How would you feel if a group of people just gave you four hundred thousand dollars in about eight hours? What if people like the first ones continued to give you money until you had about three million by the end of the month? Would you feel obliged to them somehow? What would you do in return? This is what acclaimed game designer Tim Shaffer is looking at with his newest adventure game. He and his team raised three million dollars on the website Kickstarter. Shaffer, and others like him, have been using this website to fund various projects, from book publishing, to game design, to technological innovations. The success of these creators and this kind of business deal shows us something amazing.
If we want it, we can fund it.
Adventure games are pretty old hat. They had their time in the early years of gaming, and games like Sam and Max did their best to bring them around again, but they were never a big enough hit to warrant major publishers investing the money needed into them. The genre pretty much died out. Independent studios tried to revitalize them, but none of these were ever major successes. It seemed like it was the end for adventure games.
And then Tim Shaffer, god father of adventure games, decided to try out Kickstarter. He would appeal to a niche audience and see if you couldn't get some minimal funding to do a game he would enjoy making and he hoped people would enjoy playing. He as asking for four hundred thousand dollars at the start, more than had ever been raised on Kickstarter. It was a pipe dream, but he and Double Fine Productions had nothing to lose. In the first eight hours, when fans and professional sites saw what he was doing, they raised their goal. For the next month, the money kept pouring in. People were excited for his project and willing to throw a few dollars his way to make it happen.
Tim Shaffer isn't the only one out there. Familiar classics are coming back. Cult Classic "Leisure Suit Larry" is making a return, Wasteland 2 is being developed, Shadowrun is getting and update, and many more. Popular material thought dead is getting a second wind. And new material is also being added. People with a passion for their work and their niche are turning to the consumer to help them make their dream real. Whether it is a school project about social groups, an online role-playing game, or a bands first CD, creators are asking the consumer what they want to see, and the consumer is backing them with their dollars.
This may be one of the first times that consumers have had direct say in what gets made and what doesn't. Have you ever wondered how crappy movies keep getting made? Or how so many trash, boring novels keep getting publish? Or how the same grey and brown shooting games keep getting pushed into gamers' hands? If you keep seeing pointless wastes of material that you hate, this kind of marketing is your chance to support that which you really care about. Don't buy what the faceless publishers throw at you, choose what you want to support.
I hope that this kind of method catches on, or at least draw the attention of bigger publishers. If they realize that people are willing to support smaller ideas, ideas that innovate, or ideas that aren't "mainstream" then they might realize that if they support these small projects with their large wallets, they could turn a profit. We might see a rebirth of innovation and creativity. We'd stop having Micheal Bay action movies with nothing but explosions, we'd stop having pop music that just repeats the word "baby" a thousand times, we'd stop having games that have you shooting Nazis in WW2. A bold, fresh, new landscape would open up to creators everywhere.
Great, another site I have to resist spending money on.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Truly Bazaar
Who am I? You might never know. I am the eloquent gentleman, toast of parties all over the city, charmer of countless noble women, verbal combatant with some of the greatest minds, the creator of vivid and unrivaled poetry, theater, and books. His amused lordship enjoys my company, the Wry Functionary and share cards and drinks, even the Duchess herself seems to hold me in good regards. The common rabble love my work. I am not, however, just another pretty face in society's upper circles. My eyes are always watching, picking up clues and secrets that so many would wish hidden. I even turn my hand at thieving, though it is still a new hobby for me. I am a person of some consequence in this city, and I will become someone of Importance.
Or at least, that's who I am in Fallen London.
This entry is to talk about an innovative game that I came across last year. It was then called Echo Bazaar, and has recently revamped itself and now goes by the name Fallen London. This is not your normal game you might find on Steam or some other digital provider. It's not even a flash game like you might see on Armor Games or Miniclips. What this game is, is a browser game: a game that tells a story without a lot of strict "game play." Typically, you click through some cards and prompts and then chance decides if you succeed or not. You gain levels in four key skills, as well as in story specific occurrences, and gain items of a large variety to use in later story arches.
So basically, this whole game wouldn't seem all that engaging. It might come across as a novelty, a gimmicky website with nothing to offer. Yet, I find myself coming back to this game in my spare time. If I have a few minutes I like to hop on and run through a few missions, earn a level or two, or maybe hunt after some useful times. There's no sound, no three dimensional models, nothing but text (and a spinning hat load icon). What makes this game so appealing?
In short, the world. This game has created a world that is unique and intriguing. It is dark and mysterious while also being entertaining and lively. Through only the text before and after each challenge, the team behind Fallen London have built up a city that you come to understand and love. Whether you're a charmer like me, a thug, a thief, or whatever, you find how your character fits into the world and you can peruse that which interests you. Want to be a novelist? Work up and get into the literary circles, then dominate them. What to be a detective? Put in some time and hunt down big cases. The game functions much like you would think life does, working the menial jobs and low tier work until you get better and move on to more important work.
Every action you take is combined with story bits, short blurbs of text that talk about what you did, how you did it, and how it affected the city or the people. Your knowledge of the city and the people groups, various factions and locations, all grow in time. Nothing is ever just dumped on you, you learn in bits until you understand a good deal of how the whole Fallen London runs. The world is so complex, but is given to you in such digestible parts that you can understand its complexity and really immerse yourself in the world.
I love this game for its story and for showing that not all games have to be fast-paced and big budget. It also shows that an interesting story and believable world can keep a player around just as much as lots of explosions and collision physics. It is a step in showing games as mediums for storytelling and interactive art. I love the game, and I want to see how it grows. Maybe one day I could help shape the streets of Fallen London and influence the various factions.
You should join and play. It's fun.
Just something to chew on.
Or at least, that's who I am in Fallen London.
This entry is to talk about an innovative game that I came across last year. It was then called Echo Bazaar, and has recently revamped itself and now goes by the name Fallen London. This is not your normal game you might find on Steam or some other digital provider. It's not even a flash game like you might see on Armor Games or Miniclips. What this game is, is a browser game: a game that tells a story without a lot of strict "game play." Typically, you click through some cards and prompts and then chance decides if you succeed or not. You gain levels in four key skills, as well as in story specific occurrences, and gain items of a large variety to use in later story arches.
So basically, this whole game wouldn't seem all that engaging. It might come across as a novelty, a gimmicky website with nothing to offer. Yet, I find myself coming back to this game in my spare time. If I have a few minutes I like to hop on and run through a few missions, earn a level or two, or maybe hunt after some useful times. There's no sound, no three dimensional models, nothing but text (and a spinning hat load icon). What makes this game so appealing?
In short, the world. This game has created a world that is unique and intriguing. It is dark and mysterious while also being entertaining and lively. Through only the text before and after each challenge, the team behind Fallen London have built up a city that you come to understand and love. Whether you're a charmer like me, a thug, a thief, or whatever, you find how your character fits into the world and you can peruse that which interests you. Want to be a novelist? Work up and get into the literary circles, then dominate them. What to be a detective? Put in some time and hunt down big cases. The game functions much like you would think life does, working the menial jobs and low tier work until you get better and move on to more important work.
Every action you take is combined with story bits, short blurbs of text that talk about what you did, how you did it, and how it affected the city or the people. Your knowledge of the city and the people groups, various factions and locations, all grow in time. Nothing is ever just dumped on you, you learn in bits until you understand a good deal of how the whole Fallen London runs. The world is so complex, but is given to you in such digestible parts that you can understand its complexity and really immerse yourself in the world.
I love this game for its story and for showing that not all games have to be fast-paced and big budget. It also shows that an interesting story and believable world can keep a player around just as much as lots of explosions and collision physics. It is a step in showing games as mediums for storytelling and interactive art. I love the game, and I want to see how it grows. Maybe one day I could help shape the streets of Fallen London and influence the various factions.
You should join and play. It's fun.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Mr. Fix-It
I'm not a techy; I can't fix your computer. I don't know how to deal with a Blue Screen of Death, I can't get your Skype cam working (or my own for that matter), I don't know how to get into your e-mail. I can't fix home stuff either. I don't know how to cook that well, I would probably struggle changing a fuse, I have no idea how to repair a roof. Honestly, I can't fix a lot of things, (I'm rather worried what I'll be like on my own). Yet there even with my technical failings, there is still a drive I have. It doesn't revolve around the physical, like computers or home repair, but a little deeper.
I always want to fix other people's problems.
I get this desire to be able to reach out to someone and help them past their problems. If it's school work, I want to offer advise on how to work better. If it's people, I want to give opinions on what to say or do. Heck, even in video games I want to make the choices that help my ally characters. Games like Dragon Age have me agonizing over what ways I could help my party members. That might show me as a bit more neurotic than is probably healthy, but it underlines my point. I want to help people.
It bugs me that I can't as well. I might see someone that I only marginally know and they might just look dejected or sad, and I get this drive to help. I want to be able to reach out and let them know that it is all right, that I can help them. I know it sounds arrogant, but the goal isn't to show how they need me in their lives, but to let them know that whatever it is that they are dealing with, someone is there to help them through.
The reason this comes up is twofold. The first is that I started reading through a "visual novel" (a very Japanese kind of computer 'game' that is mostly text with a few distinct choices all in all) and the characters are all burdened with their own problems. While the story follows through the main character, who is not really the player, we get to see how he interacts with the other characters and helps them, or doesn't. Reading that, I can't help but think how I would want to react and help. The only reason I picked up on this idea in this type of game is because the preset story and dialogues don't usually fit how I would handle a situation. I make a few choices, maybe ten in total, but how they play out is strictly in the mind of the central character and his personality rather than my own. I want to help in my own way, but the story doesn't lend itself to such freewheeling.
The second reason for this comes simply though the society that college seems to be for me. Maybe it's something about the Christian community, or maybe it has something do with my place as lounge furniture, but I find I hear about and see people and their problems. I might walk in on someone crying in the prayer chapel, or over hear two people hashing out a tough issue. Whatever the case, when I hear these things or see others in a state of distress, my heart goes out to them.
Maybe this is just your stereotypical guy mentality. Something wrong? Must fix! But I hate to think that what I'm feeling is just base instinct. I'm not moved to solve a problem; I'm driven to help someone. That's the desire, to help. I want to help people, to be their personal life Mr. Fix-It and give them a solution so that they aren't burdened anymore. I know that isn't what people need. Some people need to try it on their own, some just need someone to talk to (I make a great sounding board as well, might get into that another week), some people need to go break balloon animals in half with caramelized steak. I'm not one to judge people's coping mechanisms.
I suppose this overly-drawn-out series of poorly joined paragraphs is a build-up to say that: someday, in our interactions, I may try to help you solve a problem. This isn't me imposing on your life, or trying to be the hero your life deserves, it's me having a desire to help you not be burdened anymore. If you need someone to help you, come to me and I would be glad to do whatever I can. Your problems aren't a burden to me, and even if I can't help, I'll be there to listen.
Just don't ask me to fix your toaster; I'll short out the whole state.
Just something to chew on.
I always want to fix other people's problems.
I get this desire to be able to reach out to someone and help them past their problems. If it's school work, I want to offer advise on how to work better. If it's people, I want to give opinions on what to say or do. Heck, even in video games I want to make the choices that help my ally characters. Games like Dragon Age have me agonizing over what ways I could help my party members. That might show me as a bit more neurotic than is probably healthy, but it underlines my point. I want to help people.
It bugs me that I can't as well. I might see someone that I only marginally know and they might just look dejected or sad, and I get this drive to help. I want to be able to reach out and let them know that it is all right, that I can help them. I know it sounds arrogant, but the goal isn't to show how they need me in their lives, but to let them know that whatever it is that they are dealing with, someone is there to help them through.
The reason this comes up is twofold. The first is that I started reading through a "visual novel" (a very Japanese kind of computer 'game' that is mostly text with a few distinct choices all in all) and the characters are all burdened with their own problems. While the story follows through the main character, who is not really the player, we get to see how he interacts with the other characters and helps them, or doesn't. Reading that, I can't help but think how I would want to react and help. The only reason I picked up on this idea in this type of game is because the preset story and dialogues don't usually fit how I would handle a situation. I make a few choices, maybe ten in total, but how they play out is strictly in the mind of the central character and his personality rather than my own. I want to help in my own way, but the story doesn't lend itself to such freewheeling.
The second reason for this comes simply though the society that college seems to be for me. Maybe it's something about the Christian community, or maybe it has something do with my place as lounge furniture, but I find I hear about and see people and their problems. I might walk in on someone crying in the prayer chapel, or over hear two people hashing out a tough issue. Whatever the case, when I hear these things or see others in a state of distress, my heart goes out to them.
Maybe this is just your stereotypical guy mentality. Something wrong? Must fix! But I hate to think that what I'm feeling is just base instinct. I'm not moved to solve a problem; I'm driven to help someone. That's the desire, to help. I want to help people, to be their personal life Mr. Fix-It and give them a solution so that they aren't burdened anymore. I know that isn't what people need. Some people need to try it on their own, some just need someone to talk to (I make a great sounding board as well, might get into that another week), some people need to go break balloon animals in half with caramelized steak. I'm not one to judge people's coping mechanisms.
I suppose this overly-drawn-out series of poorly joined paragraphs is a build-up to say that: someday, in our interactions, I may try to help you solve a problem. This isn't me imposing on your life, or trying to be the hero your life deserves, it's me having a desire to help you not be burdened anymore. If you need someone to help you, come to me and I would be glad to do whatever I can. Your problems aren't a burden to me, and even if I can't help, I'll be there to listen.
Just don't ask me to fix your toaster; I'll short out the whole state.
Just something to chew on.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
More Than Elves
Fantasy as a genre has been going strong this year, especially in video games. Skyrim came out as a huge hit, Kingdom of Amalur has become a quiet success, Dungeon Defenders is sweeping the Indy titles, and others have brought players back to the realms of mages with funny hats, heroes with big swords, elf maidens in need of a new tailor, and fantasy staples like orcs, goblins, and dragons. Anyone care to guess what other elements might be involved in games like these? Trolls, demons, archwizards, shadowy assassins, dwarves, giant animals, swords, shields, bows, castles, scheming advisers, kings, princesses, magic items, wildly impractical armor, bandit caves, pirates, skeleton warriors, lost civilizations, wolves, inter-dimensional monstrosities, dungeons, catacombs, pretty forests, and on and on and on.
Why is fantasy so predictable?
We all love Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. It was a great series with an engaging world. Why is it everyone has to rip that off? Maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but you have to admit that a lot of fantasy has a similar feel to it. We keep a lot of the same elements in that genre. Heck, I know I do that same. I was recently looking back on a project I had started and realized just how cliche it felt. We stick to the same elements because we're familiar with them and they're safe. Elves, dwarves, and orcs don't need a lot of detail work because all of us already have a pretty good idea what they are like.
I'm getting sick of the same thing over and over. There is only so often you can read about the human boy teaming with the elf girl and the clumsy wizard as they save the world from the evil overlord. Or play as the silent barbarian/one-man-army who is the only one in the entire world that can change the fate of the world. As much as different authors try to spice it up, typically they all have a relatively similar plot. These work fine, but it means that we become complacent, and soon resentful, of the worlds we've put ourselves in. For me, when I could substitute one fantasy world for another, my interest just starts to fade.
The sad thing about this is that it is all just a sign of laziness. Let's look at science fiction quickly. BioWare has released games in both of these genres, Dragon Age (fantasy) and Mass Effect (Sci-Fi). In Dragon Age we have humans, elves, dwarves, and an orc knock off. In Mass Effect we have humans, turians, krogans, asari, drell, elcor, hanar, keepers, salarians, volus, geth, yahg, vorcha, reapers, quarian... the list goes on. All of these races are unique and well defined. Each one has its history and issues. And this is all within the bounds of science (sort of). Why is in worlds were magic can seemingly defy logic we get stuck with the same races and characters, while in a world ruled but what could possibly exist is so much richer? The mage can summon fire from heaven but he can't have tentacles for arms and raptor legs?
We need a revival in this genre. It is one of my favorites, but my passion for it is waning. The lack of real innovation is crippling this genre. Bethesda did some work with this in their Elder Scrolls series, adding Argonians (lizard people) and Kahjit (cat people) but even those are pretty mundane. How can a genre titled "fantasy," which is supposed to be all that we can imagine and more, be stuck in the same repeating ideas. There should be unlimited opportunities in this genre. Magic could be used to explain countless types of characters, races, and abilities. Terry Pratchett's series Discworld has an amazingly rich world that is unique and engaging, with more than just your standard characters. Yet he seems like the only one (that I have come across) who pushes these traditionally accepted boundaries. We need to drop the notion that fantasy is limited to elves and dwarves, and reach out for those hidden worlds that could change fantasy for the better.
Seriously though, I'm sick of the female heroes wearing the equivalent of on tin can's worth of armor.
Just something to chew on.
Why is fantasy so predictable?
We all love Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. It was a great series with an engaging world. Why is it everyone has to rip that off? Maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but you have to admit that a lot of fantasy has a similar feel to it. We keep a lot of the same elements in that genre. Heck, I know I do that same. I was recently looking back on a project I had started and realized just how cliche it felt. We stick to the same elements because we're familiar with them and they're safe. Elves, dwarves, and orcs don't need a lot of detail work because all of us already have a pretty good idea what they are like.
I'm getting sick of the same thing over and over. There is only so often you can read about the human boy teaming with the elf girl and the clumsy wizard as they save the world from the evil overlord. Or play as the silent barbarian/one-man-army who is the only one in the entire world that can change the fate of the world. As much as different authors try to spice it up, typically they all have a relatively similar plot. These work fine, but it means that we become complacent, and soon resentful, of the worlds we've put ourselves in. For me, when I could substitute one fantasy world for another, my interest just starts to fade.
The sad thing about this is that it is all just a sign of laziness. Let's look at science fiction quickly. BioWare has released games in both of these genres, Dragon Age (fantasy) and Mass Effect (Sci-Fi). In Dragon Age we have humans, elves, dwarves, and an orc knock off. In Mass Effect we have humans, turians, krogans, asari, drell, elcor, hanar, keepers, salarians, volus, geth, yahg, vorcha, reapers, quarian... the list goes on. All of these races are unique and well defined. Each one has its history and issues. And this is all within the bounds of science (sort of). Why is in worlds were magic can seemingly defy logic we get stuck with the same races and characters, while in a world ruled but what could possibly exist is so much richer? The mage can summon fire from heaven but he can't have tentacles for arms and raptor legs?
We need a revival in this genre. It is one of my favorites, but my passion for it is waning. The lack of real innovation is crippling this genre. Bethesda did some work with this in their Elder Scrolls series, adding Argonians (lizard people) and Kahjit (cat people) but even those are pretty mundane. How can a genre titled "fantasy," which is supposed to be all that we can imagine and more, be stuck in the same repeating ideas. There should be unlimited opportunities in this genre. Magic could be used to explain countless types of characters, races, and abilities. Terry Pratchett's series Discworld has an amazingly rich world that is unique and engaging, with more than just your standard characters. Yet he seems like the only one (that I have come across) who pushes these traditionally accepted boundaries. We need to drop the notion that fantasy is limited to elves and dwarves, and reach out for those hidden worlds that could change fantasy for the better.
Seriously though, I'm sick of the female heroes wearing the equivalent of on tin can's worth of armor.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Soupmon Digivolve
You might remember back in December when I wrote about the cartoons I grew up with and how today's cartoons suck. I was recently reminded of this when I plugged back into the Digital World in an old favorite cartoon of mine, Digimon. Remember this show? Eight kids and their unique monster counter parts having to save the real world and its digital counterpart from varying types of super hyped bad guys? Each episode saw them meeting different monsters and unlocking new powers. This was a great show, fun and engaging, with characters that I still love to this day (T.K. is my favorite, nice to see him so central in the second season). Even with the wild setting, wacky antics, and rather repetitive problems, Digimon was fun, and as I look back now, there is a little more I get from it.
This show had some profound messages about life.
So here's the common theme in the first season. Each kid is given a crest representing the trait that best represents them. These are courage, friendship, love, sincerity, reliability, knowledge, hope, and light. Given that the last one is kind of a stretch, but the others are essential qualities of life. Each of the "Digi-Destined" has a few episodes dealing with how they best fit their specific crest. Tai learns about being courageous, but not stupid, Matt learns about relying on others, Sora learns about her mother's love , and so on and so on. Each episode plays out in a way that makes the problems the characters face easily identifiable. Matt is bummed over his parent's divorce and not having to take care of T.K. Izzy is dealing with being adopted. Mimi is dealing with real responsibility.
Despite its fantasy wrapping paper, this series showed kids some real struggles that they might face as they grew older. And they also offered solutions. They may seem cheesy (and they are) but the message they offer is dead on. They are told things like, don't rely on yourself, don't be reckless, keep on working for what you believe in, never doubt the need for responsibility, and more. Kids have powerful imaginations, and they think about these worlds that they see. I know that as a kid I thought about what I would be like as a "Digi-Destined" and what my crest would be (will power). I would put myself into the world and it would enrich the experience for me. I can't say that I consciously thought about these life lessons and how they applied, but they were still a part of the world that I wanted to be a part of.
While not so life altering, there are other elements in the show that are very surprising. Characters like Angemon, Myotismon, Garudamon, Zudamon, and many more are inspired by religion and myth from around the globe. This is an excellent example of tangential learning. I was always interested in these characters and when I was able to look them up, I found their roots and was fascinated by the stories of what inspired them. My love for folk lore and myth has been partly inspired by this show, I believe. A show like this that takes from so many cultures is a great way to expose kids to new ideas and origins of beliefs in an accessible way. No one is forcing any of them to pursue knowledge, but it is opening the door for them.
I hope that it doesn't sound like I'm running off of nostalgia. Digimon was corny and poorly written, with some of the most cliche dialog I've heard in a while. It is not, by any practical definition, good. Still, it offers kids a lot of opportunities to learn and grow. Cartoons these days just don't offer the same kind of chance. They are flashy and entertaining but wholly insubstantial. How much thought really goes into these shows? You might think it isn't not be fair to compare an older Japanese anime with a modern American cartoon, but this is an example of how cartoons can be great. We grew up with this in America; it is just as much a part of our lives as it is to anyone in Japan. We benefited from it, so why can't later generations. There was a lot of care that went into this show, and subsequent seasons. The fun was balanced with the creative. We just don't see that anymore. I would support the bringing back of these kinds of intelligent shows to kids. I would love to be able to watch something with my son or daughter someday down the line and see that they aren't just distracted for half an hour, but that they are investing in it and being invested in as well.
I do have to admit, some of the digimon were really trippy. Nanimon? That's weird.
Just something to chew on.
This show had some profound messages about life.
So here's the common theme in the first season. Each kid is given a crest representing the trait that best represents them. These are courage, friendship, love, sincerity, reliability, knowledge, hope, and light. Given that the last one is kind of a stretch, but the others are essential qualities of life. Each of the "Digi-Destined" has a few episodes dealing with how they best fit their specific crest. Tai learns about being courageous, but not stupid, Matt learns about relying on others, Sora learns about her mother's love , and so on and so on. Each episode plays out in a way that makes the problems the characters face easily identifiable. Matt is bummed over his parent's divorce and not having to take care of T.K. Izzy is dealing with being adopted. Mimi is dealing with real responsibility.
Despite its fantasy wrapping paper, this series showed kids some real struggles that they might face as they grew older. And they also offered solutions. They may seem cheesy (and they are) but the message they offer is dead on. They are told things like, don't rely on yourself, don't be reckless, keep on working for what you believe in, never doubt the need for responsibility, and more. Kids have powerful imaginations, and they think about these worlds that they see. I know that as a kid I thought about what I would be like as a "Digi-Destined" and what my crest would be (will power). I would put myself into the world and it would enrich the experience for me. I can't say that I consciously thought about these life lessons and how they applied, but they were still a part of the world that I wanted to be a part of.
While not so life altering, there are other elements in the show that are very surprising. Characters like Angemon, Myotismon, Garudamon, Zudamon, and many more are inspired by religion and myth from around the globe. This is an excellent example of tangential learning. I was always interested in these characters and when I was able to look them up, I found their roots and was fascinated by the stories of what inspired them. My love for folk lore and myth has been partly inspired by this show, I believe. A show like this that takes from so many cultures is a great way to expose kids to new ideas and origins of beliefs in an accessible way. No one is forcing any of them to pursue knowledge, but it is opening the door for them.
I hope that it doesn't sound like I'm running off of nostalgia. Digimon was corny and poorly written, with some of the most cliche dialog I've heard in a while. It is not, by any practical definition, good. Still, it offers kids a lot of opportunities to learn and grow. Cartoons these days just don't offer the same kind of chance. They are flashy and entertaining but wholly insubstantial. How much thought really goes into these shows? You might think it isn't not be fair to compare an older Japanese anime with a modern American cartoon, but this is an example of how cartoons can be great. We grew up with this in America; it is just as much a part of our lives as it is to anyone in Japan. We benefited from it, so why can't later generations. There was a lot of care that went into this show, and subsequent seasons. The fun was balanced with the creative. We just don't see that anymore. I would support the bringing back of these kinds of intelligent shows to kids. I would love to be able to watch something with my son or daughter someday down the line and see that they aren't just distracted for half an hour, but that they are investing in it and being invested in as well.
I do have to admit, some of the digimon were really trippy. Nanimon? That's weird.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Funny Doesn't Equal Good
I'm a big fan of web comics. Weekly updated snippets from the on going stories are a good method in story telling, with some advantages to the monthly updates you might get from big name publishers like DC. It makes it easier to follow various characters in a wide range of situations. I follow something like fifteen different comics through the weeks, maybe more, and I can stay engaged with the story and characters despite the differences in genres and styles. My browsing of web comics has shown me a somewhat bothersome trait, and that is what I want to discuss today.
Funny characters and dialog do not necessarily mean deep or interesting characters.
I recently was introduced to the web comic Questionable Content. It is basically the story of the cast living life, though they encounter a broad range of strange and outlandish situations that are far from everyday life, (on the time of writing this, three of the characters are on a space station for one of the character's father's birthdays). This is a very well-written comic with witty dialogue and interesting plot twists. Yet, despite solid writing, it falls a little flat for me, and the reason for this is because of the characters. This comic has run for over 2000 panels, something like nine years. In a three day span, I read the entirety of it (a great use of time I know). And through out, I saw the art style change, the dialogue becoming stronger, and new characters added to the mix, but the characters themselves were fairly static. They go through a number of similar situations in the series, and each time they seem to react the same, either with passiveness, aggression, aloofness, or any other trait that seems to be their single point. You don't see a lot of growth from them. Sure they accomplish things in regards to work or relationships, but we see these fall apart because their basic issues are not addressed. And the worst part of it is, each of the characters see what their problem is, and some even go to therapy for it, to try and change, but it doesn't seem to do any good for most of them. Thank goodness for Hannelore, the OCD. Despite having what might be the most "crippling" flaw, we get to see her grow in leaps and bounds in a very refreshing way.
Along with that lack of real growth is the cast growth. These two seem inversely related. As the characters don't grow, the cast does. They started with a solid cast of three and added a few more in, but now there is probably some twelve characters or more, and each of them has their own connections and hobbies to keep track of. This starts to get confusing when you try to keep track of everyones' work life, romantic endeavors, as well as back stories and prior interactions. Some time a character will return after months of absence and it is easy to forget who they were in the first place, let alone what they're doing now. It seems like the author just adds another character if they have run out of ideas as to what to do with the current cast.
Again, this doesn't mean that Questionable Content is a bad comic, it just doesn't reach it's full potential. A web comic that has both character growth and wit is Between Failures. I have followed this comic for a while now, and it never ceases to get me engaged. Between Failures starts with a tight cast. There are six main characters, and about five secondary characters. These characters all have interesting personalities and quirks that make them interesting and believable. Insecurities and fears, as well as goals and ambitions, fit with the characters and you can see how they deal with them in good and bad ways. Ed is a short man with a short temper and he knows it is his Achilles heel. We see him messing up with this issue and trying to overcome it. Each character has growth and depth. The writing is just as witty as in Questionable Content, but you can feel the underlying affection that the friends have for each other. Even though you meet with them when they are already established friends, it is easy to see how they compliment each other and why their friendships are strong. There is an unwritten history between them that doesn't need to be told, the reader just knows that they are genuine.
A good story is fine, but the reader can get frustrated when the characters keep applying the same methods to the same situations and never learning. Part of the draw for web comics should be that you can trace the character's growth and look back and see how what happened in past clips affects what they are doing now. The same excuses and fears turn into whining. Characters need to be able to be witty as well as human. Humans do learn from their mistakes. We might be stupid, but even we can figure out how to be better. I would like to see Questionable Content really give their characters strength and greater depth. If their characters really started to grow and mature, I think Questionable Content could be one of the best on the web.
Except for Goblins, that guy is awesome.
Just something to chew on.
Funny characters and dialog do not necessarily mean deep or interesting characters.
I recently was introduced to the web comic Questionable Content. It is basically the story of the cast living life, though they encounter a broad range of strange and outlandish situations that are far from everyday life, (on the time of writing this, three of the characters are on a space station for one of the character's father's birthdays). This is a very well-written comic with witty dialogue and interesting plot twists. Yet, despite solid writing, it falls a little flat for me, and the reason for this is because of the characters. This comic has run for over 2000 panels, something like nine years. In a three day span, I read the entirety of it (a great use of time I know). And through out, I saw the art style change, the dialogue becoming stronger, and new characters added to the mix, but the characters themselves were fairly static. They go through a number of similar situations in the series, and each time they seem to react the same, either with passiveness, aggression, aloofness, or any other trait that seems to be their single point. You don't see a lot of growth from them. Sure they accomplish things in regards to work or relationships, but we see these fall apart because their basic issues are not addressed. And the worst part of it is, each of the characters see what their problem is, and some even go to therapy for it, to try and change, but it doesn't seem to do any good for most of them. Thank goodness for Hannelore, the OCD. Despite having what might be the most "crippling" flaw, we get to see her grow in leaps and bounds in a very refreshing way.
Along with that lack of real growth is the cast growth. These two seem inversely related. As the characters don't grow, the cast does. They started with a solid cast of three and added a few more in, but now there is probably some twelve characters or more, and each of them has their own connections and hobbies to keep track of. This starts to get confusing when you try to keep track of everyones' work life, romantic endeavors, as well as back stories and prior interactions. Some time a character will return after months of absence and it is easy to forget who they were in the first place, let alone what they're doing now. It seems like the author just adds another character if they have run out of ideas as to what to do with the current cast.
Again, this doesn't mean that Questionable Content is a bad comic, it just doesn't reach it's full potential. A web comic that has both character growth and wit is Between Failures. I have followed this comic for a while now, and it never ceases to get me engaged. Between Failures starts with a tight cast. There are six main characters, and about five secondary characters. These characters all have interesting personalities and quirks that make them interesting and believable. Insecurities and fears, as well as goals and ambitions, fit with the characters and you can see how they deal with them in good and bad ways. Ed is a short man with a short temper and he knows it is his Achilles heel. We see him messing up with this issue and trying to overcome it. Each character has growth and depth. The writing is just as witty as in Questionable Content, but you can feel the underlying affection that the friends have for each other. Even though you meet with them when they are already established friends, it is easy to see how they compliment each other and why their friendships are strong. There is an unwritten history between them that doesn't need to be told, the reader just knows that they are genuine.
A good story is fine, but the reader can get frustrated when the characters keep applying the same methods to the same situations and never learning. Part of the draw for web comics should be that you can trace the character's growth and look back and see how what happened in past clips affects what they are doing now. The same excuses and fears turn into whining. Characters need to be able to be witty as well as human. Humans do learn from their mistakes. We might be stupid, but even we can figure out how to be better. I would like to see Questionable Content really give their characters strength and greater depth. If their characters really started to grow and mature, I think Questionable Content could be one of the best on the web.
Except for Goblins, that guy is awesome.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Massive Action Fiasco
Last week I wrote about games on their appropriate counsels. That got me thinking about one game from the PS3. The game is M.A.G. (Massive Action Game). It is a FPS by Zipper Interactive, the guys behind SOCOM. Its main draw was that it allowed for over 200 players to be in-game at one time. While an awesome idea, and the game was pretty solid technically, M.A.G. never really took off in popularity. While a bit of a flop MAG did a few things right, with one big one standing out.
M.A.G. made you feel like a part of the group.
I know I've been on a kind of alone/acceptance kick for a while, but this time it's far less touchy-feely. M.A.G. placed the player in one of three private military corporations (PMC for the sake of laziness). Each PMC had it's own back story, voice overs, player voices, and load out look. One looked more modern military, one looked more advanced/near future, and the other was more homemade/ guerrilla war style. Through the style choices, players could identify with what was their in regards to buildings and vehicles, as well as who was on their team. Every area could easily be identified as a certain organization's territory.
Another area that M.A.G. did well in was player community. Since there were only three choices of teams to play on, and you were basically stuck on that team until you decided to delete a profile, the team goals were always more important. There were four positions in game. The basic was the soldier, the average player. Above him was a squad leader who were in charge of six to eight soldiers.; these were the players who had played longer and leveled a good deal. Above them was the platoon leader, in charge of four squads. Then at the top was the regiment commander, who was the head of the entire group. Each leader was able to use different perks and special commands, as well as set main objectives.
Along with this player set-up was the goals of the match. There were three basic map styles, either capture the points, capture the vehicle, or full-blown invasion. Each group was sent to a different section of the map, with squad leaders coordinating with platoon leaders to pick the most important objectives. The squad leader would set up fargo objectives which would be rewarded with more experience points. It was to each team member's benefit to follow their squad leaders orders.
Combining these two game play choices built up a team mentality. Players followed the chain of command and relied on each other for success. Players couldn't heal themselves and needed a partner to help them get back in the action. Every player had their own play style that they brought to the match. Some people might be tank busters, others hung back and picked people off with snipers, some were the run and gun assault types, and others (like me) picked up support with repair, healing, and distractions. Each play style was rewarded, but no one style was clearly better than the other in regards to earning xp or kills. There was the added choice of being able to have two other player load outs that you could switch to depending on the situation.
M.A.G. was an experiment in player communities and mass gaming. I believe that the reason it failed was mostly because of the choice of putting it on the home counsel instead of PC. Besides the idea that FPS games work better with a mouse, there is also the easy of communication. PS3 mikes are expensive and rarely used. On the other hand, most computers these days have them built in. It makes it easier to communicate and organize teams. Despite this, M.A.G. was a good try and an admirable experiment. If anything, it shows that some companies are willing to try new ideas. I hope to see projects like this later on in the industry, games that focus on the player community as much as a good experience. Red-5's upcoming Firefall might be a great example of this, we'll see.
Also, they really need a way to cut down the fricking long load times.
Just something to chew on.
M.A.G. made you feel like a part of the group.
I know I've been on a kind of alone/acceptance kick for a while, but this time it's far less touchy-feely. M.A.G. placed the player in one of three private military corporations (PMC for the sake of laziness). Each PMC had it's own back story, voice overs, player voices, and load out look. One looked more modern military, one looked more advanced/near future, and the other was more homemade/ guerrilla war style. Through the style choices, players could identify with what was their in regards to buildings and vehicles, as well as who was on their team. Every area could easily be identified as a certain organization's territory.
Another area that M.A.G. did well in was player community. Since there were only three choices of teams to play on, and you were basically stuck on that team until you decided to delete a profile, the team goals were always more important. There were four positions in game. The basic was the soldier, the average player. Above him was a squad leader who were in charge of six to eight soldiers.; these were the players who had played longer and leveled a good deal. Above them was the platoon leader, in charge of four squads. Then at the top was the regiment commander, who was the head of the entire group. Each leader was able to use different perks and special commands, as well as set main objectives.
Along with this player set-up was the goals of the match. There were three basic map styles, either capture the points, capture the vehicle, or full-blown invasion. Each group was sent to a different section of the map, with squad leaders coordinating with platoon leaders to pick the most important objectives. The squad leader would set up fargo objectives which would be rewarded with more experience points. It was to each team member's benefit to follow their squad leaders orders.
Combining these two game play choices built up a team mentality. Players followed the chain of command and relied on each other for success. Players couldn't heal themselves and needed a partner to help them get back in the action. Every player had their own play style that they brought to the match. Some people might be tank busters, others hung back and picked people off with snipers, some were the run and gun assault types, and others (like me) picked up support with repair, healing, and distractions. Each play style was rewarded, but no one style was clearly better than the other in regards to earning xp or kills. There was the added choice of being able to have two other player load outs that you could switch to depending on the situation.
M.A.G. was an experiment in player communities and mass gaming. I believe that the reason it failed was mostly because of the choice of putting it on the home counsel instead of PC. Besides the idea that FPS games work better with a mouse, there is also the easy of communication. PS3 mikes are expensive and rarely used. On the other hand, most computers these days have them built in. It makes it easier to communicate and organize teams. Despite this, M.A.G. was a good try and an admirable experiment. If anything, it shows that some companies are willing to try new ideas. I hope to see projects like this later on in the industry, games that focus on the player community as much as a good experience. Red-5's upcoming Firefall might be a great example of this, we'll see.
Also, they really need a way to cut down the fricking long load times.
Just something to chew on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)