Thar be spoilers ahead!
So I just finished Fallout: New Vegas.
A couple of things came to me as I was playing (beyond the "holy shit I love this game" that I experienced frequently), and I noticed that they were almost always centered on the moral choices I had to make in the game.
In most games I play that allow for the character to make choices to progress the story (often RPGs, but others also fall into this category occasionally), I find that all too often there's the "good answer" and the "evil answer." Choose one or the other, that's it, no grey area, no in-between, and it's often pretty clear which is which.
When I play games I rarely choose to play as the bad guy (unless I want to be NOD) and usually go for the hero-answers and the world saving approach. What I liked a lot about F:NV is the fact that there is no "good" or "evil" answer. Every faction that is vying for control of the wasteland has their own goals, and to the faction all of their goals are good, and those that oppose them are evil. While it isn't a perfect simulation of real morality, it definitely lends itself to a better picture of the human condition than good vs. evil...the strokes aren't nearly as broad.
In my game, I had been following the For the Republic, Part II quest, because I liked the NCR and wanted them to be victorious. Then the Colonel asked me to destroy the Brotherhood of Steel. Maybe it was that I helped the Brotherhood previously, or maybe it was that I remembered them from the previous Fallout games in which they were a main storyline component (specifically 1 and 3), but it wasn't something I was willing to do.
I tried to trick the Colonel into thinking it was done, or talking her into a peaceful solution, but none was available (at least to me, perhaps I missed something). I had already decided against the Legion, which left me with two options: Mr. House, or myself. Mr. House seemed like a tyrant, and I didn't particularly like him anyway, so I didn't have a problem taking him out for the NCR. But that left me with only one option: Wild Card. I completed this line of quests and finished the game with an independent Vegas, and felt damn good about it.
I can't remember the last time I felt morally invested in a character to that extent, that I actually cared about the story and characters to the extent that I played the game for them.
I know many gamers that care little for this sort of thing and instead only play to get the achievements, or to beat the game, or to get the most powerful character. I'll frequently do the same thing, which is why I felt surprised at myself for wanting the BoS to survive and going out of my way to make it so.
Perhaps it's just a quirk of this game, or perhaps it's excellent story writing. Whatever it is, I haven't been this interested in a game's story and moral choices in a while.
So what do you think, Kotaku? Do you play the good guy or the bad guy just because they're good or bad? Or do you play them because they get the best toys? Do you make gameplay decisions based on what you want to do, or what your character would want to do? And do you like moral absolutes or ambiguity?
#speakup
So I just finished Fallout: New Vegas.
A couple of things came to me as I was playing (beyond the "holy shit I love this game" that I experienced frequently), and I noticed that they were almost always centered on the moral choices I had to make in the game.
In most games I play that allow for the character to make choices to progress the story (often RPGs, but others also fall into this category occasionally), I find that all too often there's the "good answer" and the "evil answer." Choose one or the other, that's it, no grey area, no in-between, and it's often pretty clear which is which.
When I play games I rarely choose to play as the bad guy (unless I want to be NOD) and usually go for the hero-answers and the world saving approach. What I liked a lot about F:NV is the fact that there is no "good" or "evil" answer. Every faction that is vying for control of the wasteland has their own goals, and to the faction all of their goals are good, and those that oppose them are evil. While it isn't a perfect simulation of real morality, it definitely lends itself to a better picture of the human condition than good vs. evil...the strokes aren't nearly as broad.
In my game, I had been following the For the Republic, Part II quest, because I liked the NCR and wanted them to be victorious. Then the Colonel asked me to destroy the Brotherhood of Steel. Maybe it was that I helped the Brotherhood previously, or maybe it was that I remembered them from the previous Fallout games in which they were a main storyline component (specifically 1 and 3), but it wasn't something I was willing to do.
I tried to trick the Colonel into thinking it was done, or talking her into a peaceful solution, but none was available (at least to me, perhaps I missed something). I had already decided against the Legion, which left me with two options: Mr. House, or myself. Mr. House seemed like a tyrant, and I didn't particularly like him anyway, so I didn't have a problem taking him out for the NCR. But that left me with only one option: Wild Card. I completed this line of quests and finished the game with an independent Vegas, and felt damn good about it.
I can't remember the last time I felt morally invested in a character to that extent, that I actually cared about the story and characters to the extent that I played the game for them.
I know many gamers that care little for this sort of thing and instead only play to get the achievements, or to beat the game, or to get the most powerful character. I'll frequently do the same thing, which is why I felt surprised at myself for wanting the BoS to survive and going out of my way to make it so.
Perhaps it's just a quirk of this game, or perhaps it's excellent story writing. Whatever it is, I haven't been this interested in a game's story and moral choices in a while.
So what do you think, Kotaku? Do you play the good guy or the bad guy just because they're good or bad? Or do you play them because they get the best toys? Do you make gameplay decisions based on what you want to do, or what your character would want to do? And do you like moral absolutes or ambiguity?
#speakup
@nicp1112: Get yourself an actual starter deck. These include everything you'll need (like basic lands, something that advanced players take for granted), and find an experienced playgroup.
I've been playing magic since Ice Age and I've found that almost everything I know can be traced back to my original playgroup (who I still hang out with). Playing online can be a good time, but nothing beats the fun of tossing cardboard at one another face to face.
It's also not a bad idea to familiarize yourself with some of the simple rules. Avoid Vintage cards (they can get rather confusing for a newbie) and stick to stuff that is rather simple. This can limit the power of your decks to some degree, (though it is possible to get really powerful with simple effects), but it is great for learning the game.
Finally, I suggest either Red or White, or some combination of the two, to start with. These colors tend to be simple and straightforward, and avoid intricate mechanics. Avoid having more than two colors unless you really know what you're doing. Green isn't a bad choice either, but Black is tough and Blue is for experts only.
I've been playing magic since Ice Age and I've found that almost everything I know can be traced back to my original playgroup (who I still hang out with). Playing online can be a good time, but nothing beats the fun of tossing cardboard at one another face to face.
It's also not a bad idea to familiarize yourself with some of the simple rules. Avoid Vintage cards (they can get rather confusing for a newbie) and stick to stuff that is rather simple. This can limit the power of your decks to some degree, (though it is possible to get really powerful with simple effects), but it is great for learning the game.
Finally, I suggest either Red or White, or some combination of the two, to start with. These colors tend to be simple and straightforward, and avoid intricate mechanics. Avoid having more than two colors unless you really know what you're doing. Green isn't a bad choice either, but Black is tough and Blue is for experts only.
@Teknobo: Can't agree with this more. Pictures really are worth a thousand words.
@Skip-bo: The Supreme Court justices aren't elected, they're appointed. And you can't expect to make a ruling on something this important (violation of the First Amendment) without taking some time to handle all the details perfectly. I'm quite fine with the decision taking a few months as long as they get it right: that video games are no different than any other form of media delivery and shouldn't be treated differently.
Though from the summation of the arguments it sounds like we have a fairly firm foothold in place already. Hopefully this blossoms forth.
Though from the summation of the arguments it sounds like we have a fairly firm foothold in place already. Hopefully this blossoms forth.
Mr. Smith basically summed up the entire argument in a few statements, and he did it eloquently. Major props (but I guess speaking well is what lawyers get paid to do). Here's hoping the Supreme Court makes the right decision and upholds the decisions of the lower courts, though from reading through the other article it sounds like they will.
Free Speech: 1
Draconian Governmental "Parents:" 0
Free Speech: 1
Draconian Governmental "Parents:" 0
@Teran: I suppose they didn't want to be labeled cock blockers. At least, not totally.
Love the Nissan analogy.
It's a shame that there are people out there that make conversations like the one you had with your son a necessity. Though I suppose bullying will never really go away (but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it!)
Pretty sure I'm going to have to deal with something along these lines sometime in my life (I'm white, my fiancée is black). I suppose I should start composing responses now. Also rants to school officials for doing nothing about it.
It's a shame that there are people out there that make conversations like the one you had with your son a necessity. Though I suppose bullying will never really go away (but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it!)
Pretty sure I'm going to have to deal with something along these lines sometime in my life (I'm white, my fiancée is black). I suppose I should start composing responses now. Also rants to school officials for doing nothing about it.
I hope someone tells them to get bent. They don't have to play, or support the game, though apparently they want to impose their morals on everyone else, like usual.
I don't even have a Facebook account and this still pisses me off.
Cute pic tho. Obligatory "Awwwwww."
@Dragoonslayer12: Your reply kind of confuses me :/.
You agree with pretty much everything I said, but you make it sound like you don't.
@Michael Dukakis: I thought they did that in 2007?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Though I shouldn't say anything...I'm a (sigh) Pirates fan. At least we have two other recent titles in town.
@A Magic Chicken: Well, I'm sure the season will be forty games long by that point.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. ;)
@Bialia: Agreed, and well said.
The shame of an editorial like this is that there are so many stereotypes just tossed out as if they are fact, and to the lay person they simply become fact.
The theory he espouses regarding that all of the most popular games out there are intensely, overtly violent is incorrect.
He draws parallels between the United States' crime rates and other nations, without any examples or reasoning; I can think of about thirty things off the top of my head that would influence such statistics one way or another, most of them in existence long before video games were extant, let alone mainstream.
He makes the continuously popular mistake of assuming that all games are for children "would you really rather have your kids watching this than watching sex?" Frankly, neither is appropriate. Which is why the games have ratings, to prevent just such an occurrence.
I'd like to think his real point is that we need to be less up tight about sex in general and how it is depicted in media, but when his editorial is laced with so many inaccuracies and generalizations, it's kinda hard to take him seriously.
Frankly, if that is his point, I kind of agree with him. Unfortunately I've yet to see sex portrayed as he describes; a natural, beautiful thing between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Perhaps if shown that sex doesn't have to be the equivalent of porn, we might get to something with a little more breadth, but because the porn equivalent brand of sex is what sells, I doubt we will see it any time soon.
Regardless how sex or violence is portrayed, in the end I'll be the one making the decisions what my hypothetical children view and in what context. I don't need government, some over-moral religious group, or a porn star telling me what I can and can't watch.
@Leanid: Hm, I guess I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up :)
Though I can't decide if that government initiative is interesting or disturbing. Are there other programs in place?
I am kind of curious why the birth rate has declined so. Is the cost of having a child too high perhaps? Too much focus on non-family activities? Is Japan one of the only first-world nations with declining birth rates? I've always had the assumption that the population is growing in most of the world. I never assumed Japan (or any other nation for that matter) might be an exception.
Great, now my interest is piqued. Why does this happen at 3 :30 AM instead of a normal time when I can do research?
To Google! (And not bed, where I should be!)
@ThisCharmingMan: That's a pretty good point. For a company that pushes a game like Wii Fit, wouldn't it make sense to partner with, say, Subway? Or another company that tries to promote "healthy" eating?
(Healthy is in quotes because Subway isn't as health-conscious as they would have you believe, but it's still a damn sight better than Mickey-D's).
Beautiful picture.
On topic, I wonder how much of this data is related to simple console-lifespan. The Wii, for example, released in late 2006, (if memory serves). It makes sense that even with the incredible staying power the console has displayed thus far that it would eventually fizzle out at least a little bit.
Of course, I can't support this assumption without seeing the information from past consoles...did the same thing happen with the SNES or Dreamcast? Aside from time-specific spikes (holidays, big-name game launches) I suspect that a console might launch large, hit a peak at some point, and then over its lifespan begin to wither a bit (even without the introduction of a new console). Of course, I don't have the data to back this up, but it seems logical.
The most important point I think Ashcraft hit on is the second #2 - Increase the number of children. This seems to me to be a form of the "blue ocean strategy": reaching out to people who may not normally be gamers, or who perhaps have never experienced gaming.
A friend of mine compares games to cigarettes: once you get someone hooked at a young age, they're buyers for life. This is perhaps true of most things (someone who loves working on cars, for example, will likely at least be an automobile hobbyist in his/her adult life, moreso at least than someone who never was interested in cars to begin with).
An investment in children's games may provide slight increases in sales in the short-term, but will increase the size of the market in the long-term. Basically, you're prepping your customers to be shoppers for life.
@Grandleon: Seconded. Although I think he means more the visceral reaction humans generally have to violence, as opposed to the violence itself. It seems from the quote above that he wants a game in which you reach the end with your pulse pounding, totally breathless from what you've just accomplished.
Personally, I find any game that tries to amp up the difficulty to that extent ends up being frustratingly challenging. More often than not, I find that unless you perform exactly how the designers intended, you will fail. This, to me, is poor game design. I'd love to be able to accomplish a task in any manner of ways.
Let me provide an example: Recently, playing through Dragon Age, I came to a locked door. Not having a rogue in the party, I was pretty much stuck. And that was it. I had to backtrack twenty minutes to get to camp and get Liliana, when in reality my guy should have been able to just put a shoulder into the door and that would have been that. I mean, I can kill dragons and living trees, for crying out loud. But a locked door, heaven forbid!
...ahem. Anyway, until a game is able to successfully blend intuitive game play with challenge, we'll only end up with games that are "cheap hard" as opposed to "challenging and rewarding." Now, I've never played Arkham, so I can't speak to it's merit, but I can list plenty of games that fall into this category.
In fact, I could go so far as to make a claim regarding multiplayer-only games and why they are so popular: in part, at least, because they lack that "cheapness" that is so often utilized to provide challenge.
@TrueCrime: Wow, Batman looks like a total lunatic in that picture. :P
Haven't read this series...is it worth checking out?
I'm afraid that as a big corporate executive I'd be forced to focus on the moneymakers over the stuff that I feel would make gaming better in 2010. It would be more of the same: sequel after sequel, licensed properties, games that end with "Z."
If, however, I was guaranteed a success with whatever I decided to put out on the market, then I my first priority would be to put a big-time push behind indie games and lesser-known developers. There are hundreds of fabulous games out that there (that make less than the bid releases) simply because they're less well known. Of course, there is also a myriad of horrible, horrible indie games, but I feel like the benefit provided by backing gaming innovation would prove fruitful in the long run.
The next thing I would focus on would be to open a bunch of new game studios. This, again, might make things less profitable in the short run, but it would give a lot of talented software developers their jobs back, leading to an increase in games produced, an increase in quality and overall polish, and a decrease in time taken to produce those games...a win-win scenario (except for the bottom line).
Next, in the same vein as my theory on indie games, I would put together a team to scour the net for the best flash games out there and (not just port) but adapt them to the major consoles. There are some seriously excellent flash games floating around, and any one would make for an excellent console release (the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Sonny and Sonny 2, but I'm sure there are dozens more).
Last, but certainly not least, I would re-enter the vaults and pull out games that desperately need sequels, or games that were huge successes, and sequels were never done for whatever reason. I'd buy up the IP and put together a sequel that did the original justice.
Hrm. Yea, that whole thing sounds more like a Christmas list than a corporate game plan. Guess that's why I'll just have to keep waiting.
Oh, and also, I would make it mandatory from now on that none of my company's games or content was region locked. Ever.
Nice. This will probably get me playing again, at least for a little while. Maybe I'll finally get around to soloing Hell difficulty.
Wow. I didn't know you could sue someone for becoming "unjustly enriched," among other things.
Learn something new every day.
