What is "M for Mature" and what is "E for Everyone"?

I enjoy all sorts of games, ranging from RPG's, to shooters, to platforming, to simulations. I also am not particularly prudish, which means I see the brilliance of the Grand Theft Auto ("GTA") series for what it is, even if I think the some of its content is almost prurient in nature (really, a stripping simulation?). But I've noticed when I talk with some non-gamers that they seem puzzled that I play games like GTA, since I have a young daughter. But why wouldn't I? I do 99% of my gaming when my daughter is asleep or having a nap, so its not like she's watching me have a shoot-out with the Liberty City cops, or steal a car from an elderly woman. I feel no less appropriate about playing GTA than I would about owning a copy of "Fight Club" or some other film which would be totally inappropriate for my daughter to watch - its okay, because its not for her.

But I guess my friend's confusion is justified, because sometimes I think publishers seem equally confused about who is playing their games. I've noticed that a game like Viva Pinata is obviously marketed to a young audience, with fluffy and adorable little characters who would charm any youngster. Heck, they even cross-marketed it with a licensed Saturday morning cartoon! But did anyone at Rare (the developer) ever watch a kid play this game? Its as complicated as a strategy game like Civilization or SimCity, and therefore totally inappropriate for a little kid. Basically, you have to micromanage a mini-farm, ensuring that every "pinata" has the type of things it wants, eats the type of food it likes, stays away from its other pinata enemies, all the while trying to add onto your zoo to encourage new pinata animals to take up residence. Plus, some of the "secrets" to finding pinatas can only be discovered by massive wastes of time through trial and error, or if you are computer savvy through a search of a FAQ. Its fun, its addictive, but its simply not really a suitable game for the age ranges that its characters would likely appeal to most.

I think developers sometimes forget that sometimes their games, although entertaining for the veteran gamer, can be REALLY hard to play! One of the reasons the Wii was such a hit games like Wii sports are among the very few games that a young kid can play, and therefore true "family gaming" becomes possible. If you are a game developer targeting the younger crowd, having cutesy-ootsie characters isn't enough - you need to have game play that fits their capabilities as well.

I come to bury save points, not to praise them

Allow me this brief aside: I hope that we mark 2009 as the year the save point died. Save points are an anachronism at this point, an example of lazy game design that has needlessly perpetuated itself. They may have been necessary for technical reasons during the old cartridge-based era of console gaming (such as Nintendo, Colecovision, Super-Nintendo, etc.) where your saved game actually took up very limited space on your cartridge's RAM. But most modern consoles have no such limitations, and certainly PC and Mac-based games don't either (I suppose the Nintendo DS - which basically looks like it runs miniaturized SNES cartridges, might be an exception).

Moreover, save points create "false narrative tension" in a game. You are pushing to get to past the next obstacle - not because you are enjoying yourself, not because you are interested to see what is ahead, but because if your character "dies" before reaching the save point, you will need to start all over again. There are better ways to incentivize your players to keep playing. Plus, as a father and husband, there is no better way to get an angry wife than to explain that you cannot stop playing because "I'm looking for a place to save my game." Good luck with that one, and remember to duck when the frying pan comes at you.

Most games these days allow you to save at any time, or automatically save for your to preserve your progress. And while any game will involve some backtracking if you interrupt your session or your character "dies," as long as you are not looking at 15-20 minutes of repeating your last game session that's forgivable. After all, allowing someone to save in the middle of the big boss fight would destroy the drama and tension that the developer wants that fight to have.

Lost Odyssey was a pretty enjoyable RPG game for the XBox 360 - it had a reasonably mature storyline, some gorgeous graphics, and an interesting combat system - but its reliance on save points nearly ruined the game. You could spend an hour fighting through monsters, only to be wiped out before you could get to a save point. That is not fun. Hopefully, save points will finally be retired in this generation of games.

MMOs - Fun for Busy Gamers, or Disasters?

Taking off on a comment from my friend Geek Ken, this will be the first in a series of posts about different gaming genres, and how the fit (or do not fit) into a busy gamers lifestyle. I'll start with MMOs, or "Massively Multiplayer Online" games. The old term used for games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, and others used to be MMORPG, for "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" but over time the genre has expanded to include games that really aren't "role playing games" in the traditional sense.

But its amazing how many of the conventions from Everquest still remain, and accordingly there are lots of common factors among MMO's. Generally speaking, most have a fantasy setting (although games like City of Heroes, the upcoming Champions Online, and others have deviated from that setting) and involve you playing character that you "level up" by doing various quests in the game setting, eventually growing more powerful and gaining new powers, equipment, and "stuff." Traditionally, these games didn't involve "skill," at least not in the same way that a First-person shooter like Halo would, or even a standard action game on a console. Your character's ability to do things really didn't depend on your reflexes or ability to play the game at all - it depended on how powerful he or she was, and that in turn was directly proportional to how long you had played the game (the longer you played, the stronger your character was) and whether or not your character had done certain high-end "raid" content that got him super-powerful equipment or bonuses.

While some things have changed, this is still largely how most MMO games still operate. However, the landscape changed somewhat by the phenomenal economic success of World of Warcraft, which dominates any discussion of MMO's due to its wild popularity and status as a cash cow for developer Blizzard (now Activision Blizzard). World of Warcraft ("WoW" for short) had some notable features that allowed it to flourish:

• It made virtually the entire game "soloable," in that you did not need a team to do most of the content. This was pretty unusual for an MMO game, where you typically needed a group of fellow players to take on most tasks.
• The developers included lots of "content" - quests, places to go, things to see, such that you really never ran out of "stuff" to do in the game.
• Once your character neared the maximum "level" of power in the game, they included a number of "raids" - high level quests that involved a large group of people, and which took longer than usual and yielded the best equipment in the game.

There are LOTS of other reasons for its success (including succesful marketing to the massive Asian MMO market, and the fact that even a low-end PC could run the game) but these points are particularly salient, as a "next-generation" of MMO's is starting to come out this year and next. While some of these aspects of WoW are being emulated, many in the gaming press and industry are concerned about certain of these MMO design elements, as noted by this recent article on massively.com.

From the perspective of a busy working gamer, here is where I stand on these factors.

1) Content - "Content" is only valuable as long as it is FUN. Having 1,000 quests to run in your game isn't entertaining if all 1,000 are terrible. And since these games don't involve reflex based gameplay or active skill (for the most part) the only thing that makes them fun is having a compelling storyline or visual element. So games that fill your time with "go bring this to person X" or "kill 25 vermin" type quests are not adding "content", they are - to use a non-gaming term - "wasting my time."

2) Raids - In my younger days, I did run some "raid" content, but these days I can't fathom doing so. When, aside from the middle of the night, could I possibly dedicate 4-5 hours towards doing a quest? That type of content, by its very nature, is simply not conducive towards real life - frankly, its not suitable for anyone. The reality is that part of why players feel a sense of accomplishment at the end of a quest like that is because it took so freaking long time to do it!

That's, in my opinion, lazy design. Content should feel satisfying because it was interesting, fun, and challenging. But that's the inherent problem of an MMO - in a game with little skill required, how do you make it "challenging"? I think the simple answer is that you need to make some skill be required. You need to force players to work as a team, move quickly, and pay attention. That way, you can give even a relatively short quest a meaningful feeling of accomplishment - far better than the feeling that you just were willing to ruin your Saturday (and your marriage) by staying up until 3 a.m.

3) Solo Content - It is odd to log onto a game server that connects you with thousands of gamers around the world, only to play by yourself. But sometimes its simply necessary. For example, if I am going to log on to a game to play for a bit while my daughter takes a nap, I need to be able to drop everything and leave if she wakes up. No "wait a minute" or "let me reach a safe point" will work - I'm leaving immediately. So sometimes I do not feel like burdening a team of players with an unreliable teammate. If the game does not have soloable content, I'm simply not going to play it unless I have an hour or more to put aside, which means I'll very rarely play (and accordingly am very unlikely to pay for the game). Its simple math - by adding solo content MMO developers massively increase the number of potential customers for their games.

But the other issue, and one I see addressed very poorly, is matchmaking. You see this feature in most First Person Shooter ("FPS") games, where the computer automatically matches up players of similar skill levels to fight as a team. But its relatively uncommon in MMO's, which tend to rely on cumbersome "searches" to find other players, putting the onus on you, the player, to either play with people you already know, or literally beg other people to join up with you. The problem with that type of system is that it takes up your play time with something other than playing. As a guy who has maybe an hour to play at a time, I don't want to waste my time searching for potential teammates - I want to get right into the action.

It seems to me long past time that MMO's instituted some form automatic matchmaking (presuming you don't choose to opt-out). Going to take on a particular quest? The game should automatically pair you with anyone else who has that quest active and who is not opposed to having some company. Why this feature remains commonplace in FPS's, yet rare in MMO's, is beyond me.

That's my general 2 cents on MMO's - I'll post some thoughts on specific games I've played, and how they did (or did not) implement dynamics that worked for me in later posts.

Game Review: Ghostbusters

Quick Review:

Top end voice talent, production values, and a polished look will appeal to any fan of the films, and the ghost-catching gameplay is relatively unique. However, the "try and die" progression will frustrate some players, especially since there are unforgivable load times after every death, and sometimes you will be forced to watch the same cutscene over and over again as you struggle past certain difficult parts of the game.

Full Review:

I was a big fan of Ghostbusters when it came out in 1984, I own an XBox 360, and I have some disposable income - all of which means I was probably smack dab in the middle of the target audience for the recently released "Ghostbusters - The Video Game" published by Atari and developed by Terminal Reality. Well, they weren't wrong - I pre-ordered this game and threw it into my 360 as soon as it came out.

As soon I was hearing the well-known piano score, and looking at the firehouse building, I was immersed. And the game doesn't let up there, not with all of the original 4 ghostbusters in the cast granting their likeness and voices (plus notable extras such as Janine manning the phones, and Vigo's portrait cursing at you). What's more, Harold Ramis and Dan Akroyd wrote the dialogue for the game, which feels spot on. Soon I was off with the ghostbusters, capturing ghosts, reading PKE readings, and consulting Tobin's Spirit Guide.

The production values in this game are top notch - everything looks crisp and detailed, the voice acting is superb, and the enemies look like they were pulled straight out of a Ghostbusters film (and at the end of the day, this game is essentially "Ghostbusters III").

And besides feeling like a Ghostbuster, I was having a lot of fun, too. The game plays like a cross between Gears of War and Bass Masters, as you blast your targets from an over the shoulder third-person perspective, and then - once the ghosts are weakened - you reel them into the trap in what feels like a fishing simulator. Its a fun dynamic, and one I didn't get bored of from start to finish. It is hard to get a handle on how to play "defense" in this game, since your character is slow and cumbersome, but at the end of the day your best bet is keeping your teammates alive so they can return the favor if you get blasted with ectoplasm.

Unfortunately, that will happen way too often. Because there is no real defensive mechanic (other than laying low for a while and letting your squad-mates take the heat) you and your computer-controlled squad-mates will be on your back alot. Its not terrible, but it does make some fights feel more like "Ghostbusters: Medic Edition" than a shooting game. And your squad's AI is barely passable in combat, so you will have to do most of the heavy lifting in taking down ghosts.

The big "grrrr" moments come later in the game, when you encounter some truly rampaging ghosts that overwhelm you with numbers. While these sequences can be fun and over-the-top, they can also be maddeningly frustrating. Why? Well, every time you "die" in the game, you are forced to sit through a LOAD SCREEN while Ray Parker Junior sings the Ghostbusters theme. Hey, I like the song, and its catchy, but having to wait 15-30 seconds before you jump back into the action is simply not good game design in this day and age, especially not in a game that uses "try and die" as its dominant gameplay dynamic, and accordingly forces you to die over and over.

This becomes particularly irritating if you happen to have died just after having listened to a long exposition explaining your situation. At times, the game will reload you right before that exposition, meaning you had to sit through the load screen, then listen to the exposition again, before you can get back into the action. Dying, then waiting for 1:30 before you can get back into the action is not good game design. I spent one 30-45 minute play session where I didn't progress at all, because of how much of my time was tied up in this cycle. Not good.


The game uses checkpoints to save your progress. While there are normally not very far apart, there are certain points where this system fails you, as you wind up having to restart a mission near the beginning after ending your session. Developers: savepoints and checkpoints are really outdated game design at this point, especially when your target demographic works for a living. I'm fine with forcing a player to go back a bit when they restart a game sequence - it allows for the developer to control the pacing and flow of the game - but be reasonable.

That is the main flaw in the game, along with its relatively short length (you can play it start to finish in about 15 hours if you are an experienced gamer). But honestly, the shortness wouldn't have bothered me if I hadn't spent so much of that time staring at load screens.

FINAL VERDICT: 3 out of 5

If you are a fan the movies, I give a qualified recommendation, as I enjoyed the game myself. But its has quite a few "issues" that will irk even the biggest fan of the franchise.

Welcome to the Blog!

Welcome to the Gaming for the Working Man Blog. I'd like to to tell you a little about myself, and why I started this blog.

I am an attorney in my mid-30's, married with a small child, and a lifelong gamer. I remember being blown away by Pitfall on the Atari 2600, playing games on a tape drive attached to my friend's Commodore 64 (do young people even know that computers used to run off of screeching tapes?), lusting with envy at my friends who had Colecovision, and then one-upping them by getting my first Nintendo (which I had to share with my brother). I've been gaming for so long, its pretty safe to say its a life-long hobby at this point.

As I've gotten older, obviously I have less time for gaming. When I was in college, I used to look at a game that took weeks and months to finish as a great thing - and moreover, a great value, since I had relatively few dollars and comparitively bucketloads of time. These days, a game like that annoys the hell out of me. Unless the gameplay is fantastic and varied, I don't want the experience to take me half a year to finish - I'll be bored to tears before I'm ever done.

And thus we come to the reason for this blog. I review various gaming websites and magazines before I make my purchases, notably IGN.com, Game Informer, or GamePro. And while those guys do a great job, I often find that they are speaking to an audience that doesn't include me. For example, lots of publications praised Fallout 3 for the massive amount of things you can do in the game world, praising the over 100 hours of "content" in the game. Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 is a great game - but at the end of the day all of that content wasn't nearly as valuable to a guy who can fit in at most 5-10 hours of gaming a week, especially when the main storyline was fairly unsatisfying.

At the end of the day, I can't fault those reviews. The game DOES give an incredible amount of "value" in terms of content - you can play that game and nothing else for weeks (especially with the downloadable content that Bethesda has been providing), and therefore your $50 goes a long way. But for someone like me, for whom paying $50 is not a big deal, but finding 100 hours is near impossible, it just wasn't that great a value or a game (still a good game, but not my favorite).

That's the perspective I'm hoping to bring to this blog - how gaming fits into the life of someone with serious work responsibilities, family obligations, and an overall busy lifestyle. I'll be pointing out aspects of games that matter to me, like:

• save mechanics - good luck telling a screaming infant, "wait until I reach a a save point!" - you'll wind up with a screaming wife.
• gaming session length - can you get anything accomplished in this game in a one-hour window? If not, its not going to fit my lifestyle.
• quality vs. quantity - having a ton of "content" is only great if the content is fun. I'd much rather pay for a tightly wound, well-crafted and entertaining game that only lasts 20 hours, than a 100+ hour grindfest where you do repetitive tasks over and over.
• lazy design - I don't have enough time to game, do you think I have time to read copious FAQ's and Game Guides to learn how to play the game? In the 21st century, no game should include content that you need to consult a FAQ to locate. If you want to make a game so complicated that it needs a guide, but it in game - I already paid your for the game, I shouldn't have to take on a research project just to play it.

Hopefully, I'll also be providing some perspective on how games have changed over the years, how they fit into a working adult's lifestyle (and how they do not) and other random thoughts that relate to gaming, work, and play. Thanks for stopping by, and feel free to comment, question, or virulently disagree!