's mission: bring camera to capture love-in.

So here's the deal,

There was a story today on the blog roll that talked about how BF3 (the release of which will not be a happy time for the pair of pants I happen to be wearing that day) will most likely contain a pay pass a la Cerberus Network that basically makes you pay for access to a bunch of content if you bought the game used that you'd get for free if you bought it new. Now I'm used to the normal Dtoid haters who unflinching in their defense of the financially less endowed gamer, but this in particular was a little shocking. Dtoider Jamie Christian even takes this as an indication that all hope is lost for the gaming industry. Of course (s)he's being hyperbolic, but the sentiment's there.

I personally have no problem with pay passes such as this, and I can't understand why everyone seems to. It's actually a pretty spoiled attitude in my opinion; sure, if CoD introduced a monthly subscription fee or something like that for access to online play, that would be bullshit, but asking for like five bucks to recover the total loss of sales revenue from a giant portion of games retail doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.


This poor soul was the first google image result for unshowered rube

Now I know what you're saying, "Om Nom, you unshowered rube, no other sales industry in the world capitalizes on unofficial second-hand exchanges." And that's true, but here's why this is such a reasonable request to me: 99% of aaaaaall other retail items depreciate with time, and their function almost certainly has become impaired if you got a given product at any significant cut rate. A video game, as long as its previous owner had the distinct pleasure of not being a razor-handed ass hat, won't really have its function impaired by age; when you buy Vieutiful Joe used for $5, you're getting the exact same experience as the "sucker" who bought it at full price like eight years ago.

Now if we're partaking in an industry that can provide that kind of longevity in its products, what exactly is the disadvantage to them charging an, let's be real here, insignificant amount to ensure that the ridiculous sustainability of their products shows some marginal return for them?

I totally understand that a lot of people can't afford to buy new games, hell, I'm one of them, but to expect to receive everything a company's product has to offer without that company receiving compensation for it is completely unreasonable. No, you're not stealing from EA by buying BF3 used, but that's a sale they would have gotten if you had bought it new that they're now missing out on.



And let's be realistic, it's not like John Riccitiello is gonna take the $5 to $10 you'll pay him for that pass and fuck off to Cabo for an extra long holiday, he's gonna reinvest a good chunk of it so that EA can continue to develop and publish games that you'll want to play eight years from now. And unless we've all forgotten the massive elephant in the room, giving developers and publishers more money for excellent content is definitely not on a list of things I hate when it's far more efficient for them to produce facebook or mobile games at a fraction of the cost.

Now here's what really gets me: it's not like you're getting some withered shell of a game when you buy one used; you're getting a game, in BF3's case, that will already provide you with what is likely to be a stellar single player experience, all you need to do to enjoy the online play is pay, let's be really pessimistic, let's say 10 bucks. Now if you're like the average shooter nut and are gonna devote a good 30+ hours online, you're getting that enjoyment for 30-ish cents an hour, that's a penny every two minutes, and if you don't think your online time is worth thirty cents a minute -here's the good part - you don't have to buy the pass. If you truly don't believe that pay passes should exist, have some integrity, vote with your wallet, and don't buy it. But then don't go bitching around the comment sections and threads of the internet wining about how EA is ruining gaming by charging you less than two quarters an hour for some killer online gameplay, and you chose not to be a part of it when you could have skipped the McDonald's lunch break, made food for yourself at home, and had enough or just less than enough money for your pass depending on how many double cheeseburgers you can drive into your face hole.

~ Om nom nom nom...

So here's the deal,

I've recently been perusing the PA forums in MASSIVE anticipation of PAX, which I recently found out I'd be able to attend. Now when I get into communities, it doesn't take me long to get that magical, omnipresent nerd-community feel back, no matter how long I've been away, and no matter which community it is, you know the one I'm talking about. And every time this happens, I'm reminded of the endless fun I had in the first one I really dedicated myself to: This one.

So to all who made my first year and a half here incontestably amazing, and you know who you are, I'm sorry I've been absent and lazy and away from FNF for the past several months, and I cannot wait to see each and every one of you that I can at PAX or the next NARP where that's possible. Oh and I should start blogging and FNF-ing again soon, I just gotta get like a 40 ft long ethernet cable for Mr. Xbox.

And to all those here and who will be attending the show or FNFs or just write here who I have yet to make best friends with, as I'm positive is the inevitable result of our relationship, I say "Hi, I'm Om Nom, here's a hero cookie, you probably deserve it."

~ Om nom nom nom...

Oh and PS, this is for you

So here's the deal,



Tragically, Om Nom's usually bright, erudite demeanor has taken a beating today, a savage beating. Something very unfortunate thing happened, in fact, it was more like a series of unfortunate somethings.

First I checked the PAX site to find that 3 day passes sold out while I awaited the visa that would allow me to buy mine, that's the first and main bummer.

Second, I found out the media registration requirements had been made more strict, all but denying me the one I thought I could get.

Third I found out that not only are the three individual day passes I planned to replace the three-day pass with way more expensive, but passes for Saturday, surely to be the best day, were sold out as well. I hve no doubt that the other two days are sure to sell out quickly too

Now here's where you come in, if you could be so immensely kind.

I know this is a long shot, but if by some miracle anyone has a three day pass they're not using for PAX, or knows someone that does, I would massively appreciate the opportunity to buy it, and would be more than willing to pay above sticker price for it.

Alternatively, I happen to live in the Vancouver area, and could cover all of my own expenses should any of you with a gaming blog lack someone to cover the show, and want a freelancer. For this part, I don't expect anyone to just take me on faith, and would gladly produce writing samples to convince you of my expertise.

For those of you who don't want to hear the sob story behind this request, I will COMPLETELY understand if you stop reading now, because that's all that comes after the period at the end of this sentence

Now, I'm not one to milk, but I feel like if you guys are able to do me either of the favours I asked above, I owe you an explanation. The reason I'm writing this is because for the first time, I've kinda seen this whole vidja gaems journalism thang as a viable career. I'm also a massive penny arcade fan, but have been unable to attend the show for one reason or another ever since I was making enough money to afford the trip.

PAX 2011 was primarily supposed to be an opportunity to meet an inspiration of mine, Jerry Holkins, but also to do a significant amount of networking to help that journalism career. And if the show is scheduled with any sense of intelligence, it looks like that's probably not gonna be a possibility. I would go into more detail about how much this sucks, but I'm looking to pander as little as possible here.

I know it's pretty selfish to ask for this kind of thing when there are thousands of people that won't be able to attend at all, but if anyone can help me out at all, it would be hugely appreciated.

~ Om nom nom nom...

So here's the deal,

I was thinking about how I'm gonna deal with my kids today, and aside from deciding to be the lightly teasing, gently cuff you upside the head and call you an idiot but in a way that magically makes you laugh kinda dad, I came to a decision on the kind of games I'll let them play, at least as long as I'm able to reasonably make those decisions for them.

This is actually a somewhat personal issue... actually "issue" is a little alarmist than I tend to enjoy, let's call it a subject. Anyway, anal correctness aside, my parents pretty much kept me away from anything even resembling graphic video game violence until and often past the recommended age limits, that is until I figured out I didn't have to actually tell them what I was buying. Parsed that one all by myself.

The point is, they kept me away from the guns and the punching and the baby-stomping, insane-going, non-face-showing anti-Christs for fear that I would myself become a murdering, raping, pillaging psychopath, but I think they went at it the wrong way.


4th Google Image result for raping pilllaging psychopath

I'll give you an example. If little Om Nom plays, let's use the example from before, Dead Space, he learns that shooting and punching and kicking and stomping people is not. a good. thing. Little Om Nom would see and hear lots of squirting and gushing blood, not to mention gut churning death wails. Now call me crazy, but I don't know a lot of kids who would see that kind of consequence as a good thing.

Let's contrast that with, oooh I don't know, the Monster's Inc game that little Om Nom was actually allowed to play. When he sees the big hulking blue fur monster put his entire weight behind blow after bone jarring blow as he beats the evil monsters to what would normally be a bloody pulp, little Om Nom is greeted not with a realistic or even exaggerated portrayal of violence, but a softened toned down version. The monsters that aren't trying to help you pop into little confetti addled puffs of smoke, accompanied by sickeningly adorable sound effects like an AWOOOOOGA.

Now, I may be perfectly insane here, but I would much rather my kids play games that have real representations of violence than softened ones. I don't want little Om Nom junior thinking that every time his sister even mildly pisses him off that he can take a swing at her and nothing will happen but a poof of confetti and the sound of a turn of the century car horn.



There is of course the issue of the glorification of violence, and that's something I will tend to avoid. I completely accept the ubiquity of violence in video games, but I think I'll keep the little critters away from games like Gears until they're old enough to not be super impressionable.

I'm actually interested in this little issue (for the sake of that sentence, I'd love it if you said it iss-yew), and because I'm a man of a mere 19 winters, and many years away from kids of my own, I'd like to know how some real bonified gaming parents have handled this issue, and why.

~Om nom nom nom...

So here's the deal,

It's vacation tiiiiiiiiiime, YAY! And we all know what that means, the return of an inconsequential Dtoid community blogger, EXCELSIOR!

But yeah, school's finished, and not having to expend my writing juices on that has left more than enough to reinvigorate the old destructoid fingers. Hopefully all the friendly faces I remember will still be here, and will also be attending PAX, which I hope to see all of you at; it'll be my first Dtoid meetup, and I couldn't be more pumped.

But you didn't come here to read nostalgic ramblings from some dapper skeleton, you came because that mildly suspenseful title caught you at an especially bored time, and you had a what the hell moment.

(as a small aside, if you were looking for a sense of how out of my mind school and corectness is, I spelled that skeleton up there with a 'c' the first time around. Yeah, I know)



What I've kinda picked up on, and I could be months behind on this, is that actual consequences are starting to make there way into a couple games here and there, and it's something I'd love to see continue. Oh and don't think I haven't come prepared with my own suggestions for the thousands of industry buffs who read this blog with baited breat. WACHYOO NO 'BOUT INSIGHT?!?!?

The obvious example would be ME2. At the end of the game, if you didn't know your teams abilities and strengths well enough, chances are some of them were gonna die.

And now LA Noir claims that the players will have significantly different experiences based on the choices they make. If you don't go into an effective line of questioning, misread a subject, overlook clues, arrest the wrong person, your path will deviate. Essentially, you'll have to deal with your mistakes.

Now I am well aware of the fact that two games in no way constitutes a trend, and there are many other examples, but I chose those two because they're concrete, popular examples, and mentioning little known games and thinking I'm smart because of it is a little more hipster than I like in my iced mocha blog-uccino. Oh, and I don't really know of any little-known games. There's that too.



The reason I think this happened is because, for the entirety of games history, our generally accepted consequence isn't. The "game over" is an inconvenience, a time warp back and a cause of many shattered gamey things. (Par example, In a fit of CoD age, my roommate somehow managed to pop the rumble weight out of the 360 controller, have it return to its normal shape, and display little evidence of the preceding excretion . And that's a mild example, at least he's not this guy)

Permanent consequences for failure give a player's actions and choices weight, and force them to actually act rationally. To some degree it takes away the ability to say fuck it, it's a game, and forces though before choice. And if the consequences are serious enough, like in ME2, it can actually help to make a player care, and to me, that's a game's top priority. It could be about the protagonist's cause, it could be about a fucking annoying winged ball of blue light that won't shut the fuck up, but a game must make the player care. It also means that the "inconvenience" you get out of failure is more unique game time.

This could also be introduced to the achievement system as well. Maybe some achievements can only be attempted once, and if you don't get it, and here's the insane part, you can't ever get it. Then they would actually be a measure of a player's skill, in stead of the amount of time they're able to burn on any single game, and offline achievements could be more than milestones in the story.



Of course there's the issue of mediation; a player shouldn't be able to screw up their game to the point of unplayability. And I'm not reductive enough to say that this is the end all be all, and the only place that games can go, but it's definitely something I'd like to see more of, thoughts?

~ Om nom nom nom...