I am happy for Take-Two. With the unbridled success of Grand Theft Auto IV, they will be able to keep an EA take-over at bay for a little longer. This videogame has exceeded the wildest expectations, with review scores nearing the much-coveted 10 score.
And to be fair, the game looks amazing: New York Liberty City has never looked so crisp. What’s even more astounding is that the feeling of a living and breathing city has succesfully been captured in a videogame. Driving around, a player instinctively knows what the good and bad neighborhoods are, since even the population differs from one block to the next. Truly a remarkable feat.
But with regards to gameplay, I still do not understand why this game get so many high marks. In essence, there has been no revolution in gameplay since the original Grand Theft Auto: drive from A to B in order to achieve an objective, stay out of the way from the police, and have a free-roaming city-space at your disposal.
I understand that this game resides within it’s own genre with regard to gameplay. Likewise, racing games will not ask you to jump platforms. But I really think it is a missed opportunity.
Consider that what is the foundation of the game: the open city-environment. As mentioned before, great strides have been made in making this environment a self-sustained universe, where the virtual populace goes about it’s own business. The player is merely a small and almost insignificant speck inside this space. There is a real opportunity to expand the gameplay horizon with genre defining situations.
You have the gamespace, why should it not incorporate more gameplay genres and features?
This is something I wrote in response to a post made by a friend of mine who mused on the level of addiction in MMORPGs.
The original post can be found at the SweetSauce.nl blog.
An addiction is something that you cannot let go of, and is deteriorating to your ability to function normally.
With that in mind, are games addictive? I do not think the experience of playing is an addiction, but the reward system itself is to blame.
Playing games has always been a social affair in the history of mankind. Homo Ludens is the phrase associated with this social behavior.
As early reward systems in games consisted of status (beating an opponent) or possessions (money or other things of value), the focus was always playing with other people.
Videogames introduced the solitary type of gameplay with simulated opponents. Since the rewards these games give cannot be measured in direct status or value, the only reward is the personal achievement a player feels.
Additiction in these terms can therefore only be claimed as a more compulsive behavior for personal achievement.
An exception to this rule are gambling-type games, which can be played solitary for direct rewards. Addiction is a known problem with these type of games, and can directly be related with the possibility of a reward.
MMORPG’s however, create an environment where gameplay and its rewards are part of the social structure. In this regard, they have reached full circle, as gaming has become a social event again.
But are they addictive for their gameplay? I do not think so.
The interesting point to make with MMORPG’s is that they combine the solitary videogame play aspect with the social aspects of playing. Addiction with these types of games mostly occurs when the player overreaches for personal achievement, since they cannot directly win value from other players. It is therefore the solitairy pursuit for personal achievement that drives these addicted players.
In short, I think addiction primarily occurs in solitaire style games with the possibility of direct rewards (as in most gambling games).
40
Army of Two
As I lay dying on the concrete floor, J. rushes over. He grabs me by the collar and drags me out of the path of the flying bullets. When we are safely arrive around a corner, he stabs a needle in my chest, enabling me get back on my feet again. Signaling that I am ready again, we dive around the corner; guns blazing, side by side, right into the path of enemy fire.
It is good to have a friend by my side.
A lot has been written about Army of Two, EA’s latest offering for the xbox360 and the PS3. A lot has been said about the juvinile dialogue, the emphasis on tough-but-cool characters, and the presentation of said characters. The target audience for this game falls clearly in the male teenage camp.
In addition, more has been written about the less-than-stellar AI, the lack-lustre single player campaign, and the non-skippable cutscenes. And lets not forget the comments about the non-skippable cutscenes, the occasional drop in connection, and the drab level design.
And yes, it is all true. But the reality is that Army of Two shines when it is played like it is supposed to be played: with a friend at your side.
Whether through splitscreen or over xbox live, the fact is that this game brings out the best in camedarie and bonds people like no other game currently available. As such, it is a testament to the notion that playing games brings people together. With this in mind, Amry of Two transcends from a ordinary shooter to a shared experience.
35
Wii thoughts
Well, it seems that Nintendo has done it again. After the mediocre performance of the N64 and the less-than-spectacular Gamecube, the Wii is a huge success. Going against current trends, Nintendo stuck to their vision of fun over technological dominance.
In contrast, Sony and Microsoft have spent billions of dollars in the battle for the space under the living-room television; a field dominated by machines which try to combine every possible technology under the sun.
(True convergence will never work; since completion is an utopia which will never be attained.)
While the Playstation3 and the Xbox 360 tried to be true multimedia machines, there always seemed to be lacking something. Either the technology was incomplete, or the implemented poorly. For instance, the xbox360 does not have an internet browser, while the Playstation3 has a poorly implemented online messenger service.
Nintendo, however, went in a complete different direction. They tapped into a market previously thought unreachable by the conventional videogame industry: people who do not play videogames.
It seemed that the biggest hurdle of non-gamers (is this term can be used) was the input method traditionally required for videogames. Faced with a game controller with more than 10 buttons and input methods, it is no wonder that there is a natural reluctancy towards using such a device.
Furthermore, a lot of people do not “get” the relationship between a controller and an on-screen activity.
The Wii changed all that, by drastically reducing the number of input methods involved, and by establishing a direct link between input and on-screen reaction.
In retrospect, this only seemd natural. But Nintendo was the only company with the guts to pull it off.
The current state of Western society worries me. The relentless pace of ever-innovative technology is overwhelming. On the one hand, consumer technology is becoming increasingly more sophisticated each year. Faster, smaller, better; the waves of innovation crash with an increasing frequency upon the shores of willing consumerism. With each wave, more consumers feel compelled to upgrade, to adapt, to evolve in order to keep up with the latest in electronics.
Only a couple of years ago, the Western society could be divided between the computer-literate and the illiterate. Nowadays, the have-nots become an increasingly larger group, as consumers scramble to stay ahead and even to keep up.
I don’t think there has never been a time when so much innovation has been developed in such a short span of time; a renaissance of technology. The aristocracy, so prevalent at the time, will rise again in the form of the Digirati; those who have the ability to stay ahead of the pack and evolve.
In five years time, I predict that the increased use of technological implants will mark this divide of society. And then, the interesting times will start.
