(Warning: Mass Effect SeriesSpoilers, especially Mass Effect 3. You have been warned.)
The other day, I had a conversation with a friend of mine about the Mass Effectseries. In it, the following point came up: Where exactly does the series fall on the Sliding Scale of Linearity vs. Choice? It is a good question to ask because the very nature of the series. Mass Effecthas billed itself as a game about choice, making key decisions and seeing how they would play out as the series progressed. It was definitely an ambitious undertaking and one that must not be taken lightly. This week, I theorize that despite the marketing, Mass Effectis not about choice and I will show you the evidence supporting my claim. However, before I begin, I have to make one thing perfectly clear: This is not a post complaining about Mass Effect 3or its ending. I have already said my piece about that in an earlier post. This is a critique of one the series’s central mechanics. Now that we have gotten that out of the way…
 
Mass Effectis a Science-Fiction RPG created by Bioware. The game has the player take the role of Commander Sheppard, a highly trained elite soldier in the human military. The series focuses on Commander Sheppard’s adventures across space to defeat a race of organic machines called the Reaperswho come into the galaxy every fifty-thousand years to cull all space-faring species and turn them into Reapers. Throughout the series, the player, as Commander Sheppard, is asked to make significant choices that impact the lives of those around him/her. These choices are fairly diverse and encompass many situations, like whether or not to give an old race that once terrorized the galaxy a second chance by saving its last queen, saving the galactic council at the risk of human lives or focusing human fleets towards killing the main villain, choosing who will represent humanity going forward, advising a whole race on whether or not to go to war to reclaim their home-world, deciding whether to re-write a hostile AI collective to accept organics or just kill them off outright, etc.. All of these choices are major, critical choices for the world at large, or at least they appear to be. Let us go through these choices to see how they play out.
In the original Mass Effect, the player encounters a race called the Rachni. Before humans became a space-faring species, the other races once opened a gatewayto Rachni space. This resulted in the Rachni Warsthat had lasting repercussions amongst many of the races in the game. When the player, as Commander Sheppard, arrives on the scene, (s)he sees that the Rachni are being controlled by Saren, the main villain of the game who is later revealed to be controlled by the Reapers. The player encounters the last Rachni Queen, who promises to never again terrorize the galaxy if Sheppard lets her go. The player is then forced to make a choice. Does (s)he just release the Rachni Queen and hope that she is true to her word or does (s)he turn on the acid bath and kill off the Rachni Queen and avoid risking another galactic conflict? I think the best way to illustrate my point is to explain what happens with each branching path:
  • If the player saves the Rachni Queen, they have a pleasant chat (via proxy) in Mass Effect 2. In the third game, they become mind-controlled once again by the Reapers. In an optional side-quest, the player has the choice to either save them again at the expense of the krogan soldiers there or leave them to die. Saving them adds to the player’s war assets in the fight against the Reapers.
  • If the player kills the Rachni Queen, she does not appear in Mass Effect 2 (obviously). In the third game, the Reapers have found a way to clone the Rachni Queen and mind-control the race once again. In an optional side-quest, the player has the choice to either save them again at the expense of the krogan soldiers there or kill them off once and for all. Saving them leads to them removing war assets in the fight against the Reapers.
Okay. These two branching paths look suspiciously similar. Perhaps that is just one isolated incident. Maybe analyzing other choices will yield different outcomes.
Towards the very end of the original Mass Effect, the player is fighting to stop a Reaper, Sovereign, with the aid of Saren and his indoctrinatedforces, from taking the galactic capital, the Citadel, and summoning the rest of the Reaper forces to the galaxy. During the invasion, the Council, the highest authority in the galaxy, is evacuated to their flagship, the Destiny Ascension. After besting Saren (either through a boss fight or one of the best speech checks in the series), Sheppard reaches the heart of the Citadel and is forced to make a choice. The Destiny Ascension, Council aboard, is under attack, but Sovereign is still fighting as well. Sheppard can immediately summon the human forces to the battle or keep them at bay, leaving the other races to suffer high loses. Furthermore, if Sheppard summons the human military, (s)he can advise them to either focus exclusively on Sovereign and abandon the Council, or save the Council before joining the fight against Sovereign. The net impact is that either the Council lives or dies, with Sovereign stopped regardless. Let us analyze the repercussions of both options.
  • If the player decides to abandon the Council, the new Council refuses to even speak with him/her in Mass Effect 2. They ignore the warnings of Reaper attacks until the war with the Reapers actually begins in Mass Effect 3. In the third game, they initially refuse to help the human forces because each of the three council races are also being attacked by the Reapers. After doing his/her best to deal with their problems, Sheppard begins to gain sway with the council.
  • If the player decides to save the Council, they will agree to meet with Sheppard and listen to his viewpoint in Mass Effect 2. However, they ignore the warnings of Reaper attacks until the war with the Reapers actually begins in Mass Effect 3 and actively taunt Sheppard, referring to the Reapers in finger-quotes. In the third game, they initially refuse to help the human forces because each of the three council races are also being attacked by the Reapers. After doing his/her best to deal with their problems, Sheppard begins to gain sway with the council. The Destiny Ascension is added to the player’s war assets and is shown in the final battle.
These two outcomes also seem too similar. Are you starting to see the pattern? Let us keep going with this and see if this pattern holds up.
The next choice we will go through is also from the original game. After the battle against Sovereign is over and the Reapers have been driven back, humanity is given a seat on the Council. The player, as Sheppard, is given the authority to make the choice of who becomes the Councilor. (S)He can choose between Captain David Anderson, the humble, career soldier who never compromise his values and is a good friend to Sheppard, or Ambassador Donnel Udina, a career politician who knows how best to navigate political minefields and who is willing to use dirty tactics to advance the cause of humanity. And now, the outcomes of both choices.
  • Should the player make Udina the human Councilor, then Udina will refuse to help Sheppard in Mass Effect 2 and will not allow him to meet the Council (assuming the Council does not already hate Sheppard). In the third game, Anderson becomes an Admiral and a key figure in the fight against the Reapers. He gives Sheppard the mission to get help for humanity while he holds off the Reapers. Udina will advise the player to help the Councilors and get the other races to assist. Later on, he betrays Sheppard and decides to work with the human-centric terrorist organization, Cerberus, desperate to get aid for humanity’s fight against the Reapers. The player can, and probably will, choose to kill him for this.
  • Should the player make Anderson the human Councilor, then Anderson will agree to meet with Sheppard in Mass Effect 2 (the Council will spur his offer if Sheppard killed the old one, but Anderson will still talk with the player). Anderson offers to make Sheppard a Spectre, an elite council agent who is above the law out of respect of their friendship, which the player can refuse. (This decision makes no impact in Mass Effect 2 and Sheppard becomes a Specter in the third game anyway.) In between the second and third games, Anderson gets fed up with the Council and quits, giving the position to Udina. In the third game, Anderson becomes an Admiral and a key figure in the fight against the Reapers. He gives Sheppard the mission to get help for humanity while he holds off the Reapers. Udina will advise the player to help the Councilors and get the other races to assist. Later on, he betrays Sheppard and decides to work with the human-centric terrorist organization, Cerberus, desperate to get aid for humanity’s fight against the Reapers. The player can, and probably will, choose to kill him for this.
Another decision from the first game rendered completely meaningless in later installments. Maybe it is just the first game. Perhaps decisions in Mass Effect 2had an impact on the third game. Let us find out.
So now we come to two, very related, key decisions in Mass Effect 2. But first, the usual backstory. Throughout the original game, Sheppard is pit up against the Geth, an race of sentient AIs that support Saren and Sovereign. We know that they were created by the Quarians, a race known for having to live in bio-suits due to their weak immune systems, and rebelled against their creators, forcing the Quarians to abandon their home-world and travel as the galaxy’s closest equivalent to Gypsies. In Mass Effect 2,we learn through a Geth companion, Legion, (Spoiler Alert: You get a Geth companion, named Legion.) that these Geth that are fighting Sheppard are actually a splinter factionwho worship the Reapers. Furthermore, we learn that the Quarians were the actual aggressors in the conflict between both groups and that the Geth are isolationists who just want to live and let live. The player, through optional, yet story-critical, side-quests, can make two choices. In Legion’s side-quest, the player can choose between re-writing the Geth splinter faction, forcing them to accept the other Geth’s logic, or just outright destroy them. Furthermore, after resolving a problem revolving around the player’s Quarian companion, Tali, Sheppard can chose to either advise the Quarian race to avoid fighting the Geth to retake their homeland, or incite them into continuing their planned course of action and fighting the Geth in a war to reclaim their home. And now, the consequences of these choices.
  • If Sheppard sent the Quarians after the Geth, the Quarians, emboldened by the inciting words of Commander Sheppard, being their attack on the Geth. The Geth, losing programs rapidly and scared out of their collective mind, broker a deal with the Reapers to gain upgrades and safety in exchange for servitude. Sheppard must now find a way to break the Reaper influence on the Geth. Afterward, (s)he must choose to side with one of the conflict’s two factions (but with a sufficient Reputation, he can arrange for peace between them). The war assets that both factions can give are determined by the decision to re-write/kill the evil Geth. (Re-writing will cause the Quarians to lose forces and the Geth to gain forces.)
  • If Sheppard advocated a stop to the war, the Quarians, refusing the advice and council of the galaxy’s biggest hero, begin war with the Geth. The Geth, losing programs rapidly and scared out of their collective mind, broker a deal with the Reapers to gain upgrades and safety in exchange for servitude. Sheppard must now find a way to break the Reaper influence on the Geth. Afterward, (s)he must choose to side with one of the conflict’s two factions (but with a sufficient Reputation, he can arrange for peace between them). The war assets that both factions can give are determined by the decision to re-write/kill the evil Geth. (Re-writing will cause the Quarians to lose forces and the Geth to gain forces.)
I really wish I was kidding with this. This is exactly how each choice plays out. This really does grow old after awhile.
We have gone through several major choices and it seems like none of them had any real consequence on the narrative. While there is one glowing, beautiful exception to the rule, (The Krogan/Genophagequest-line of Mass Effect 3radically changes depending on choices the player has made in the first two games and is perhaps the best sequence in the entire series.) for the most part, the series seems to be trying its very hardest to disregard the choices the player makes. This is not an argument regarding how realistic it is. This is not an argument about whether or not it makes sense for one man to have tons of influence (even if it does not, Sheppard unites a galaxy almost single-handedly anyway, so that is a moot point). This is an observation that the game advocates choice and then does nothing with it. This is either a complete disregard for choice and free-will as a central theme, a silent affirmation that the game was never about choice and that marketing was wrong, or just plain lazywriting on Bioware’s part. No matter which way this is analyzed, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. This is not to say that Mass Effect 3is a bad game. It is not. While it is much more linear than I desire, it is a game I could easily recommend to RPG fans. But just because something is good does not mean that we, as consumers, cannot demand better. If games are to shape up as a medium, we need to make sure that everything is up to snuff, especially the story.

Warning: Fallout: New Vegas and DLC spoilers

A few weeks back, I discussed characterization in Fallout: New Vegas. I said that the “villain” faction (because the player will almost always be directly opposed to it), Caesar’s Legion, was one of the most poorly written groups out of the games factions. Though I did not explicitly say it then, I lamented the fact that the villain was so poorly written. In my opinion, the villain has to be one of the most well-written characters in a game. Fortunately, it seemed Obsidian preempted me and learned from its mistake. While I was busy complaining about the Legion, they released the Lonesome RoadDLC and introducing one of, in my opinion, the most interesting and well-written characters in New Vegas. The villain of Lonesome Road, Ulysses, will be the subject of my first (and hopefully notthe last) character analysis.
Before I get into his character, I need to explain his history, and it is a long and interesting one. Ulysses was originally a member of a tribe called the Twisted Hairs. The Twisted Hairs were a tribe known for their dreadlocks that symbolized every significant event in the lives of those who wore them. This tribe was eventually conquered by Caesar’s Legion and conscripted into the Legion’s military. In time, Ulysses began to stand out amongst his peers and became one of Caesar’s elite, while the rest of his tribe slowly died out. He became a courier working for Caesar and made a promise to him that he would not kill anyone of the same profession. (I can only assume this is because either there are a lot of Legion couriers or that Caesar thinks he can use the couriers of an area after he takes over.) It was Ulysses who discovered Hoover Damand the New California Republic, symbols of Old World values from before the Great War, for the Legion, sparking Caesar’s obsession with the Dam and the war between the two factions over it.
Soon afterward, Ulysses was sent to explore NCR territory on the Legion’s behalf and report back to them. It was while exploring that he discovered “The Divide,” a community shaped by Old Worldsymbols and technology, which inspired him to wear the Old World Flagand carry an eagle staffas symbols. Ulysses saw the Divide as a place he could settle down, a place he could rebuild and begin again. Then, the Courier(the player character) came to the divide with a package to deliver. (Remember, this was before the events of the game.) The package contained Old World technology that, once activated, detonated many of the nuclear warheads and turned the Divide into yet another nuclear wasteland. Ulysses would have died if it had not been for more Old World technologyspringing to life to heal him. This event had two drastic effects on him. First, he developed a hatred for the Courierbecause it was his delivery that caused the destruction of his home for the second time. On the flip side, this event inspired him. It showed that one small, seemingly insignificant action from a single person could have a dramatic effect on the world at large.
After returning to the Legion, he learned that Caesar lost in the First Battle of Hoover Damto the NCR. He was sent to Utahto arrange for tribalsto attack the settlement of New Canaan. (Caesar had personal reasonsto ask for this.) He felt sorrow for manipulating the tribals in a similar way to how his own tribe was manipulated way back when. This was exacerbated by the fact that the tribals began to wear their hair as he does. While they believed they were honoring him, Ulysses saw that as nothing more than an empty mockery of his tribe’s tradition because they did not know the “history” behind it. This inspired him to leave his duties as a Legionnaire and try to change the course of history, believing that both the NCR and the Legion are both to flawed and do not know the best way to positively impact humanity’s future.
He traveled to an Old World installation, Big Mountain, by tracking the weather patterns, noting that storms like the ones he was tracking are similar to the storms caused by the events of the Divide. There, he made contact with twomembersof the Brotherhood of Steel, an organization devoted to preserving Old World technology, directing one to the Sierra Madre Casinoand having an intense philosophical debate with the other. Ulysses was hoping that the Brotherhood would know how to best lead humanity into the future, but eventually decided that they did not after having this debate. He continued to explore Big MT and met with the Think Tank, a group of scientists (well, tat least the brains of a group of scientists) who experiment and innovate in the safety of the area. Ulysses began to grow frustrated with the erratic nature of the Think Tank and finally yelled at them, “Who are you, who do not know your own history!?” At that moment, the Think Tank’s collective memory came back and they recalled the America of before the Great War: Not just the nation, but the ideal. They told him about the last bastion of the Old World. Deep down in the Divide, there was an old missile silo still waiting for the launch command. Ulysses left Big MT determined to change history as the Courier had in the Divide.
As a last gesture to the Mojave before heading once more into the Divide, Ulysses was about to accept a commission to deliver a Platinum Chipto New Vegas. He was suspicious of the job, but felt that he could handle it. Then, at the last minute, he saw the name of the first person on the waiting list for the job. It was the Courier, who Ulysses assumed dead after the events of the Divide. Out of respect of his old promise to Caesar, and out of a desire for revenge, Ulysses dropped the job, knowing that the Courier would be the one to take it up, thus initiating the events of Fallout: New Vegas.
All of this history is central to understanding Ulysses as a character. He has several interesting and realistic motives for what he does during the events of the Lonesome Road. Firstly, he wants to do his best to improve humanity’s future by destroying the NCR, who he sees as unable to help humanity in the long run. He does not bother with the Legion partly because he believes that Caesar will eventually tire himself out and wear down to the point where he might as be dead and partly because (and this is speculation on my part) that he still sees the Legion forces as family. With these two factions out of the way, the people of the wasteland will be able to advance on the correct path, guided by the values of the Old World.
This leads to another one of his internal conflicts. On one level, he despises Caesar for betraying his tribe, the Twisted Hairs, and killing them off. On the other hand, he does partially sympathize with Caesar and the Legion and thinks that while they cannot sustain themselves and that they do not know how to last in the wasteland, they still have noble goals. This is an interesting internal conflict. He has seen the good that Caesar’s Legion is capable of, but has also experienced the worst of what the Legion can do. He has also witnessed how the Legion operates and knows that the current model is only sustainable so long as the Legion has an enemy to fight. This provides a level of depth and intrigueto his character that is quite refreshing to see.
The fate of the Twisted Hairs and of the Divide are what inspired another key aspect to Ulysses’s character: His obsession and attention to detail with regards to history. After witnessing the destruction of two settlements, the people, and the knowledge of them, Ulysses understands the tragedy of lost history. This is what inspired him to learn more about the Old World, the symbols and the events of the past. He eventually took the name of a key general who defended his home in war time, Ulysses S. Grant. His reverence for the Old World is a key-aspect of the character. It is the reason he tried to settle at the Divide, the reason he traveled to Big MT, and the reason he found his motivations and the method to achieve his goals.
The last conflict with his character is the one that is the most obvious, his relationship with the player character. Because of his promise with Caesar and his desire to honor it, Ulysses is forbidden from attacking the Courier directly. This means that he needs to find indirect ways to get revenge for what happened in the Divide. He tried once by giving the player the Platinum Chip job that led to him/her being shot twice in the head and left in a shallow grave at the beginning of the game. By the time the player begins the Lonesome Road, he/she has most likely begun asserting his influence on New Vegas and shaping it the way he/she desires. This provides further motivation for Ulysses. He wants to not only shape the world his way, but to prevent the Courier from leaving his/her mark on history. This provides an interesting dynamic between the player and the primary antagonist that is furthered by the conversations the player can have with him throughout the Lonesome Road. However, just because Ulysses hates the Courier does not mean that he will not lend his ear to him/her. This is perhaps the best part of his character. Despite what has happened to him, despite his personal feelings, despite the player acting contrary to his goals, Ulysses is willing to listen and try to understand the player. The player, with either a high enough Speech skill or knowledge divined through Ulysses’s personal recordings scattered throughout the Divide, can even talk him down and convince Ulysses to join his side. This speak volumes about Ulysses, more than his backstory or actions do, and makes him more than just another enemy. It makes him a good antagonist and character.
Ulysses is an example of what writing in video games should be like. He has a deep and involving backstory that ties into many of the events of both New Vegasand its DLC. His backstory gives him a unique personality that is both believable and relate-able. This is what happens when a talented writing staff makes takes it upon themselves to write detailed lore, fascinating characters, and believable interactions for the player to have with both of them. Game developers and writers should look to Obsidian and take this lesson to heart when developing the world of their games. This is arguable even more important for games because players are active participants in the world and the story.

The games of today have come a long way from the games of old. Graphical fidelity has greatly advanced and allows for more rich and detailed environments. The streamlining of many often-used systems in games has made gaming more accessible to the masses. Different genres and new indie titles ensure that for every individual, there is a game to cater to his/her specific tastes. Gaming has played host to a myriad of innovations. However, despite this, there are many ways in which gaming has been degressing. This week, I will be looking at the potential causes of these worsening trends in gaming.
One the main reasons that major gaming corporations cite to explain downward trends in gaming is used games. According to game developers, used games are eating too much into profits, meaning they have to produce other ways to make money (through micro-transactions, DLC, etc.). There is some truth to used games affecting profits of game developers. Gamestop is particularly well-known for this. Gamestop’s used game programs are responsible for a very decent chunk of their profits. They actively try to get customers to buy used and trade in their games through sales, money-back guarantees, and special one-time offers.
While this does result in an overall loss for game developers, there is one critical detail being missed: Used games are nothing new to the game industry. For years, people have been buying and selling used games and companies have not had a problem with them in the past. Furthermore, I could argue that used games are not as commonplace as they were before. Because of recent developments in gaming, used game sales for the PC are effectively dead. There are game trading systems on services like Steam, but used games have long been absent, at least from PC gaming, for awhile now. With the advent of online pass systems, console gaming has also begun to deter used game sales. Also, the economy has been taking its toll on people’s budgets, gamers being no exception. For many people, trading in and barter games is the only way to buy new games and support the developers they care about. This means that there is a possibility that used games are necessary for the industry to remain profitable in this economy. With all of this, I find it hard to believe that used games the cause of the problems in modern gaming.
So then, if used games are not the trouble, then what could be. Many people have made the argument that the problems are caused by the new level of inter-connectivity present in modern gaming. I can see where this argument is coming from. With the exception of the PC and the original X-Box, gaming never really had any sort of online service until now, and certainly not to this degree. Developers never really had the capacity to change and impact the game post-release. For the most part, the product that was released was the same product ten years down the line. Any glitches that were there on day one would still be there. Any overpowered/weak equipment in games would stay that way. This gave developers tons of incentive to test and test and test everything that got released. If they did not, then their reputation would be ruined and people would no longer buy their games. Nowadays, day 1 patches, downloadable content, and updates for games are the norm. It is entirely possible, and this does happen, for games to be horribly, awfully, disgustingly broken at release, almost to the point of unplayability, only to be patched within the first few weeks. (Isn’t that right, Fallout: New Vegas?)Furthermore, it is true that content can be withheld from the game and released later as DLC. Capcom and the Street Fight X Tekkendebacle have proven this to be true.
As much as I dislike this (and I reallydislike this), I do not think this is the cause of all the problems. While inter-connectivity has never been prevalent in gaming, it has certainly always been present. On the PC and the original X-Box, patches and expansion packs were used. Back then, developers had this functionality. However, the problems we are facing now were not around back then. Developers never (or at least not enough to be noticed) abused the use of patches and DLC to adjust games and hide away features in the name of profit. They might have hid away buggy parts of games or worked around them, but they never fixed it and released it later. No, something had to change to start this system of overuse and abuse.
What I have come to believe is that the animosity towards used games and the abuse of inter-connectivity are not problems of the industry. Rather, they are symptoms of bigger issues. The question remains: What are the problems? I believe that these issues are caused by two connected problems: Overinflated budgets in gaming and overall bad business sense in the game industry. These two problems are born from one central problem: The gaming industry is trying really hard to emulate the movie industry, when that is a grave mistake. Games have become more graphics-intensive these last few years. The more advanced graphics become, the more people need to be hired in order to make these graphics and (more importantly) the more programs and graphics engines cost to lease. This results in budgets for modern games skyrocketing. They want cinema-quality productions no matter the cost. The problem is that while the companies do this in order to stay on the cutting edge and keep their consumer base interested, this is not necessary. The truth is that graphics are only a small, minor consideration to gamers when deciding what games to buy. We gamers only take graphics into consideration when they begin to affect whether or not they can play the game (as in, when the game is incredibly ugly and hard to look at or when they lead to high load times). I have never once heard somebody refuse to buy a game specifically because the graphics were not as good as every other game. Nonetheless, this over-inflation of the budget causes the money-grubbing the modern gaming is becoming. It pushes deadlines up and “inspires” many of the DLC schemes gamers hate.
But this is not the only problem. Gaming has become more like the movie industry when that is not conducive to business. Like movies, game sales are usually tracked in the first week, and that is what many people use to determine the overall success of the game. Also, games tend to hype up their initial release and then let the hype fizzle out after a few weeks. This is detrimental to the industry. It works for movies for several reasons. One, theater ticket sales are only a smallportionof initial profits. Odds are that released movies have tie-in products as well like toys, novelizations, even the inevitable movie tie-in game (Ugh). Furthermore, after movies are released, they have alternative methods to make money. Film producers can continue to profit off of DVD and Blu-Ray sales as well as the syndication of their works on TV channels like HBO. As a result, even a movie that was a complete flop at the box office can profit in the long run.
Similar to movies, games are trying to get tons of money through initial sales. Unlike films, games generally do not have the added safety nets that films do. As a result, with the current business model, game companies have to recoup all of their losses within the first week. Combined with the high graphics budgets, this is suicide. It means that any AAA game that is not of a well known brand is almost guaranteed to fail. A normal product normally would be able to fix the situation and still make some sort of profit by changing the price or something, but games have become increasingly inflexible as of late. Most modern games are released at a flat rate of $60. Like any other product, these prices are subject to change with the market. Unlike any other product, these prices can take months or, as it often the case, yearsto drop there prices. Instead of adjusting to supply and demand, prices for games are nearly unchanging. Used games are not subject to this and will often fluctuate with the demands of the market. This is why Gamestop is able to profit from used games. In fact, I have heard tales of times where Gamestop intentionallyopens up unopened games to pawn them off as “used” at a loss in order to clear up shelf space. This mimicry of the movie industry combined with the inability to use basic business sense when selling the finished product (nota service, to the person who actually said that) is damaging the industry.
So how do we fix these two problems. There are two ways we can do this. First, we can vote with our wallets. We can support companies with good business models and deny companies who use poor business models or unethical practices. This is not done nearly enough in modern gaming. Gamers have demonstrated an inability to live without. We do not realize the power we hold over these corporations. So, this strategy seems unlikely. The second option is to do what gamers are best at: Bitch and Moan. Bitching and moaning are not bad. It is okay to criticize game companies. They need feedback, now more than ever. As one of my favorite game commentators, Shamus Young, once said, “If games aren’t improving, than you haven’t been complaining hardenough.” Input from the consumers is vital to improving the state of the industry. The last alternative is to do nothing. This is the worst possible option. At the rate games are going, if we do not do anything, than game companies will eventually begin to collapse. Budgets will grow unsustainable, given time. Nobody wants this. I certainly do not want this. If I complain about the state of the industry, than it is a because I love the industry. I hate these practices because I love gaming. I write this blog post because I love gaming. I love what these companies are able to do and I want them to continue to thrive. Hell, I want to be able to take-part in the creation of games. Everyday I hear about development studios closing shop, I feel terrible for all of the talent set loose in the process. We need to change this industry. We need to make it sustainable, else we will be seeing a repeat of the Atari E.T. Incident.

Any game enthusiast who goes onto the internet is familiar with this particular topic. Everyday, someone, somewhere in the world argues that “games are not realistic enough.” Although this assertion is made often, it is a somewhat disingenuous one. When game players say that they want games to be more realistic, that is not exactly what they mean. They are referring to a similar, yet together different topic. This week, I am going to discuss realism in games: Why realism is an unrealistic goal and what gamers are actually asking for.
First off, I am going to start with a statement that will sound like common sense when I say it: A truly realistic game is never going to exist.Furthermore, nobody truly wants realism in games.A truly realistic game would be a game where the protagonist would die after taking a few bullets, health regeneration would take weeks, the player would have to maintain some source of income and pay bills/rent as they go through the story, etc. This would not be an extremely compelling game. This would be real life. This would be a chore. Also, programming and rendering this would be a complete nightmare. It would take many years before we got close to completely realistic and commercially available simulation programs. Players do not want to play through real life, they want to play through interesting and dramatic, yet believablestories.
That is the key. The audience does not want a realistic story. They want a believable story. That is a subtle, yet distinct difference. A believe story is one that might not be in line with the rules of the real world (and indeed, often will not be depending on the genre), but it does have its own internal logic, or continuity, that is rarely, if ever, broken. Even if it is broken, it is only in small, minor ways that do not have a significant impact on the world. This applies not only to the world itself, (as in, how its technology/magic works, political alliences/treaties, national pollicies, etc.) but also to the characters how populate the world and take part in the events of the story.
For example, in Fallout: New Vegas, the NCR, who is equipped with guns and hi-tech combat armor, is in a battle against Caesar’s Legion, who is equipped with machetes, chainsaws, and football equipment (as armor). In real life, the NCR would dominate against Caesar’s Legion. There would be no question: A bunch of semi-trained marksman would destroy a group of the best-trained melee specialists in football pads in a straight fight. However, by the systems in the game, this makes sense. Using melee weapons and/or unarmed are perfectly legitimate playstyles in New Vegasand many players use them (myself included). So when the Legion is shown to be in a stalemate with the NCR, players will not question it. While unrealistic in the real world, this still makes sense by the game’s internal logic. We might question the motives and rationale behind the two factions, but we do not question that such a stalemate is possible.
This continuity extends to the factions for the most part. Going back to New Vegas, this is mostly done very well. The NCR has a believable motivation because they wish to annex New Vegas to both spread their democratic ideology and to gain the resources of the area, notably Hoover Dam and the electricity generated by it. However, they have a streak of over-expanding and spreading themselves too thin. Meanwhile, Mr. House wants to keep control of New Vegas in order to keep making profits from the NCR and use that profit to advance humanity technologically and possibly space-ward. The trade-off is that he will not tolerate any faction who openly opposes him and will instruct the player to eliminate most of the minor factions in the game. These are both interesting motivations, goals, and drawbacks that the player can wrap their head around, understand and possibly support.
However, the Legion does not have a similar consistency. Caesar’s Legion is a faction that subjugates tribals and adds their men and women to the army and the slave workforce respectively. They are also known for rejecting advanced technology in favor of primitive weapons like machetes and chainsaws and basic firearms like repeaters and SMGs. The tradeoff being that while the concept of individual liberty and freedom does not exist, the people are generally safe because bandits wouldn’t dare to cross the legion. With regards to behavior, members of the legion are taught the ills of the society of the NCR and of New Vegas. They shun anything to do with these things in favor of a less advanced, and more demanding lifestyle, hoping to destroy the NCR and Vegas. With regards to their soldiers and general populace, this is fairly consistent. However, when you get into the upper echelons of Legion society, it begins to falter. Firstly, something that the player is able to discover as the game goes on is that the Legion utilizes systems of spies in both Vegas and the NCR. Far from shunning these places and demonizing them, the higher ups place people in places where they can influence the people there and possible steal some of the intel/technology in the area for themselves. As if that was not enough, with a high enough Medicine skill, the player and diagnose Caesar with a brain tumor. His response to this would naturally be to avoid modern medicine and try to heal himself through more primitive means or even to prepare a successor. Nope! Instead, we asks you to fix his Auto-Doc (Its a robot doctor.) so that he can use advanced technology to heal himself, going against his core anti-technology principals.
Going on the anti-technology front again, this continues to be illogical when the player asks why Caesar does what he does. He wants to use the ancient Roman Empire as a model to form his own. Thus, we reverts to using old technology. However, this does not make sense to those who have even a surface level understanding of history. The ancient Roman were not anti-technology.In fact, they were about as pro-technology as you can get. The shamelessly ripped off any good/useful technique/technology from their neighbors if it meant that they could do better. So by abandoning technology, Caesar is spitting in the face of the very system he is trying to emulate. Everything he does seams to contradict something else he is doing. The net result is that he breaks his own internal logic and becomes a caricature that no sane person would get behind. For a world as beautifully crafted as the one in New Vegas, this is tragic.
Realism as the dictionary describes it will never be a part of video games and for good reason. However, this does not mean that gamers are wrong to keep asking for games to be realistic. In fact, it is important for the audience of game developers to keep them honest and make them abide by their own internal logic. It is still very important to maintain a level of consistency and believability with the world and the characters. This is just another part of storytelling. Game developers would be wise to remember this.

Downloadable Content(DLC) has become increasingly commonplace in the modern gaming industry. Most of the biggest gaming releases utilize it to some extent. Done well, DLC can bring new life to a game, extending its shelf life and keeping players engaged for longer than they normally would be. Done poorly, DLC can anger consumers and make them feel ripped off. Today, I am going to analyze some of the current trends of DLC and detail the pros and cons of each.
One type of DLC that has been brought to the spotlight recent is Day 1 DLC. As the name suggests, Day 1 DLC is content released for a game either on the day it is released or extremely close to it. There are several reasons why developers do this. For one, the time a developer finishes a game is not the same time that it gets released. When a game is finished, it “goes gold.” During this phase which lasts for a month or two, the game is sent to all the major parties involved (the game publisher, Sony if the game is a PS3 release, Microsoft if the game is an Xbox 360 release, etc.) to be tested. Before the advent of DLC, the developers would often begin production of the next project or cash in on all the vacation days they no doubt saved up. Nowadays, these developers are allowed to work on small DLC projects. Often times these projects were started earlier and intended to be part of the main game, but had to be scrapped for various logistical reasons. The other main reason this type of DLC is so prevalent is simply due to the consumer base. It has been shown that DLC for a game sells less and less well the farther away it is released from the game’s initial release, so it makes sense to release it early. While this sounds good in theory, this has the potential for abuse. Companies can, and sometimes will, release content that feels like it should have been a part of the main game. Consumers can tell the difference between content that is a extra and is not necessary in the grand scheme of things compared to content that is ripped from the game and sold later as paid DLC. This generates a lot of bad PR and negative publicity for a company. As I have stated before, PR is very important. People will be more open to giving companies money if they do not feel like they are continuously being screwed over.
On the other hand, that is nothing compared on On-Disk DLC. Again as the name suggests, On-Disc DLC is content that is already on the game disc, but cannot be accessed normally. Instead, the developer releases a code to unlock it later as “DLC”. I am going to be completely honest here, I hate this form of DLC with a passion. There is no reason for this kind of content except for corporate greed. This is not so much of a business concern as much as it is a consumer rights issue. The consumer bought the disc, which contains the game. They own, and are entitled to, every piece of content on that disc. At this point, the developer/publisher no longer has any legal say in what they do with this content. (Within fair rights laws. As in, they are allowed to let people borrow/rent that content, but they cannot copy it. That would be piracy, which is a whole separate topic.) On-Disc DLC is the antithesis to this because this allows developers to wall off content that the consumer rightfully owns. Admittedly, this becomes more hazy once digital distribution gets involved, but the point is no less valid.
A very good, and very recent, example of both these trends is the “From Ashes” DLC in Mass Effect 3. For the unaware, “From Ashes” was accidentally leaked to the world a few weeks before the release of Mass Effect 3via the Xbox Live Marketplace. The content is an extra mission and an extra character for the cost of $10 and was going to be released the same day the game would be. This was met with outcry because of the nature of the character. It can be argued that this particular character, a Prothean named Javik, is important to the lore of Mass Effect, considering that he was part of a race that wasa believed to be extinct in game and was responsible for many of the major plot points in the series. The outrage continued even moreso after it was revealed that Javik and all of his voice clips were already in the main game and a simple numbers tweak in the game code (PC only) would allow players to use him. This was particularly egrigious after statements from Project Lead Casey Hudson said that they would never take something from the game and release it later as DLC. Bioware did everything wrong with Javik. He was already on the disc, he was released day one, and he was overpriced at $10 for one character. This was a perfect storm that many Bioware fans saw as a betrayal. Things only got worse later, but that is a whole different conversation.
While On-Disc and Day 1 DLC are definitely some of the worst current trends in DLC, there are companies out there that do DLC in such an excellent way that I just need to bring attention to them. The first example of DLC done right is from Valve. Valve released DLC for Portal 2 in an extremely intelligent way. The first DLC they released for the game came out only a few weeks after the game came out, but it was not anything major. Valve released different types of hats that can be used in the cooperative campaign to add uniqueness and personality to the two robot characters. Furthermore, these hats were reasonably price at around $0.50 per hat. (Final Fantasy XIII-2, I was looking at you and your $3 costumes as I wrote that last sentence.) I can support this kind of content because it is not vital to the game and it is very reasonably priced. People who do not want it have no reason to buy it (like me) but those who wanted it bought more than enough to compensate for that. The other DLC released for Portal 2was called “Peer Review.” This content was released well after the game came out and added tons of new puzzles for the cooperative campaign. It was sold for the low, low price of free. It was just to add longevity to the game. This was amazing because companies very rarely do this. It was basically an act of kindness to the consumer base. I do not expect other companies to do things like this, but I feel compelled to point out examples like this in an article about DLC.
The other kind of DLC I can support is the kind of DLC that Bethesda and Obsidian released for the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. After the legendarily infamous disaster of the Horse Armor DLC (from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) Bethesda learned their lesson. One of the most well-received DLCs to ever be released was The Shivering Islesfrom Oblivion. It had a hefty price of $25, but it was well worth it. It added a completely new (and amazing) world to Oblivion that was about one-forth of the size of the original game. It came complete with new side-quests, an interesting main story, tons new spells for mages (There was even a spell to revive dead bodies.), tons of new ingredients for alchemists, tons of new equipment for everybody (including one of my personal favorite weapons in the Elder Scrolls series) and was overall a massive piece of critical and commercially acclaimed content. Bethesda took the reception of The Shivering Islesto heart and made most of the DLC of all future games similarly. This is most evident in the Fallout 3 DLCs. There were five of them, each released at around $10, that all added radically new and different locals to the base game. One of them (Broken Steel) even extended the main story and raised the level cap by 10 levels. Obsidian did something similar in Fallout: New Vegasand its DLC. One of them added tons of new weapons and weapon mods that have a very noticeable impact on the game. The other DLCs each had new worlds. The difference being that while each DLC had its own, self-contained story (like the DLC from Fallout 3), they all referenced characters and locals from other DLCs and tied together in a way I do not think I have seen before. Again, with the exception of the first one (which was cheaper), the other DLCs were about $10. I have to stress why these DLCs were all good. They added something new and refreshing to the game, they are fairly well-priced, and most importantly, none of it was even close to feeling necessary in order to make the most out of the game. It is entirely possible to play through both of the recent Fallout games without even thinking about DLC. It is all side-stuff that is completely unrelated to any of the plots in the main game. There is nothing wrong with adding new and interesting stuff later on. In my opinion, that is the spirit of good DLC. It is supposed to breath new life into games by adding new and interesting stuff.
DLC is a double-edged sword that has become an integral part of modern gaming. Companies have demonstrated both the good and the bad of adapting this new way of extending a game. It is the responsibility of the consumer to keep the corporations honest by seeing through the bad and rewarding those who get DLC right. If you disagree with the way somebody is handling their DLC, then do not buy it. You are only supporting them if you do. This is the essence of capitalism. The consumer rewards companies who do things they like by doing business with them.

It has been a few weeks since Mass Effect 3 has been released, and the controversies surrounding it have been going strong. People throughout the internet have discussed this issue to death. The fan backlash has been truly astounding. Bioware has reached George Lucas levels of hatred because of the way the ending played out. This week, I will weigh in on the issue myself and give you my own opinion regarding the fan outrage and how Bioware should respond.
But before that, I am going to make one thing clear. Like the vast majority of the internet, I also heavily disliked the ending. I thought that it was a betrayal of the series and its fans. However, I will not discuss exactly why people hated the ending unless it directly pertains to the point I am trying to make. I will not spoil specifics, but there will be general spoilers abound. The best part about discussing a topic a few weeks later is that there is already amountainofsourcesdescribing what exactly went wrong. People have a lot of opinions that ultimately boil down to whether or not the ending needs to be changed.
 
First, we will discuss the ways people are moving for a change of the game’s ending. One of the most well known of these is “Retake Mass Effect.” Retake Mass Effect is a group who opposed the ending and protested by donating to Child’s Play, one of the most renown video game charities out there. As of this writing, they were told to desist the charity drive because it was becoming unclear that the two were unaffiliated with each other. Before the charity drive was stopped, the group raised over $70,000. I admit, I was pleasantly surprised when I heard about this. It is a good way to channel fan rage and raise aware (whether or not this awareness needs to be raised can be debated, but that is an unrelated topic). However, I sincerely doubt this could amount to anything in the long run.
The next method that people used to express their outrage was by filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commissionon the ground of “false advertising”. While this does at first seem to be extreme (and even with extenuating circumstances, still is to a degree), there is some merit to this course of action. The complaint comes from several press releases by Bioware. Among them were claims that the game would have sixteen distinct endings, that the player’s choices in all three games would affect the ending they received in many different ways, that this game would offer closure of the trilogy, and that there is an ending in which the protagonist, Commander Sheppard would lose to the main adversaries, the Reapers. While the latter two can be debated depending on what you consider to be “closure” and “losing to the Reapers”, the first two are impossible to refute. Neither condition was met. There are exactly three endings to Mass Effect 3 which are extremelysimilar to each other. And the choices you made really only affect whether or not the player gets a short ending clip if they choose one ending and whether another ending is available. Bioware did lie to their fans when making these claims, but it debatable if this is indeed false advertising. Quite frankly, I am glad that people are calling Bioware out for their blatant disrespect of their fans and this is a much more proactive form of protest, but my gut tells me that this will not affect EA and Bioware in any significant capacity.
But, not everybody wants the ending to change. People who simply liked it and argue against changing on that merit (or did not argue at all) are fine by me. That is their opinion and they are more than entitled to have it. I will not discuss this group farther. What I will discuss is the group of people, critics and consumers alike, who argue against changing the ending on the merits of “artistic integrity.” In my opinion, the people who make this claim are incorrect. Do not get me wrong, I am fine with games making an artistic statement. In fact, I would have been fine if the choices the player made did not matter in the end and that Shepard lost in a valiant last stand regardless. That would have been an artistic statement. However, one cannot argue “artistic integrity” in this case. In the case of Mass Effect 3, the ending does several things wrong. It throws out and even opposes several themes of the series and creates plot holes with the narrative devices it makes use of. Furthermore, it violates the most basic of narrative structures in a way that does not make it sense. It tries to introduce plot points at the very end of the plot, which is where the exact opposite is suppose to happen. The game uses these elements to explain the Reapers and their motives, something that did not need to be done since the whole point is that they are unknowable and beyond understanding. The ending is the wrapping up of the events. Instead of doing what it needs to do, which resolvingthe problem and the character arcswe have been introduced to, it opts to explain what did not need to be explained. It is difficult to defend Bioware’s artistic statement when either no statement or a very weak one is being made.
And before someone says it, I am aware of the popular fan theoryout there (and the significantly better fan fiction ending). While I do support the theory and have chosen to make it my canonical ending, I admit it too has the flaw of not providing closure and resolution to the events of game, perhaps more-so than the actual ending we were given. This is a side topic that needs to be brought up to preempt my audience.
So what is my opinion on the matter? Well, I might surprise people to learn that I do not support changing the ending. There is one critical reason for this, and while I harped on critics for saying this earlier, it has something to do with “artistic integrity.” In my personal opinion, if Bioware truly believed that the ending we were given should be the way the series comes to an end, then they should stand by it. They should inform the fans of why they went in that direction, the point they were trying to make, and the logic behind their choice. I could support Bioware doing this and would be open to it. However, if the change the ending, or if they dare to charge for an alternate ending, then something would be made clear. Something that I am beginning to suspect, but do not want to admit. It would reveal that Bioware knowingly and deliberately released a product that they knew they could not stand behind. That would be completely unacceptable. I would be disappointed and ashamed that I was a fan of Mass Effect if Bioware sold me a product they would not support. Since no writerhas come out in support of the ending, I have to presume that this is the case, but I would be open to being proven wrong.
All in all, I think this controversy surrounding the endings makes for an interesting case study. I wonder how people will think of this down the line. Without the benefit of precedence, it must be difficult for EA and Bioware to figure out how to react to this. I hope the game developers and publishers are watching this very closely, because there is a lesson to be learned here and the way this plays out has the potential to define how the business-side of video games is handled from here on out.

If there is one thing that my previous articles have made obvious, it is that I approve of games giving players choice with regards to how their own experience plays out. I love being able to impose my own morality on the world and its denizens. However, there is one particular type of “choice” in a game that always tends to chap my hide for one reason or another: That one would be moral choice in games. In theory, I should love this. I should enjoy being able to make decisions that have a noticeable impact. Yet it is often the case where games make missteps along the way that negatively impact my view of moral choice systems. This week, I will go through several games with moral choice systems and talk about why exactly I find them either bad or good.
The first moral choice system to discuss is the one from inFamous. In inFamous, the player sees the world through the eyes of Cole McGrath, an average, everyday bike messenger who, after a massive explosion, finds himself with superhuman, electro-kinetic powers. At various points in the game, the player is forced to make choices that influence Cole’s morality, skewing it more towards good or evil. There are several problems with this. First, the player’s karma directly influences the powers he/she has access to. There is no bonus for maintaining a low/neutral karma and the best powers are only unlocked to those who are completely good or completely evil. This immediately removes any chance of having a nuanced approached and instead makes morality a binary decision that the player makes at the start of the game. Furthermore, the choices themselves tend to be bafflingly, cartoonishly stupid. For example, near the beginning of the game, the player encounters an electrician who refuses to let him/her through in order to get to his next objective because he is worried about his missing wife. The player has to a make a choice to either inform the man of his wife’s death and convince him to let him/her pass. Or, the player can instead opt to pump him full of electric and kill him. This is not a choice. This is whether or not Cole was raised by Hitler! No sane person, when faced with this situation, would kill an innocent man for the evulz!The player is choosing between having common sense or not. The game also has several other similar choices like this that do not make any sense. Moral choices like this are, in my opinion, the worst kind.
Better, but still really bad, are moral choice systems like the one from Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2 is a story about Commander Shepard going on various space adventures in order to stop an evil alien race from kidnapping and harvesting humans. Throughout the game, the player, as Commander Shepard, makes various choices that usually (but not always) fall into two categories: One category, Paragon, represents decisions that try to satisfy as many people as possible. These usually fall into the category of Lawful Good, but occasionally drift into Lawful Stupid. On the other side, we have Renegade choices. Renegade choices often favor expedience and getting the job done regardless of who the player pisses of in the process. These usually fall the Chaoticspectrum of morality, and occasionally drift into Chaotic Stupid.
This system is superior to the one in inFamousfor a few reasons. First, Paragon and Renegade points are tracked independentlyof the other. Increasing the Paragon score will do nothing for the Renegade score. This means that Shepard does not need to be completely one or the other and the player can better impart his/her own morality upon Commander Shepard. Another way this system is superior is that these decisions are more Lawful vs. Chaotic more than they are Good vs. Evil. Shepard is predefined in the sense that he (or she) will always be a hero who is out to save the galaxy. The player simply determines whether he (or she) will play nice-nice or go all out and save the shit out of the galaxy whether it wants to be saved or not. This has the added side-effect of not having the game judge the player on his/her actions. On the other hand, this system has a very critical flaw. In some dialogue scenes, certain Paragon/Renegade options will be completely locked unless the player has the prerequisite Paragon/Renegade score. This is bad because it means that, in order to get the best possible outcomes, it is often necessary for the player to generally stay on the Paragon or Renegade path almost completely. All of the potential nuance of the character is erased in order to create either a Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid character.
(Author’s Note: Bioware responded to these criticisms in Mass Effect 3. Now Paragon and Renegade points feed into a general Reputation score that determines the player’s ability to make dialogue options. This is better because all that is really necessary to get options is to just go out and do stuff and the focus is not about being Paragon/Renegade. It is instead focused on what the player believes to be the best and the consequences of these actions.)
The best versions I have seen of moral choice in video games would be the ones from Fallout: New Vegasand Alpha Protocol. These systems are one of the best because they function in a way that makes sense. Instead of a karma system, these two games use Reputation with the various factionin each game to determine the player’s overall morality. Again, this makes sense. People in these games judge the player and give him/her options not based on how the world at large thinks of him/her, but rather on what that character thinks of the player. This means that the player’s actions are not judged by the game developer’s notion of morality and have direct consequences on the game world. And again, this allows for nuanced choices and for the player to display his/her own notion of morality through the player character. A reputation system allows more even more nuanced morality choices because the developers in each game give the player several different and varied characters or factions that represent different ideals and philosophies. These factions each react to the player’s decisions and these reactions affect the game world and, in turn, the player. This is a far better simulation of real life. Most choices are not binary (as in, a Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic choice). There are usually many broad and diverse options when approaching different situations. A reputation system best captures that because it enables the game to respond to these options in an equally diverse way.
Morality is a complicated subject, so when games portray it as binary, it tends to get under my skin. People do not consciously choose to be good or evil. Ideally, games would not even track morality. Rather, they would just give each action logical and rational consequences. It is crucial for games to evolve past morality gauges if they want to be grow as a medium, tell even better stories and explore more interesting themes/concepts.

This topic is a serious issue among the gaming community. Simply inserting the words “used games” into a forum post is bound to transform whatever, otherwise benign, discussion into a huge flame war. Nonetheless, it is an issue that needs to be discussed. Game publishers have been trying for a long while now to defeat used game sales. There are valid reasons for this, and there are valid reasons to oppose it. In this article, I will attempt of give you an overview of used games, the method used to combat them and the pros and cons behind this tactic. Lastly, I will share with you my own idea for fighting used games.
The issue of used game sales is one that can be approached from a couple of different angles. Used game sales are a slightly different animal than used books or movies. For books, the cost of publishing a book is relatively low compared to other mediums. Therefore, it takes and much lower sales margin in order to make a profit from books. Movies, while they have high production cost, are also different because they go through several phases of profit making. First, they go into theaters and get profits from both national and international releases. They are then sold later on as DVDs and lastly they are televised on various networks after that. This means that both movies and books can more than afford the hit they take with regards to profits lost through used game sales. On the other hand, video games do not have these advantages. Modern games have incredibly high production values. It cost several millions of dollars to make a AAA game. Furthermore, they have only one method of profiting: sales. Modern games need to sell millions of copies just to recoup their losses. You (like me) could argue that this is endemic to other problems in gaming like the incessant need to keep advancing graphically when there is no need to, but it is impossible to say that the need sell tons of copies does not exist. To this end, publishers have come up with many ways to try to stave off used sales intentionally propagated by gaming outlets, most notably Gamestop.
Perhaps the most prevalent means of combating used games sales is through online pass systems. Online passes are special codes included with new copies of video games. These codes are used to unlock various features of the game. This means that people who buy the game used will be locked out of the content unless they pony up ten dollars in order to purchase the missing content themselves. This means that the publisher can make up some of the income lost through used game sales. That would normally be considered a positive. However, there are many downsides to this system. For one, this has the distinct tendency to piss off the consumer base that publishers and developer depend on to make their money. Not many people admit this, but public relations can be a significant factor in how well companies do. Consumers who feel like they have been screwed over are less likely to continue to buy products from the company they feel screwed by. There is another issue with online passes that should be obvious, but something that not many companies seem to forget: Not everybody in the world has access to a stable internet connection. This is typically a non-issue because the content blocked by an online pass is usually an online feature, like multiplayer. However, there are documented cases of games that had online pass-blocked content that was in the single player portion of the game. The most notable case of this was the Catwoman content in Batman: Arkham City. There are people who bought that game new, who rightfully own that content. However, they are unable to access this content because it is blocked by a system that requires an internet connection to function properly. This is outrageous. This is a publisher screwing over a completely loyal customer and then openly insulting them for it. While this is certainly an egregious way to combat used game sales, it is not the only way they do so.
The overall flaw with online passes is that it feels like the consumers are getting screwed out of their money. With that in mind, I have my own thought behind the best way to combat used game sales. I feel that the best way to stop used game sales is to reward consumers for buying new games instead of punishing consumers for getting used one. To do this, I would recommend giving consumers of new copies of games a discount on future DLC. This method engenders good will amongst the consumer base. People who buy used games will not feel screwed by the publishers. This might even inspire them to buy new when they buy future titles from the publisher in order to support them. People who buy new will also feel rewarded because even if they never actually use that discount, it shows that the developers care about their fans and support them. Lastly, Customers who lack an internet connection still have access to all the features they normally have. There is much to be said about positive PR. Publishers do better when they have the support of the fans who keep them in business. It is a flawed strategy, admittedly, but it is still a better alternate to online passes.
In the end, any method of fighting used games is nothing more than a bandage used to mask the overall problem of games being too expensive to make. The best possible decision is to stop trying to go for graphical fidelity, stick with decent, not not horrible, graphics, and focus more on making quality games. This graphics war is a huge issue when it inflates the cost of making games and of the games themselves. I do not know a single gamer who bought a game just because the graphics were good. The problem with online passes and used games is a symptom of an even greater problem. I hope the developers and publishers learn this soon, else the industry may be in for some tough times pretty soon.

(Major Spoilers for the Assassin’s Creed series and L.A. Noire abound.)
Last week, I discussed how games could be used as a storytelling medium. I talked about the benefits of using games to explore philosophies and scenarios in a free form way: That player choice was an important concept and that it is vital to show the consequences for those choices. After the article was posted, a friend of mine pointed out something to me. In hindsight, I may have unintentionally snubbed linearity in video games. It is absolutely possible to have a strong linear narrative using video games. I would argue that doing this well is much more difficult. It has to be done in a certain way. A developer must tailor the experience to the medium of video games in order to make it work.
Again, video games have strengths that can be played with. By default, video game players are more likely to sympathize with the protagonist because they are the protagonist, at least on a superficial level. The main character (at least a well-written one) has a good backstory and motivation for his/her actions. With that, they are allowed and encouraged to have preconceived notions of morality and ethics. A good way to help further define and flesh out the character would be to use the mechanics of the game. The original Assassin’s Creeddid this incredibly well. The player did not have a health bar, it instead had a “synchronization meter” which showed how much the player was in sync with Altair’s, the protagonist, memory of what happened. This mechanic allowed the game to inform the player of Altair’s moralitywithout bogging him/her down with exposition or allowing for Gameplay and Story Segregation. When the player kills an innocent person, the synchronization bar is immediately reduced by 33% of its maximum value. This shows while Altair is an assassin and known for killing people, he still has a degree of morality and was not a complete psychopath. It is also possible to increase the maximum synchronization by doing things in line with what Altair would do like analyze the city from high building or by saving people from corrupt guards. This avoids Gameplay and Story Segregation as well because in the story the events of Altair’s life occurred very long ago and the player is simply playing a simulation created using his memory.
In the case of Assassin’s Creed, the mechanics are more than a way for the player to get from point A to point B. They are used to reinforce the characters and the situations in which they find themselves. Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhoodalso did this in a particularly powerful scene at the end of the game. At the end of the game, the player character, Desmond, finds and ancient artifact called the Apple of Eden with the help of his friends. Someone from behind the scenes uses the Apple’s power to control Desmond’s body and freeze time for the other three people with him. The cutscene has Desmond extend his hidden wrist-blade and begin to move toward his love interest, a fellow assassin named Lucy. When the player regains control, he/she (if they are anything like me) will try to steer Desmond away from her. However, when the player moves, no matter which direction they point to, Desmond will move towards Lucy. When Desmond is close enough, then the player will be directed to press attack and he/she will have no choice but to comply. This is a powerful scene because it helps the player to empathize with Desmond. It demonstrates his complete powerlessness and inability to stop his body no matter how hard he tries to. This moment is made powerful because the mechanics in play support the narrative and brings the player into the story.
While a linear story can be significantly bolstered if in a video game, there are dangers to attempting to do so. If one does not keep the story and its central themes in mind, there is a strong chance of the gameplay weakening the story. A storyteller can risk undercutting the whole story with the mechanics of the game if they are not extremely careful. As much as I love the Unchartedgames, they are prime examples of this. Naughty Dog has constantly said that Nathan Drake, the protagonist of the series, is the everyman. He is the person that the player can relate to. This is very hard to take seriously. The reason for this is that the Unchartedseries is a third-person cover-based shooter. For the uninitiated, that means that the player, as Nathan Drake, is almost always slaughtering tons of nameless, faceless pirates/soldiers. Furthermore, he has the tendency to talk… and snark… a lot… during each engagement. The overall image of him (at least during gameplay, the actual story is significantly better) is one of a murdering psychopath who has no concept of mercy or remorse. This runs contrary to the kind of character Naughty Dog wished to make and the type of narrative they intended to weave. While they are fortunate that the overall story and gameplay hold up, many more like them have similar problems in their games and fall into this trap.
Other pitfall in making a good, linear narrative in a video game is that players will be inherently more critical of the plot. This is because the strength of having instant sympathy with a protagonist can also be a weakness. When the players feel like they are the character, there is the potential for a disconnect with the character if, at any time, the character begins to exhibit unreasonable or irrational behavior. I had a personal example of this when I was playing L.A. Noire. In L.A. Noire, the protagonist is a man named Cole Phelps, a marine recently returned from World War 2 who decided to join the LA police force and quickly ascended to the rank of detective. He is shown to be a happily married man with two daughters. The game introduced Cole to a German singer who escaped to America before the war started. In the second half of the game, Cole visits the singer in her apartment for an undisclosed period of time at night. I did not think much of it when I saw the scene (I was being pretty dense there, admittedly) until later, when Cole is accused of cheating on his wife and is demoted to Arson as a result. At first, I thought he was set up. I thought that there was no possible way that Cole would do that because it seemed out of character. As it turns out, Cole really did “pork that German whore.” I was stunned. I sat there and thought “Cole! What the f**k were you thinking!? I saw you at the beginning! You f**king kissed your wife that morning! Are you KIDDING ME!?”. This one scene completely broke the game for me. I could care no longer about the story or what happened to the characters because I felt that the game betrayed both me and any conceivable notion of common scene. Finishing the game became more of an endurance test. That is the power of interactivity. When the story makes sense, it can bring players closer to the characters and the world. When it does not, then the player can feel betrayed by the plot and disconnect from the whole mess.
Linear storytelling is a perfectly valid form of narrative in video games. It relies much more on the writer’s skill than free-form games do. The key is once again to use the mechanics to reinforce the narrative. Developers and writers need to get together and stay on the same page throughout development. It is difficulty simply because it requires a great deal of synergy between all departments of a game development studio. While an amazing story is difficult to pull off, when it is, it is extremely gratifying, both to the player and the developer. I would hope developers, either in the present or future, would take a minute to think about how a narrative can be woven into and reinforced by a great game.

This is a topic that I have touched on in the past, but recently, I have been given the opportunity to talk about it. A couple of weeks back, David Jaffe, creator of Twisted Metal and God of War, said, regarding to storytelling in video games, “If you’ve really got something inside of you that’s so powerful, like a story you’ve got to share or a philosophy about man’s place in the universe, why in the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically, continually been the worst medium to express philosophy, story and narrative?”While that sentence is taken only slightly out of context, and the underlying point that developers should focus more on gameplay is sound, I would have to partially disagree with Mr. Jaffe. If a developer wants to have a tightly woven, complex, extremely linear narrative, then I would agree that said developer would be significantly better off by writing a book or making a movie instead. However, if the developer wishes to explore a particular philosophy or a “What if?” scenario, then a video game would be the perfect method of expression, and here is why.
The main reason that a linear narrative does not work so well is also one of the main reasons that games continue to flourish: Games are interactive by their very nature. People who play games always make decisions and affect the game world, even in linear games. What type of weapons will I use? What is the best way to defeat all of these enemies? Should I play it safe or go all out? These decisions are constant being made, consciously or not. Games thrive on ability to thrust players into situations they are not used to and force them into the actions. Linear stories are the antithesis of this. Linearity suggests that there is only one, proper way to go through a player’s journey and every other possibility is incorrect. Some games even have sections where there is a trap in the room that is dead obvious, but the player is forced to trigger it in order to advance the story. In an environment where interactivity and decisions are everything, this is the kiss of death of any serious story. Movies and books can get away with this because the readers/viewers are not insert themselves into the situation: They are passive observers watching a story play out. In a video game, this is not the case. Players of video games are active participants, affecting the outcome of events through their inputs. It is easy for a video game player to project their own emotions onto the protagonist of the game because, in a way, they are. The character becomes a culmination of the decisions and actions a player has made to that point. When somebody asks a reader of book how far into the book they are, they respond with “I’m at the part where the protagonist does X.” However, a gamer would respond to the same question about a video game with “I just did X, and I’m about to do Y.” For an interactive narrative that takes player choice into account, this is a huge boon and be taken advantage of to great effect. For a linear story, this can spell doom if, at any time, the player is forced to do anything that runs directly contrary to their logic or beliefs. There is a term for this: Railroading. It can even get worse when a story directly contradicts what is happening in the gameplay. Either of these circumstances can break immersion with the game and bring the player back into the real world. While I cannot be sure, I would imagine this is why Mr. Jaffe suggests that writers with sprawling narratives in mind should visit another medium.
Does this mean that I think video games should never have stories? NO! However, a game’s story does need to keep the nature of the medium in mind. The most important thing to consider is that players will want to have a sense of agency. That is, they want to be a part of the world, they want to have their actions affect the world, and they want the world to respond to the effects of these actions. Again, if at any point a player loses his/her sense of agency on the events of the game, they go from active participants to passive observers, losing the one advantage the writer has: The fact that the player will care about the protagonist because the protagonist is an extension of the player and the ability of the player to assert his/her own will. The key is to use this concept of player choice and player influence to encourage the player to explore. I will use Fallout: New Vegasas an example.
While I have a few criticisms of New Vegas (chief among them how Caesar’s Legion a little too evil and hard to sympathize with), this is one thing it did very well. In the game’s first half, the player travels to New Vegas. Along the way, the player is introduced to all the major factions of the game at one point or another. The New California Republic(NCR) is the stand in for old school American politics, with all it pros and cons. Its leaders are shown to want the best for the people, yet they are incompetent on many levels and often do not understand the plight of the common folk. The opposition of the NCR, Caesar’s Legion, has opposing ideals. The Legion subjugates tribes under its rule. The tribes lose all their heritage, the men forced to become soldiers, the women and children forced to become slaves. (The boys are conscripted when the come of age.) Furthermore, they reject all kinds of advanced technology, in favor of old school “Roman” ideals. However, they are all united and a sense of order can be found in the Legion. Between these two factions is Mr. House, the enigmatic leader of New Vegas. After the player has been given a chance to meet and learn about all three major factions, they are given a choice. He/she can choose to side with any of the three major factions, or reject all three ideals in favor of a completely independent New Vegas, overseen by the player character. The game and the ending radically change depending on both which of the major factions the player works with/against and how he/she deals with the other sub-factions in the game.
While it is far from perfect, this is an excellent example of how video games can tell good stories. Inform players of different ideologies and let them learn about and explore them. Once they feel like they know enough, allow them the chance to pass judgment. Let them say “I believe that X is the best choice, and as such I will support them.” It does not even have to be the grand, arching narrative. Even on a small-scale, such as with a side quest, this ability to choose is what makes games unique as a medium for storytelling. This is why so many people still laud Deus Exas an excellent accomplishment in gaming, even though it was made all the way back in 2000. The main crux of the game was that it encouraged the player to make choices, both in the way the story unfolded and in the way they play the game. The game explores transhumanism, both in gameplay and in story. It the story, it talks about the positives of transhumanism, like how augmentations could drastically improve people’s lives. However, it also explores the negatives, such as the fact that it can essentially render certain people obsolete when newer, better augments get released. The game ends by having multiple factions give you their opinion on what to do and having the player decide which is best. This sense of exploration and choice extends to the gameplay, allowing the player to go through the game as an expert in combat, stealth, hacking, conversation, or some combination of the four, and beat the game his/her own way.
While I say that games can be used as storytelling devices, that is a little misleading. What I really mean is that games can be used to explore philosophies and concepts and give the player an environment in which he/she can discover the pros and cons of particular ideologies without causing any sort of real-world harm. If a game developer wished to do this, I would advise them to go for it, but to do his/her best to not insert their own biases into the game. The point is to let the players form their own opinions, not to feed them opinions. It is important to avoid veering into the unfortunate category of “propaganda”. For better or worse, games can be used as tools to learn and explore.
Page 126 of 127...123124125126127