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).

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.

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 people at Tesi Online have moved their montly spotlight to my thesis. It is gratifying to see that something written over two years ago still holds true. Here is the link to the article.

Recentelijk werd het medianieuws gedomineerd met berichten dat verschillenden overheden zich binnen de wereld van Second Life willen manifesteren. Zweden heeft recentelijk een ambassade geopend, de gemeente Zoetermeer heeft er een gemeentehuis geplaatst, en de Europese Commissie wil ook “iets” met deze wereld doen. Hoewel dit soort initiatieven toegejuicht dienen te worden onder de noemer van maatschappelijke betrokkenheid, is het zaak eerst na te denken wat de consequenties hiervan zijn.

De vraag rijst welke toegevoegde waarde deze overheden dan ook ziet in dit soort projecten. Het feit is dat er in Second Life minder spelers rondlopen dan de cijfers doen vermoeden. Een voorbeeld: het aantal Nederlanders wordt op ongeveer 16,000 accounts geschat. Let wel, dit zijn mensen die zich gratis geregistreerd hebben. Er is geen indicatie dat deze personen ook daadwerkelijk bezig zijn met deze virtuele gemeenschap. Uiteindelijk is het een selecte groep die zich in deze wereld ophoudt. De relevantie van aanwezigheid van nationale en lokale overheden kan dan in twijfel getrokken worden. Deze twijfel is er des te meer omdat er voor de specifieke burgers geen toegevoegde waarde is. Een inwoner van Zweden zal niet dezelfde ambassade diensten kunnen afnemen, net zo min als een inwoner van Zoetermeer een afspraak met een ambtenaar kan maken in het virtuele gemeentehuis. Een toegevoegde waarde zou juist zijn om een brug te slaan, om de grenzen te laten vervagen en drempels voor overheden te verlagen. Het lijkt erop dat overheden zich laten verleiden door de huidige media-hype, en zonder enig besef van mogelijkheden zich proberen te profileren als ICT trendgevoelig.

Hoewel het concept van virtuele aanwezigheid dus een trend aan het worden is, zijn er enkele zaken waar overheden aan voorbij gaan. Second Life is een wereld die leeft bij de gratie van een commercieel bedrijf, dat opereert binnen de Amerikaanse wetgeving. Aangezien overheden autonoom dienen te zijn, is het de vraag wat voor effect deze situatie op de lange termijn heeft. Immers, de vraag is of een overheid kan opereren bij de gratie van commerciele afhankelijkheden. Als Linden Labs, het bedrijf achter Second Life, besluit om de wereld aan te passen of op te heffen, dan zijn de virtuele ambassades en gemeentes plotsklaps verdwenen. Tevens staat het Linden Labs vrij om zonder opgaaf van een concrete reden in te grijpen in de spelwereld of spelers toegang tot de wereld te ontzeggen. Second Life is geen soevereine staat of organisatie, er heerst geen democratie. Als overheden via virtuele gemeenschappen zich willen manifesteren, dienen ze richting burgers ook een mate van autonomie en consistentie te vertonen. Door het commerciële aspect van deze gemeenschap kan dit streven niet gegarandeerd worden.

Een ander problematisch aspect is privacy. Als genoemde overheden een dialoog willen opbouwen met de bewoners van virtuele werelden, kan er een vorm van discretie en vertrouwen noodzakelijk zijn. Binnen virtuele werelden worden alle activiteiten, conversaties, en handelingen opgeslagen op verschillende servers. Alle informatie is dus doorzoekbaar. Hoewel Linden Labs claimt dat al deze informatie na enkele dagen verwijderd wordt, is dit geen garantie. Immers, het opereert onder Amerikaanse wetgeving. Het Echelon programma van de Amerikaanse overheid, waarbij men e-mail en ander internetverkeer verkeer scant, is immers ook al vele jaren van kracht. Het is niet ondenkbaar dat alle conversaties tussen overheden en burgers in Second Life door de Amerikaanse overheid opgeëist kunnen worden.
Deze combinatie van controle, gecombineerd met de mogelijk in elke situatie in te grijpen als een deux ex machina maakt Second life een perfecte totalitaire staat in de traditie van Aldous Huxley en George Orwell.

Forget the gaffes and mistakes that came out of Sony last year, this time they struck gold.
At the GDC, Sony announced the concept of Home: an online 3D environment which is occupied by a player’s avatar. Within this environment, several services are offered: meeting friends and chat with them in your (virtual home), sample product demonstrations, play games together ( I believe Bowling was mentioned), and in all probablility other online services.
As icing on the cake, in-world dynamic advertising is shown on large billboards.
In addition, every citizen has his or her own private apartment, with sound and vision equipment. This means that a player can share music, movies, and pictures with everyone who the player invites into the house.
This is the first real usage of some larger trend that was bound to happen; the actual migration of regular webservices to a 3D environment, and allows for a more natural experience of interaction. Furthermore, the creation of a real online home, where people can invite other to socialize and to share real-world ecperiences (showing off pictures and such) is currently unique in mainstream media.

With the recent surge of the media coverage surrounding Second Life, companies and even governmental organisations are jumping on the bandwagon. But it seems that their efforts are just another waste of money, or at the most positive side, a cheap press attention. What do these organisations try to achieve? The most often heard reason is that they want to interact with the denizens of this virtual world. If one looks at the number of Second Life users, the number quoted is often te one regarding the number of account. This is by no means an indicator of the actual people logging on to this world. Since everybody can create an account for free, the actual numbers are much lower. Especially since the current press hype, a lot of people tend to try out for free, with no promise of ever returning. Even so, the actual interaction with these citizens are minimal at best. Most of the time, the endeavours of companies consist of a brand-related building, staffed by a single intern…if they can spare the manpower.
What most companies fail to recognize that in order to participate in a virtual environment, you have to create added value. This means that the actual existance of the company in this world should have a direct inpact on its citizens. This means either providing services; whether they have an in-game impact or outside of the game. It also means that these companies need to team up with Linden Labs to create something which is has an added value to the game itself. At the least, have a certain service branded. Although American companies seem to grasp this idea (Adidas comes to mind, which have created in-game branded clothing), Dutch companies seem to struggle with this concept.
Currently, most companies only have a show-and-tell operation in Second Life. The painful truth is, that without the added value, almost nobody bothers to watch.

Have you ever seen the drivers
Fixated on their little screens
Oblivious to their surroundings
Driving along a route
Instead of travelling on a journey
“Are we there yet?”
Being sadly replaced
“Arrival time in 9.45 minutes”