New ending for Mass Effect 3

In an interesting twist, Bioware have announced that they have decided to release 'further closure' for Mass Effect 3, following massive outcry at the ending of the game. Most of the complaints focussed on the ending and that it didn't take into account choices made in earlier series.

This is, as far as I'm aware, the first time a major developer has made big changes to a game based solely on feedback from players. My question for you, dear readers, is if this is a good thing, with games becoming far more user-centric and the opinions of gamers being accounted, or a bad thing, where developers will now be frightened to make unpopular decisions for the benefits of story-telling because they don't want risk a negative fan reaction?

Link to the news article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17458208

Dominion Of The Damned: Final Fantasy XIII-2

I've posted what I like to call "A View" on Final Fantasy XIII-2 on Dominion. Please feel free to discuss the article here or there. I'd especially welcome any discussion on the general topic on here, if anyone cares for it ;P

Dominion Of The Damned: Final Fantasy XIII-2: E xcitement, laughter, boredom, disappointment and hope. All of these I have experienced playing Final Fantasy "13.2" , a flawed sequel whic...

Retro-gaming: The rise of fun

I've been feeling somewhat nostalgic of late, and started thinking back to mad sessions of Crash Team Racing and Halo: Combat Evolved (with a link cable, teams of 4 in separate rooms with occasional outbursts of semi-demonic laughing) With the recent(ish) release of the anniversary edition of Halo, which included, in my opinion, the incredibly useless feature of being able to switch between the graphics of the new and the original versions, and the massive rise of retro games (boom of 8-bit games on xbli, to name but one trend) it seems that looking back on gaming is something that everyone seems to be doing.

There is a point to my nostalgia, however. I started to wonder if we look back at those games for a reason. I doubt that it is because they are classics (some of my fondest memories are of playing Cel Damage which scored a measly 65 on metacritic*) or because they feature innovative game-play features or cutting-edge graphics. We look back on them because they are fun, and because we wanted to share that fun.

So, if there is a boom in retro-games, does that mean that modern games are fun deficient? I have to admit that I think they are. There are brilliant brilliant games out now, no doubt, but I can't remember the last time I ended up actually falling out of my chair from laughter due to a game**. I love Skyrim and Mass Effect and Halo: Reach; after all they are good games, but the focus on drama and storytelling and cinematic views has come at the cost of games being less fun.

Rather than ending this as a rant, I can think of an interesting question instead. What features would you rescue from games gone past, and what would you not be willing to give up from modern games?

*Although tellingly the user rating was 9.0 out of 10.

** I suspect it was the line 'There were iron posts lining the path all along the docks, apparently for tying up ships. It sounded like a load of bollards to me.' from Discworld Noir.

The future of game genres

Following on from a previous post about Japanese Role-Playing games (JRPGs) I wondered if people had any thoughts on any other genres which may be seen as obsolete in the near future and what other types of games might need reinvention. Some questions to spark discussion:

a)     What genres/types of games do you see as needing to change or evolve in the current gaming climate, or have you seen any examples of this already happening?

b)     Do you see any trends in gaming that you think will affect how certain types of games will react with one another?  And are these changes for the better or worse, or simply just different?

c)      Is there any chance that we will see new types of games and genres emerging in the future, or will everything simply be a mash-up or rebrand of previous themes? Do you have any ideas of a new genre of game?

I know it seems like exam questions but I hope its helpful in generating discussion.

Also I'd rather we didn't get caught up in the term 'genre'; I'm not trying to get into what makes a genre, whether that word can exist in modern games etc. - thats something for a future post! - what I'm talking about are the general terms we use like RPG, FPS, Strategy, Racing, etc.

DLC: Where do we draw the line?

This is a long one people, but it's something I've felt passionate about for a little while now and is back in the limelight recently, so thought it appropriate to talk about.

With the continual rise of downloadable content (DLC) we are in an age where your experience in a game is no longer bound by what you initially get on the disc or download online. It seems like a logical step, and one that we can all get behind when done right. If you are invested in a world, then having the option to pay to get extra missions, levels, weapons etc. can only be a good thing right? I mean imagine if those games you pumped hours and hours into as a kid had that option: 30 extra Pokemon to collect, yes please! Of course for a number of years on PC a lot of games offered extra content for free, even if it was on the whole smaller than todays offerings. But I do think its right if a developer spends time (and therefore money) on content and feels they need to recoup some of that it's their prerogative to charge us; if you don't want the content or don't think it offers value for money just don't pay for it, you still have a full experience out the box and are no more entitled to that content than the game itself.

However questions are starting to be asked about the ethics of what's acceptable now that DLC is becoming a standard in almost every major game released. I will give you three examples of past DLC which have effected me as a gamer, one which I think reflects exactly what DLC should be and two that don't.

A positive example of what DLC can be used for I found in Mass Effect 2. While it was controversial at the time, the game came with access to something called the Cerberus Network. This was available to anyone who purchased the game new, and once activated allowed them day-one DLC. Now that may sound like a negative thing, but this was simply EA and Bioware's way of trying to combat second hand sales, which really are a burden on the video game market currently (much more so than films or music but that's another discussion). The DLC you received was a short side-mission and an extra character for your crew, and over the next few months after launch they included 3 more pieces of free content. After that they then started releasing paid content that included a new character, a new side-mission etc.

This is acceptable to me because they didn't deny anyone access to key game content or anything they worked on during development time (ie. Pre-launch). Even the stuff that you have to pay for if you buy it second hand is not key to the story at all, just an incentive to buy it new, and the paid-for DLC was done post launch and of a good standard.

A worse example is in the soon-to-be-released sequel Mass Effect 3. In this a piece of DLC called 'From Ashes' was leaked onto Xbox Live early and has been confirmed to be day-one DLC which will cost money (unless you purchase the special edition of the game which costs £15-20 more). The game isn't even out yet and they already have content ready to release on day one. I'm going to avoid spoilers, but what's even more frustrating is that the DLC in question sounds very important to anyone who knows the lore and storyline of the first two games. Even if its only a side-mission or character, the significance of it is clear simply from the descriptions I've read online. This I feel is totally unacceptable. Bioware's justification that the game went gold a while ago and they have been working on the DLC since doesn't wash with me. When a game releases it should be content-complete, and not including something that is ready ahead of launch, let alone over a week before launch, is unethical in my opinion and clearly an attempt to milk the consumer. It takes absolutely no effort to give us that content on day one as a download for free, again why not as again an incentive for brand-new buyers; it isn't the consumers fault that EA pushed back Mass Effect 3s release purposefully to avoid the busy Christmas market, so I'm sure its true that the game was probably ready a while ago, but there is absolutely no way for EA or Bioware to prove that the content they are releasing was paid for out of some arbitrary DLC budget/time-window and not the budget set aside for the game itself.

I would use a short analogy to illustrate: If I buy a DVD I pay the full £10 for the film I saw advertised. If after watching the film I was told I could pay a further £2 to see an extra 20mins of the film, an extended cut if you will, and I enjoyed the film then of course I probably would. However what if I paid the full £10 and then was told I could have some 'missing scenes' that were cut for the DVD release back in the film for £2. These scenes aren't extra, it took no extra effort on the part of the film-maker to create them, animate them, edit them. They should have been there in the first place. I would not find that acceptable..

Totalbiscuit is a famous online personality who goes into more depth on this particular game and explains the issue very well. He helped bring this issue back up for me and I probably borrowed quite a few of his arguments too, although I would say these ideas have been around for a little while now, he just vocalises them very well. WARNING FOR POTENTIAL ME3 PLAYERS, CONTAINS DLC SPOILERS Check it out below if you have the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0vrJ-y2zM&feature=plcp&context=C3fa74b5UDOEgsToPDskL4CvpYksv88r56K3AJV9nh

Probably the worst example I've heard so far though is in the case of Capcom's Street Fighter IV (which I don't actually own), and also more recently in Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (which I do). In the case of Street Fighter IV Capcom charged people for new costumes for characters. Not only was this available day one, but it was on the actual disc! You can almost justify some DLC for not being able to fit on the disc if its hefty. Perhaps.. Maybe.. No not really. But you weren't even buying something extra, this was content that had already been designed and created and just got locked so people had to pay.

This was taken to even madder extremes in Marvel vs. Capcom 2 when two playable characters, Jill Valentine and Shuma Gorath, suffered the same treatment, being on the disc and you paying about £3 each (extortionate!) to unlock them.

There are plenty of other examples of games that use or misuse DLC. I think DLC is at best a positive bonus, something that can add to and enhance an already great experience, or even give you totally new, unexpected experiences, like Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare or Mass Effect 2s Lair of the Shadow Broker. At worst it is a way for publishers to make money on the most trivial of things, on content that required little-to-know effort (Horse armour anyone?) or even was included in the initial development budget in the first place but they know certain gamers, and often their most dedicated fans who should be treated with more respect, can be exploited.

I wondered what people's opinions were on this. Do you have any good or bad examples of DLC out there right now, that you have or haven't purchased? And where do we draw the line as consumers here?