(I need to stop writing things and then not putting them up)



One complaint that I’ve been hearing a lot from my friends/random internet sites is the complete and utter lack of new IP announced at E3 this year. You know what, that’s a valid criticism, I too would like to see some new IP; after all, if nobody risked releasing new games, we wouldn’t have new games to fall in love with. And then I see the mountain of “Dear company, plz remake X game I loved as a child” posts and comments, and I start to lose my faith in the gaming community.

Portable fanboyism (aka personal preference)

This year (as I bullet pointed), Nintendo came out and said “Here are a bunch of new versions of old games you’ve already played”, only in a much more awkward speech given by a man much more intimidating than me. To the people that wanted those games, this was the greatest announcement ever, spawning tears of joy as the wept in happiness that the 2nd brother was getting his 2nd game in the spotlight. To the people that are done with Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Mario platformers, and Star Fox games, it was another “Nintendo is for kids” moment.

Similarly, the selling point for some of my friends on the PS Vita (whether they want to admit it or not) isn’t necessarily the back touch screen the potential, it was that the PS Vita will be able to play the games they want to play- another Uncharted, Mod-nation, and Little Big Planet, potential future Kingdom Hearts, and the PSP Persona games; all of which are sequels and spinoffs.



Now I’m not saying any of those games are bad, they’re all fun in their own right, but if you’re going to say that the 3DS lineup (price and functionality are a WHOLE different ballgame that deserve their own analysis) is a failure because it doesn’t take any risks with a new IP, then I’m expecting you to say the same thing about the PS Vita. Let’s face it, they both played the fan-card, and it will probably work out well for both of them because...


Everyone Likes their Comfort Zone

Due to a variety of occurrences including a recent global economic downturn, the videogame industry over the last few years was hit with quite a bit of layoffs. Sure, there is always studios closing and personnel getting shuffled around, but it seemed that more and more studios were facing extinction and this made the business side of the industry turn to a very tried and true method of selling a product- Milk it for all it’s worth.



Instead of burning the time and money on trying out new IP, companies decided to play it safe and just keep giving out re-releases, remasters,Turbo HD remixes, and decades later sequels to games that were already proven to sell. And it worked wonderfully, so naturally, they kept doing it, and they’re probably going to keep on doing it because it’s cheap, it’s easy, and we (the customers) still eat it up.

The Little Guys

While the “bigger” industry was busy sticking to their guns, this allowed for a lot of small indie underdogs to really be the place to go for gamers (and companies) to find new IP. Instead of having an internal team do most of the heavy lifting, it’s easier to let an indie team make a game, then buy them/the publishing rights, add some polish and tweaks, and ship it. When I think about some of the newest IP I’ve played, I think of Super Meat Boy, Shank, the Bit.Trip series, and Minecraft. Surprisingly all indie, all certainly fun, and all of them original.

But is this necessarily a good thing? Do we want an industry that is going to shut itself and stick with traditional names while leaving all the creativity and medium progression to the guys without the money to do it? Do we want the true evolution of videogames to come from people who are having to work themselves to the bones on what is nothing more than a CHANCE at success? Are we really happy with games that have nothing to do with the franchise they’re names are attached to succeed (Prey 2 I’m looking at you), or do we want our game companies to take some risks to win us back?



E3 didn’t bring up these questions to the people that matter. E3 told the major companies exactly what they expected, give us Sly Cooper, Halo, and Smash Bros and we’ll run along. We’ll bitch the whole way about not wanting to buy the same game again, but we’ll do it anyway. Now if only I had a job and could afford to buy a 3DS when I picked up Ocarina of Time, I wouldn't have written this.

So E3 is going on, and all the major press conferences have just wrapped up, and I felt like screaming my opinions out to the world because that’s what people do right? Awwwww, here it GOES!



Microsoft

I want to get this out of the way first- I, like many of you, think showing off Kinect was boring . I saw the Star wars fail, the rail...everything lag, and the fake enthusiasm from the paid actors made me cringe.

That being said, I hate to defend it, but from a business standpoint- Microsoft showing off Kinect makes perfect sense. They HAD to come out and justify the purchase of a system (let’s face it, it has more in common with a console launch than a peripheral one) to the people who have it sans-kids and are already bored of Dance Central. They had to tell the hardcore of you that there is more to it than just cool tech that other people hack onto it and 1 game. They had to pound it into your head that Kinect is going to have games that are “hardcore” like Star Wars, Ghost Recon, and Fable. The choice was made for them from the getgo- talk about Kinect to justify the people who purchased it, and to try to get more people to pick it up.

Unfortunately, I was not pleased pretty much from the start.



-I’m in the strange boat of people who isn’t big on realistic war shooters, so the first massive chunk dedicated to Modern Warfare bored me.

-Tomb Raider looked cool, and I was a fan of the sexy Lara moans while playing Uncharted except surrounded by pirates thing they had going on.

-Sports I don’t really care about in virtual form.

-Mass Effect had the voice integration that I’m torn:
---On one hand, being able to yell commands to your AI squad-mates during combat is pretty awesome.
---On the other hand, reading dialogue in your voice and then hearing a similar line from a voice actor is probably going to be pretty jarring and awkward.

-Ghost Recon’s gunsmith stuff was cool, but when he actually used Kinect to fire his weapon, you can see the lag and the awkwardness of it all and it was pretty boring and frustrating looking. I can’t imagine being in a firefight and having the trigger pull at the wrong time, or trying to be stealthy and accidentally shooting.

-New Xbox Dash makes sense- they’re trying to do the whole windows 8 thing look the same so I can’t blame them for that.

-Youtube is cool, but I already have way too many ways to access it on other devices.

-Bing makes sense from their standpoint, but I can’t see myself using it ever.

-UFC came on stage, and all I could think about was this

-Gears was nice, but some of the building breaking animations were awkward (as usual), but I feel like if you’re buying it, you already know you are and don’t need another demo.

-Ryse got a meh from me, again because it’s kinect, but also because it’s probably going to try to be serious but fail at it.

-I’ve never been a big fan of Halo, I don’t think it’s a BAD game, just not a game I enjoy, so I guess the remakes are cool, but nobody can do fan-service like Nintendo.

-Forza actually perked my ears a bit. The models looked absolutely stunning, running at over a million polys a piece, and all having the doors/trunks open was a crazy nice touch. The kinect stuff....MEH, but the game itself looked neato.

-Fable on Rails....it looked unresponsive.
-Minecraft was a neat touch, but they really skimmed over it. It’s probably what got the internet most excited, and they glossed over it almost completely.

-The Disney park was a nice touch for the kids, but I also feel like just about everything they showed was for the kids.

-Star Wars looked broken. He’d make movements and not have anything happen, and he’d flail around and almost auto-win. Not a strong showing, and movement looked...I don’t know what movement looked like but there was a lot of dashing.

-Tim Schafer I like not necessarily because of the product he was pushing, but because he didn’t try to make it seem like it’s anything other than it is. It’s a kid’s game through and through- no hyper bro fist bumps to try to make it seem cool.

-The tech stuff was pretty nifty, but I felt like a lot of the community/hax had already done cooler things with the tech. Although I will admit that it’s nice to start seeing some of those toys make their way to consumers. Also, FACE TRACKING FINALLY.

-When I saw Kinect Sports 2, I actually yelled at my TV- “THIS is what you force the studio that made Donkey Kong Country, Banjo Kazooie, and Conker’s Bad Fur Day do!” I loved Rare, but they have fallen.

-Dance Central 2 simultaneous play was cool. A nice natural progression, but I don’t think they’ll release 3 anytime soon.

-Halo 4- Meh. I’m sure a lot of you guys are upset that it’s not Bungie, but I’m sure it’ll be more of the same, only with less polish until the 2nd game of the new trilogy.

If you want a grade score (because that seems to be the cool thing to do) I’m gonna give them a C. It wasn't exactly terrible since it had a few things to interest me like Forza and the neato tech stuff, but it wasn't exactly great either. AVERAGE.




EA

EA had a pretty solid showing. I was bored in some parts, excited for others, but I still get the nagging feeling that sometimes they don’t know what they’re doing for some games. For example, I like kooky racing games, but I don’t know if letting you run around on foot in Need for Speed: The Run is a good idea. “Open World” games can’t work when the main plot of the game is that you’re being very heavily hunted by underground crime syndicates. I like the idea of the plot though, and I hope the running is far outweighed by the driving. I also hope you can’t GTA snatch someone’s car, because then every pedestrian is probably gonna have $50k+ vehicles which will make no sense (hey guy, I’m jacking you’re Audi R8. THANKS!)

As for Star Wars, although they have shown gameplay, they seem to be very shy about it and instead spend most of their time showing off their stunning cutscenes. That’s cool and all, but cutscenes aren’t gonna sell your game. It didn’t work for Final Fantasy, it won’t work for Star Wars.

OverStrike I am excited for. One of my friends pointed out that the trailer was very “TF2 Meet The”-esq, but I don’t mind that. I think they hit the humor right on, and I’m glad that more and more studios are willing to add flare to realism instead of trying to make everything super realistic or leaving the visual appeal to shaders and post processing. Of course, I was a bit reminded of Mass Effect, but there’s really nothing you can do to avoid comparisons when you’re making a squad shooter at this day and age. Besides, everything is just a Doom ripoff anyway.

SSX looks fun, Fifa appears to be doing the Modern Warfare pay-thing for free, Sims Social is Forever Alone, and Battlefield 3 looks phenomenal, but not my cup of tea so no-thank-you. Verdict- C+ For having some games I’m interested in, but confusing/boring me the rest of the time. At least they didn’t over-promise anything.

Ubisoft

Now I REALLY need to hand out some respect to Ubisoft. I don’t think any other company spent as much time as they did actually playing the games. Their formula appeared to be “show trailer->play game for 10 min->repeat”, and even if you didn’t like some of the games, at least you got your fill of the ones you did. They did a great job of showing off some variety, but I think that scared away more people than it brought in.

On a side-note- am I the only one who wants the “old school version” games they were showing? those were really badass.



-Rayman Origins looked great, really nice to see big publishers work on a very traditional 2D platformer.

-Driver San Fransisco was cool- it reminded me a lot of Midtown Madness in a good way.

-Far Cry 3 may have had some people excited, but it looked very “generic action fps” to me. The textures looked a bit sloppy, and the environment didn’t seem up to par with some of the stuff we’ve been seeing recently from heavy hitters like Battlefield and Uncharted.

-I’ve had enough discussions on this to last me a lifetime, but I don’t like Tarantino, so I’m not a fan of Inglorious Basterds, so Brothers in Arms looked kind of dumb to me. If you guys really want (which you don’t) I’ll write a Flixist post about my Tarantino hate, but for now- my opinions are my own.

-TinTin looked neat. I’m not even a little bit familiar with ANYTHING to do with TinTin, so just from a completely neutral perspective I was intrigued by the “golly gee mister” feel to it, as well as the fact that I am 100% behind any game that lets you control you’re cool pet quadruped.

-Ghost Recon as a game looked ok. I wasn’t too sold on it, but the tactical part looked acceptable.The HUD however, was sextacular. I don’t know what it is about the clean text floating in the middle of the level, but it looked really cool and I was totally a fan of having that kind of HUD/UI in any game I play.
Didn’t Battlefield try the “free online game” thing and that didn’t work out so hot? Maybe Tom Clancy will fare better, but I doubt it.

-Trackmania looked pretty boss. I’m not a huge fan of Trackmania, but I do like to pick it up and play for a few seconds just to watch cars fly around doing crazy physics shit. All in all, I’m sure the fans of it will love this, but I still think the series will remain a cult classic.

-Rabbids....ugh. I mean I get that it’s cool to have Kinect Party games, but it’s not even remotely interesting to me. Thank them though for removing the little bastards from the Rayman series.

-Just Dance = cool story bro. It’ll probably still outsell Dance Central (just because of it’s reach and previous install base) but much like games with plastic instruments, teenagers and above will prefer the Harmonix version.

-Rocksmith- people already tried this, and they had a lot of actual guitarists behind it, but it didn’t sell or work. Playing a real guitar is a skill that you cannot directly replicate on a game- it’s too complex, so stop trying.

-Assassin’s Creed was an excellent choice for a closer. Nice CGI trailer, and a cool long demo sequence. Although I will admit, I’m getting a little disheartened at their willingness to very quickly pump out new games every year, and I hope they stop and slow up the pace before they burn out the franchise too quickly.


Overall, I give Ubisoft a B for showing a lot of stuff that looked cool, and for taking to the time to actually play most of their games instead of just teasing them.

Sony

Much like Microsoft, I have to defend Sony’s decision to push 3D HARD. I don’t like it, I personally think 3D is not the way of the future, but Sony is so heavily invested in 3D (from the TVs they manufacture, to the projectors they convince theaters to use, and the cameras they give studios to film with), that they really have to put all their faith and money in forcing 3D to be the future. It’s too late for them to back-out and say “JK guys, 3D really is bad and the consumers don’t want it” this deep into the investment, especially after riding the high of their BluRay success over HD-DVD.

I don’t like it, I don’t think a lot of people think it’s necessary, but it’s sort of what they do now. The good news is, it’s not completely forced. I imagine most of you just see it as a “cool that it’s there, maybe one day I’ll use it, but if not- no big deal” kind of thing, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but Sony seems really intent on changing that attitude to get people to actively use their 3D....and at least for me- it’s not working.

Out of all the big 3, Sony imo had the best shot to come out and “wow” everyone. After the huge PSN fiasco, they had an opportunity to come out and say “look, we goof’d, but we love you and need you to move on, and here’s what we’re gonna do for you to bring you back”. Unfortunately, I felt like the tone of their presentation was more along the lines of “yeah we messed up, but oh well what’re you gonna do? Anyway, here’s how awesome WE are with all this cool neato 3D you don’t want, and here’s a game coming out tomorrow”. I honestly don’t think Sony knows it’s audience, I feel there is a huge disconnect between what they think people want, and what people actually want. Luckily, they’ve done such a good job in the past, that people are willing to let them get away with murder, but I guess you have to be doing something right to get that many people completely convinced you’re doing it right.



As for the Vita, I really like the hardware, and unlike the 3DS, I feel like $250 is a great price for it, but I don’t want any of the games except for Uncharted. Even digging into the old PSP library- I’d get Locoroco, Patapon, and Kenka Banchou: Badass Rumble. So that’s 1 new and 3 old games + 250 for entry. I’ll pass for now. And no don’t try to recommend Little Big Planet or ModNation racers- I’m not big on creating content, Modnation is too loose for me to like, and Little Big Planet is shitty as a platformer (which happens to be my favorite genre).

-I kind of agree with Jim Sterling- the apology was kind of weak, but I at least respect that they started with it very frankly.

-Cinemanow? don’t care.

-The Uncharted stuff was really sharp. I liked the waves, and I’m almost 100% sure that the boat is actually moving at those wave angles in engine, no camera/environment tricks- Naughty Dog likes to keep it real. I do like this game, and that’s not a bad way to hook people.

-Resistance 3 doesn’t speak to me so much. I forget who I heard say it, but nobody is going to want to come into the Resistance franchise this late. But, (my friend Harry brought up an excellent point), Resistance is Sony’s Gears of War. Sure the people want it already know they’re going to get it, but Sony still has to show it at a huge event like this.

-HD Remakes are always a plus, points for fanservice for doing God of War and the team ICO games.

-The $500 TV thing was dumb. Theoretically- any 3D TV should be able to do that. Also- it’s half a grand for 24 inches? It’s almost as if they’re demanding rich fratboys to take it out of their trust fund. I don’t want to sit that close to someone wearing goofy 3D glasses, sure it’s a neat concept, but you can’t pretend it’s affordable and tell me 5 hundo is worth it for some glasses, 24 inches, and an HDMI cable.

-NBA 2K12 Move control was a joke. The guy treated Kobe like an asshole, Kobe had no idea what he was doing, and the whole “it’s so easy anyone can do it” thing doesn’t work when nobody actually manages to do anything.

-Dead Man’s Quest was cool, but was he only using the pointer? Was it on rails or free roam? Either way, a neat game.

-I’m with the public on this- Why show Imfamous 2 when it comes out the next day? you’re here to win your fans back and gain new ones in the future, not sell them something they’ve seen enough of and can get tomorrow.

-Starhawk looked...meh. It all felt really confusing and too much “YOU CAN FIGHT WITH ANYTHANG!”. Spoiler alert- I like focus in my games.

-Sly Cooper was a good move. 3D platformers are few and far between nowadays, it’s nice to see one come back.

-Dust 514 is dumb for 1 reason- it means you have to play with people who like EVE online. If you like flying around galaxies crunching numbers and pretending to live in the space age, then good for you, but I don’t want to be in a situation where those people are trying to “hire me” to fight their wars.

-Bioshock Infinite is cool, but it’s not gonna sell me on a PS3. Also, as much as I respect Ken Levine, and LOVE him for coming out and not doing the bullshit prepared hype speeches, I don’t think you can convince me to use move to play a game when you say “we don’t know how to use it yet fully”. I truly appreciate the honesty, and I will not be looking to play that game with Move, but am excited to see a game you design around Move.

-The next part was “games have PS3 exclusive content lol” but I’m seriously not buying that bullshit. Within a month or two, all of the major games will probably have the content on all sites, and playing it “first” isn’t going to influence me to get it on PS3. I want to play the game to enjoy all of it, and if the same content goes everywhere, you have to convince me to play it on PS3 by other ways than saying “FIRST!!!1!”

-Vita on AT&T? I’ll let the audible groans do the talking on that one.

-Uncharted was neat, and the pricing is fair, but did anyone catch the Rune guy not actually continue on the PS3 where he left off? They were totally like “Check out this cool feature” and then the feature didn’t work even a little.

-Cole on StreetFighter X Tekken was cool fighting game fans love that stuff.

-And a ton of games none of which I personally care about.

So unlike the other conferences, Sony didn’t exactly go out with 1 huge bang. I give them a C+, sure you showed off some cool stuff, and the Vita is neat, but I’m not into any of your games, and I personally sensed an air of smugness that I did not like.

Nintendo

If there’s one thing Nintendo is good at year after year, it’s fanservice. They ALWAYS will show you at least 1 or 2 things you’ve seen before, but with a shiny new coat. This isn’t nessecarly a bad thing, but that opinion is up to you. I’m personally getting a little tired of it, but I can understand why people hoop and holler everytime they say “Luigi’s Mansion, Super Mario 3D, Star Fox, Ocarina of Time, Link’s Awakening, Smash Brothers”. They came out full force with the fanservice, and they did it better than any other major player.

Nintendo was in a neutral position from last year. They did messed up a bit with the 3DS (it’s kind of being considered a failure at the moment because it doesn't have good games) but they did push out a very well done Donkey Kong Country Returns and a Pokemon game that way too many people over 20 years of age played. They could’ve come out and done nothing and people would have been disappointed, but not upset. They also could’ve come out and said “we have all of the games from PS360 on the next Wii for cheaper and better”, and money would be flying at them, but they seem to have taken an awkward middle line.

Ignoring the Zelda intro which was clearly as a celebration for themselves, and the 3DS section which was about trying to convince people that the system has games worth playing (imo it doesn’t...especially not at that price), the big centerpiece of big N’s talk was the WiiU. Ignoring the gimmicky gameplay, and the possible cool designs that can come from this, I feel that the success of this system with the “hardcore” crowd lies in 1 very simple question- “what games is it getting”. I don’t mean “what franchises”, I saw the very impressive list of Batman, Assassin’s Creed, DiRT, Darksiders, etc, and that’s really cool, but are they the SAME GAMES that the 360 and PS3 are getting. The videos you showed were certainly the same , but are the final games that the system will get the same available on the competitors, but with added functionality, or are they just gonna be Wii U ports “designed to take advantage of the innovative controller” like all the ports the Wii got of AAA titles?

IF the Wii U gives me the same Assassin’s Creed the same time the other systems get it, and it has some super cool functionality that helps instead of hinders gameplay, then I think Nintendo will have succeeded immensely; but if they’re just pulling the wool over our eyes and pulling the “built from the ground up for WiiU” bullshit for their 3rd party games, then me and a lot of other people are going to be very disappointed.



-Zelda Montage means Nintendo is clearly out to please it’s fans instead of bringing in new ones. Interesting considering the entire purpose of the Wii was to bring in new fans.

-The Orchestra is a baller touch, I’m just sayin’.

-Zelda games were a nice touch, Ocarina out soon is cool, and golden wiimote reminds me of old Bond 64 controller. Not necessarily a bad thing, but we want our gold cartridges back!

-Concert series? Neat, didn’t expect that announcement, or the CD drops.

-Nice to pay respects to your development team, but I don’t think I can stress enough how bored I imagine people who don’t like Zelda are right now.

-For the sake of “I’ve already burned enough bullet-points”, I’m just gonna say that all the 3DS games feel like too little too late. Not enough “innovation”, (some fresh IP would have been nice) but if you drop the price for the holiday season when all those games allegedly come out, you might have a chance to compete with the PSVita.

-I also want to save bullet points for the Wii U because...well I don’t know how I feel about the controls yet. I’m still a tad confused about the whole thing, but Nintendo has a lot of big promises that I think they will have a hard time trying to keep, but if they do- then I’m excite.


Here’s the part where you guys label me a fanboy and say I’m biased, but I’m gonna give Nintendo a solid B. They did spend the first 1/3 patting themselves on the back and giving content to existing fans, and middle section was just rehashes which you may or may not find boring, and the last half was tons of promises. They certainly convinced the old fans they’re worth sticking with, and the huge promises of the still confusing Wii U are...well...lofty. I’m giving them a B now assuming they hit ~90% of those promises, but I’m adding a warning that they better not be biting off more than they can chew or people will remember this E3 presentation as the big lie.

In the end

Sony loves 3D, Nintendo loves introducing shit to make people talk, and Microsoft loves Kinect. EA and Ubisoft had solid showings, and there is a lot of interesting news coming in for games not announced at major presentations. It’s not like a “SUPER DUPER AMAZING” E3, but it’s not a bad one. Overall, I rate the presentations a B-. It’s just above average with some strong hitters detracted by a lot of face-palming and boredom.

I wanted to sit down and write a feature about a type of people I remember being able to prove existed- pretentious videogame theorists. In my mind, these were people whose sole intent was to study, research, and claim as fact whatever convoluted design ideologies they had observed. Guys and girls who traveled the world getting paid to give lectures to highschoolers, telling them that after years of researching how people make and play games, that they knew the secrets to what made games fun- despite having never put any of their theories into practice by actually making one.

Unfortunately for me and my argument, I can’t actually prove these people exist. The closest I could get is Jesper Juul, but he makes games. Even so, I then realized that this makes him happy and he’s not hurting anyone- so I’m not gonna even try to rain on his parade. I personally prefer to learn about game design and development from people who do it professionally, but if you want to learn from people like him who primarily consider themselves researchers instead of a developers, then by all means go for it. Sure it probably means you’re gonna keep bandwagon hopping trying to catch the “next big thing” (waggle party, portable flash game ripoff, 3d better than real life HD, etc.) instead of sitting down and just trying to make something fun, but if that gives you your jollies then we consumers can always use more companies flooding those markets.

P.S. Next time I’ll have something more worthy of my self created TLDR moniker, and more on par with my past 2 offerings- so look forward to an argument you’ve probably already heard “I wish it was 1997”.

Videogames have greatly evolved (to say the least) since their inception (BERRRRRRMMM), but some things have always stayed the same- they can be played alone, with people, against people, or kooky ways of interaction regarding a ‘you’ and one or more ‘people’. This is great; it’s wonderful to be have so many options to how you want to play, but I’m afraid to say that one particular method seems to be be losing the attention of a lot of developers, and it’s really disheartening to me. I’m starting to feel that companies are convinced that single player games are taking a backseat to their better selling multiplayer counterparts, so follow me as I examine the relationships of single and multiplayer games in the past, present, and future.

Disclaimer- I’m not really all that old. I’m in my early 20s, so that means that (like Max Scoville so kindly pointed out) I grew up in the GeniSNES era. Videogames were around long before my day, so all I know about the old Arcade scene (or if you want to be really pretentious- Oscilloscope scene) I read in history books and learned from my professors.



The Past
Multiplayer is INGRAINED in the veins of videogames. Starting with basic 1-on-1 Pong matches, leading into the constant yearning for the local high-score in the arcade days of Pacman, Defender, and Space Invaders. Cooperative followed with games like Mario Bros and the later beat-em-ups like Double Dragon, but (as far as I know) there was still no TRULY single player game, whose goal was to walk the player from a beginning to an end- and then there was The Legend of Zelda.

The first relevant single player game- the Columbus of sailing solo. Sure other games may have come before it, but (as far as I know) The Legend of Zelda brought all the goodies of diseased blanket adventure and gold inventory to get you hooked. A game where you played alone, in a world alone, not competing for a score against the kid down the street, but against a giant pig mage whose sole purpose is to troll you with 9 enemy and trap infested dungeons.

Skipping forward, the GeniSNES era had tons of single player games- from a huge range of RPGs and a plethora of platformers to tons of other tactics and a rare racing game whose sole purpose was to entertain one person at a time. At this point I think it’s important to opinion that the Mario and Sonic series were just single player adventures with an cheap ability to have another person play. Sure it added a bit of depth to have a Tails partner, or some longevity if you and a partner were tackling the vast Super Mario World, but in reality the games were meant to be played alone, and the extra controller was to make the other person in the room feel less awkward.



The PS/N64 era (my favorite, but I’ll save that for another day) had some of the BEST single player experiences I can remember: Brilliant platformers like Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro, PC masterpieces like Half-life and The Sims, and new experiences like Tomb Raider, and PaRappa the Rapper. This was a time where, much like the early Sonics and Marios, multiplayer gameplay was based on what the single player can do. Counter Strike came from Half-Life, Mario Kart came from Famicom Grand Prix II, and Street Fighter II from a game nobody cares to remember. Sure, tons of other games had multiplayer available (Starcraft, Goldeneye, Pokemon), but everyone I know remembered chasing the Zerg off of Char, sneaking around in bathrooms looking for ammo, and mindlessly slaughtering Zubat and Geodude trying to get out of dark caves. Single player in the past reigned supreme.

The Present
Now the line starts to get a little blurred between the chicken and the egg. Some of the most popular games of this era include both solid single player and fun multiplayer experiences- games like the Halo/Call of Duty series, Guitar Hero/RockBand franchises, the Fifa/Madden run-ons. There are also games in this era that shine on their own with only 1 true way of play: Solo shots like the Metal Gear Solid series, the Final Fantasies, and the Mass Effects as well as all-or-nothing games like WoW, Team Fortress 2, and Farmville (I dislike it too, but it’s a game, it’s popular, and it helps my point).



I firmly believe that there are a lot of quality games that focus solely on single player- games like Okami, NoMoreHeroes, and the continuing Half-Life, Metal Gear, and Paper Mario series. This field has competitors from almost all genres, fantastic games that sadly aren't selling nearly as much as their combo competitors.

Multiplayer only games are a little harder to pinpoint since a lot of them have a facade of single playability- games like Left 4 Dead, Magicka, and Team Fortress 2. Sure, you can play those alone, but that’s not the point of them, the point is to play with other people for full effect. A lot of social games fall under this category since one of their main “get more stuff” designs involve bugging your friends. These games are selling exceptionally well.

The most popular of them all though are undoubtedly games that offer both exerpiences. The popular shooters with 6 hour campaigns and endless multiplayer matches, the rhythm games that you only play alone to practice so that you impress when you’re at a party, and you’re favorite sports title that you grind until you learn tactics to give you an edge online. These games are the ones that are selling the best, games that are fun to play alone and more fun to play with friends.

As a result, it seems like every major release offers some kind of multiplayer, even if it’s just tacked on. Companies are putting their focus in how they develop games in a few ways including- making a really fun single player first then add ways to play with more people (Saints Row 2), making a fun and balanced multiplayer then tack on a campaign (Just about every RTS or Fighting Game), spending time caring for both single and multi together (Gears of War), and even using 2 separate teams to make each type and mashing them together (Quantum of Solace). Take a guess which sells more?



I’m not saying that any singleplayer only, multiplayer only, or combination games are inherently more or less fun than the others, I’m saying that all of three have wonderful games that are worth paying for and playing. However, it seems that games that the games that offer both single and multiplayer options are winning in sales, and that leads companies to try to release more of those titles- even if it means sacrificing the fun of the one mode to focus on developing the other, and that is why I think the future is dim.

The Future
Almost everyone wants to make a best seller. It’s in our DNA to want to be the best (hell, when I write these pieces, I hope that a ton of people read them), and in doing so sometimes we sacrifice what is fun in favor of what is profitable (I really need to stop hinting at future pieces). But what’s going to happen in the future is a different affair, and in order to properly talk about it, I think it’s important to look at situations of the past and (more importantly) the present.

Blur is a game that I really wanted to love, and not just because it matches my handle. They came out and basically pitched “Mario Kart with real cars” and I was sold. When they released the Multiplayer Beta, we hooked up 7 temporary gold accounts for a huge overnight event so that people who had never even heard of the game could give it a whirl. We even made a damn playlist of music that we thought was appropriate to listen to while we tore each other up. I paid $60 the day it came out instead of waiting a week for the price to drop to ~$30 because I wanted that game to succeed. What happened was a different story. The single player was weak to say the least, and the multiplayer was so unbalanced that about 2 months after launch the only servers I could find to play on were half empty and European. It was so utterly depressing that the studio eventually shut down and any dreams of a sequel were shattered.



It’s easy for us as fans to just point fingers and blame “Teh Hacktivisionz” for having unrealistic expectations, but I honestly think that the main problem was that Blur tried to be took the wrong approach in regards to it’s single and multiplayer. Some of the best racing games I’ve played were strong because they had such surprisingly awesome single player modes- games like Diddy Kong Racing and Need for Speed Underground 2. These games focused on what one person could do, and in the many ways they could do it. The game space was already fun for 1 person before they moved on to more. The multiplayer came out of the single player, not just in the “it’s the same racetracks” sense, but in the “it’s the same fun game” sense. Blur’s single player is shoddy at best. A series of half decent ideas given near impossible win conditions that in turn prevent you from unlocking anything to show off your work. I will give them that their base driving was fun, and some of the power ups were really fucking cool (reverse Nitro for airbrake is the most brilliant power up design I’ve seen since the blue shell), but the single player missions just weren’t fun. I honestly believe that if they had spent time making the single player something more interactive and immersive (even if it involves a half-assed story like the Need for Speed series) that they would have found more people playing their game longer for the single player, and then hopping online keeping the multiplayer community alive.

While Blur is an example of how ignoring your single player before making multiplayer can blow up in your face, Assassin’s Creed is a great example of how nursing your single player can help you start with a very solid multiplayer. The first Assassin’s Creed to me was great, the 2nd phenomenal, and Brotherhood was off-the-wall fan-fucking-tastic. I wasn’t only in it for the story, but for the gently crafted worlds, the crazy stealth feeling of doing something sneaky and not getting caught, and the hectic “cheese it” feeling when you do. I’ve played 2 rounds of the multiplayer total. It was fun, but to me I found more fun in exploring the massive world where i could run around climbing walls freely without fear of someone seeing me and instantly knowing “That’s definitely a player right there because AI doesn’t know how to climb around rooftops”. I’m not saying it’s not fun, but it’s not my cup of tea. Other people however, are saying it’s brilliant. My friends are loving the multiplayer a lot, and it seems to me that one of the reasons their multiplayer is so fun is because they spent time making their single player work. Can you imagine multiplayer using the engine from 1? No bench or haystack stealth kills, pickpocket mode where everything is super weird and awkward to control- it would be a nightmare.

Speaking of awkward controls, how about the shooting sections of Mirror’s Edge? I really did enjoy that game, but I absolutely loathed anytime you picked up a gun. A lot of people seem to agree with me that it was the only major problem with the game, except I guess EA. Frank Gibeau of EA games said this past November to Develop Magazine that “What I learned from Mirror’s Edge is that you have to execute, you have to spend more time on a game to ensure it’s polished, and you need to have the depth and persistence of an online game,” later adding, “There were issues with the learning curve, the difficulty, the narrative, and then there was no multiplayer either. The key learning from us was that if you're going to be bold with that kind of concept, you need to take it as far as it can go in development." It’s a wonderful lesson to learn that you’re difficulty and narrative need some polish, but to go out and say to the face of all the people that liked your game for what it was that the issue was a lack of multiplayer is just ignoring your true problems.

The game was fun. Could it have used new cut-scenes, some polish, and either tweaked or removed gun-play? Absolutely. Did it need a tacked on multiplayer just so that you can tick off a check mark on the back of the box? NO. This is the point that I’m trying to get across- some games are just meant to be single player, and they will forever be fun and be remembered as great if you work on making the single player experience the best you can. If that buys you a few sequels and you treat it right, you can release a multiplayer that people adore, but DO NOT tack on multiplayer to a game because you think that’s going to make it auto-sell. It didn’t work for Mario Kart with real cars, and it won’t work for you. Take your time making games- the fans will appreciate it because we love single player games and the multi player games that come from them. Just look at Minecraft- get the single player working right, then let everyone do that at once. It works.



As I look to the future, I hope more companies realize that fans like me, although a minority, do care about a carefully crafted single player experience. If anyone who makes games has managed to read this far, don’t do it. Don’t add multiplayer to your game because you think it’ll make you the next Halo or CoD. Don’t make a multiplayer only game thinking you’re gonna dethrone WoW or Farmville. I don’t want my only options for single player escapism to be RPGs or pretentious indie games. Make the most fun game you can for the 1 person playing your game, and we will appreciate it for all it’s worth (and then maybe you can add multiplayer when you think it fits). It may not sell as much if you start crunching numbers, but it will guarantee similar numbers of your next game, and the one after that, until eventually you’ve made the same amount of money over 15 years that Guitar Hero made over 5, only your studio is still as together as it was when you shipped your first title.

P.S Before I could finish editing my post, Satoru Iwata held a keynote where he spent some time talking about evolution and importance of multiplayer and (eventually) passionate game development. You should watch it

P.P. S Sorry it's late, turns out writing and editing this much takes a while. Expect the next one in 3 days- Game Theorists are Jerks!

GDC is upon us once again, and that means that just about every major video game developer is in San Fran sharing thrilling tales of late nights, voodoo code, and new tools for artists and designers to argue over. Usually with those stories and talks some companies or individuals will show off a new trailer for what their working on, or have a first time hands on with their new project. Naturally, this is something to get excited for, but I’m starting to get the feeling that much of the game admiring public (and that is a LARGE audience) is starting to believe that GDC is an event for them to go to and chat up their favorite developer and play their game. I don’t know how else to put this other than- No, not really.

Then what is it?
GDC, in my experience, is a place that’s function exists in its name: It’s a GAME DEVELOPERS CONFERENCE. What that means is- if you develop games or if you’re interested in the development of games, then this is the place for you. At GDC, what I saw most were old friends meeting up again, having some beers, talking about tactics, and drinking to their good (or bad) fortune. This is not a place where I saw companies putting out their new titles to the adoring public, or demo-ing their tech to try to sell it to consumers- that’s what E3, GamesCon, and Tokyo Game Show are for. This is a place for friends to show off to each other, for people who share a passion for game creation to meet up, where booths with ritzy demos are trying to get major developers to drop a couple G’s on a license for their product, and for booths full of HR to chat it up with candidates about what it takes to get your foot in the door. What I’m getting at, to be fairly blunt and repetitive, is that this is not a show for average consumers, it’s a conference for people who have made games, and who want to make them.

A Short “No duh” Defense for Journalism
I don’t want to sound like I’m implying that GDC isn’t for journalists/bloggers, because they absolutely should be present. The game’s press has a vested interest in how games are made because (obviously) who/what/where/when/why/how games are getting made is in their job description. That and I have a feeling that in no other industry is the press as big a part of the big picture as in the game dev one. It’s a mutual friendship. You don’t see gum manufacturers boosting interest by showing off at the yearly GumCon (if that even really exists), and you don’t see national newspapers trying to get a preview hands on with an unreleased pie at the local pizza joint. I can’t think of any other press that is involved so thoroughly in what they report on, and that’s a great thing.




Fanboys doing what they do best
The reason I’m writing on this subject is because a pair of stories I heard at GDC last year made me head-desk through the floor, and I’m hoping to pass these on so that you won’t make the same mistakes these people did (I went with ~10 of my peers/friends so even though I couldn’t make all the talks I wanted to, I heard about what happened at most of them).

One of my friends happens to be a huge Final Fantasy fangirl (as are most female geeks, but don’t quote me on that). As such, she made it a point to go to a talk given by Toriyama, Motomu of Square Enix titledThe Crystal Mythos and Final Fantasy XIII. So here we have a Japanese Game Director/Scenario Writer speaking to the crowd about how he designs a certain mythology across all his games, an interesting talk to attend for sure. As per usual with (most of) the talks, there was a Q&A session afterwards. Sure there were tons of questions a fangirl would want to ask someone with such status at a company she adores, but luckily for her she has intelligence and tact- and since most of her questions didn’t pertain to the subject matter at hand, she knew it was inappropriate to ask them and kept to herself.

This guy in the crowd however, seemed to have a different opinion on the matter. His entire purpose for being at that talk was to complain as vocally as possible about how much he disliked FFXIII. He was first in line for the Q&A session (getting up halfway through the talk just to queue up for it) and proceeded to tell Mr. Toriyama a long winded story about how much of a huge fan of Final Fantasy he was- so much of a fan that he had paid over $130 to import the newest game (FFXIII wasn’t out in the states at that time) but was so vastly disappointed with it that he demanded a refund.



I find that showing a massive amount of ignorance and disrespect- this is a foreign game developer with a high standing at a very popular company sharing some of his insight, tactics, and knowledge about a subject he knows thoroughly to a crowd of people he (justifiably) assumes are interested in learning from him, and you stand up there and say “your new game sucks. I wasted my money importing it and demand a refund”. First off, there is a time and a place to air your grievances- and that was not the place to do it. Second, nobody ASKED you to import it- don’t act high and mighty because you went out of your way to get a game that you weren’t even sure you were going to enjoy (when you buy a game you take a “fun” risk, you’re going to have to live with that). And last but not least- GDC tickets to even get INTO a talk of that caliber cost (depending on the pass) anywhere from $750-$2.5 k! This guy had enough money to decide that that’s a small price to pay to demand his perverted justice….I hope I’m not the only person who sees a problem with this kid’s priorities.

More Like Ass (Creed) Effect
Next up is a shorty but a goodie. Ubisoft’s Lead Designer Plourde, Patrick gave a pretty wide topic covering super-speech titled Designing Assassin’s Creed 2. According to my friend, one of the overarching points he made throughout the talk was a thorough explanation of why the 2nd game in the series didn’t have a “difficulty” option. He justified his point several times throughout the talk and why it made sense from the design standpoint of the game to not have it there- and that’s fair. Enter fanboy at the Q&A who walks up and (no joke) asks Mr. Plourde “I didn’t like that there was no difficulty setting, why didn’t you include one?” Patrick took it like a champ after a small quip and summarized his point to the questioner- whose sole response was to stare back and essentially reply “But I like when games have difficulty options”. Unfortunately for you, you’re not the designer of Assassin’s Creed, and the guy who is just explained to you point by point why he made the calls he made so deal with it. Also an important note- this isn’t highschool. If you’re interested in a subject- take notes because the teachers here move fast and shouldn’t be obligated to reiterate their points to you because you have a personal opinion about something you rightfully have no say in (a different post for a different day). I will concede though that I give this guy credit for staying on topic, but damn dude really?



What you CAN do
I guess I want to end on a slightly positive note- if you are at all interested in making videogames, want to learn tips and tricks from the pros, and have a few hundred (or 2.5 stacks if you want all access) then by all means go! Take a notebook, plan the talks you go to, and go sponge some information and meet some truly fantastic people.

As for my experience at GDC last year, I went to talks and learned way more than I bargained for. Just sitting at the Uncharted 2 Postmortem was well worth the price of admission. Then when I took some time out I went to visit the Nintendo Booth, where I ran into and had a great chat with Danny Johnson of Gaijin Games (while trying out Bit.Trip.Runner for the first time). Afterwards I headed over to the Monster Hunter Tri section where I chilled with a Capcom promo guy (and found out that Capcom’s promo teams travel the US to show off product). The important part wasn’t trying the games, it was meeting the people, and learning how the game industry’s wheels turn.

Then there was the Destructoid party. Man was that a blast. I met tons of people from all kinds of companies, got to chat it up with Dale North, Nick Chester, Neiro, Rey Gutierez (before he went to Sony), and even pre-Dtoid show Tara Long (which I didn’t realize was the girl I had talked to briefly at that party until 5 episodes into the show). I’m not trying to show off- I’m trying to hammer the point home that GDC is about meeting awesome people, and learning awesome things (I learned that the party doesn’t start until the hosts realize they don’t have enough beer and promptly rectify the situation).


(I'm the douche with the tie painted on his shirt. Guy closest to the cam is my pal Phil- Octodad Coder)

I guess the last words I want to drill in your mind are- Be respectful but don’t be shy, go out to parties, hang out in busy hotel bar/lobbies, visit booths of small developers and chat them up, just don’t treat it like an event for you as a person who plays games, and treat it like it is- a conference for people who make the games you love.

P.S. You can go to The Vault and get TONS of the powerpoints/notes (and a few videos) from just about every past GDC and spinoff. GET LEARN'D!

P.P.S. The next topic is Single Player is Dead, Long Live Single Player

I have honestly been putting this off for way too long. Initially I was going to do these as I thought them up, and then I was going to do a “12 days of Xmas” type thing, but eventually I put it off until now. I have a thing I like to call “binge productivity syndrome” where I’ll go about not doing things for a while, then sit down one day and get a lot done. This is one of those days.

Welcome to TLDR

You may/may not remember me from this very blog a little over a year ago, so I’ll start by re-introducing myself as “TheBlur”- a recent college graduate who lacks a title based on the fact that more than half a year after getting a degree, I’m still unemployed. I was never really active on this blog (at best I had a series based on my school funded [thanks for that] trip to “the motherland” of game development), but this is my attempt to rectify that problem and put some of my non-original opinions out there.
My plan (very specifically for this series at least) is to update at least once every 2 days with an opinion piece of my stance on things video game related (as much as I wish I could rant about everything, I’ll try to stay on topic and leave out hilarious pictures of Col Gaddafi) . Some of these might come off as “preachy” and others a tad “trolly” but most of them will probably be along the lines of “does this really matter?”



The answer is probably not, but this site has given me a soap box and for once in a very long time, I’m going to use it.
Some of the upcoming pieces (if you can call them that) include- Angry Birds, the Brawl Community, Why Business Majors suck, Game Theorists, Nestalgia (not the game, the feeling), and a few other hot issues and complaints about the game industry that I not only admire, but aspire to join.



So sit back, comment, troll, and enjoy the first of the set- Why GDC isn’t for You (as soon as I finish the shoops).