Starcraft 2 Novice Playing on the Ladder, See Right Hand Link

I've uploaded a page on the right for Starcraft 2. I am playing on the North America ladder. I'm basically a silver league protoss and will be streaming some 1 vs 1 games here on Twitch.

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Used Games do NOT kill the videogame industry, and How Game Developers try to Justify Game Restrictions

Do Used Games kill the Videogame Industry?

A disgruntled Microsoft employee allegedly complained about the reversal of used game restrictions on the X Box One complaining that the reversal was a bad idea because selling used games is killing the videogame industry. Secondly this alleged employee claimed modern games require huge budgets and that decreased revenues will make it unprofitable to produce movie-quality games. Is he right? Are used games killing the industry? Never mind that used games have been sold since videogames have been around, and the industry has only gone up in profits. Never mind that some people would not even buy games if they had to pay full price.

No. Intellectual Property Reproduction Rights shouldn't Trump Individual Ownership Rights

Basically, no one likes being “owned” by someone else. It’s just unfair. Think about the situation with intellectual property and other works of arts. Videogames, like artwork take a lot of energy up-front in the initial design and expression. After that it is easy to reproduce and anyone could come in and profit off the originator’s hard work. Hence we have copyright, to protect an artist’s reproduction rights. They get exclusive reproduction rights. But wait, that’s not the end of it, there’s stuff like The First Sale Doctrine in the United States. Once you’ve sold your produced work, it’s out of your hands and someone else owns it. They can enjoy it, use it, resell it etc. That’s fair and meets our expectations. Unfortunately in the electronic world developers increasingly want to give customers something short of ownership in a product. They want to turn everything into a license. You’re limited to how many computers you can install a product on, and how long you can use a product and you have no resale ability. Nevertheless that business model just doesn’t work when a competitor (let’s call them Sony) swoops in and retails an actual ownable product. Boom goes the business model of the greedy corporate exploiter. And frankly, that’s the way it should be. 

Videogame Developers Shouldn't work With Movie Budgets

Used game resale rights are a valuable incident of property rights in the bought game. But even if profits are limited in the videogame industry – that’s a good thing. We don’t want videogame developers to work with unlimited budgets. There have to be incentives for developers to be cost-effective in their development. Developers should look to outsourcing, limiting graphic improvements that do nothing (read Final Fantasy) or not purchasing unnecessary song rights (once again see Final Fantasy) as long as their budget is channeled into quality gameplay. The fact is, videogames shouldn’t be about delivering movie like experiences. No one is interested in shovelling their hard earned money into shareholder pockets when they could be using it on their own lives.

Game Developers are Trying to Sell What the Public Doesn't Need 

When you break it down, game developers are trying to sell you something you don’t need. To justify a bigger share of the profit pie, developers are appealing to the costs of blockbuster, movie-quality rendered games. But who wants movie-quality videogames? This reminds me of a time I showed up at an aggressive coffee store. The cashier told me, “we have breakfast special, $2.99”. I tell her I just want a coffee and I’m not hungry. She replies, “There’s a sale on breakfast just $2.99 dollars.” But I’m not hungry. I don’t just hand over money because you’ve come up with a deal or invented some new widget; I spend my money based on my needs and my wants. Some retailers just don’t get the message. They want to create over-the-top consumer desires in the videogame industry that don’t exist. I don’t need or want movie-like games and bloated studios and budgets – and I’m not going to pay for it. 

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Connor was a deeper character than Ezio in Asassin’s Creed (Spoilers)

Assassin’s Creed has had multiple heroes. In light of the upcoming Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, it is time to explain why Connor from Assassin’s Creed 3 is an all-around better character than Ezio from Assassin’s Creed 2.

Connor allowed you to play as The Outsider

People hate on Connor for being somewhat boring, a bit dour, and generally having less flash than his counterpart Ezio. But Connor gave us a more unique experience. Aboriginal characters are rarely represented in videogames as a title character. Here was a chance to play as a member of an outcast/displaced culture. Moving from Ezio to Connor was like one day playing a plain vanilla human and then trying out a dark elf in an RPG. One race fits into the mainstream seamlessly, the other has to overcome sociocultural barriers as he makes his way in the world. Even the name “Connor” was an assumed name (he kept his true name wisely to himself) to help the main character move around more easily within a semi-hostile community. Connor’s story was closer to the immigrant experience or the experience of someone who is not part of the privileged class and hence was a richer vein of experiences than that of Ezio in Italy.

Connor had better Personal Qualities than Ezio

Connor had better “qualities” as a person than Ezio. Connor was praised by his archnemesis for showing great conviction, strength and courage – all noble qualities. Ezio seems to be more of a braggadocio and a womanizer needing some direction from other characters like his Uncle, Leonardo etc. I always got the impression that Connor was more driven and considered himself honor-bound to follow through on helping his people.  Connor was influenced by his internal compass and was more introverted. Ezio was more extroverted, less self-aware and less directed by internal principles.

On that same point, Connor just had the more developed principles and values. This sometimes came out in a negative way such as when he judged his mentor Achilles. Nevertheless you get the impression this guy believed in something bigger than himself. This might have come from his culture or religion but he wasn't just a materialistic person. Ezio struck me as someone in need of an internal purpose – someone unfulfilled on the inside because he lacked a strong belief system. Ezio seemed like someone more materialistic, more motivated by external events and less of an internally fulfilled person.

Connor's story Arc was more satisfying

Lastly, Connor was less of a loser than Ezio. This last point might not be entirely fair. In Assassin’s Creed 2, Ezio let a large part of his family die at the very beginning of the game, failing hard. Connor does eventually “lose” as an aboriginal person in the United States, but it is not really his fault and is part of the overall historical changes in America. Connor eventually succeeded in killing his archnemesis and  even grew to be respected by his enemies.  Ezio, at least at the end of Assassin’s Creed 2, never really got to kill Rodrigo and generally seemed to be outsmarted brain cell for brain cell by his enemies.

Both Ezio and Connor’s story arcs matched the traditional trajectory of boy to man. Some would call this the hero to warrior archetype transformation, as read about in books such as King Warrior Magician Lover by Robert Moore. Basically the boyhood archetype of the hero is brave but feels the need to prove himself. The warrior male archetype is achieved in adulthood and involves cold, deliberate skill without a need to prove oneself. The Adult Warrior unlike the Boyhood Herohas a correct appraisal of his limitations and the dangers of the outside world but through mastery of tools and himself is able to overcome obstacles. Ezio does eventually go through a kind of grizzled transformation when he reaches Rome, but most of his initiation into adulthood seems to happen offscreen. Connor, on the other hand, consistently tests his beliefs against: his mentor Achilles, his former friend in his Band, and also against his father and enemies. I felt Connor’s transformation then into a more fulfilled adult character was more gradual and believable than Ezio’s and resulted in a better story about a boy’s movement into adulthood.

In Conclusion.... Connor was Better

I’m not denying Connor had his flaws as an Assassin's Creed protagonist. The guy was moody, somewhat of a loner, rarely joked, and so provided less obvious camera-ready spark than showboat Ezio had. Nevertheless, if you can appreciate what Connor brings to the show, you’ll realize why Connor was a better, Assassin's Creed protagonist AND overall videogame character.

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Final Fantasy 13 pretending to be like Dark Souls and a look back at one of the biggest Game-Failures of all time

Apparently producer  Yoshinori Kitase claims that Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy 13 will be similar in some ways to Dark Souls. Now this probably made some of you laugh and others just angry. Dark Souls was a relatively engrossing, critically claimed, challenging game. Final Fantasy 13 was one of the most overrated, awful messes of a game of all time. Final Fantasy 13 had basically no towns, no real choices, a fairly lame wannabe-action turnish-based combat system, and brutally linear maps. The slight opening up of the world happened at the end of the game and was frankly outclassed by basically every RPG in existence since the original Super Nintendo. I didn’t mind “Lightning” as the main character, but nothing was ever done with the plot or gameplay. It was mostly just some emotional up-and-down, soap-operatic, touchy-feely non-plot as we moved characters down one line after another. I would have easily given it a 4 or 5 out of 10 and was surprised that mainstream game reviewers had to give it higher ratings partly to not be contrarian in a world of Final Fantasy sheep.  Now Square has run out of a lot of its street cred it built up with games like FF6. Even the FF sheep need to be BSed a bit into thinking there is some serious gameplay design behind Square’s products.

After pumping out raw sewage these last few outings, Square has to try to ride the coat-tails of far better products such as Dark Souls. No one believes Yoshinori when he claims Final Fantasy will be anything like Dark Souls or any game with any quality, design or challenge. I fully expect the next Final Fantasy will be another 4-5/10 outing as nothing more than a shameless cash grab by the soulless corporate hacks at Square. Drawing well animated grass does not eclipse a product with thoughtful gameplay.

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Player-Controlled bosses and why it might be time to stop reading Dark Souls Previews

Those of you who played Demon Souls and Dark Souls know that these games are about personal exploration, overcoming challenges and trial and error. Each new setting, enemy, boss or weapon gives you insight into a mysterious world shrouded in mystery. The game never holds your hand or even feeds you proper directions of what to do or how best to defeat your opponents. In fact Dark Souls II is probably one of the games I am most looking forward to playing next year. I can’t wait to be surprised by weird bosses and have to try out various tactics to finally find that aha moment where I suddenly start understanding my environment and start making well earned progress.

E3 has released a short demo including a confrontation with a “Mirror Knight” boss who frankly looks absurdly difficult. What comes across as absurd is the rumor that an enemy pops out of this boss’s mirror and that this special enemy is player-controlled.  Look, I played Demon Souls. When I invaded a world as a black phantom I got the option to play as the Old Monk. The Old Monk was one of the final world bosses in Demon Souls, where players were confronted with another human player more or less playing as themselves. The thing is – I NEVER lost as the Old Monk unless I really wanted to let the other player “win” after some minor fun horseplay. Ie the player couldn’t win unless I was a good sport. I could heal, use my own spells and weapons and pretty much dominate a tired adventurer coming into my little dungeon. Honestly, I think a lot of players are going to be in for a beat-down if they have to overcome another human controlled mini-boss while simultaneously fighting a larger “Mirror Knight”.

E3 aside, I think now might be the time to stop watching previews. As too much of the game is revealed, the surprise and wonder starts to fade from one’s first playthrough of the game. Also the puzzling out starts to happen through previews and other people’s playthroughs and the magic fades from my first playthrough. Since I want to be shocked, amazed and challenged, I’m going to have to start sitting out of Dark Souls Previews. 

Click Here to go back to the main page.

Why I Won't be buying the Xbox One and other Videogame Ripoffs

Videogame Ripoffs Decrease Trust and Consumer Loyalty

Trust. It’s the ultimate commodity in business. Trust once lost has to be earned. Consumers place some trust in businesses when buying products. Gamers trust that developers will make good games in exchange for long-term earnings through customers purchasing repeatedly. But what happens when developers get greedy and water down their product, cut costs or repeatedly overcharge through multiple DLC? Well consumers start to look elsewhere for more cost-effective products that are less disrespectful to them. Consumers stop coming back for the next product after being ripped off the first time. When you kill the cow, you can’t keep on milking it. That’s the reason I refuse to buy DLC even for games I like, such as Dark Souls or Assassin’s Creed.

How Bioware went down the RPG Ripoff route

Let’s take a look at a few of the once innovative companies that now seem to churn out garbage, like Bioware. Bioware started as an innovative computer RPG company producing hits like the enormous Baldur’s Gate II. Now it churns out turds like Dragon Age II where I don’t get to choose my race, whether I have a family or even my last name. Despite all these roleplaying limitations I get put on the rails of a sleep-inducing story (with one exceptional part dealing with the Qunari) often playing through the exact same maps reused. Then I find out more pay-to-play DLC is being offered. I won’t be buying the next Bioware Game unless it comes out on clearance and reviews show Bioware has done a 180 degree turn.

How Blizzard went down the RTS Ripoff Route

Next, onto Blizzard. I’ve followed Blizzard since Warcraft I, a real time computer strategy game. I liked the gritty realism, voice acting, improved cinematics and increasingly competitive multiplayer as Blizzard moved from Warcraft II to Starcraft I. I was impressed with the transition to multi-player, the use of multiple races and attempts at balancing in Starcraft. Now Blizzard just treats consumers like garbage. I refused to buy Diablo III after the dry and grossly imbalanced (did anyone use the Necromancer?) Diablo II. I wasn’t impressed with World of Moneycraft and its endless expansions and kill-x-many-wolves quests. What really angers me though is the lack of innovation in Starcraft 2. After ten years in development, Blizzard knows it can have a cheap singleplayer and churn out THREE games at full price rather than just one. That takes chutzpah. That is some serious Microsoft-level ripping off right there.

Microsoft's XboxOne Takes Videogame Rippingoff to a Whole New Level

Which brings me to the Grand-Mufta of sleazy overcharging and consumer ripping off – Microsoft. This is the same company that wants to license your word processing software instead of just letting you own the software product. Now they’ve taken their slit-your-mother’s-throat-for-a-nickel ways to console gaming. Xbox One’s initial specs involved play-only-when-connected-to-the-internet and limits on buying and trading used games. Essentially they wanted to limit property rights consumers had in their products while still having to pay full price. Now Microsoft backed down but only after risking annihilation by their main competitor – the PS4. However it would be a mistake to buy the Xbox One anyways. I’d be supporting a company that sees nothing wrong with savagely raping consumers except when it can’t get away with it. I’d be passing up hard earned cash so teams of lawyers and accountants could figure out new ways to screw over gamers and extract as much cash as possible. Oh but Sony does the same thing you say? Yes every company has to make a profit, but only some companies push beyond the lines of decency and end up in the land of crookery, haberdashery, nay villainy. And that is why I won’t be buying the Xbox One, because I just don’t trust Microsoft not to screw me over ten times a day if I use their products. 

Click Here to go back to the main page.