The Problem with Giveaways

View fullsize

Cryptic are currently running a promotional giveaway for Star Trek Online, in which the top prize is an exclusive ORIGIN Millennium Gaming Desktop themed PC with artwork from Star Trek Online: Victory is Life. It’s worth $3, 272, looks spiffy and has robust specifications. There all also various other runner up prizes, such as the Gamma Vanguard and Gamma Vanguard Starter Pack. If you enjoy STO then this is a good value giveaway with a fair selection of rewards. Or at least it is at first glance. If you read the ubiquitous small print that comes with any sort of endeavour such as this, you’ll quickly spot that you can only enter the giveaway if you’re resident of North America. And therein lies the problem with so many competitions these days. Despite games having a global market, giveaways are frequently hamstrung by regional restrictions, rules and regulations.

Let us not kid ourselves about the purpose of giveaways, competitions and prize draws that are common place to the gaming industry. They are marketing and promotional tools primarily designed to attract new customers and secondly to placate existing players. One of the biggest challenges any service industries has to face is churn; the attrition or turnover of customers. MMOs suffer this continuously. Therefore, they need to keep players engaged, enamoured and involved. Giving away in-game trinkets and baubles can only go so far. However, offering a tangible physical prize that is both exclusive and high-value is one way to attract attention. As human beings we tend to like the thrill and excitement of competitions and the chance of winning a prize. Often, the logical part of our brain which calmly tell us to consider the odds, is completely ignored by our emotions who want feel special and win something shiny. This is why companies such as Cryptic run giveaways. The buzz they create gets results.

View fullsize

But competitions of this kind are an administrative nightmare. Every country has its own bespoke set of rules regarding competitions, the prizes they offer and the age of those who can enter. Then there are issues pertaining to tax, physically shipping the prize to the winner and ensuring that the entire process is administered in a transparent and fair way. And those are a bunch of very difficult dots to join. Hence companies such as Cryptic often elect to limit the scope of the giveaway to a specific region. However, where such action may solve one problem, it causes another because those parties that are excluded are left feeling like second class customers. You may get a similar feeling when you see advertisements for some great deal that is only applicable to new customers of a service that you already use. I’ve phoned British Telecom several times in the past and berated some poor schmuck in customer services because I can’t have a shiny new router despite twenty-five years of loyal custom. You only have to go and visit the STO Reddit and you’ll find complaints about this PC giveaway already.

This problem seems to stem from the gap between global markets and regional bureaucracy as well as supply chains. I’m sure at present, it not an easy hurdle to overcome, but I certainly think that it needs to be addressed. Perhaps there is a compromise to be had. Can a high value prize such as a PC be sourced to other parts of the globe by local business partners? Can alternative prizes be offered to those who enter outside of North America? A solution will no doubt increase the level of administration required and all too often in business, it is the bottom line that dictates decisions. But sometimes if you’re trying to gain goodwill you have to go the extra mile. And before anyone trots out arguments about “entitlement”, this is not a matter of hurt feelings or anything as trite. It’s a matter of being publicly seen to treat all your customers the same, which is a sound business practise.

Narco Road

View fullsize

Overall, I enjoyed the base game of Ghost Recon: Wildlands. I have no major investment in the franchise and so judged the game on its story, mechanics and accessibility. As the concept of a Narco State is not beyond the realms of possibility, the story although stylised was acceptable. All games require the suspension of disbelief and as long as they don’t break their own internal logic and dramatic conceit, they tend to successfully tread the path of their narrative fantasy. Sadly, Narco Road the first DLC for Ghost Recon: Wildlands tries to take the game down a more bombastic and excessive path, filled monster trucks, extreme sports and villains that have crossed the line from the melodramatic, to caricature. Most players discovered this last April when the DLC was released. I have only discovered this now, over a year later and it’s a little disappointing.

Narco Road begins with an interesting concept. You’re tasked with infiltrating yet another dangerous cartel that is affiliated to Santa Blanca. You have to earn the trust of three high ranking lieutenants, to learn the identity of the overall mastermind, El Invisible. There are distinct differences this time round. Large scale faction-based gun battles can frequently erupt around and if wisely exploited they can facilitate your plans However, a careless engagement causing ally and civilian collateral damage may well blow your cover. As you need to impress the various lieutenants, you’re required to indulge in various stunts and extreme sports to build up your reputation. It will also amass you an army of followers who will wade into any fight to support you. Overall this time round, you spend less time playing tactically and are frequently required to jump feet first into the fray This means blowing up gas stations, piloting damaged helicopter while dodging SAMs, and then there are the monster trucks. Yes, you get to ride trucks off massive ramps, race up mountain sides and carry out various other vehicular stunts.

View fullsize

Now all the above is great fun in principle but it’s not what I expected as DLC for what is otherwise a quite serious game. This tonal shift is not to my liking and I find it undermines the point of Ghost Recon: Wildlands overall. Some game journalists consider Narco Road to be a form of satire, tweaking the nose of adrenaline junkie culture and expanding upon the base game’s exploration of the world of social media. However, I don’t buy that. There may be an element of that present, but I am of the opinion that Narco Road is simply trying to appeal to the Grand Theft Auto V crowd. However, it feels to much like an afterthought. Where games like GTAV are specifically designed from the ground up to be raucous, sly and excessive, Narco Road smacks of just trying to cash in on such themes. As a result, it fails to satisfy and falls between two stools. It should also be noted that this DLC dispenses with your AI squad. If you don’t want to go down the road of internet co-op play, then you’ll find yourself dying a lot more frequently because there’s no one around to revive you when things get chaotic. So far, I’ve been playing Narco Road for about three days. If I’m still doing so in a week time, then I’ll be surprised.

Fans, Community Management and Social Media

View fullsize

When I first read about the furore caused by Jessica Price’s comments yesterday, I knew it wouldn’t end well. There’s a tedious inevitability to the outcome of most video game related “outrages” these days. For example, a senior member of staff from a major developer will same something crass, double down, dig a hole and then finally after being bitten on the ass by reality, will put out a mealy-mouthed half ass apology. The other scenario is that an employee affiliated to a studio says something completely left field, is presented with short window of opportunity to retract it and blame it on over the counter flu medication, before they get fired due to the ensuing PR shit storm.  This particular controversy falls into the latter category. However, if you take a step back from the Jessica Price debacle you quickly notice it raises a lot of questions beyond her obvious transgression. Namely, the problem of always being “on the clock” when you work in certain professions, the need to separate your work and personal social media presence and the place “influencers have in the video games industry.

First up, let’s deal with the most obvious things that standout from this “wee stooshie”. The moment you have your employers name in your twitter biography, you rightly or wrongly are now an ambassador for that company. This is a problematic foible of working in an age dominated by social media. I also think it is further exacerbated by the US work ethic which is curiously more zealous than its European counterpart. Work is more of defining factor in American culture to begin with. Irrespective of this, if you work for a major games developer and cite that in your profile then the fans will take it as read that you’re accessible 24/7 and they’ll cross examine you at every opportunity. It’s ironic but the term “emotional courtesan” that Jessica Price refutes in one of her tweets, is not a bad definition of the role that is thrust upon such employees. A company’s reputation and standing with its customers is one of its most prized assets. Questions regarding the capricious nature of fans and the fact that some totally lack any filter are ultimately irrelevant. You don’t upset the gravy train.

View fullsize

Next there’s the need to compartmentalise. If you work for a big player in any type of industry and feel that there are constraints placed upon your freedom of expression online as a result of that, then simply create separate social media accounts. Apply common sense to your work-related platforms and if need be follow a clear set of rules with regard to your customer interactions. As for your personal accounts, keep them separate and don’t make the mistake of getting drawn into needless arguments. Use mute or block judiciously if need be. And remember that Twitter is a public space and is therefore governed by rules of speech in such an environment. Ultimately if you want privacy in your discussion then use What’s App or something similar. Also, manners have declined in the last fifty years. Some people either lack a filter or simply refuse to use one for their own dysfunctional reasons. You have very little say or control over who decides to interject in any ongoing conversation. The sad reality is that your work related social media account forces you to do your job with one hand tied behind your back. It’s not a level playing field but if that’s place you’ve chosen to set up your stall, then that is how you have to roll with things.

Then there is the whole thorny issue of influencers. In this case, I’m not aware that You Tuber and Streamer Deroir has ever been considered a difficult or controversial individual. From what I’ve gleaned from the internet, they are a relatively benign community conduit. He’s even got an NPC named after him in the Mistlock Observatory. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for Deroir to want to interact with an ArenaNet employee such as Jessica Price. His comments were not in any way rude, so he really didn’t deserve the response he received. However, the wider gaming dependency upon influencers is a questionable practice. Not all are as measured as Deroir. It should not be forgotten that many influencers are not directly employed by the games developers and therefore not subject to the same scrutiny and security checks as regular staff. It’s a powerful position to be in and people are flawed. There have been instances of influencers going rogue in the past, although again I say this is clearly not one.

View fullsize

Finally, I am becoming increasingly sceptical of overt fandom of any kind. Pop culture, like politics and sports, is losing all semblance of measure and introspection and slowly becoming far more zealous. Everybody seems to have a stake or a personal claim on some part of the internet or aspect of fandom, regardless of whether it is legitimate or justified. Fandom isn’t collective ownership, although that is fast becoming a minority view. Dealing with such communities is becoming increasing hard. Who wants to navigate a daily diet of anger, accusations and bile? In the case of Jessica Price, her ill-conceived comments were wrong, and she has been sanctioned by her employers (The degree of which is subject to debate). However, what is worrying is the increasing trend that sees justifiable anger and complaint from legitimate quarters, being subsequently hi-jacked by those who simply smell blood in the water. The internet lynch mob is an extremely blunt tool and the dirty footprints of its affiliate members who often have their own agenda, ultimately just end up muddying the waters of measured and reasoned criticism. Thus, gaming culture declines further and it’s more mature and measured members find themselves moving ever further to its periphery, so as not be tarred with the same brush.

Victory is Life

View fullsize

Star Trek Online is a curious beast compared to other MMOs. Although the characters that you create have gear, skills and traits to advance, it is your ship that is the real focus of in game min-maxing. The game also has several strong narrative arcs that dovetail superbly into existing Trek lore. The fact that numerous actors from the original TV shows have returned to voice their characters in the game, is another feather in the hat for Cryptic, the games developers. STO recently had a major lighting and game engine overhaul to accommodate it’s launch on the console market. Yet despite many very positive factors, there are still times when STO feels a little clunky and lacking in polish. Cutscenes can be problematic and the game has some persistent bugs and glitches. However, despite some flaws the MMO has a strong and loyal fanbase who play actively and pay prodigiously. This is also a game with a large number of whales in its wider community.

This year is the 25th anniversary of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Subsequently, Cryptic decided to base their latest expansion Victory if Life around the show. Released on 5th June, the new content features the voice talents of Alexander Siddig, Andrew Robinson, Armin Shimerman, Aron Eisenberg, Jeffrey Combs, J.G. Hertzler, Nana Visitor, René Auberjonois, Chase Masterson, Max Grodénchik, Bumper Robinson and Salome Jens. I won’t list all their respective characters but for fans and aficionados, this is a big deal. Star Trek Online is an officially sanctioned product and has the full support of CBS. As a result, the game enjoys a level of continuity and lore compliancy seldom seen in other MMOs with licensed intellectual properties. Although STO has as mentioned, suffered from lapses in QA from time to time, the standard of writing has never been poor and with regard to Victory if Life, I believe that it has surpassed its own high standard.

There have been some complaints that Victory if Life is more of an update in scope and size, rather than a full-blown expansion, such as Delta Rising from 2014. And I think that it there a degree of truth to in some of the criticism levelled at the release. The additional five levels are trifling and make no real tangible difference to your character. The increase in gear upgrade cap from Mark XIV to Mark XV again only really have an impact on min-maxers seeking a nominal percentage gain in DPS. Then there are the three bespoke Jem’Hadar missions that are more like tutorials. Yes, they’re fun but they don’t really feel any different to the starter missions for the other races. In fact, these ones seem even light in content. And then there are the six missions that make up the Victory if Life story arc. Technically it’s seven but one was held back until 28th June, as a feature episode to keep the sense of engagement going. Yes, compared to other arcs it is a rather compact series. Yet I am prepared to overlook all these points, purely because this arc finally feels like STO has finally met it full narrative potential.

View fullsize

Victory is Life addresses the issue of what has happened in the Gamma Quadrant since the end of the Dominion War. Odo returns as an Ambassador for the Changelings, bearing ill news of the ravages of Hur’q. Seeking an alliance proves difficult with the Klingon’s particularly ill-disposed towards helping a recent enemy. Yet the Iconian war has granted many worlds a new sense of perspective, so it is interesting to see more diplomatic overtures from Cardassia and even Ferenginar. Naturally Odo crosses the pass of Kira Nerys and we get to see how the years and current affairs have affected their relationship. Elim Garak once again proves that there’s more to his role in the proceeding than immediately meets the eye. And as ever Quark proves that he has a heart of latinum as well as an eye to the main chance. Victory if Life succeeds in taking the characters we know and love from the TV show and giving them an equally viable story within the frame work of STO.

What becomes abundantly clear while playing Victory if Life is the presence of multiple original cast members. We have seen returning cast members interact before in STO but never on this scale. And the cast of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine remains exceptional. Listening to the precise and measured delivery of Andrew Robinson as Elim Garak, along with gruff yet emotional resonance of René Auberjonois as Odo is an absolute joy for fans. But I believe of all the six missions that feature in the expansion it is “Quark’s Lucky Seven” that is the jewel in the crown. This wonderfully conceived caper story plays out like a Ferengi version of Oceans Eleven. Quark, Rom, Nog, Leck and Brunt join forces to steal a priceless artefact, located in possibly the most dangerous place in the galaxy. Superbly written, wonderfully acted by a much beloved cast, it totally nails the essence of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The bar has just been raised and this is the standard by which all future STO content will now be judged by. That’s a big ask but it’s only what the franchise deserves. Well done Cryptic. More please.

Video Games and Lawyers

View fullsize

Some gamers tend to forget that the video games they play are primarily commercial products. They romanticise the video game industry per se, along with their own “relationship” with the developers. There is also a tendency to forget that they are “customers. Nothing bursts this delusionary bubble more efficiently than the involvement of lawyers. Lawyers tend to cut to the chase as time is money etc. Community Managers dissemble, marketing and PR companies hype and misdirect, but the moment lawyers are involved in any way, it means that something unequivocal is going to happen. Sadly, the involvement of the legal profession in a video games life cycle is often a bad sign. Something that became quite apparent this week, when developers Gun Media made an announcement about the future of Friday the 13th: The Game.

At present there is an ongoing dispute between the two co-creators of the original Friday the 13th film. Sean Cunningham produced and directed the movie, while Victor Miller wrote the sceenplay. Miller is attempting to gain control of the rights to the intellectual property under a provision of U.S. copyright law that allows writers to withdraw a grant of rights to their existing work. Such a step is key to claiming ownership to the content. However, Cunningham who currently holds all the IP rights has argued that Miller wrote the script on a “work-for-hire” basis and therefore has no claim on the IP. There is a lot of scrutiny on this case as it’s outcome may well set an industry precedent with far reaching implications. In the meantime, the ongoing litigation means that Gun Media have to cease any further development on their game.

View fullsize

Sadly, this means that a sizeable amount of new content that was scheduled to be added to Friday the 13th: The Game, now goes on indefinite hold. Gun Media cannot commit resources to the creation of material that they ultimately may not be able to use. Nor can they afford to just tread water. Thus, staff will now have to focus on work for other titles for practical business reasons. The downside of this means that even if the legal obstacles are removed at a later date, the company may not be in a position to resume development of the game. In a nutshell, the lawyers have indirectly stopped the development of Friday the 13th: The Game dead in its tracks and the game as it is now, is pretty much how it will remain. It’s a shame because if the developers had continued to refine this game and address its co-op failings then it could have been much more and met its potential.

Such is the nature of legal entanglements. Unlike other disputes these have a habit of being sudden and definitive. The moment a game such as an MMO reaches the end date of its licensing agreement then it closes. It’s not subject to any sort of argument or negotiation. If a renewal hasn’t been agreed then that game is over and done with, as with Warhammer Online. Similarly, Disney recently decided to “end” its business relationship with developers Gazillion Entertainment and as a result the guillotine fell on Marvel Heroes very promptly. All of which goes to show that gaming is a business and as such, is subject to all the usual risks and caprices of the “free market”. I’m not advocating that gamers should live in fear or trepidation regarding the future of their favourite title, but it is wise to reflect upon the fact that a lifetime account refers to the life of the game and not the owner. Games likes other forms of entertainment, are ultimately are ephemeral.

Congratulations. Now Spend More Money

View fullsize

Video games are many things to different people. For some they are art, for others they’re a social platform. Others see games a means to compete and challenge themselves. Others use them as a medium to bolster their self-esteem. And in some quarters, games are a retreat and a safe space from all the things in life that are threatening, such as women, equality and human decency. For me, they provide an amusing diversion and a writing opportunity. But let us not forget what the primary purpose of the video games industry is. Namely, to make money. Video games are not a social service or a similar altruistic medium, although many gamers still delude themselves that they are. They’re a product to be packaged, marketed and sold. And I was given a timely reminder of this today.

I’ve recently been playing Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands and slowly progressing through the games central campaign for the last three weeks or so. Last night I finally met the criteria to take down the game’s central villain, El Sueño. On my second attempt I finally made it to the mountain top mausoleum in time and triggered the cutscene which gives the game’s primary ending. This conclusion has been dubbed the “bad ending” by some players and if you then repeat the final mission, you are granted access to a second alternative outcome. Both story denouements are plausible, but I actually preferred the first. To hell with cutting deals and geo-politics. As far as I’m concerned, El Sueño had to die. However, irrespective of which ending I favoured, once he was dispensed with, I simply moved on to mopping up a few residual quests around the game map. Once this is done, then I’ll start the DLC.

View fullsize

This morning, I opened Microsoft Outlook to discover the following email sitting in my inbox. “El Sueño is dead!” was the stark message. Naturally I opened it and read the following. “Congrats for defeating El Sueño. You worked hard, Ghost, fired at the enemy, roamed the dusty roads of Bolivia and flew over with helicopters. Need another challenge? Exchange 100 units to get a 20% discount on a new Ubisoft game!”. It’s hardly the most heavy-handed marketing message I’ve come across in nearly thirty years of gaming, but it is unique, in so far as it was sent directly to me by email after reaching a specific achievement in-game. Effectively, the publishers are saying congratulations, now go spend more money please. Again, this entire situation initially seems very innocuous, but the more I think upon it, the more significant it appears.

View fullsize

I’ve not played a great deal of Ubisoft games over the years and I’ve only recently discovered how the company does it utmost to extend the lifecycle of their products and monetise them to the maximum. I recently found that they have sperate season passes for each year a game has content released. They also lock a great deal of cosmetic items, as well as practical game content such as weapons, behind pay walls. Compared to other companies they are far more “vociferous” in pursuing the content of their players wallets. So in within this context, I guess receiving an email congratulating me on my success while simultaneously encouraging me to contribute further to their shareholders pension fund, is hardly surprising. I found the whole experience to be just “odd”. I wonder if some players find such messages flattering? I also wonder if anyone actually did go straight to the store and start spending. I guess the very existence of such emails indicates that they do.

The Failings of Co-op Gameplay

View fullsize

It would appear that Anthem will have a campaign mode that can be played solo or co-op. This is hardly surprising because such a mechanic is pretty much de rigueur these day in gaming. On paper the ability to play through content collaboratively is a great idea. Small groups of four people or so are theoretically easier to manage and co-ordinate, unlike large unwieldy raids in the MMO genre. Discord (and such like) provides a quick and easy way for people to communicate. And despite ongoing improvements in AI technology, playing with other people often provides a superior experience. Mutually agreed tactics are more likely to succeed and if things take a turn for the worse, real players can improvise more effectively. Hence co-op play seems to be industry darling at present and is seriously putting a dent in the MMO market.

However, the reality of co-op play is often quite different from its notional benefits. I have dabbled with this functionality via several games in the last twelve months and have had decidedly mixed results. First off, finding a group is very much dependent on the popularity of the game. If the game is a new release, then this is not an immediate problem. But if you’re playing the game of the year edition, twelve months after launch you may well find the player base has greatly diminished. Then there’s the age-old problem of player behaviour, that seems to have become exacerbated of late. I have encountered little or no communication from fellow players, as well as the ubiquitous malcontents who sound off at everyone and everything when things don’ go their way. Which leads to the other major problem that co-op regularly presents. Namely fellow group members leaving because things are not going the way they want. It is by far the most frequent failing of co-op play, in my experience.

View fullsize

Sadly, because online behaviour per se seems to be a race to the bottom nowadays, I cannot advocate the automated group finding tools that many games now have. Last year, I found that Sniper Elite 4 and For Honor could deliver an adequate co-op experience about two thirds of the time. One in every three games was impeded by another member of the group. Twelve months later I find that the opposite is true. Two out of three co-op games are either blighted by player behaviour or suffer due to team members abandoning the group. This is particularly true of Friday the 13th: The Game and as a result the developers are currently working on implementing a penalty system for habitual offenders. When I do find myself in a PUG I frequently find there is a distinct reticence towards communication. It’s as if there’s an assumption that everyone knows what to do and that the task in hand needs to be undertaken as quickly as possible. Sadly, the only people disposed towards talking are those who have little of worth to say.

Perhaps it’s a generational thing and I am unreasonable in expecting both courtesy and a willingness to work together when playing co-operatively. But I am now at an age where my tolerance for the socially dysfunctional, the trite shenanigans of youth and general ill manners are virtually non-existent. So auto grouping is fast becoming a waste of time for me. Which leads me neatly into the only alternative; playing with friends. Simply put, as you get older is common to find your social circle reduce in size. Jobs, relationships and family mainly account for this. Hence a lot of people that I would play with collaboratively a decade ago are not available anymore. From what I’ve seen from You Tube, those players who regularly play co-op games are often half my age. Of my friends who are available, there is the further complexity of time zones and the simple fact that not everyone has the same gaming tastes. More often than not I find that my Steam friends simply don’t play the same games as me. And as I’ve moved away from the MMO genre I find that I really miss the practical benefits of guilds.

View fullsize

Once again, we see something that on paper should be a major boon to the gaming community, being usurped by the lowest common denominator and rendered ineffective as a result. It seems to be the fate of all online social tools these days. Perhaps that’s why many game developers still include a solo mode with AI bots in their games, because they know in advance that a substantial element of their customer base is going to be “problematic”. May be the solution to the co-op play is to make the auto grouping tools more sophisticated and use them in a way to facilitate a good experience. This could be through incentivising acceptable behaviour and rewarding a team if they deem the experience to be positive. Conversely, providing a means to highlight and sanction poor behaviour would also be a positive step. However, such facilities require time and money to develop and policing a community requires human agency. All of which ultimately contribute to a games bottom line, so I won’t hold my breath that this issue is going to be solved any time soon. In the meantime, I’ll just continue to rely upon AI bots and come to terms with the fact the co-op play doesn’t appear to cater for my requirements.

LOTRO: Update 22.2

View fullsize

When I first started playing LOTRO in late 2008, I actually read the manual that came with my box copy, before I decided which class I was going to play. I chose the Lore-master as it sounded and interesting mixture of both ranged attacks and the use of pets. Being new to the MMO genre at the time, I didn’t realise that it was actually quite a complex class to play. Although I have dabbled with alts over the years I have stuck with this single character and until 2017, kept them relatively up to date with regard to content and respective skills. Mordor greatly dampened what enthusiasm for LOTRO and as a result I have fallen behind the curve. My gear is poor as I haven’t really progressed far into the lastest expansion. Combat has become a tedious grind, leaving me with a paradoxical situation. Poor gear makes progression slower, but bypassing Mordor leaves my character gimped. Bearing this in mind, I’ve been eagerly awaiting the Lore-master class changes that have come with Update 22.2 in the hope they will improve my situation. Sadly, I don’t think that today’s changes are the solution I’m looking for.

I am not a min-maxer per se and have never been a serious number cruncher when it comes to LOTRO. I broadly know what my skills do and have adopted a rotation that is common to many other LOTRO players who favour the Lore-master class. For me I define my combat effectiveness by the amount of time it takes to kill a single mob, along with how many skills I have to use or how many times I have to repeat my rotation. This may not be the most scientific method, but it works for me. I then temper combat effectiveness with another very subjective factor. Is the combat satisfying or is it a chore? Too often of late in LOTRO combat is the latter. For me, and possibly many other MMO players, there is a very personal tipping point between a credible and engaging fight and a dull, ponderous slog. For me it may be so many seconds, for another player it may be double or triple that time. What I do find with older MMOs is that combat does seem to take a lot longer, compared to modern titles. The Secret World suffered terribly from this problem and it still wasn’t adequately addressed for my liking, when the game was revised into Secret World Legends.

View fullsize

In LOTRO I predominantly follow the red skills line, looking to do maximum DPS. Therefore, the recent upgrade to Burning Embers (applying Gust of Wind to augment it into Searing Embers) is a “interesting” addition. However, the induction animation is a real nuisance and needs to be shortened. Lightning Strike has been tweaked and its cooldown has been shortened. I noticed I was hitting higher critical hits as a result. However, the initial heal from Water-lore has been removed so only the HoT component remains. Thus, you’ll only get the first heal after four seconds. Plus, Ring of Fire is currently broken which is a bit of an inconvenience as its use regularly features in my play style. However, I am concerned that by making the Lore-master’s single target DPS stronger, that our AoE has suffered. Also, the removal of the Wizards Fire component and its replacement with something that is essentially not commensurate, does strike me as an over simplification of gameplay.

After running several skirmishes today, I did conclude that my overall DPS had improved but that was only in specific circumstances. For the casual, PVE-centric player, who plays cautiously, pulling mobs individually or using crowd control to make fights sequential, then this update is an adequate improvement to the class. But for those who do like to group and contribute to a communal fight, then it there isn’t so much on offer. Lore-masters are not so able to deal DoTS and their AoE skills have been reduced. And irrespective of all of these changes, I still find that combat is too slow for my liking. It’s difficult to articulate without the use of numbers, but when fighting I expect at least one skill to do 15 to 20% damage to my opponent’s moral. It still feels too much like an uphill. But this is the conundrum of combat in gaming, especially the MMO genre. Trying to find that right balance that pleases the majority of players, or at least allowing them to augment their effectiveness by accessing the right sort of gear. I’m beginning to feel that the more LOTRO is updated, the gap between what you can achieve and what I currently have, is growing wider and wider. I don’t know if I ever will catch up.

Gaming and Outrage Culture

I've written a thousand or so gaming related posts since I started blogging in 2008. I mention this to indicate that I have more than a passing interest in this particular leisure activity. However, that interest has waned somewhat over recent years. As I get older and allegedly wiser, I find that the two things that I like the most about gaming culture IE the actual games and the community, are becoming slowly yet inexorably less appealing. Commercial factors are turning games development into a mirror of the movie and music industry, driven by focus groups and metrics. The broadening of gaming’s mainstream appeal has also led to an angry backlash from alleged "core" fans. The net results are a stagnation of innovation within games development and a slavish adherence to proven formula, as well as an increase in tiresome bickering from specific groups of gamers. Both groups seem to fear change and tend to look backwards rather than forwards.

As I do not work in the videos games industry, I can only lobby for change and apply whatever leverage I can as a customer and consumer. The gaming community is another matter altogether. I have as much as a stake in it as anyone else and hence an equal voice. Or at least that’s the theory. There are fellow gamers that dislike such philosophies and cleave to their own criteria as to who should have a say and who shouldn’t. Hence the gaming community has fallen victim to that blight which has spread across all online public spaces and social interactions, namely outrage culture. That curiously twenty-first century malady that appears to be the adult equivalent of having a tantrum because you can’t get your own way, or you have to share with others. However, outrage culture sometimes serves a more sinister purpose. It acts as a surrogate for expressing and disseminating more controversial ideas.

View fullsize

Two such examples of this are the recent reveal for Battlefield V  and the furore over the game Active Shooter. The first is an instance where a debate about the alleged historical accuracy of depicting women as combat soldiers in World War II, has been hijacked to express displeasure once again at any sort of equal gender representation. The second is about how a cheap and deliberately tawdry game with an exploitative premise, is being championed by a specific group of gamers because they see it as a “fuck you” to the progressive, socially liberal politics that they feel are “taking their games away”. Both points of view are factually, logically and morally questionable, but they are becoming all too common place these days. They reflect a broader infantilisation in the thinking of certain quarters of society, who have dispensed facts and now focus on how they feel, regardless of whether such feelings are justified. It also links into a growing form of zealous fandom that mistakenly equates enjoyment of something with some sort of ownership.

Both of these recent gaming stories are just further examples of ongoing exercises in community-based self-harm. As someone who enjoys being part of that community, I find it utterly depressing. I wonder how many of the participants in these ongoing controversies have stopped for a moment, taken a step back and considered how it looks to the wider world? Precious few I would hazard a guess. Furthermore, the net result of this dispute is that more and more reasonable and level-headed gamers withdraw from engaging with the wider community. This is particularly relevant to female, ethnic minority and LGBT gamers. I consider the marginalisation of any group folly and counterproductive. The net result of ceasing engagement is that is appears to imply that those who shout the loudest have “won” the culture war. Also, as controversy can be bad for business, it often forces game developers to further eschew creativity and experimentation, leading them to double down on tedious tried and tested formulas.

View fullsize

What is becoming clear from these outbursts of gamer outrage, as with wider societal pushback against the status quo, is that western society has not made as much social progression in the last fifty plus years as it may have thought. It has been postulated by many academics that this is the century of "self" and that Western culture has effectively given upon wider socio-political ideologies now. Rather than work cohesively as a collective whole for mutual benefit, we simply apply our consumerist outlook to all situations. We equate our personal expenditure as means of gaining individual representation. Everything is viewed and considered primarily through the prism of how it affects us personally, rather than as a group. This principle manifests itself in all aspects of our life, including gaming. Couple this with a decline in critical thinking and the ability to effectively debate and you end up with outrage, segregation and ongoing culture wars. Thus, by our own hands we fashion the very wedges that divide our community. What was that quote again about why we can't have nice things?

Season Passes

View fullsize

If you are a gamer over a certain age, your interest will have spanned several decades of industry change. By the time I moved from console gaming to the PC, during the mid-nineties, there was already a precedence for expansions to single player games. For example, I was bought Star Trek: Starfleet Academy back in 1998, a few months after its initial release. The game had an adequate amount of content that justified its retail price. A year later publisher Interplay released an expansion pack called Chekov's Lost Missions, featured seven new missions, two new multiplayer games, and various improvements to the game interface. If memory serves this cost half the price of the full game and by the standards of the time was broadly deemed an acceptable. Despite the title of the expansion, this was not content culled from the original game and was purely an optional extra. That was the nature of expansions at the time. They provided new material to enhance a game at a reasonable cost.

Today, expansions fall under the broader marketing term of DLC (downloadable content) and the definition is not as black and white as it was two decades ago. DLC can be anything from cosmetic skins, weapons or armour. Then there are PVP and multiplayer maps as well as new missions. In certain cases, the capacity to have further game saves, inventory space or character slots is dressed up as DLC. Nowadays, there are times when a game feels that it’s been gutted of key content that is then withheld and sold back to the player. This can be bought piecemeal as and when required, or pre-ordered through the “miracle” of the season pass, which can add a further £25 or £30 cost on top of the price of the base game. Like or not, the season pass is an established part of a games lifecycle and an integral part of the business model of most major games publishers. It’s a bitter pill to swallow but once done, it should ensure that you’ve got all a games future content in the bag. Or so I foolishly thought.

View fullsize

Usually the lifecycle for a new triple A game is 12 to 18 months and the DLC is released every three months or so. That has mainly been my experience of things with games such as The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. However, I’ve recently bought some titles from Ubisoft, who seem to drag out their products life cycle far longer. I got a deal on Ghost Recon Wildlands recently which was initially released in March 2017. The Gold Edition included a season pass for DLC, which I assumed (wrongly) covered everything. It would appear not. I noticed last week that there was available in the Uplay store what Ubisoft called a Year 2 pass. Yes, they had released a smattering of further content and wanted me to pay more money for the pleasure of accessing it, as I wasn’t covered by my previous season pass. Suffice to say I wasn’t impressed by this. Furthermore, I've subsequently spotted that Ubisoft have just released a Year 3 pass for further DLC for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege. A further example of striving to extend a games life and hence its financial yield.

So, it would appear that "games as a service" is slowly becoming a reality. Buying the Gold Edition of a premium new game these days does not guarantee all future content. Yearly DLC passes are a thing and if you want to access further content regardless of how superficial it may be, you have to keep paying. And although I am not alone in being critical of this egregious business approach, it would appear that sufficient numbers of gamers are happy to open their wallets, thus making this practise bear fruit. I would not be surprised if this approach continues to grow and greater functionality will be excised from games and gated behind a paywall. The free-to-play business model of mobile gaming, MMOs and co-op genres could eventually become the de facto industry standard. Ownership as a concept is slowly be erased from gaming and the product is evolving into a continuous service. What times we live in.

"Adequate"

View fullsize

“Why re-release a game that’s perfectly adequate but doesn’t do anything particularly noteworthy or special?” Rogue Trooper Redux review by Tom McShea. Here we have in a nutshell the ill-conceived attitude that plagues contemporary gaming reviews, although it is also applicable to other mediums. Too often these days, I find myself reading critiques of games, movies and TV shows where the author feels that the product has failed because it is not exceptional. Such reviews will frequently cite numerous positive factors or attributes and reference how the product has been competently assembled. Yet in the final summation, the author will then full back upon the stock criticism that in spite of all this, the game does not “re-invent the wheel” or set a new “benchmark”. It is just “adequate”. However, I believe that this is a much misunderstood and frequently misused word. And that its reoccurring use stems from a culture of unrealistic expectations.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “adequate” as follows. Satisfactory or acceptable in quality or quantity. The word has its origin in the early 17th century and derives from Latin adaequatus meaning "made equal to", being the past participle of the verb adaequare. Now we have a clear definition, let us consider in what context we would use the word in day-to-day life. Often, when I am hungry I will avail myself of specific chains of restaurants or fast food outlets. They provide satisfactory meals, conveniently at an acceptable price. Therefore, they are adequate. If I was unhappy with any aspect of the food or the service that was provided, then I would not use the word adequate to begin with. If you have to qualify somethings adequacy, then it is not adequate. So, with this in mind there are many things that can be classified as adequate; food, drink, a book, music, a box girder bridge or a drunken sexual dalliance. The moment you apply the term to something, you are clearly stating that it is “not shit”. If you are using the word to mean anything other than its dictionary definition, then you’re using it using it incorrectly.

View fullsize

Contrary to what certain quarters of the media and pop culture may tell you, life isn’t a never-ending series of high octane, boisterous, spiritually fulfilling events that engage all your senses and leave you sated. Day-to-day living is mainly routine, predictable and yes, you’ve guessed it, adequate (if you’re lucky). In fact, for an ever-growing group of the population adequacy is giving way to shit. The reason fun and enjoyable events stand out is because they are not frequent and the punctuate the mundane with brief periods of joy. Any addict will tell you that too much of your “drug of choice” ultimately negates the high you gain from it. Hence not only is adequate a functional and succinct word, it also represents a state of being that is integral too our lives. Like oxygen, it can be argued that humans need a specific amount of adequacy in their lives. An excess either way is not desirable but the right amount in your life provides a context and a scale against which other experiences can be measured and quantified.

So, returning from philosophical musings to the thrust of this post about gaming, I think people should think long and hard before they decided to label a game adequate. If you are trying to crowbar the word into your review as a pejorative, then simply dispense with it and clearly state what you think is wrong. The reality of the situation is that many game releases each year are adequate. Those like Tom McShea who seem to expect the “noteworthy and special” need to recalibrate their personal desires. It is impossible for the video game industry or indeed any other, to continuously innovate and perpetuate a market where every new title pushes boundaries. This why for every L.A Noire there is a Vendetta: Curse of Raven's Cry. Therefore, let us as a gaming community, look to our personal lexicon and start using the English language properly when framing out thoughts. I believe that it is important to precisely say what we mean, or else how can we mean what we say?

Open World Games

View fullsize

The Virtual Bolivia that Ubisoft have created for Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands is truly stunning. This massive open world is approximately 576 square kilometres (222.4 square miles) and features 21 regions and 11 distinct ecosystems. Furthermore, the world is seamless without any loading screens or phasing. You can travel from one end of the map to the other without any immersion breaking transitions. The main story missions and the regional counterparts can be tackled in any order, affording players the freedom to explore and play through content however they want. The game can be played cop-operatively via PUGS or through bespoke custom teams. Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands takes the textbook concept of the “open world” and augments it sufficiently to hang a narrative on. But beyond the overall task of dismantling a sprawling national drugs cartel, the player is given a superbly crafted sandbox and is left to determine their own agenda and play style.

This is the inherent appeal of the open world game. The provision of a functional environment that provides a setting for events, rather than a means of corralling them. One only has to look at popular MMOs such as ESO and LOTRO and you will often find that their lavishly created regions, despite their aesthetic appeal, are primarily designed to funnel the player from quest hub to quest hub. In LOTRO, especially in the more recent zone such as Gondor and Mordor, large swathes of a map are frequently inaccessible due to topographical constraints or the old mechanic of invisible walls. Hence it not unusual to spot and interesting feature on the horizon or even in the near vicinity, only to find that it is inaccessible. The Argonath is a classic example of this. Conversely in an open world game such as Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands, the open world design along with the ability to travel by helicopter and land directly to remote locations ensures that nothing is out of a player’s reach. Exploring becomes an entire meta game in itself.

View fullsize

The first open world game that really altered my perception of gaming was The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Although I had experienced well designed environments before in the MMO genre, phasing and zone mechanics always broke immersion to a degree. Skyrim with its Scandinavian style climate and terrain was a revelation and simply traversing the region with it’s ambient music and changeable climate was and remains a delight. But it was The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt that really show cased the full potential of the open world concept, with a beautifully realised, diverse yet totally credible environment. The player can walk, ride or sail across the green and verdant, war-torn lands of the South or sail between the monster-islands of Skellige in the North. They have total freedom to discover various places of interest, hunt monster, or simply gather resources and enjoy the world. It is this latter idea of being “at large” in a huge, living and thriving ecosystem is perhaps the biggest selling point of the open world concept. But it is also its potential weakness.

Not all gamers like to be presented with a huge expanse of non-linear content and told “off you go”. Some find such a system and environment daunting and confusing. Both of which are perfectly acceptable opinions. The “theme park” approach provides a means of guiding players through content, ensuring that nothing is potentially missed and providing structure. It should be remembered that some see gaming as escapism from the complexities of modern life and therefore do not wish to see it capricious randomness mirrored in their leisure activities. On a technical note, open world games are also extremely resource hungry and to enjoy them to their fullest, you do need a robust gaming PC. It is because of this issue that we do not see the same technology used in the MMO genre. The rich world of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands can happily support co-operative play between 4 versus 4 players but sustaining a population of 100 is a very different matter. Yet if the rapid change in gaming hardware over the last decade teaches us anything, then there will eventually come a time when MMO genre will be able to fully embrace a fuller, truer version of the open world concept than we have now.

Looking For a New Game (Yet Again)

View fullsize

I’m between games at the moment, having just cancelled a couple of MMO subscriptions (ESO and LOTRO) and just finished Desolation of Mordor DLC for Middle-earth: Shadow of War. There’s a new expansion, Victory is Life, coming up in June for STO but there’s no reason to rush straight into that on launch. I may keep that as my summer gaming project. So, I have about three to four weeks to fill at present and I’ve been scratching my head as to what will best suit this gaming gap. I’ve started The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings, but I’m not committed to it in the same way as Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. It is a far more contained and “on rails” experience. I’m mainly playing it for the narrative and to fill in the gaps in the lore. To facilitate this, I’m playing through on the easiest difficulty setting and the linear story lends itself to targeted, time specific sessions of about an hour or so at a time. However, I’m still looking for something else to scratch my current gaming itch. Something “different” by my own personal tastes and standards. At least once a year, I like to tackle a game that falls outside of my usual comfort zone.

Bearing this in mind, I spent some time this evening looking at recent releases to see if any grabbed my attention. Nothing really stands out at present. I certainly don’t want to spend £60 plus on a triple A title at present, such a Far Cry 5 and Monster Hunter: World isn’t available for the PC at present. Also, currently popular games such as PUBG and Fortnite aren’t really my kind of thing. I’m not looking for anything hectic. Plus, why spend money, when I have dozens of games sitting in my Steam library that I’ve never touched, as well a numerous unredeemed game keys from budget bundles. However, despite all these resources at my disposal I still failed to find anything that “floated my boat”. I was going to install Ryse: Son of Rome as the setting is unusual, but felt it was too similar to Middle-earth: Shadow of War in its combat mechanic so decided against it. I also have a farming simulator of some kind, kicking around but wasn’t sufficiently motivated to track it down. Perhaps now is a good time to finally play Alien: Isolation? Oh, the agony of choice and other first world problems, I hear you cry.

View fullsize

Well to cut a long story short, I managed to pick up a bargain in the Green Man Gaming 8th Birthday Sale. I was toying with the idea of buying Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands but as I’m not familiar with the franchise, I thought it may be prudent to buy an earlier instalment in the franchise, so if it isn’t to my liking, it won’t be a costly mistake. So, I bought the Digital Deluxe version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier for £5.78 which is a bargain. Over this games lifecycle there have been three lots of DLC. Two of those have were multiplayer maps, but as the online community has been and gone for this game, I bought just one which expanded the solo campaign. Raven Strike cost me a further £4.25 which again hasn’t put a hole in my financial portfolio. It’s been a while since I’ve played a tactical squad based, third person shooter of this kind. The last one was Hidden & Dangerous 2 back in 2003. Hopefully Future Soldier will prove to be a positive experience. Being a five-year-old game, it shouldn’t offer any performance issues on my PC and from the various You Tube videos I’ve watched it doesn’t look and feel too dated. Let’s see if this keeps me occupied as planned.

"Grinding"

View fullsize

According to Wikipedia, “grinding” is defined as “performing repetitive tasks for gameplay advantage. In MMORPG, for instance, it can be advantageous to repeatedly kill AI-controlled monsters, using basically the same strategy over and over again to advance one's character level and to unlock content. Grinding may be required by some games to unlock additional features such as level progression or additional items”. Although I broadly agree with this summation, I feel that “grinding” is one of those terms that can also be very subjective. Repetitious content has a specific purpose in video games, especially the MMO genre. Not all of it is tedious or egregious. Therefore, it is a question of degrees. Killing 25 mobs of a specific species may be a tolerable number. A challenge but not a task that out stays its welcome. However, double that amount a suddenly a line has been crossed. The entire undertaking now feels like it has been inflated simply to slow player progress down, which is more than likely the exact purpose of the task.

I’m sure we can all think of specific instances of “grinding”. I’ve always found the reputation system in LOTRO to be a ponderous slog and have not bothered with it in recent updates. The Delta Quadrant remains a gruelling zone to progress through in STO. Sadly, the MMO genre gates a lot of interesting rewards using this mechanic, which places the player in a difficult position. Endure something that you do not enjoy, which for many people mitigates the point of playing. Grinding does fly in the face of fun, leisure and enjoyment. Or bypass the content and potentially gimp yourself in some capacity. It’s a bit of a Hobson’s choice. The other option is to stop playing which raises the fundamental Achilles Heel of “grinding”. Developers often cannot create content fast enough for players to consume. So “grinding” is seen as a legitimate means to slow progression or return a player to a specific zone. It also presents useful cash shop opportunities. However, if this fine line is over stepped, it often results in players looking elsewhere for their leisure activities. I have temporarily stopped subscribing to LOTRO, specifically because of the Mordor “grind”.

View fullsize

According to games blogger Gevlon, all playable content is “grinding” and therefore any complaint against it is essentially a complaint against the very game itself. However, this is a flawed definition born of an erroneous binary view. “Grinding” is as I’ve previously stated both a subjective term and an activity that is perceptibly different from standard questing. For example, a repetitive activity may facilitate a scaled set of rewards. 50 kills may provide a bronze reward at tier 1, 100 kills provide a silver reward at tier 2 and finally 150 kills result in a gold reward at the final 3rd tier. Because the player can discern the maths in advanced and it is shown to be an equitable progression, they will undertake this arduous task but not necessarily perceive it as “grind”. However, if the developers decide to make the criteria for tier 3 to be 500 kills, then that cannot be quantified as a logically fair progression compared to the previous two tiers. Hence, the task will be seen as a grind to many players.

Gaming has developed a broad and esoteric lexicon over the last thirty years. Many of the terms are nebulous and interpreted differently. Gaming has become an increasingly broad church and I don’t see that changing in the future. Quite the opposite is likely. There are many mature gamers whose early experiences have shaped their perception of what exactly constitutes as gaming per se. However, times change and not everyone is subsequently exposed to the same conditions. Hence “grinding” is not a fixed and immutable term. One man’s “grind” is another man’s engaging gameplay. Be that as it may, I am prepared to suggest that there is a degree of commonality in the terms meaning. I actually think that the following definition by fellow game enthusiast and blogger Bhagpuss is possibly the most likely definition at present. He sees “grind” as “any repeatable activity you don’t want to do. “Gameplay” is any repeatable activity you do want to do”. And upon mature reflection, I concur.

The “Psychology” of an MMO Player

View fullsize

Before we start I’d like to make it clear that I do not have any formal qualifications in psychology. If you want specific details of research into MMO player psychology, the I would urge you to look to more academic source. For the sake of this post, I shall be using the term “psychology” figuratively. As people do in everyday parlance. In this case it is meant to refer to the motivations and foibles of the MMO gamer. Okay, that's the legal disclaimer out of the way. Let us continue with a finely-honed dissection of the topic in hand, bolstered by that impeachable source of verification, namely anecdotal evidence.

If you ask people what motivates them to play an MMO you will receive a multitude of different answers. Here are a few that are fairly common. I'm sure you could all add more to the list.

• The social interaction and the community. Be it friends or a kinship/guild.
• Grouping, raiding and completing content communally.
• Competitive play, PVP and league tables.
• The persistent worlds and the opportunity to explore and be immersed.
• The franchise associated with the MMO in question.
• Helping others and contributing to the general community.

View fullsize

Players bring a lot of passion to the games they play and the MMO genre is no exception. You only have to look at the postings on most MMO related forums and subreddits to see how seriously some players take it. The amount of dedication that is poured in to fansites, blogs and podcasts is staggering at times. I know of individuals that see the games they play as vehicles for their own personal values, ethics and ideologies. They organise, nurture and try to engage with all. Yet despite these noble aspirations, the two most fundamental driving forces for most players are either to have fun or to play competitively.

Let’s start with fun. It sounds like a very simple concept. However, we all experience it in a different fashion and it is a conduit to other emotions and motivations which are also unique to the individual. For me, I see games as an amusing diversion. However, that is not to say I see them as trivial. I complete tasks for a reward or I simply compete against myself or others. I also enjoy a good narrative. These are all essential sources of fun for me. I take a very straight forward "quid pro quo" attitude towards gaming. However, for others, fun may be derived from more complex motivations.

Competition is a very strong human trait. Western culture focuses on it heavily and often enshrines it in all aspects of society. It is therefore a prevalent facet of many MMOs and attracts a substantial player base. However, the pleasure of competing is often overshadowed by the perceived benefits of succeeding and on occasions public displays of pride. For some players there is the “winning at all costs” mindsets and the idea that it says something very specific about you as an individual. Ego and vanity are very strong motivators. This is endemic in the FPS and co-op genres and also manifests itself in MMOs, especially in the PVP side of any game. Bragging rights and posing requires another important ingredient. An audience. Something that the communal nature of MMOs provides.

The community itself offers a vast array of involvement and potential sources of fun. For some gamers due to their real-world obligations, it can become a surrogate social life in itself. As I mentioned earlier, this community offers an environment in which they can have a tangible impact and act as a force for good, unlike in the real world. I do not like the term "care bear", as its purpose is ultimately pejorative. However, it cannot be denied that MMOs do attract a lot of people who thrive on the social interaction and are compelled to help and support their fellow players. It is these very factors that defines the point of playing for them.

Because the mainstream success of video games, the gaming industry is naturally chasing the most lucrative demographic group. This is the casual gamer, although exactly what the parameters of that term are, remains hotly debated. However, negative attitudes towards gamers persists as do stereotypes. For many non-gamers, they erroneously think that those that do play MMOs and the like are not engaging with their fellow man. There is also the condescending attitude that because your leisure activity does not take place in a physical environment, that it is devoid of any merit. These are naturally erroneous and flawed ideas, but they often come up, despite the reality being the complete opposite.

View fullsize

To try and compensate against this sort of misinformation, there have been recent studies and reports that try to overstate the benefits of social gaming. I will happily concede the point that gaming does require players to use certain real-life skills, such a team building, communication and organisation, but to hail them as problem solving über talented collectives, that can tackle the world’s problems is a stretch. It is therefore important to keep a sense of perspective on gaming and to pretty much treat it as any other sort of leisure activity. Being a hero in the realm of Tamriel does not make you one in real life. However, nor should it pigeon-hole you as a nut.

So, it in conclusion, it would seem that despite some common factors relating to engagement and enjoyment, it is very difficult to come up with a simple set of rules that define the psychology of an MMO player or indeed any type of gamer. It should also be remembered that gamers often have other interests and mainstream pastimes such as sport, music or art. Gaming is not the sole defining factor of their non-working life. It is simply their leisure activity of choice, and as such should be afforded the same sort or regard as equivalent real world activities such as sport.

Desolation of Mordor and the Blade of Galadriel

View fullsize

Today the latest story DLC unlocked for Middle-earth: Shadow of War. The Desolation of Mordor allows you to play as Captain Baranor, who we now find adventuring in the deserts wastes of Lithlad in Eastern Mordor. Unlike Talion and Eltariel, Baranor does not have any Wraith Powers or the innate gifts and talents of the first born. He is merely a mortal man which subsequently adds an interesting dynamic to the game play. However, Baranor quickly meets up with Dwarven Hunter Torvin, who provides him with a several usefully Numenorean artefacts which fill his “skills gap”. These include a Gauntlet that expands to become a buckler. It also houses a crossbow that fires a variety bolts as well as a grappling hook, thus aiding Baranor with climbing. The other artefact is a kite that is stowed in a back pack. This acts as a parachute and can also be used via the hot thermal vents that litter the landscape, to ascend to vertical vantage points.

View fullsize

The story is relatively straightforward, with Baranor hiring the Easterling mercenary army, The Vanishing Sons and seeking to conquer the regional fortress of Shindram. Due to a quirk of fate (and narrative requirements) The Vanishing Sons are led by Baranor’s older brother Serka. It is the dialogue between the two which makes this story better than average. Both characters are well voice acted respectively by Ike Amadi and Usman Ally. There is a good chemistry between both actors and the narrative strikes the right tone with equal helpings of high adventure and ironic humorous dialogue. It a pleasant surprise to see the Dwarf Torvin return, although his role this time is more of a functional NPC, rather than a major character. The desert environment is a welcome change from the existing Mordor zones, and the Numenorean Fortress that is occupied by Orcs is strikingly different in its architectural style.

View fullsize

All things considered I found Desolation of Mordor to be a superior story expansion than the previous DLC, the Blade of Galadriel. The story of Eltariel is adequate but hardly offers any major difference from playing as Talion. Instead of dominating Orcs, Eltariel destroys them using the Light of Galadriel, although several Uruks do ally themselves with her as they have common goals. In fact, the character of Galadriel come across as martinet in this story and I felt somewhat sorry for Eltariel as she struggles to please such a hard taskmaster. However, Eltariel’s fighting style with twin blades does offer some interesting variations in technique compared to Talion and her quickshot archery ability often proves invaluable. It is the story that is the weakest aspect of this DLC and it is somewhat incredulous even by Middle-earth: Shadow of War standards. There seems to be a never-ending supply of unknown, non-canonical Nazgûl waiting in the wings to act as convenient plot devices. The crowbarring of an Eastern aesthetic into the proceedings is interesting but I’m sure hardcore purists will be having kittens.

View fullsize

If you set aside the biggest weakness of Middle-earth: Shadow of War, which is its loot box and market which somewhat undermines the Nemesis system, you still have an enjoyable RPG which blends a variety of action and stealth gaming mechanics. Developers Monolith Production recently announced that the market would be closing and ultimately removed from the game. As of today, players can no longer buy gold and a later patch will restructure the acquisition of Orcs. No doubt all of this will be done in time for the release of the Game of the Year Edition. However, I do not regret my decision to buy the Gold Edition of Middle-earth: Shadow of War upon its release last October. Irrespective of the games business model flaws, I do feel that I’ve had good value from the entire game. I prefer the Desolation of Mordor to the other DLC and felt that it was wise to release this one last of all, thus ending the game on a high point. It will be interesting to see if this franchise will continue or whether Warner Bros. will create any similar games based on the works of JRR Tolkien.

“Geek Culture” and the Media

View fullsize

During my lifetime, I have seen many niche market hobbies and pastimes become mainstream activities. Much of what is now generically known as “geek culture” use to be the exclusive and esoteric province of hardcore fans back in the seventies. Comic collecting, conventions commemorating obscure TV shows and even gaming were activities that were mainly conducted under the mainstream radar, in minor conventions centres, church halls and out-of-the-way bespoke stores. Forty plus years later and all of the above are now big business, generating staggering sums of money. For example, let’s take a moment to reflect upon Avengers: Infinity War which has so far earned $1,164,106,540 at the box office since its release on April 27th. The notion of a film company investing so heavily in such a genre franchise was virtually unheard during my youth. Sure, that changed with Star Wars but if you’ve read anything about the making of that movie, you’ll know it was both a battle and gamble to get it to the big screen.

Yet despite the commercial viability of “geek culture” and the way it has become subsumed into wider popular culture, it is still something that is often misrepresented in the media, who struggle to understand it. Some argue that it is being wilfully misconstrued to pander to specific demographics and sell newspapers. Perhaps the TV show The Big Bang Theory is the best example of this consumerism versus perception paradox. Despite it’s broad popularity with audiences, some self-identified “geeks” strongly object to it, feeling that the show makes nerds and their associated culture the butt of the jokes, rather than the subject of them. Another objection is that it offers a caricatured vision of “geek culture”. As one Reddit contributor put it “it is a close approximation of nerd culture, but it’s not quite an accurate representation. BBT catches flack because it’s not far enough off the mark to write off, but it’s not close enough to identify with". Subsequently, representation leads to stereotypes, which is seldom a good thing.

View fullsize

We should also consider the cyclical tabloid hysteria about gaming that regularly appears. At present the UK popular press are running ill-informed and deliberately distorted stories about the popularity of Fortnite, which all sounds tediously familiar. Roll back the clock ten years and you’ll find identical stories about Grand Theft Auto IV. These and other examples seem to indicate that big business and the general public are happy to reap the benefits of “geek culture”, while at the same time looking down upon it and ridiculing it. Some have gone so far as to argue that its just another example of cultural appropriation but as it’s not race based it isn’t deemed to be a “problem” by big business. Yet to some who see themselves as geeks and nerds, the ongoing misrepresentation its considered deeply hurtful. The all too often cliched representation in movies, TV and the press is seen as an attack upon an important cultural part of their life. Some who feel particularly aggrieved have said it comes across as “blackface” for nerds.

Now some will instantly think that those complaining are merely “snowflakes” and that their reactions are overblown. However, I don’t like to dismiss a criticism out of hand and feel that if someone has arrived at a particular conclusion, irrespective of whether it’s erroneous or not, we should determine why they feel that way. Hence the following quote seems relevant. "Butthurt is an inherent, and important part of nerd culture. Some of us got off easy just being “weird kids,” and some of us got beaten up daily, but very few people who were deeply entrenched in typically “nerdy” things had smooth sailing in our younger years, and that, unfortunately, breeds a lot of bitterness. I think a lot of people having grown up under that kind of a weight resent seeing the culture they were mocked for adopting being played for a joke. It wasn’t funny when they got their nose bloodied because they read books during lunch. No one played it as an affable, comedic, good-hearted moment when someone slung their Magic cards off the table and laughed while they picked them up. So, I think a lot of people see this being played out as a comedy being marketed to the demographics that once mocked nerds as being somewhat of an affront, an opening of old wounds". Reddit user j0be

View fullsize

Misrepresentation is not the only complaint about the commercialisation of “geek culture”. An increasing number of people feel that they’ve been “thrown out of your own party”. The documentary Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope briefly touches upon this with a few of the long term comic traders commenting on the expanding commercial scope of the event and how traditional aspects such as the buying and selling of comics are being side-lined. I can attest to something similar from my own experience. In the past Contains Moderate Peril covered a lot of UK cosplay events and between 2011 and 2015. During that time a lot of the regular attendees noted that the wider press was becoming far more interested in such events and that as a result a lot of “professional” cosplayers where joining the scene. These were frequently established models catering (or pandering depending upon your perspective) to a “broader demographic”, that tended to monopolise press attention. From subsequent discussions I’ve had with cosplayers since then, it has become far more widespread. Although I resist the concept of “gatekeepers” of “geek culture”, one cannot help but think that press attention will be somewhat skewed for example, by the attendance of “Adult Film” actress Siri at and event, cosplaying as Power Girl.

Contemporary media still embraces and propagates very traditional archetypes. Gamers, cosplayers, comic nerds, Star Wars and Star Trek fans along with many other groups of geeks are still considered to be fair game for the most arbitrary of stereotypes and are happily mocked by the film industry, television and the press. These stereotypes go hand-in-hand with a list of other enduring clichés. Obesity, myopia, sexual inadequacy, social isolation and dysfunction, under achievement and poor personal hygiene are the most common. When Hollywood (or any other platform) wishes to bolster the credentials of a traditional archetype with all their assumed “positive attributes”, within the framework of a story, all they have to do is introduce a stock nerd into the narrative to get the Job done. Everyone laughs at the “loser” (as perceived by the mainstream zeitgeist) and feels better about themselves. Ribbing and satire are one thing, but this sort of lazy writing is neither. As a plot device, geeks are the less politically damaging equivalent of the “dumb Irish” or “jive black” characters (although the latter still prevails). It is always healthy to laugh at yourself. However, too often such introspection is replaced by spite and marginalisation. I’m sure many self-professed geeks are not afraid of humour through shared experience. But instead they find themselves being ridiculed.

View fullsize

In a perfect world, film makers, television shows and the mainstream press should realise that gaming, fandom and general geeky pursuits are now very much part of mainstream culture and reflected that in their coverage fairly. Thirty-something year old, white collar professionals make up a substantial part of “geek culture” now and they do not so obviously conform to entrenched stereotypes. But the problem with stereotypes is that you can always find one or two individual that meet the criteria and then that becomes a disproportionate means of validation. Plus, the media loves being able to pigeon hole and compartmentalise people and groups. So, the reality of the situation is that “Geek culture” is going to continue to be depicted on their terms. Its a case of those who do not self-identify as a geek, looking in upon their world as observers, as opposed to those who are nerds presenting their environment from within. This is the bane of so much reporting on identity politics, in that it often comes from the mainstream, outside of the specific groups being scrutinised, with an inherent baffled air.

The only real way to bring about change by those who feel demeaned or marginalised by the status quo, is to lobby against it. That means challenging every negative depiction and having to endure the slings and arrows of your critics, while you’re doing so. It takes time to bring about change but that is pretty much the only proven way to alter perceptions. However, “geek culture” is not seen as the same as identity or sexual politics, so it may be harder to achieve. Those causing offense will not necessarily take any complaints seriously. Not until it starts impacting upon their bottom line. However, a generation of grown up geeks, nerds and gamers are now making an impact within the world of TV, film making and internet personalities. This does present an opportunity to leverage perceptions and to change the way things are portrayed. Ultimately it is through the normalisation of activities and pastimes that negates any prejudice against them. Over a period of about twenty years the internet has gone from being a curious niche market platform to an everyday, common place aspect of most people’s life. Bearing that in mind perhaps there is a scope for the mainstream media to recalibrate its perception and relationship with “geek culture”.

Motion Control Gaming

View fullsize

I was reminiscing with a friend the other day about time we spent playing Wii Sports in summer 2007. Golf and bowling were our favourites out of the five games available. Over the period of a year we squandered numerous hours breaking ornaments, frightening the cat and having immense fun, while separating our respective shoulders. Yet, motion control gaming never quite became the phenomenon it was touted to be. It took three years before Microsoft entered the fray with the Kinect and Sony with the PlayStation Move. Once all three platforms had the necessary technology there was much posturing and conjecturing about retrofitting existing franchises and marketing of new bespoke games that would capitalise on the “novelty” of motion control. The addition of physical exercise to a leisure activity traditionally associated with sloth, was going to revolutionise the health of an entire generation. Motion control gaming was also to have a major impact of sports training and medical physiotherapy. Yet none of these “dreams” came true and today it’s merely a curious postscript on the history of gaming.

If you ever need an example of a novelty concept and a niche market product, then look no further than motion control gaming. It’s integration with Wii Sports was sublime. But beyond that game it’s use ceased to be enjoyable and instead becomes a major headache. The Wii console shipped with a bundle of games on launch; one of which being Call of Duty 3. Let it suffice to say that this game didn’t port well to motion control. Driving with the Nunchuk and Wii remote was manageable but aiming a gun, throwing grenades and interacting with the environment was very chaotic, haphazard and difficult. It was also extremely tiring. A few years later, I got to try Kinect Star Wars at a trade show. It was a horribly sluggish affair and far from the seamless experience that the trailers promoted. It was also very apparent that the NPCs in the game were noticeably nerfed to accommodate those players who were less “agile”. Once the initial fun of “being in Star Wars” dissipated, again plating in this way quickly became a chore. At the time it crossed my mind that games of this nature would never lend themselves to lengthy play sessions, like regular titles.

View fullsize

I can remember watching a video roundabout this time by Clinical Psychologist Albert “Skip” Rizzo. He was a big advocate of the health benefits of motion control gaming and made some bold statements about its application into popular games. He proposed that if a child was playing World of Warcraft for six hours a day, then the parents should insist that at least one of those hours should be done in conjunction with a motion control system. At the time Blizzard did briefly flirt with adapting their flagship MMORPG to this system. Yet again the project ran out of steam as gaming of this kind simply didn’t catch on because people like sitting on their butts while playing.  Although there are health issues associated with sedentary gaming, they can be overcome by the application of common sense, rather than a cultural shift to motion control. Selecting an appropriate chair and desk, ensuring they are at the right height along with investing in good quality, ergonomically designed keyboards, mice and game controllers, can contribute significantly towards avoiding RSI, eyestrain and back related issues. Taking breaks, avoiding “snack culture” that often goes hand-n-hand with gaming and generally acting with restraint also helps avoid obesity, social isolation and death. I done it. So have countless others.

Motion control strikes me as being very similar to 3D in movies and TV; being a technology that is only pertinent to niche markets and of no real value or tangible benefit to the mainstream. Hence Wii Sports remains a unique experience. One that I am happy to return to even today (does anyone still own a Nintendo Wii?) But the notion of motion control permeating all other genres has really bitten the dust and the only viable avenue left for it is in conjunction with VR; another concept that has had an equally chequered past. Frankly, motion control gaming is just one of those things that always seems better on paper than in reality. The idea of playing some sort of team deathmatch FPS and having to leap behind the sofa in real life to avoid some threat in the game itself, is as cool as hell, but that’s not how it’s going to play out in real life. Some corpulent child is going to end up a tetraplegic after nose diving through a glass coffee table and then the lawsuits are going to start flying. So, this is why motion control gaming never really took off. Dignity and indolence are other contributory factors. Mind you, if you embrace the concept of the multiverse, somewhere there’s an alternative reality where Twitch TV is a lot more entertaining and the gamers a lot healthier.

The Iniquities of Mobile Gaming

View fullsize

The original title for this post was to be “the unfathomable iniquities of mobile gaming”, but when you pause to think about it, it’s hardly unfathomable from the publisher’s point of view. Mobile games are primarily designed to be money syphons, swathed in a superficial veneer of interactive entertainment. If you want a contemporary example, then look no further to the newly released Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery. The game capitalises on a popular franchise and quickly introduces a pay wall which hobbles those players who elect not to spend money. What I find “unfathomable” are those who do not consider this an egregious business model and are happy to sink substantial amounts of cash into this pitiful caricature of a game. Sadly, the core demographic for this and many other mobile titles, are the youth market, who therefore may not even be picking up the tab for the game. As a result, irrespective of my and other gamers disdain and subsequent boycott of mobile gaming, these sorts of products continue to be financially lucrative.

My vocal dislike for mobile games if often met with cries of “why worry about something that doesn’t affect you”, which on a superficial level seems like a legitimate question. Well the answer is that games of this type are monopolising the mobile market, stifling innovation and normalising abhorrent business practises. Again because of the age group of core mobile gaming customers, an entire generation of gamers are growing up in an environment where game play is regularly disrupted by pay restrictions. Normalising such practises is dangerous. 2017 saw the console and PC game market try to adopt similar business practises with games such as Middle-earth: Shadow of War and Star Wars: Battlefront II. Mercifully, the consumer push back was sufficient to stall these initiatives but the cultural shift towards “live services” that Ubisoft and other developers frequently reference, shows that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. I don’t expect the likes of EA to give up so easily on the dream of bringing the mobile gaming business model to the console and PC market.

View fullsize

In 2016, the mobile gaming market was estimated to have taken $38 billion in revenues, compared to $6 billion for the console market and $33 billion for personal computing gaming. By 2017 the mobile gaming market increased to $46 billion. It’s a market with a broad spectrum of quality. Mobile gaming at it’s best can be as engaging and creative as other platforms. The inherent restrictions of the platform often mean that developers have to think outside the box. Yet a precedence has now been set early on as to how these game finance themselves. In a very short space of time this has gone from being an aspect of game development, to its very foundation with game mechanics being driven by the business model. I argued in a recent blog post that the very definition of a “game” needs to be redefined to encompass the variety of genres and the various different approaches to playing them. However, this evolving perception of exactly what is a game is equally open to negative factors. Hence if we are not robust and vocal in our opposition to the iniquities of mobile gaming, they will simply become the norm for all platforms.

Policing Out-of-Game Toxicity

View fullsize

“A game company has no rights or responsibility to police Discord, Reddit, et al. The company should not ban in game someone because they are bad (misogyny, racism, homophobia) about OOG people in OOG public forums. But what about people who are obviously ‘bad’ about in-game people/groups? I get the not wanting to police the world and certainly resist the nanny state more than most. But what if someone says something offensive about players/employees on a very public Reddit or Discord? It’s not a free speech issue; in the US you can say most anything. But the game company certainly can determine who can play its game. Do they make more money by letting these people play? I guess at the end of the day, CCP is correct, but it does not feel quite right.” Sally Bowls MOP Reader.

This is one of the more intriguing questions that’s been explored of late, over at Massively Overpowered. I find it particularly interesting because it can be considered as part of a wider ongoing cultural change. It is not uncommon these days for employers to check up on potential job candidates beyond their resume. There have been cases of interview boards and HR departments trawling through people’s social media accounts checking for anything “unsavoury” that could potentially embarrass or compromise their company. Traditional notions of privacy are changing and the “joined up” nature of social media platforms means you theoretically have far more data to act upon. This may be checking to see if your new head of PR is a member of the Flat Earth Society or whether a player of an MMO is continuing to be problematic towards the community outside of the game itself. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean that it should be done, as Sally Bowls states in her question.

View fullsize

Whenever someone of some institution raises the spectre of implementing new rules and regulations to address a problem, I always ask about those that are already in place? Are they sufficient and are they being utilised effectively? More often than not the answer to these questions are “yes” and “no”. In the case of policing out-of-game toxicity there is already adequate provision in place through use of existing legislation. Racism, hate crimes, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation are all criminal offenses and if they can be proven then the culprit can be dealt with accordingly. Depending on where such individual is causing problems outside of a game, there are usually existing provisions to take care of the problem Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and other platforms all have TOS which should cover such behaviour and deal with it. Sadly, these companies are neither quick or consistent in implementing such checks and balances.

However, all the above is based in law and therefore has to be managed within such a framework. If a game developer or publisher is looking to police out-of-game toxicity beyond the confines of the law, then it becomes more problematic. For example, consider a hypothetical disgruntled gamer who fell out of love with their favourite MMO because the developers changed the running animation on the Steampunk Pangolin mount. This fictitious gamer now runs a blog or You Tube channel and regularly posts negative comments about the game, the developers and the wider gaming community. None of it is technically libellous or in breach of the law, but due to the high profile of this angry gamer, it does impact upon community relations and broader perceptions of the game. The publishers may well want to see if they can “contain” or even “shut down” this individual because it may impact upon their bottom line. They may also wish to do so to simply protect their community. However, we now find ourselves faced with a classic freedom of expression conundrum. The allegedly “toxic” gamer may well be an asshole but as far as I’m aware that’s not yet a hanging offense. To try and stifle that individual right to express themselves is wrong. If you want a true democracy and all the benefits it brings, then enduring assholes is the price of admission and ongoing collateral damage. Until this fictional individual breaks the law, as much as it pains me, we have to let them run around and bark at the moon in their own back yard.

View fullsize

Now I’m not advocating that we just throw in the towel at this point. Trolls and such like should not go unchallenged and we should call them out and highlight what we consider to be wrong. However, we must do so in an appropriate manner. If we wish to occupy the moral high ground, then we need to act accordingly. Some folk may well see this as fighting with one hand tied behind your back but again, this is the price that you pay if you want a free and just society. Therefore, challenge any allegations, lies, or straightforward shitty behaviour. But be gracious, factually correct and never get down in the mud with the source of toxicity. A games publisher can certainly refuse an individuals business or ban them from forums. The TOS that accompany most player accounts usually give the publisher the whip hand in such situations.

The main problem with such problems is that they’re seldom binary issues. Games publishers are not always bastions of morality and champions of consumer rights. Business is designed to look after its own needs first. Let us not forget that some games publishers have actively tried to prevent game reviewers from expressing their legitimate opinions. Also “toxicity” is a difficult term to exactly quantify. As gamers I’m sure we could agree on a lot of common ground but there is a lot of scope for grey areas around the periphery. Exactly who should ultimately get to define the exact parameters of the word? And, we shouldn’t forget that the smart troll can always stay one step ahead of any real problem especially if they mask their identity effectively and compartmentalise their various personas. A ban is hardly the most difficult thing to bypass.  

View fullsize

Overall, unless an individual is breaking the law, then I’m not in favour of a game developer or publisher attempting to police the wider community outside of the confines of the game itself and its official social media platform. Blizzard announced earlier this year that they would be proactively policing You Tube with regard to their games, as a way of seeking out toxic behaviour in them. Again it is a notion born of an honest intent. But they weren’t specific as to what criteria they were using. At present, Overwatch players can be suspended simply due to the weight of in-game complaints against them. Although genuine toxic players may be identified and sanction, will it all end there. Will we reach a point where players will simply point to external comments and views they do not like and request that Blizzard sanction the author? Furthermore, beyond gaming, we have seen sports pundits and other media personalities fired for things they’ve said and done outside of their employment. Sometimes it has been justified but on other occasions it has been questionable and raise a lot of wider societal issues. So, I believe caution is required in any form of wider policing, be it in gaming or elsewhere in modern life. Sadly, we do not live in enlightened times and reasoned responses are all too often replaced by knee jerk reactions and baying mobs.