Oldschool Hard

No, that is not a typo. Welcome to Australia(n pricing).

As I mentioned in my post pondering about what to take with me when (if) I move, PS2 games are locked to a geographical region, split by technology and language into three regions: NTSC-J, NTSC-US, and PAL (Europe/Aus), with other countries being bundled into one of these regions. This can be circumvented, but requires a combination of a chip or chips and a lot of fly leads, making it quite complicated.

Region locking is nothing new, going back to at least the NES, and possibly before. Ostensibly it was about the differences between PAL and NTSC, that scanline differences and different speeds (50Hz vs. 60Hz) would create problems displaying foreign games on your TV. While there were issues with black bars, and slower gameplay and sound, most TVs, once a system had been chipped, or a cartridge put onto a region converter, were fine. Although you had to create a large, precarious stack on top of your machine (DON’T MAKE ANY SUDDEN MOVEMENTS!), foreign games usually worked, without any damage to TVs, game cartridges, or systems. So, more likely, it was instead about being able to control pricing of games in any particular region.

Now, handheld systems have always been happy to deal with multiple regions of games, both as a benefit to travellers, and because there was no ability to make claims about compatibility with TVs, PC games have also always been region-free, thanks to the (relatively) open nature of PCs, and things are changing somewhat in consoles, with the PS3 region free for games (although not for Blu-rays), the XBox 360 leaving region locking up to publishers, so some games are locked and some aren’t, and only the Wii still being locked down tighter than a nun’s proverbial. While a lot of people still use standard definition TVs, most standard-def TVs are, and have been for many years, both PAL/NTSC and 50/60Hz compatible, and HDTVs certainly remove any issues involving scanlines and refresh rates.

Still, you won’t find any overt advertising about the PS3 and its lack of region locking, and the only way to know if a 360 game will work in an overseas system is to either try it and hope, or refer to a range of lists maintained on the internet – the game boxes certainly won’t tell you. Most galling of all, games are still locked into a regional pricing model, with retailers sometimes prevented from shipping overseas or between countries, a patently absurd way to go in the day of ubiquitous internet. While, admittedly, exchange rates fluctuate, it doesn’t always explain the difference in pricing between countries. I laugh bitterly when US gamers complain about games being $60 USD. Considering the standard RRP of a game in Australia is $100-110 AUD, and the Australian dollar has been above 90c US for quite some time, we currently pay the equivalent of $90-100 USD for new games. As a result, I tend to buy most of my games on sale, the only time they’re worth buying locally. Any recent game I want to buy, I buy from either the UK, due to the exchange rate and guarantee of compatibility (for a 360 game) or through Play Asia, set the option to ‘English’ in the menu, and enjoy the extra 50 dollars in my pocket.

At least with a physical product, you can argue about localisation costs, shipping costs, and so on being contributors to an increased price in certain markets. The difference in regional pricing for some games and occasional locking out of sales for certain regions on download services like Steam shows an utter contempt for the consumer, and there is absolutely no technical reason why the prices can’t be the same. The only reason is price gouging. Again, a lot of these issues can be worked around, using VPNs, and false addresses, but with the digital download model, it’s not a stretch to think that if you’re discovered, you’ll lose access to the games you paid for – and you shouldn’t have to be forced into doing this just to get the IMO reasonable option of paying the same price as the US market.

(PS. I’m still waiting for the local release of Demon’s Souls in June, or at least I would be, if, you know, I hadn’t bought it from Play Asia A FUCKING YEAR AGO, like most of the Aussies really interested in this game. What are the odds on it being a flop here and Atlus blaming anything but their own tardiness?)

Share this post:

Mass Effect 2: Obliterate your free time, in spaaaaaace!

This post at Kotaku piqued my interest, covering some issues similar to what I usually look at in this blog.

Taking a point from said post, Mass Effect 2 has been released, and it seems like the topic du jour in gaming circles. Am I playing it? Of course not. I’m still stuck (for want of a better word; it’s not a chore) in Dragon Age, and it sets my tightarse sense tingling when it comes to paying full price for a game more than once every 3 or 4 months. What was Bioware thinking, releasing these games so close together? And the tight release schedule doesn’t stop – there’s more Dragon Age DLC coming in March. It’s insane. I like RPGs but fuck, there’s a million-ish decent games coming out in any given year and adults have jobs and kids and families and shit like that. Of course, I have none of those, and I barely consider myself an adult with my lack of responsibility and all-round juvenile sense of humour, but it’s the principle, dammit.

As I’ve written about before, as a kid you get what you’re given on Christmas and your birthday, so an RPG is brilliant, if you’re into them – more bang for the buck. It’s one thing to play a game over and over until you can do it with your eyes closed, but to have the same amount of game time with fresh content the whole way? Brilliant! The love story didn’t last – I fell out of love with JRPGs a while back, when I realised they were just treading the same ground again and again. I’m not so disillusioned that I won’t play any JRPGs at all, I just won’t waste my time and money searching for obscure spin-offs involving Thug no. 3 from Shadow Hearts‘ (no doubt) riveting backstory.

This also gives me the positive side-effect of having more time to spend playing other games that aren’t quite so demanding on my time, although those are getting less and less. Yes, I realise the irony of a WoW player saying this, but games are often just too damn long. Generally it used to be that it was either RPGs or ‘sandbox’ games that would suck up your time like a Hoover, but it seems to be creeping into all sorts of genres. I understand that the current revenue model involves bleeding you dry: full-priced games, or better yet, the ‘collector’s edition’ (hint: anything ever labelled as a ‘collectable’ when released is unlikely to ever be so) with some plastic chintz at maximum price, with the supposed ‘value’ in the 20+ hours of gameplay you get in exchange.

To me, value is in the intensity and enjoyment of the experience. I didn’t feel ripped off by the 6-7 hours of Shadow Complex I played, nor in roughly the same amount of time in the first Modern Warfare single-player game, although that one was at a discount. The experience was finely-tuned and there was rarely a lack of action. So I propose a new game model, to replace the game lengths and prices that are steadily creeping upwards.

Value is not in a 25 hour game with hours of cutscenes. Instead, provide a 5-15 hour experience, tuned for maximum action/enjoyment, at roughly half the price games are available at now. Make multiplayer a seperate entity at a price that means the single player experience + the multiplayer experience are available at a price on par, or better yet, slightly below, what full games cost now. Have some single-player modules, essentially just like current DLC, available at launch. That way, people who really like the single-player game world can have more of it without having to pay for a multiplayer experience they won’t use, those who don’t have time to play through a massive game can get a tight experience at a good price, and multiplayer-only gamers can avoid paying for superfluous single-player content they’re just not particularly interested in. Everyone gets the parts of the game they want, the incentive to buy secondhand is lessened (and thus developers and publishers lose less money to the secondhand market) because games are cheaper, and with more time and money on their hands, people may actually buy more games. A pipe dream, I know, but one I hope to see, especially with the rise and rise of digital distribution. Perhaps it’s a case of ‘check back in 5 years’?

Picture from Platform Nation.

Share this post:

OMG BEST GAME EVAR IF U DUN LIKE IT YOU MUST LIKE GAYSTATION (nb. I am aware that it is also available on PS3)

If you look at the theme of most of my posts, it probably seems like a game developer must’ve kicked my dog and that a game publisher ran over my kid. Admittedly, I do place a lot of blame for the problems in gaming on developers and publishers. As I’ve already talked about, they are the group guilty of releasing shovelware, contributing to (causing?) the massive hype around certain games while other just as worthy games get released without any fanfare, and trying to suck money out of you while they hold onto control over how you use their games (that you supposedly own). And don’t think I don’t have more complaints for future posts, either.

I have to admit two things, however. One, that there are plenty of good games that come out, still, in spite of the stupid development and marketing decisions that are sometimes made, and two, not all problems with gaming are the domain of game makers.

The gaming ‘community’ is pretty good at being stupid, too, like in the ‘robust discourse’ of a typical XBox Live session, in proposing boycotts that they don’t follow, or having ridiculous attachments to particular games and/or systems that go beyond a healthy interest and devolve into pointless arguments and flame wars (‘ZOMG, DA GAYSTATION SUX XBOX 4EVA!!!’). Parts of the gaming press are also often pretty good at helping contribute to the hype train, and the scoring system that some magazines and websites use is broken (and something I will discuss in yet another post).

A problem both fanboys and these segments of the gaming press share is a habit of overrating games. It usually goes one of two ways:

- A game is released, reviews solidly, and then somehow rises in the collective imagination over the years until it’s held as a pinnacle of achievement for (insert genre, developer, system or publisher here).

OR

- A game is released, reviews spectacularly, and is held up the ‘THE BEST GAME EVAR!’ or similar, completely ignoring the obvious flaws. The game may be a great game, but hardly the perfect game that it gets reviewed as, and this eventually gets sheepishly acknowledged – but only in hindsight.

I can use two of my perennial whipping boys as examples to illustrate each.

In the first case, Final Fantasy VII is a great example. As a lot of people’s entrance to RPGs and a step forward as far as cutscenes on consoles go, it has plenty of reason to be well regarded, and it is a good game. But best RPG of all time, or even worse, best game of all time? Puh-leeze. You can argue the relative merits of atmosphere and mechanics, but Final Fantasy VI was pretty much a better game, as was V, arguably (and although I acknowledge it’s not a better game, I personally prefer IX to VII). Ergo, it is not only not the best RPG of all time, it’s not even the best RPG in its series.

As for the second case, step forward, yet again, GTA IV. You were ambitious, set out a remarkable stylised version of New York, and I played you for nearly 40 hours. You also had terrible draw-in and jaggies and looked very fuzzy on the XBox (and I assume the PS3, too), chugged along horribly without a quad-core processor on the PC, had cars that controlled like barges, hollow characters, and both your mission and game structure followed a model that was basically inherited, with only small changes, from a near 10-years-old predecessor. We had a good time together, GTA IV, but you weren’t the perfect game your other suitors said you were. I think they realised that, too, once they had stopped drinking the kool-aid and sobered up.

Image from Xboxer, resized.

Share this post:

The ‘it was all a dream!’ ending – possibly the laziest narrative device ever.

A game is generally its own reward – the enjoyment is in the experience. Having an expectation that at the end of a game that I’ve enjoyed I’ll be treated to a song-and-dance show that neatly wraps up every loose end in the game, shows where all the characters end up, like in Animal House, and leaves me all giddy is really expecting too much. And yet I can’t help feel a little bit cheated when a game is wrapped up in a rote manner, or a manner that insults the efforts of the player, or one that just isn’t fitting.

I enjoyed Borderlands. As I’ve previously said, I like loot grind games. If nothing else, my love for WoW should make that obvious. But the ending brought back memories of some of the shittest game endings I’ve ever seen. The point of the game was in the mechanics, not the story, which was thin the whole way through, but wow, talk about an anti-climax. It was reminiscent of the generic mangled-engrish end screen of some early 8 and 16-bit games, usually with text something like ‘Congraturations! Now try harder difficulty level!’

At least that implies that if you complete the game on its hardest difficulty setting, you might be thrown a bone. Crappy endings that don’t fall into the ‘end screen with text’ category tend not to give any ‘outs’ – this is the ending, deal with it. Hope you enjoyed the game, if not, tough shit.

(WARNING: I am vaguely spoiling the endings of 5+ year old games. If you’re that behind, read no further. And go play some games, dammit.)

In examples of the insult ending, there’s the cliche of the ‘just a dream’ ending of Super Mario Bros. 2, or the ‘kill boss -> straight to credits + cringeworthy rapping’ of Gears of War and the anticlimactic boss battle of its sequel. Or how about, speaking of sequels (now that‘s a segue; where’s my pulitzer?), the Halo 2 ‘buy the sequel to find out more!’ blatant cash grab (which I didn’t play, but did watch happen), KOTOR 2, which left so many threads hanging it was ridiculous (but then, so did the whole game – the Blizzard ‘when it’s done’ would be very useful applied to all games). The Half-Life no-choice ‘choice’. Or perhaps the ultimate crappy ending, the ending of Metal Gear Solid 2, which has obviously had a lot of time put into it but made fuck-all sense. I felt like I was going to involuntarily re-enact a scene from Scanners by the time the bloody thing finished.

I’ve also had my favourites through the years, endings that finished games on a satisfying note and added a little cherry on top of a delicious game sundae. In direct contrast to the perplexing ending of its prequel, Metal Gear Solid 3‘s ending, while also convoluted, was much easier to fathom, tragic, and totally in keeping with the events of the game. The STALKER ‘ironic wish fulfillment’ endings were very appropriate to the dark tone of the game. SHODAN’s little sting in the tail at the end of System Shock 2 suited her goading and wheedling of you throughout. The Conker’s Bad Fur Day ‘negotiation’ was as irreverent as the rest of the game (‘NO WAI EDDIE, YOU CAN’T BREAK THE FOURTH WALLLLLLLLLL’). Deus Ex‘s three choices that fit well with the various paths you can take through the game. The ultimate sacrifice in Diablo, and the bittersweet endings of Shadow of the Colossus and Planescape: Torment, all downbeat, all so in keeping with the game’s theme.

Perhaps that’s the key to it all. The best endings don’t need to be elaborate, even though some are. They don’t need to be positive. They just need to fit what came before. I can’t believe that could be hard, but there are enough crappy endings around to show otherwise.

Picture from TerrisUS.

Share this post: