The Problem With War of Three Peaks
Some readers may see the title of this post as an inference that there is only one problem with the latest “mini expansion” for The Lord of the Rings Online. That is not the case. However, I don’t hold developer’s Standing Stone Games responsible for the debacle over the pricing for the three different editions. That is something I lay at the door of financiers and publishers, Daybreak Game Company. For the purpose of this blog post, I wish to focus upon the lacklustre content of Update 28: War of Three Peaks and how it becomes quite clear which material was developed as part of a regular content update and what was then added to potentially try and justify the term “mini expansion”. Furthermore, I see this drop in quality as being a real threat to the future prosperity of LOTRO. I am a long time fan of this MMO, albeit one with a sense of perspective. I’m halfway through the new zone and I’m not having fun. I’m sure I am not alone in this.
Some readers may see the title of this post as an inference that there is only one problem with the latest “mini expansion” for The Lord of the Rings Online. That is not the case. However, I don’t hold developer’s Standing Stone Games responsible for the debacle over the pricing for the three different editions. That is something I lay at the door of financiers and publishers, Daybreak Game Company. For the purpose of this blog post, I wish to focus upon the lacklustre content of Update 28: War of Three Peaks and how it becomes quite clear which material was developed as part of a regular content update and what was then added to potentially try and justify the term “mini expansion”. Furthermore, I see this drop in quality as being a real threat to the future prosperity of LOTRO. I am a long time fan of this MMO, albeit one with a sense of perspective. I’m halfway through the new zone and I’m not having fun. I’m sure I am not alone in this.
Let’s start with what I like about the Elderslade region. It’s a rugged environment with several interesting hidden areas. It is also not too much of a chore to navigate and there are several points where you can take a shortcut to where you need to get to, rather than follow the roads. That is something that doesn’t happen too often in LOTRO these days. Usually, the environment is designed to funnel the player from Ato B and hems them in. The storylines are enjoyable and again show that the writers are well versed in the lore of Middle- earth. I especially like the quest arc that has you travelling with Léothred, a historian from Rohan. His revised history of Fram and his slaying of Scatha the Worm was especially well conceived. I liked the way it involved Karazgar, the Weeping Warrior to fill in the gaps in existing lore. I also like the themes that recur throughout the main Epic Story and the way the distrust between the Longbeards, Zhelruka and Stout Axes Dwarven clans is frequently an impediment to their success.
Sadly, the positive aspects of Update 28 do not necessarily compensate for the bad. For example, a common trick that SSG relies upon to increase content, is to create an area, divide it into numerous subsections and then densely populate it with mobs. The player will then be presented with a litany of fetch and kill quests forcing them to navigate throughout all areas. These sorts of quests cease to be a challenge and tips over into being tedious. Sometimes quests can be auto completed but on other occasions you find yourself at one end of an area and having to battle all the way back to hand in and finish. It’s the inconsistency here that is annoying and the feeling you’re being taken for a mug. As for the reusing of the twin phase map concept, this is not a bad idea in theory. It worked well with the Minas Morgul expansion and being able to access Mordor in the Second Age. But here it feels like an excuse to simply pad out the mini expansion with even more superfluous kill and fetch quests. Then there is the poison gas that blights specific areas of War of Three Peaks and its associated mechanic. It is simply a nuisance and adds nothing to gameplay.
A new addition to the game is the Mission system. I was hoping that these would be a variation of skirmishes with the focus on tactical gameplay. Sadly they lack that systems creativity and are little more than straightforward instances that require you to complete a basic set of criteria. IE Kill so many enemies and then a boss. The only difference here is that if you do not quickly kill the enemy, they will call for reinforcement. They also lack the story elements that skirmishes have and do not feel in any way different from the regular instances that occur in the story. Yes, you can do them with companions but you are offered no real incentive to do so with regards to the rewards. And talking of such, the new gear available in the game just feels like an increase for its own sake. The new reputation gear doesn’t seem to offer anything more than a basic increase in stats over the gear you have already. It’s all very uninspired and unengaging.
And therein lies the problem. It all feels too much like busy work for its own sake. Now it can be argued that this is the foundation of the entire MMORPG genre but I would counter that with the assertion that a good developer tries to mask busy work with a veneer of narrative engagement and a soupçon of panache. If you’re immersed in a story and doing something that doesn’t immediately strike you as busy work, then that is a MMO working well. Sadly, such things are conspicuously absent here and I keep saying to myself, “remind me again why I’m killing another dozen Angmarim?” or words to that effect. I’m in danger of getting bored to the point of abandoning the game in pursuit of another that is more entertaining and gives me a sense of accomplishment and not frustration or annoyance. If SSG wants to bounce back from this low point, then I hope that the next official expansion is a lot more inventive and enjoyable. A lot of people play this genre of games to escape the mundane nature of their chore driven lives and don’t want to have to endure something similar while playing a game like LOTRO.
Is There a Gaming Hierarchy?
Syp wrote a post recently on his blog Bio Break, about the air of disdain with which some video games journalists report on the MMO genre. He cited a post over on VG247 in which the author was surprised that he was currently enjoying SWTOR, despite the fact it was an MMO. It was very much a case of “wow, this game is quite good considering most in this genre are rubbish”. As Syp pointed out, this is often the way the MMORPG is labelled and pigeonholed. However, I think there is more to this than just a dislike of a particular type of game by some writers and gaming commentators. I believe that many of those who have been playing video games since their youth and who are now aged 40 to 50, have very entrenched views and are weighed down by a lot of cultural baggage. I think that some believe that there is a sort of unofficial but very real gaming hierarchy and it is their sacred duty to act as self appointed arbiters and gatekeepers.
Syp wrote a post recently on his blog Bio Break, about the air of disdain with which some video games journalists report on the MMO genre. He cited a post over on VG247 in which the author was surprised that he was currently enjoying SWTOR, despite the fact it was an MMO. It was very much a case of “wow, this game is quite good considering most in this genre are rubbish”. As Syp pointed out, this is often the way the MMORPG is labelled and pigeonholed. However, I think there is more to this than just a dislike of a particular type of game by some writers and gaming commentators. I believe that many of those who have been playing video games since their youth and who are now aged 40 to 50, have very entrenched views and are weighed down by a lot of cultural baggage. I think that some believe that there is a sort of unofficial but very real gaming hierarchy and it is their sacred duty to act as self appointed arbiters and gatekeepers.
We all have our own personal likes and dislikes when it comes to video games. I certainly do. Occasionally I have stepped outside of my comfort zone and tried something new and it has proven a pleasant surprise. Other times my experiments have not gone so well. There are some titles and genres that will never appeal to me and I am content to leave them be permanently. However, I see no reason to hold those games that I do not like in contempt, nor do I deem it necessary to publicly disparage them along with those that do enjoy them. I haven’t the time to waste on such posturing and I’d much rather be playing those titles I do like. Sadly, video games just like music and film fandom, has a strong streak of snobbery running through its associated culture. Furthermore personal taste is often confused with artistic merit and one’s own preferences are erroneously perceived to be an endorsement of quality.
So what is the spurious gaming hierarchy that some cleave to? I suspect that competitive games are at the top, along with all the elitist “git gud” culture. Then there are the single player games with their litany of achievements and unlocks. MMOs are then the poor relation of the single player RPG. Walking simulators, fun games and clickers are deemed as a waste of time or not even being games. And the final circle of gamer hell are mobile games which are viewed with utter contempt. Which is odd when you think about it as this genre of games make the most money out of the entire video games industry. When you consider why such hierarchical notions exist, they appear to be an extension of the pecking order that some gamers apply to themselves. If there is a hierarchy of games, then it logically follows that there must be a similar ranking among gamers themselves.
Humans love an opportunity to segregate themselves. We categorise people according to wealth, class, education, gender and race. Sometimes such labelling and subdividing is benign but in other instances it is divisive and a tool of oppression. Yet it seems to happen regardless of its rectitude. You put a group of people in a room who are broadly similar and they’ll eventually divide themselves between who are left or right handed. So it is sad but inevitable that different types of games will be treated in a similar fashion. However, being aware of this societal trait then allows us to challenge it when encountered. So next time you read a post by a professional game critic that pooh-poohs a specific genre without a valid reason, call them out. Just as you would if they’d made a similar comment that metal is better than country music or that the MCU is superior to the works of Kurosawa.
“Cheating”, “It’s Not Fair” and Other Spurious Phrases That Gamers Love to Use
You would think that a subject such as cheating in gaming is very clear cut. But it’s not. Like everything in life, the more you ponder the subject, the more you can conceive of situations where it all becomes ambiguous.Yes, once again the complexity and inherent nuance of life totally undermines binary, knee jerk positions. Take for example third party “cheat programs” such as Cheat Engine. Using an external program that alters the behaviour of a multiplayer game is clearly cheating and a breaking of the Terms of Service. However, using the same facility to provide yourself with a degree of convenience in a single player game is a different matter altogether. It affords you an opportunity to experience parts of a game that you may not do so under default playing conditions. Those who trot out the tired mantra that you “cheated yourself” and “didn’t learn anything” fail to see that gamers do not share a universal philosophy.
You would think that a subject such as cheating in gaming is very clear cut. But it’s not. Like everything in life, the more you ponder the subject, the more you can conceive of situations where it all becomes ambiguous.Yes, once again the complexity and inherent nuance of life totally undermines binary, knee jerk positions. Take for example third party “cheat programs” such as Cheat Engine. Using an external program that alters the behaviour of a multiplayer game is clearly cheating and a breaking of the Terms of Service. However, using the same facility to provide yourself with a degree of convenience in a single player game is a different matter altogether. It affords you an opportunity to experience parts of a game that you may not do so under default playing conditions. Those who trot out the tired mantra that you “cheated yourself” and “didn’t learn anything” fail to see that gamers do not share a universal philosophy.
Often the phrase “cheating” is a catchall substitute for “it’s not fair”. Again this line of argument is built upon the myth of shared moral and ethical values and that there is a universally “right way to play games”. And if you ever want to see a gaming community bunfight based upon this axiom, then just raise the subject of “exploits” in the MMO genre. It is often a touchstone for many a “tail chasing” drama. I have always taken the attitude that an exploit is ultimately a problem caused by developers and therefore the onus is on them to remedy it. If a new instance is set at the wrong difficulty and can therefore be farmed easily until the problem is corrected, then so be it. If the developers subsequently wish to remove the items that you gained from the exploit, then I’d go so far as to say “that is their prerogative, although that does smack of punishing others for their failure. However, I am especially unimpressed when the “cheating/it’s not fair” mantra is applied to player behaviour and a dislike of others' choice of actions.
Let’s not delude ourselves. We live in a world where “winning” is exalted at any cost. Even a Pyrrhic victory is deemed acceptable if you walk away with the prize. Notions of sportsmanship have declined and it’s not cheating if the performance enhancing drug you use isn’t on the current banned list. So why waste your breath decrying players who are doing something that doesn’t break any rules but simply displeases your moral sensibilities. Competitive gaming and PVP is built upon league tables and player ranking. Pride in one’s achievements is interchangeable with bragging rights and feeling smug. It seems ludicrous when you foster a game community with a win at any cost attitude and then balk when players do exactly that. The latest Call of Duty Warzone drama over bunker camping is a microcosm of this. There are no rules prohibiting such activities. All subsequent complaints are therefore subjective and just more white noise.
If you want to control or eliminate specific kinds of behaviour in multiplayer video games, then there is a need to put specific rules in place against them and then ensure that they are enforced. Relying on something as nebulous as “common sense” or shared “values” is a mistake (If you want a further example, ask the UK government). If you’re of an altruistic nature and are unsure of the veracity of my case, then I politely refer you to the entirety of human history. We don’t as a society rely on people’s personal moral compass not to commit murder. We actively police against it and have sanctions in place to punish when it occurs. So can we please move on from these self indulgent exercises in pearl clutching when part of a gaming community does something different to the way you do it. If you want player behaviour in a specific game changed then lobby the developers. They will give it due consideration but remember their agenda may not be the same as yours.
Gaming and the Language of "Them Versus Us"
Language is an evolutionary thing. It changes over time, reflecting the needs of the culture that use it. Furthermore, each unique sub-set of society seems to create and utilise its own bespoke lexicon. From business, science, politics, religion, to sports and other leisure activities, all use terminology that is unique to their own group. Overtime some of these terms’ crossover from one niche to another to eventually find broad mainstream acceptance. It is a fascinating process and one I think has accelerated in recent years due to the growth of social media.
I have written before about the subject of gaming semantics and the fact that some terms are so ambiguous and not clearly defined. This subsequently leads to skewed debates and discussion, as there is not a mutually agreed frame of reference of definition. This time I want to focus on another linguistic issue that it currently blighting the discourse surrounding games. That being the proliferation of pejorative terms and ill-conceived labels, which are used not to describe but to discredit. It sadly adds to the increasingly bi-partisan nature of all public debates these days and reinforces my current stance of not defining myself by a pastime that I pursue. The gaming community is becoming increasingly intolerant and I don't wish to be associated with such things.
Language is an evolutionary thing. It changes over time, reflecting the needs of the culture that use it. Furthermore, each unique sub-set of society seems to create and utilise its own bespoke lexicon. From business, science, politics, religion, to sports and other leisure activities, all use terminology that is unique to their own group. Overtime some of these terms’ crossover from one niche to another to eventually find broad mainstream acceptance. It is a fascinating process and one I think has accelerated in recent years due to the growth of social media.
I have written before about the subject of gaming semantics and the fact that some terms are so ambiguous and not clearly defined. This subsequently leads to skewed debates and discussion, as there is not a mutually agreed frame of reference of definition. This time I want to focus on another linguistic issue that it currently blighting the discourse surrounding games. That being the proliferation of pejorative terms and ill-conceived labels, which are used not to describe but to discredit. It sadly adds to the increasingly bi-partisan nature of all public debates these days and reinforces my current stance of not defining myself by a pastime that I pursue. The gaming community is becoming increasingly intolerant and I don't wish to be associated with such things.
Something that often comes up in discussions about PVP, is the term "carebear". Initially this was a term that was jokingly employed to describe players that preferred the social interaction of PVE content and avoided player versus player gameplay. Now it seems to be a routine epithet to negatively label anyone who doesn't advocate any of the competitive aspects of gaming. If you do not like PVP, or end-game raiding, warzones, skirmishes or the like you are a "carebear". The implication being that caring and compassion are negative things and potentially a sign of weakness. It is a blanket term design to be besmirch and standard ammunition in ad hominem attacks.
During the seventies, UK national politics was extremely binary. The right was focused on privatisation, small government and the free market with the left advocating the welfare state, social responsibility and equality. It was during this period that I first became aware of the term "do gooder"; a term broadly meaning a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer. Yet overtime it simple degenerated into a pejorative label for anyone who's politics were not sufficiently right wing enough. Any sort of policy that advocated fairness or parity was lambasted with this term, to the point where it became nothing but a vacuous buzz word. The reason I mention this is because the exactly the same thing is happening today with the trite label "social justice warrior".
In recent years games discourse has sunk under the weight of these sorts of terms. Any sort of meaningful and mature discussion is obscured under a swath of pointless and ultimately meaningless terms. "Feminazi", "delicate snowflake", "filthy casual gamer" and other such names are bandied about, dragging the debate away from a level playing field and into the playground. Combine this sort of rhetoric with the prevailing mindset that eschews reason, critical thinking and scope to disagree in a civil fashion and all rational discussion ends. The winner is simply those who shout loudest. History has shown us that such groups are seldom the best informed.
When this sort of philosophy prevails it ultimately does more harm than good. Sadly at present, too many gamers are busy indulging in territorial pissing that they are oblivious to the fact that they are befouling their own waterhole. It's only a matter of time before the well is truly poisoned. If gaming culture genuinely wants to improve for everyone's benefits then it needs to start thinking. That begins with the language that we use towards each other. The alternative is to continue down the current road and let those who want to watch Rome burn, do so to the detriment of all. In the meantime there will be those that disassociate themselves from the mainstream and set up isolated safe havens for likeminded gamers. However that doesn't really fix the long-term problems. Are smaller more fragmented markets and communities ultimately good for gaming?