Story & Mass Effect 2

I have finished my first run through of Mass Effect 2 (review will be up soon) and it has been one hell of a ride. In this post I will be talking about the story, and more importantly, the delivery of the story. I will try to avoid ruining plot turns, but I am with the faction that says good story can't really be spoiled, so consider this a warning if you want everything to be completely fresh. When I wrote this, I hadn't actually finished the story, so don't worry about ending spoilers.

Mass Effect's story is fantastic for a number of reasons. The actual plot isn't actually one of them, it's fine, but it's just standard science fiction stuff. However, Bioware does the other parts so well: the characters are deep and diverse, the setting is complete with really interesting inter-race relationships and the voice acting is stellar (inter-stellar? Ed.).

However, as great and important as all that stuff is, I want to look at how Bioware have handled the dynamic nature of their story. What makes this story so great is that you are emotionally invested in it; that's why I loved Fable 2 despite it having a clichéd story.

Some games seem to think that, because books contain good stories, a book is a good model for a game story. There is definitely space for this kind of game, but I don't think that is the way to go if you want story to be central to your game. By making the stories more dynamic, the experience becomes more individual and that, for me, is what made me become emotionally invested in Mass Effect 2. With all this talk about stories, let me tell you a story.

In Mass Effect 2, there are a group of missions called the loyalty missions. You have to complete these to earn the loyalty of a specific crew members. One of your crew is an elite assassin who has a terminal illness. He recently discovered that his son, who he has kept in the dark about his line of work, just discovered what his father does and has now decided to become an assassin. Obviously, his Dad doesn't want this for him and wants to go and stop him. So you find out about what his target is going to be. You then split up, you tailing the target. Unfortunately, I lost the target in a crowd when he went through a door. We then ran to the apartment of the target to try and save him. Just as we get there we see his son shoot the target and run away. You have failed: a politician who may have changed the city for the better lies dead, a son has entered in to a life of crime never to be seen again and the father will die with the weight of that on his head, and it was entirely your fault. There is no restarting or trying again, just responsibility: if I had been better, this could have been avoided

Suddenly the game is personal, you have let down someone on your team and there is nothing you can do. Whenever you talk to him, he is miserably and dejected. You had one shot and you screwed it up. Mass Effect had this to some respect, but with Mass Effect 2 they have really ran with it. Failure and success aren't necessarily linked to restarting and the consequences of failure and cleverly woven in to the story.

The best books are the ones where you find yourself forming an empathy with the fictional characters. And this is what Mass Effect 2 does so well, you feel the pressures and responsibilities as a leader of a team. These are your decisions, your team will stick by them, but you must live with the consequences. And knowing that things can go wrong, like in the case of that loyalty mission, provides that pressure that forces you to care about what you say and do.

Your relationships with the crew also enforce this idea. For example, I accidentally led two of my crew on, hinting (and then out right declaring) that I liked them. The decision there was of course what I said. I could have told one of them we should just be friends, keep stuff professional, but I didn't and now, despite trying to be a positive role model for my team, I may have created a massive divide.

The speech system is another thing I really like about the game. Part of this is again down to the quality of the writing. However, the way what you say can have real consequences and that you can say the wrong thing at the wrong time gives it so much weight.

You won't know the consequences of what you are going to say and while the game does help you a little bit, it isn't always clear which one is going to be the most beneficial. I am sure there are people who will criticize it because sometimes it isn't even clear what you are going to say or the limited options means you can't say what you want to say. However, to me, this makes perfect sense. Frequently in life we are not able to say what we want to say, things go wrong, we mean to comfort someone but we end up antagonising the situation.

Of course, all this isn't just good design that most games ignore, this requires a huge amount of effort. I saw some unreferenced statistic saying that Mass Effect 2 contained 20 000 lines of dialogue, similar to about 20 films. The game didn't cost 20x as much as a cinema ticket, and so it would be unreasonable to expect this standard from every game. And like I said, there is plenty of room for the linear you-can't-make-mistakes stories like Halo's, just don't expect me to write a piece on the story of said game!

The perception of games and why it needs to change

Hello, just a quick post. I just posted on my sister blog, Botworks, a article on the public perception of games and why I think it needs to change. It is a topic that means a lot to me and I would really appreciate you guys to have a read and let me know what you think.

(Normal posting to return soon hopefully with a review of Forza 3, which I am still digging)

Steam: The future of game distribution...

Steam is the future of game distribution...but not yet. Steam Powered Games is rapidly changing the way games are bought and played on the PC, however, there are still a few issues that is going to stop it becoming truly main stream.

Unless you have been living in a hole for the past two years, you will probably have heard of Steam. It provides 3 basic functions: firstly, a gaming community system akin to Xbox live, complete with common friends list, in game tools (including a web browser and chat) and everything else you would expect. Secondly, it offers dedicated servers for large multi-player games such as Counter Strike. However, probably the most unique of its services is the ability to download (legally) entire games straight to your PC - the gaming equivalent to iTunes, if you will.

Judging by PC sales last year, the PC market is now completely dependant upon Steam for its survival. And believe me, I think it will survive. But Steam isn't quite ready to conquer the world. Here are the things that I think they need to resolve to go truly main stream.

1)Bandwidth - Steam side
For years, one of the biggest obstacles for online game distribution was that high speed broadband was not common, and even where it was, it wasn't anywhere near fast enough. This isn't true any more. As far as I am concerned, in the UK within the next 5 years, 5-10Mb broadband will be standard with 20-100 being fairly common. Which is fast enough.

The problem, would currently appear to be at Steams end. I have above average, 20Mb broadband, normally getting about 15mb/s. However, downloading a game from Steam, I will normally get no more than 1mb/s, usually a lot, lot less. Like 10-20Kb/s. I don't think Steam is capping the download. Instead I think their server can't deal with the downloads.

Obviously, this will improve over time. However, if they want to become mainstream, it has got to be as quick as walking in to town. A download cannot take 24 hours.

They are offering a solution which lightens the problem, called pre-loading. Basically, the user downloads the game before it comes out, but can't play it until it does. This is a good idea. Make sure every game is doing it. Make it so it is available as early as possible and make it possible for people to download it a little bit at a time whilst leading up to the release. If the download is available a month before the game comes out (as is usually possible) then every time people log in to Steam, it downloads what it can in the background, then the load will be shared out effectively across the 30 day period.

2)Piracy

Part of the reason that Steam is as successful as it is, is because virtually every game released, is released on to it. If you had to see if a title was available, you just would stop bothering. Steam has received loads of publisher support. Partly, this is due to their excellent anti-piracy techniques. As far as I am aware, Steam games are not easily hacked. When playing a Steam game, the game checks its legitimacy against the Steam servers. This is good, as piracy is a very real threat to PC games.

This is fine, until the connection with Steam is lost. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. If you are charging people to pay games, you have to let them play them, whenever they want to. Either guarantee 100% up-time on your servers or find a work around. Maybe less frequent checking, or allow it to fail a few times. I wouldn't mind, but it has happened twice in two days - Xbox Live doesn't fall over, ever. Well OK, maybe at Christmas, but it didn't stop you playing games, and it certainly doesn't happen on a daily basis.

Survival of the fittest

When playing Dawn of War 2, I have to manage my Steam overlay window, my Games for Windows Live (GFWL) dashboard, and, if I have any attention left, Dawn of War 2. I think that Steam needs to sign a deal with Microsoft or else they are going to start competing against each other. That is bad for Steam, as Steam will lose, simply because there will never be Steam on the Xbox, and the Xbox isn't going anywhere.

Steam need to agree with Microsoft to work together, as Microsoft could easily do what Steam does. Were Microsoft to sell games they would have far greater bandwidth with which to do it. Factor in that they could sell 360 games too, and they would be very attractive to sell with. I don't care how it is done, but make Steam needs to join Microsoft, because they can't beat them.

Pricing

Like iTunes, Steam needs to be cheaper than retail stores. For a good few years yet, people will have an attachment to physical objects. No one is going to pay more (or even the same) for a download. Particularly when it isn't even much more convenient with the 24 hour+ downloads. Game regularly under sells Steam. Steam needs to be doing much more dynamic pricing to keep the prices low. Admittedly, they do more than iTunes, but iTunes offers something that shops don't; £0.79 songs. Seeming as Steam can't do an equivalent (one level of a game just wouldn't work as people would view it as a demo), it needs to be cheaper in general.

I genuinely believe that the future of games is in downloading. Better deals can be granted to everyone and the community system is an excellent reward. However, I don't believe it will necessarily be Steam that wins. They are winning at the moment, but like I said, Microsoft could sweep in at any point.

What do you think? Do you buy all your games from Steam, or do you cling to the polythene wrapping? Do you think that broadband is ready for this? Post your remarks below, I would love to see some other opinions on this.

On Piracy and Copy Protection

Recently there has been a lot of controversy after EA's big game: Spore, included copy protection that limited the number of installs per key code. While I do not believe this the ultimate sin (hence it being glossed over in my review) that some people do, I do think it is a stupid way to stop piracy. And when there is such a simple solution...

Basically, Spore includes a piece of software - SecuROM - which installs itself on your computer when you install Spore. It then immediatley contacts EA to tell them that your product key has been installed. EA then checks that it hasn't been installed more than 3 times.

Personally, it has not effected me one bit. Sure, it isn't acceptable to send data off without my permission, and if I was to sell it, this could prove an issue, but other than that, it doesn't matter one bit.

My point is this - it doesn't stop piracy of the game! If you can sell it twice, then you are making a profit. The only way it could work is if you only were allowed one attempt, but then, if your computer failed, the game would fail with it. And the best part - you can email EA and they will give you - legitamitley - extra installs.

And it isn't like there isn't a simple, effective nearly fail-safe method. Just check the disk is in the drive at boot. It isn't hard, games have been doing it for years. Someone has obviously developed a method of it not being burnt when the disk is copied - as I discovered when trying to do a LAN version of Railroad Tycoon 3.

I recently borrowed Sins off a friend, only to discover I don't need the disk to run it. There is now no incentive for me to buy it. (For those who are interested, will be giving impressions). However, I am not going to go to the effort of borrowing a disk every time I want to play on a game. Sure, some people will work their way around it, but they are going to beat you WHATEVER you try. But with a simple disk check, most people will give up and buy the damn thing.

Oh and by the way, for those who need a counter to tell you when games are coming out, I am sorry but Fable 2, which got somewhat disappointing scores from GameSpot, is coming out tommorow! Won't be able to play until like 6/7PM so first impressions will have to wait till Saturday.

Super Smash Rant

For everyone's information, my Brawl code is: 5069 - 5371 - 3115, if you add me, be sure to tell me your code. I play Samus.

Ok, so Brawl has come out in the Uk, I got it on launch day and I was considerably less hyped about it then than I was some months ago. Well done Nintendo. This post is a list of all the things that bug me, annoy me or are just plain right stupid.

Online is the biggest one. Why can't I do everything online with Friends? Surely I should be able to do tourney, Co-Op, rotation Special Brawl and custom stages. It is absurd. Why can I not send messages outside a game to my friends? Why am I only online when playing online, can't I be online when playing the campaign. Why isn't there stat tracking or leader boards. Why is the online better in Mario Kart, a 3+, than in Brawl, a 12+ and definitely hard core title. Why are there lag issues when this is the biggest game on the Wii? Why aren't there playlists (ie. for KO fest/ Stock etc)

Why on earth can I not use the point in the menus?! When you are choosing a character, you literally are moving a cursor ideal for a pointer. Did they just not work it out? Why can't it remember which name you use by default. Every time I have to select THK, JUST REMEMBER IT!

The subspace Embissary clearly cost a lot of development time to produce, just look at the fancy cut scenes. So why is it, for the large part, dull or frustrating. Some of the levels are fun, but why isn't it all? Because their level design, in some places, is non existent. Some times it is just really boring, like a flat path with one jump. Other times the controls, which are built for a button bashing fighter, just aren't up to the job of platformer. It isn't without it's positives, but I would have preferred if the development time had been spent on the online.

Why is the game still unbalanced? You have had years to craft these characters, you haven't added that much since Melee, surely balancing Snake wouldn't be too hard.

Unlockable content is fine, to a degree. But unlocking options?! That would be like if you had to play 5 hours on Halo to get the inverted control scheme.

Small gripe, but why are GC controllers players 1 before Wiimotes. Why can't I set the default to not be KO fest in Brawls.

Well, when all is said and done, it isn't as long as I thought it was going to be. Also, happy Bungie day for yesterday. I hope you all downloaded the map and played the playlist, I know I did. I got a Killtacular on Swords, was very happy. The map is one of my favourites from H2 (I think...) and any map with teleporters is always cool. Anyway, more posts to come. FK watchers, you will be pleased to know I have finally got my head round how it is going to fit together (well mostly)

The Terrible Graphics Crysis

In this months Op-Ed, I will be looking at the effects of "Next Generation Graphics" and if we actually need them.

Many thanks to "my friend" whose, up till now, only use was owning a 360. Fortunately, after coming up with the frankly genius title, he will not be the first redundancy here at Veteran Gamer

Last month, I looked at online gaming. I suggested that online may detract from a game because the developers were focusing online. While I still feel this is true, in comparison to the damage the HD graphics can do, it is negligible and online comes with tangibly good benefits. With the exception of the Wii, all current generation consoles, PC included, are pushing the so called High Definition era. Titles built with the sole intention of wowing the user, such as Crysis and games that have physics engines that put real life to shame, such as the one in Burnout: Paradise. But can a thick layer of beauty really cover up for poor gameplay. Or is it even the cause, suffocating originality?

With an introduction like that, you might think I was just going to rant about graphics. I am, after all, a Wii owner. However, graphics, and I mean this term very generally as I include stunning physics engines (as it has similar pros and cons), are, when used to complement rather than dominate, a very powerful tool. For example, one of my criticisms of Mario Kart was, while the action is often crazy, the fact that all the spinning is pre-animated ruins the chaos and makes it feel scripted. On the flip side, when racing in Forza Motor Sport at 200MPH and you slightly slip, you swerve, knocking the other contestants and causing a huge, entirely spontaneous crash. The fact that you know this can happen adds to the tension of the game. Likewise, part of the reason Halo: Combat Evolved became so popular was the Warthog. The Warthog was fun because, when a grenade exploded next to you, you flew backwards. Which leads me on to my next point.

Good graphics can make a truly immersive game. It is difficult to feel like you are inside a game if you are constantly reminded of it's fictiousness by, say, huge artefacts where your allies head should be. Would the world of Talon IV been as interesting to explore if it had just used dull colours and repetitive corridors? Would Gears of War have won game of the year if the chainsaw animation wasn't quite so belivable? The reason is, most people play games to escape their own world, if they can trick themselves this new, improved world is real, they will enjoy it more and stay in it more. Furthermore, another key feature of modern games is exploration. There is no fun in exploration if there is nothing to find but bland, blurred textures. For example, in Assassins Creed, the first time you arrive at a city, it takes your breath away and makes your long journey worthwhile. This wouldn't be quite the same experience if all you could see was the city walls and a blurry tower behind it and then nothing but the horizon.

Let's take Forza Motor Sport as an example. While Forza Motor Sport 2 is not quite Burnout Paradise when it comes to dynamic damage models, when Forza first came out for the Xbox, it was leading the way in realistic damage models. If it just showed you in a little diagram that the front of your car had been ripped off, it wouldn't have been very satisfying. However, because you see your bumper fly off it makes you appreciate the crash. Once again, it immerses you in the gameplay. By making your car more real, you realise that your shocking driving has real consequences. Also, the detailed enviroments serve to place you inside the car. Finally, by, and you may start noticing recurring themes here, making the maps look real, the player wants to explore new tracks to see what there like and makes the world more real.

However, as the gaming industry has recently out-sized the movie industry, there is now a lot 0f money in this once frowned upon market. At first this sounds good, but as many Hollywood films conform to the same clichés and do not try to be inventive, the same is happening to the video game market. So, the big investors who can't really tell a Wii Remote from a PS3 controller and think the Xbox 360 is Microsofts first games console, come in and see that consoles are pushing good graphics. They demand graphics to be this good, and the developer tells them that it will cost X million amount of money. This means that, as investors do not want to risk such large quantities of money, they go with safe bets. Ie. tried and tested game types, like first person shooters. The effect of this is, when an original idea is dreampt up, it sounds too risky for the investors and they turn the game down. To summarize, because graphics are now a must for current gen gaming, games are expensive to produce, meaning high risk, innovative, games are turned down. All is not lost however, thanks to services like the Xbox Live Arcade, that is what next months article will be on.

Also, similar to the last point, decent graphics take a long time to produce. Because of the aforementioned money constraints, developers will be pushed to release the game as quickly as they can. This means, that other elements, such as gameplay, get rushed towards the end, almost as an afterthought. Once again, this is down to pressures of the developers to make HD graphics in a short period of time. Once again, XBLA can take away the need for fancy graphics and let the focus remain on core gameplay.

A point about PC's as well. By increasing the technical prowess for the game, you shrink your market. Take Crysis, you can buy a top of the range computer now, and you still will not be able to play Cryis the way it is meant to played. While people might say that they are prepared to make compromises, the whole point to Crysis, the reason it wasn't released on consoles, the reasons why the system specs are so high, is because the main selling point is to show the world "This is what our games can do". The side effect of this is, gamers such as myself, get turned off modern computer gaming sticking to the classics and turn to consoles for their HD fill.

When I was thinking of a game for this point, I actually found it very tricky. Not because there is a shortage of games that are entirly focused on graphics, but because I do not buy games that are like this. Instead of blabbing on about a game which my entire opinion is based on a single Gamespot review, I will instead comment on the market in general. Many people will be aware that games are much shorter than they used to be. Gears of War, as great as it is, comes in at under ten hours. Likewise, Call of Duty can be done in less than ten hours. Fortunately, these game's gameplay aren't suffering. However, you could argue that the reason why Assassin's Creed has such repetitive mission objectives is because they spent so long making the draw distance breath taking. The problem with all these examples in showing my point is, overall, I believe that they have benefited from the fancy graphics. If anyone has any examples of games that have genuinely suffered because the focus is entirely on the graphics, please leave a comment.

In conclusion, I think we are reaching a split in gaming. I think the games that appear to be being damaged by graphics, the truth is that the developers couldn't improve the gameplay and decided to spend the time making technically amazing graphics so they can still justify charging money f0r it. I also want to point out that I do still believe the reason why the market is flooded with traditional games rather than different games is down to, almost entirely, the huge cost associated with making a game for the HD Era. I do not think it is because humanity has finally ran out of innovative ideas. Furthermore, because graphics need to be so intricate, game length is suffering and I think that developers now need to find a happy balance. Finally, I think that realistic graphics are going to become less prominent because, lets face it, as realistic as Forza looks, it can't compete with the likes of Paradise which just look cool. It all comes down to why you play games, and because it is for entertainment, realism just doesn't have the same wow factor as it used to.

I hope you enjoyed this post and I really appreciate all comments (which I will read out if I do the Podcast) Also if you have any tips on refining my style of writing or have a suggestion for a topic I can do, please post a remark.

The Importance of Being Online

My first Op-Ed article: How important is online?. I hope you enjoy it, I am working on my style and really appreciate any suggestions. Also, make sure you post your opinions, as they will be read out on the podcast next month! In this article, I will be discussing online and what it adds to and subtracts from games.

Online has, up until now, mainly something that PCs, and PCs only, do. Yes, the original Xbox connected to the internet, and technically so did the PS2, but even the Xbox was quite a lot of trouble to get it online and most games weren't even Live enabled. This has changed greatly in this generation. All current-generation consoles have online capabilities, in fact, I would go so far as to say, that online is what this generation is about. Great graphics barley make up half the market share, motion sensing is also about half the market share, but all 3 consoles, for better or for worse, have online. Not only this, but online is making stories for all 3 as well. Xbox Live has a massive reputation, obviously, but that isn't it, the PSN is trying to be a free, better version of Xbox Live and is one of Sonys main points to push. The Wii, also in the news about its online capabilities, namely how they are under-used, over-restricted and generally disappointing considering the Wii has built in Wi-fi. Finally, the PC's online is changing too, with Windows Live coming in to play, where some users are now paying for a service that used to be free. So to say online is at the forefront of gaming news would be a bit of an understatement, but how important is it really? Is it even a bad thing?

It is possible that online detracts from the games quality. As many of you will be aware, I recently purchased and completed Halo 3. I did so on the second to hardest difficultly, did not play it obsessively and managed to complete it in a matter of days (less than 5) For a game which has been in production for over 2 years, is that not a little short? If I had paid £40 for this game (as it happens, I managed to get it pre-owned) and did not have any intention of getting Live, I would be very disappointed with the game. While online may be very wide-spread, it isn't 100%. Some people could argue that, if you don't have online, you don't get Halo. I agree, but why should they miss out on a fantastic, albeit brief, game. Besides, it isn't just Halo. Call of Duty is another example (And I am sure Metal Gear Solid will be too) Some of this shortness can be attributed to the fact developers need to make amazing graphics or otherwise their title will just be shunned (that is what next months article will be on) However, I don't think it can be entirely responsible, as many of these games use pre-built engines anyway.

Also, as game developers are presuming the game is going to go online, they are delivering un-finished games. This used to be limited to PCs, where developers would just release a patch a month after launch. This was infuriating for the consumer, and when games are costing upwards of £40, it really isn't acceptable. That is not the worst of it, however. Some games take content out that had already been produced at the games launch to sell for more profits. Games aren't cheap, games are short, half the market is PAYING for online anyway, there really shouldn't be additional fees, particularly for horse armour.

That brings me on to my next point, cost. If assuming that you need online to enjoy a game to the full, you are going to need to spend some money. The 360 is the most guilty of this. If, firstly, doesn't have built in Wi-Fi. This is in itself shockingly bad, given that even the underpowered Wii does. But it gets worse, Microsoft charge £60 for the Wi-Fi card. It isn't a special card, it is a USB wireless adaptor, something that you can buy for PC for under £20 without going budget. It isn't even reliable, my friend has got through 4 since getting his 360 this Christmas. Surely Microsoft has taken enough of your money now? No, you have to pay for online. I mean, come on, that is ridiculous. Yes, Live is better than both the PSN and, obviously, the Wii, but £40 a year better? The truth is no, but it won't change because everyone, myself included, will keep buying it because they want to play their games online. It isn't just Microsoft who will rob you though, the PS3 has got a game coming out later this year BUILT around the idea of micro-transactions (Home)

Despite all that, online does have many good points too. The most obvious one is how it extends the game. Single player, no matter how long, will eventually get old, in theory, a decent evolving online game won't. Case in point: Halo. In 5 years time, Halo will still be a blast to play online. Offline multiplayer requires organisation, online doesn't Online means you can pick the game up for 5-10 minutes, play and go. Online means you can meet your friends online and be able to play them with out breaking commitments to other ties.

Also, many game developers will release more content after launch. Sometimes you will have to pay, sometimes you won't. It means that if they find something that isn't balanced, it can be fixed, increasing the longevity of the game. Halo periodically releases new maps that eventually become free. This, once again, keeps players coming back and helps to keep the game fresh. Yes, micro-transactions aren't cool, but if the content is right, then why not? You pay for games. I am not talking about horse armour, something I will never forgive Bethesda Studios for, but extra missions, new maps, different variants etc.

Finally, one of the key things about technology at the moment is user generated content. Take a look at any modern "Web 2.0" site. Post comments and write blog links are everywhere. Games are starting to embrace this, most obviously with things like Mii creation, but also more crucially things like screen shots and movies. Last generation, there were loads of movies created by fans using their favourite games, just search YouTube for Halo 2 Red Vs. Blue if you don't believe me. Or Halo Music Videos But this generation, things can get a little more advanced. With the ease of online, users can work together to make really good content. The online community is ready to embrace you.

So, do we need online? It definitely makes developers lazy, both with length of single player and bug fixing, but mulitplayer is usually the most fun element in a game and online multiplies that tenfold. I recently marked Metroid Prime 3: Corruption down for not having it. It would be, quite frankly, hypocritical to say no to online, as I just finished a Halo game online. However, one thing that might be possible if a developer was feeling really kind, and in some ways Metal Gear Solid is going to do this, is ship the offline portion on the disk having spent all the development time creating it. Then, because it will take a few months for everyone to complete, they develop the online portion and deliver it digitally. People who don't have online won't receive it, but it doesn't matter, because they won't be using it either. However, this won't happen as people are buying short games at full price. What I think we are going to see, however, is single player stuff being added later for a fee. Please leave your thoughts, comments and suggestions how I can make these articles better in the remarks button below.
----------------
Now playing: Oasis - The Importance Of Being Idle
^^D'ya get it?!
via FoxyTunes