Try Before You Buy – Part 2

When the Holiday season came around I decided that I would purchase a Blockbuster Entertainment Pack for myself. I really got it for the Blockbuster Rewards membership since my girlfriend and I watch a lot of rented movies, but it had some gaming bonuses as well. For one, I get a free 30-day trial of their Game Pass program. Given my stance on buying previously used games I thought I might take a few moments to post about renting games, and how I think this is better than buying games used.

To begin, I can’t understand how people can rent games, play them, and then return them and be done with it. I have a friend who does this, and it just doesn’t make sense to me. I love going back to a game and savouring playing it differently from the previous time, not to mention getting all those pesky achievements. This friend of mine also has a substantially larger Gamerscore. This fact is largely because he has played a much larger volume of games than myself. If one were to compare our scores per each game, you would see that I frequently have more achievements^*.

So, if I can’t stand to leave those achievements behind, why rent games? Simply put: to try a game before I buy it. I posted before about demos, but sometimes it’s hard to judge a game by a demo. Often the demo is produced with pre-retail code and lacks the polish of the retail product. There are also a large number of demos which, in an attempt to familiarize you with the full game, drop you into a confusing mid-game level. Renting a game gives you an opportunity to try the first few levels, complete with tutorials and cinematics. There’s also multiplayer. If like that kind of thing, you may be disappointed to find it often left out of demos. With a rental a week or two after release you can try it out on your Live account and see what the community is like.

It is worth saying that I don’t always rent games. In fact, I find it quite expensive. I’m sure there are some great independent retailers who rent games at reasonable rates, but Blockbuster rents them at $7.99 for a week. I was originally a little upset about them charging that much, but then I considered the cost of games versus films. Renting a movie costs $5.69 normally^@. That’s about a quarter to a fifth of the cost of purchasing a DVD outright. Now consider a $60 retail game. The ratio works out more in our favour for the game than for the movie. The Game Pass is a bit better, at $30 a month, but you need to rent about four games a month to make it worth your while. The advantage to the Game Pass is that you can swap games whenever you want, allowing you to get rid of a dud the same day/night without actually paying a rental fee for it. The disadvantage is that you only get one game at a time, so you can’t just stock up and take four games for a month. It’s these kinds of restrictions that keeps me from signing up for sure. This month, however, I’m going to rent all those games I keep thinking I might like. I’m thinking I’ll put up a post at the end with all my first impressions.

So why don’t I mind renting games rather than buying them and supporting the industry? I suppose the answer is because I believe that renting games ought to make someone buy games. It’s a great opportunity to get a feel for a game without spending $60 (which gets more valuable each day). Should people be justified in complaining about a game they rented? Absolutely not. Renting allows you to limit your potential loss on a crappy game. That’s the risk you run. Should people buy games they like to support the developers and really get the most out of them? Definitely. Implemented properly I think that game rentals can be a boon to the industry.

There is, however, one last thing I should address in terms of renting games. The result of a successful game rental business has to be a certain amount of used games for sale. Even I am guilty of snagging some great deals from the previously played rack. I confess that these resales don’t help the industry, but I don’t feel too bad since the games are not ones bought back from consumers, and the revenue goes towards purchasing new games for rental, as opposed to merely milking the same game for profit over and over. At least, that’s how I get to sleep at night.

_{*: He soundly defeats me on all music games, as he is a musician who has incredible rhythm and dexterity.
^@: I’m not sure I fancy this cost either. I do, however, find it a bit better with the coupons from the Entertainment Pack and Rewards membership. Between the two booklets you should be able to get $2 off almost every movie, even some for free.}

Should We Care Who Makes Our Games?

This post has been brewing in the back of my mind for a while now. I suppose it started back in October when I read about an interview in which Cliff Bleszinski said that the gaming industry doesn’t value visionaries as much as it ought to. He compares game makers to professionals in the movie industry, stating that “you’re only as good as your last game, in many ways” ^{(see above link)}. This interview/comment was picked up by Leigh Alexander, of Sexy Videogameland fame. She even went so far as to create Sexy Videogame Developerland in an attempt to get the ball rolling in celebrating those people who make games. Since I follow Sexy Videogameland and a number of media outlets that Ms. Alexander writes for I’ve noticed this subject brought up a number of times. It got me thinking.

My initial response is confrontational. I mean who the hell does Bleszinski think he is, demanding more fame? The guy is an icon, and he wants more? To hell with that. Then I set aside my inner 12-year-old and thought about it. I don’t think that Bleszinski is saying that he wants more fame, more that he thinks that gamers are too fickle in how they approach game makers. To us, the consumers, they truly are only as good as their last game, and one failure can brand them for life. I do get that, though I think that if Cliff thinks gamers are any more forgiving with the film industry he’s mistaken. But it would seem that there are two issues at play here: 1-we need to cut developers/innovators some slack on mistakes, and 2-we should pay more attention to who makes games and give credit where credit’s due. Let’s tackle these one at a time, shall we?

I would have to agree with Mr. B about our need to be a bit more forgiving with mistakes by developers. Fanboy-isms aside, gamers never find that “perfect game” they’re looking for. We demand new intellectual properties and then beat up on them for their shortcomings. Two games this last year that suffered from that were Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge. I think the first step to being more even handed with developers is to avoid holding marketing against a game. For starters, developers aren’t the ones marketing the game, publishers are^*. I think Dead Space suffered a certain amount because it was marketed as a survival horror game. Now, I realize that they did set out to make a horror game, but I also know that they didn’t want to make the game frustratingly hard. The result is an excellent third-person action game that got crapped on because some sick bastards weren’t scared enough. I think that you really need to pull that kind of thing out of a review because fear, like humour, is incredibly subjective to the point that no two people are necessarily exactly the same. But I’ve diatribed on reviews before, so there’s no more need to go into that here. What I am getting at is that gamers, as consumers, need to be more willing to accept innovation for what it is and not expect the world of brand new ideas.

Now, with respect to who makes games, I’m a little torn. On the one hand I think it’s a mistake since corporate culture dictates so much these days. For instance, if you work at Blizzard chances are good you’re making a Blizzard game the Blizzard way. Then again, you can’t argue against talented innovators such as Will Wright and Tim Schafer, and perhaps if Tim had more adoration among the masses awesome games like Psychonauts wouldn’t struggle and Brütal Legend wouldn’t have been without a publisher for so long. But when I think about Sexy Videogame Developerland something still sticks in my proverbial craw. What could it be? I think it’s this: if the motion capture guy from Guitar Hero works on a new FPS is it really a selling point? I’m not trying to de-value anybody’s hard work, and I recognize that games are made with huge teams made up of tons of essential people. That being said, putting that stuff on the back of the box doesn’t sell a game more than another screenshot would. I do think it’s very important that people get credit for the games they make, and I think that having credits in games, like in movies, is important. Perhaps you can put a few names in the opening sequence like you would in a film, but we shouldn’t get carried away here. I also think that studios hold more integrity than individuals, which is to say that when I see a preview of a game I often look for that phrase that tells me what games the developer has done previously. Those credits are already out there and go a good distance.

So, was my initial reaction mistaken? Yes. Is there weight to the idea that we should cut developers some more slack and care a little more about who makes our games? Absolutely. But as with everything, moderation is the key. We shouldn’t get caught up and forget what this is really about: great games and having fun. At least, I think that’s what it’s about…

_{*: I should say this is my understanding of things and may be inaccurate.}

A Fanboy Review of Transformers: the Game

I know that Transformers: the Game was released a while ago, but I didn’t play it until recently. I gained a fondness for the game and thought that I could post a review a bit different from those others were producing.

For those who are not aware, Transformers: the Game is the officially licensed game from the live-action movie. The game places you in control of a variety of transformers in levels which consist of small sandbox arenas. You are able to do a variety of things, but for each transformer you are required to transform between their robot mode and alternate mode^@. You are able to follow either an Autobot campaign or a Decepticon one (you can play through each at your leisure). Both campaigns loosely follow the movie, but they tweak the plot to allow for game-friendly missions. Throughout the game there are a variety of collectables (five bonus-content icons and 100 energon cubes each per level) and side missions (four per level) which unlock a variety of bonus content.

I have to admit, that upon first playing the game I was a little disappointed. I found myself agreeing with reviewers who said that the game attempted to be a third-person action game and a driving game, without real success in either. The graphics are not overly spectacular, and the collision detection is iffy. It would seem that the game creators decided the transformers are surrounded by a field that causes the world around them to disintegrate instantly as they drive by, and I found myself frequently getting caught on tress and debris. The first bonus content I unlocked was only movie related, and I decided quite quickly that the only fan service included would be for fans of the movie, not the franchise. Probably my biggest gripe (and one that I maintain) is that the controller diagram lists the button for transformation as “convert”. When I saw that I thought “This game wasn’t made by people who knew anything about Transformers. They are dead to me.” I know I posted before about giving kids games a break, but those rules need not apply here. The reason: this game clearly tries to be a full game that would appeal to a larger audience. It tries and at first I thought it failed.

As I continued to play, however, my opinions began to change.

One thing that they definitely got right is the mission structure. So many games can’t get this right, license or no. How many times have you played a game to find out that every mission is the same as the last, just with two more enemies to defeat? TtG isn’t one of those games. The missions change, and they make good use of the transformation dynamic. Some missions are just driving time trials, others are straight up third-person combat. Others require chasing targets, or include parts of both aspects. One thing that really impressed me is a mission as Starscream. Flying vehicles provide difficulties for mission design. There are no real boundaries, and time-trials seem tacked on. Also, unlike Blackout (the helicopter), Starscream cannot hold position in mid-air, which makes him poorly suited to attack buildings on the ground. For one mission, though, you are tasked with shooting down jets in the air, and then collecting their remains from the floor in your robot form. Not only is this mission different from all the others but it was also pretty challenging. I think that was another factor that many reviewers didn’t take into full consideration: this game really requires that you get used to interacting with the world to find the best way to complete a mission.

Another aspect I really enjoyed was the distribution of gamerscore. While I was able to nab all of the 42 achievements on my first time through the game, they weren’t as easily captured as those in other games (*cough* Avatar *cough*). The collectables were actually well balanced once you got into it. I could collect upwards of 95 energon cubes on my first pass through a level, and I didn’t pull out my hair looking for that last one. I was a little disappointed at some of the secret achievements which could have been revealed, but with the internet there’s no need to loose any sleep over that.

As I played through more of the game I found that the collision detection didn’t bother me as much. It didn’t get better, but I got a lot better at navigating the game. I started to notice other, more subtle, aspects of play. For instance, when you’re a giant robot climbing buildings and loping through the streets the police are going to start to hunt you down. If you’re disguised as a car or truck you can slip past them, or at least out pace them and escape relatively unscathed. You don’t need to know that for the first few Autobot missions, but when you get deep into the Decepticon campaign you need to avoid the tanks which can aggregate quickly while you’re looking for energon.

The bonus content improved too. Granted, there are too many bonus videos which are simple trailers for the movie, but the last few are actually the openings from the less popular animated series which popped up over the last five or six years. The stills also improved. While about a third of the bonus images are stills from the movie, some are wireframe designs for the transformers, and a good number are comic covers ranging from original G1 Marvel comics to the recent restart under IDW. The best fanservice was in the skins though. You have five unlockable skins for transformers, including G1 Optimus and G1 Megatron. Those two skins are the most unique, actually turning the bots into their earlier designs and transformations. I was curious about how they would do Megatron, what with him transforming into a gun in G1 and a jet in the movie. The solution: G1 Megatron “transforms” into a flying posture straight from the old cartoons. I think this was not only a clever work around, but also pretty damn cool.

My improved opinions of the game do not to forgive all its flaws, but I was struck by a thought about half-way through the campaigns: this game probably had an incredibly short development cycle and would have been rushed to market to meet the movie release. Once I realized this, the flaws made a lot more sense, and the parts they got right were much more impressive. Along with innovative mission design the combat in the game is incredibly balanced. There are a few fights towards the end that get pretty tough, but it doesn’t only rely on twitch reflexes. A lot of the game is finding vulnerabilities in the enemies and avoiding their special attacks. After that you should be able to overcome the obstacles and have a fun play through.

My final point is the price. This game can now be found for as little as $10 used. While it doesn’t have the kind of length you will get from games such as Fallout 3, you do get a full retail game’s worth, and at such a discount it’s quite a steal. I’m not going to say that this is a game worth overlooking some of the great titles which you probably missed over the holidays, but if you’re a transformers fanboy like myself and you’re willing to give a game a good play before you jump to any conclusions you should at least think about renting it. You might be surprised.

Bottom Line:
Buy if: You can get a good deal on it and are enough of a fanboy to want to transform at least 500 times.
Rent if: You aren’t too picky about having the new and best quality games and enjoy searching through a cityscape for just one more item.
Pass if: You don’t have the time to spend on anything but the best. This by no means surpasses some of the great hidden gems out there from last year (I’m talking about Pure).

_{^@: There is an exception to the ability to transform. Scorponok remains in his alternate form throughout your control, but he is able to dive beneath open ground.}

Core VS Casual: Who’s Really the Industry Saver?

I don’t know if you’ve heard the news or not, but the economy is in a bit of a rough patch. During these uncertain times the videogame industry has to be at least a little concerned since it’s an industry based entirely on leisure activities. There are, however, many murmurs of the possibility that the industry and/or certain contenders therein are “recession proof”. The truth of such a statement is not the purpose of this post. No, instead I propose to take a look at just which consumers are most likely to see the industry through this period of unrest.

As anyone who isn’t living under a rock knows, the Nintendo Wii is doing quite well. It would appear that the appeal Nintendo made to the casual user has paid off in proverbial spades, landing them atop the console pile. Many people are suggesting that this trend is a boon for the industry as a whole, including Michael Pachter (a market analyst), who claimed in a recent episode of Gametrailers’ Bonus Round that the Wii would break down the stigma surrounding videogames for the casual market and move gaming from a niche into a broader, more successful, money maker.^* Mr. Pachter is not the only one. There are many who mark this success as the end of the hard-core gamer as the foundation of the industry. Leigh Alexander wrote in her blog at SexyVideogameland how EA didn’t receive financial success for giving core gamers the innovation they asked for. That post in particular got me started on a post about how the core had lost the ear of the producers since they failed to use their buying power to affect the market.

Since then, however, I’ve started to change my way of thinking. Given our commencement down the slippery slope of recession, will these trends maintain? Yes, the Wii did prove in November that it could still sell ridiculous numbers, but is that enough? Of course it is for Nintendo, but I don’t think it is for everyone else. You must remember that the top-selling games for the Wii are first-party and that leaves a lot of people out in the cold. In addition, the only software that is selling in comparison with the AAA titles for other consoles is actually peripherals bundled with software. While Nintendo is showing that it can build huge install bases it has yet to prove that it can do anything with that install base.

And I think that’s the centre of the problem. Ms. Alexander wrote another post about how many people regret their Wii and let it collect dust. Pachter claimed that Geoff Keighley (the host of Bonus Round) would get a raise since his viewership would increase with the bourgeoning casual market. I don’t think so. As this article at Kotaku points out, the problem with casual gaming is the “casual” part. Many Wii’s are finding their ways into homes where they will go unused, or perhaps software, the bulk of the industry, is purchased rarely and in small quantities. Remember, shovel-ware, that delightful mini-game market the Wii has so much of, sells in minuscule quantities compared with even A let alone AAA titles. Real software sales can often be attributed to hard-core gamers who will buy, beg, or steal in order to get that new release, and I think that the industry would do well to remember it.

There was a post back in July at Gamerscore Blog which I feel does a good job in summing up how many core gamers feel about the current state of the market. In short: they’re frustrated and feel abused. There are fewer and fewer developers and publishers who seek to deliver a truly next-gen experience for the core demographic. With the Rock Band, Wii, and iPhone^@ casual game industries the people who built the foundation of current gaming are now feeling neglected.

Why should companies care? Because it’s this core group who will see them through to the other side of the recession. These gamers won’t neglect their consoles. They won’t use their Xbox only as a DVD player or only drag out the controllers once-in-a-while to amuse a few friends. These gamers will cut back on food to make sure they can get that new release, and as a consequence will make sure that companies like EA can keep the heat on through the winter. There has been a lot of talk about EA’s cutbacks but I think they’re on the right track, and ultimately I think they’ll be rewarded for it. I have a feeling that when we emerge on the other side of this downswing we will find that the innovative titles and franchises are what created tangible profits.

At least that’s what I hope. In the end only time will tell.

_{*I am of course paraphrasing.
@In the last two days I have heard from two separate sources about iPhone gaming, and they say the same thing: the iPhone has potential, but it won’t stand up for play more than 30 minutes and the battery will be devoured almost as fast. Given that we don’t forgive such failure on handhelds such as the DS and PSP, I don’t know how people can begin to overlook that on their phone/PDA.}