Microsoft Should Make a TV, Origin Will Just Hurt PC Gaming

Two things I want to talk about, and I feel like right now is the perfect time to bring them up. First off, Microsoft needs to pull an Apple and take advantage of the tech they have right now and make a TV. And not just any TV, but one that will finally bring together all the devices hooked up to a TV in one. Details on that and why Origin is going to just make PC gaming more complicated after the jump (I promise these topics are related).

Microsoft is, as they often are, at a very important crossroads. And like every other situation they've been in, they are likely going to drop the ball and lose a chance at dominating a very important market: TV.

Now, Microsoft already has two PERFECT assets to enter this market: The XBox 360 (and especially the Kinect) and Windows 8. Now, let me explain. The Kinect has allowed for people to control their 360s using gestures, and Windows 8 is being built for touch interfaces. These two combined would make for a beautiful TV experience. On top of that, the the Media Center interface for Windows 8 is going to have integration with XBox Live (as seen here). Now, what I am getting at is, if XBox is going to stay relevant in a world where consoles are shifting away from mere gaming devices, they have to make the product nobody is expecting, but everyone will want when they see it. To me, that product is the XBOX TV.

The XBOX TV would be a TV with PC hardware (or something along those lines) built into it. Think along the lines of a large iMac, or a really powerful Google TV. But the advantage will be that it will be running Windows 8, with a very, very powerful Media Center interface that integrates with XBox Live. The TV will also have a Kinect built in, as well as a XBox 360 controller adapter (all internal, no hassle or hookups needed). So, out of the box you can turn it on and control it with the Kinect, or turn on a 360 controller and control it with that. This also allows for an extensive backlog of PC games that can be installed and played, and Microsoft should allow for games to be selected and played right from the media center menus. Special icons in the interface would indicate whether the games support 360 controller, kinect, or keyboard and mouse (as maintained on a database) and the service would allow games from Steam and other providers to be added to the Media Center interface.

The version of Windows 8 for the XBox TV will need to be built specifically for these purposes, so the user doesn't feel bogged down with setting things up and having to muck around with preferences. Things will need to be anticipated, but with the tools Microsoft already has, I don't think that is at all unreasonable. Add on top of that the ability to hook up the internal Kinect to an existing XBox 360, a special option to go to a classic Windows interface and install any Windows compatible software (but keep this mostly hidden from most users), keep it around the $1500 - $2000 price point, and I think they would have a formula for really bringing together several industries, reviving PC gaming, and allowing for some real PC hardware optimization.

I know this would come with some issues, such as not really being able to upgrade your hardware (though a panel you could open up to swap out a standard video card, RAM, or HDD would change this), and it would be a move away from a Desktop, but I think a change like this is necessary. Think of the potential of having all the entertainment devices you currently use in your living room, consolidated to one device, instead of the splintered mess that most of us deal with right now.

On the topic of splintering, though, part of the reason why this will never happen (at least with the gaming emphasis) is because of services like Steam or Origin. These things make it much harder for Microsoft to consolidate the user experience, because there are way too many places people can get their games, and way too many services that would need to be running to make sure those games are accessible. Perhaps allowing the user to choose which services they will want would alleviate this, all through a Media Center interface, but the problem remains.

Steam really put forth a standard for digital distribution for games, but unfortunately Valve is like an island in the world of Tech. It's a game developer that happened to make a good distribution platform for games. If they were to make an agreement with Microsoft, though, one that would allow their service to better integrate with Windows 8, they would have a real presence as the go-to company in digital distribution. But with services like Origin entering the game, with EA at its front, the whole situation has changed. Publisher specific distribution platforms are going to fragment the scene too much, and leave gamers with too much to have to setup. Blizzard has battle.net, EA has Origin, there are things like GoG and others, and that creates a HUGE issue for the XBox TV idea. Too much configuration makes for a very difficult user experience, and lack of control does as well. And the PC scene is hurting because it has no central point of control.

Ultimately, though, no one but Microsoft could take the wheel of the PC gaming scene and work to make it more unified. And they probably would have done it by now, had they not been sidetracked by the original XBox and the 360. That's why I think they need to bring those two ideas together and create a platform that finally marries their XBox branch to their PC gaming base. And when you think about how Windows already has the ability to support everything from Netflix to Hulu to Amazon on demand to iTunes to Amazon MP3 to... okay, so you get the point. The PC-powered XBox TV would be a great product.

Read more!

On The Topics of Sexism and Context

There has been a lot of talk lately about sexism in gaming, and how gaming communities and even the developers of the games themselves have created a very hostile environment for female gamers. And you know what? My eyes have been opened, and I admit, I am a bit embarassed with the scene I have finally come to see.

Frankly, it's kind of sad that it took me so long to really wake up to the issue, and that someone had to point it out so clearly for that to happen. And the reality is that the gaming community, in general, has left little room for women to take part. I mean, I have always been against discrimination of any kind in the communities I have taken part of over the years. I have even had to take action against it during the brief times I have administered forums, developed content for communities, and ran servers for gaming. While I felt I was helping maintain a safe environment for everyone, I now realize my efforts were in vain because the games being played were sexist to begin with.

And really, the idea that several of the games I've played have had very sexist content in them has been at the edge of my consciousness for years, but these thoughts never formed into a solid realization until now. In fact, after reading several articles of late (namely here, here, here, here, here, and even here) I finally fully realized how hostile an environment the gaming scene really is. I thought to myself, "Wow, certainly some of the games I play aren't sexist... Like, perhaps, Final Fantasy!" I felt somewhat relieved in recalling how I showed Final Fantasy IX to my sister and how she loved it, how my wife loves playing Final Fantasy, and how I have always seen it as a level-headed series. That was immediately dashed, though, as I thought of a few characters whose design and roles in the games were anything but flattering towards women. And so I realized the problem goes far deeper than I was actively aware of.

Now, I am writing this mostly to other guys out there in hope that more of us will stop propagating the hostility towards women. Please, please don't be the guy who reads what I am saying here and goes, "BUT GUYS ARE ALSO OBJECTIFIED IN GAMING TOO!" and "WOMEN SHOULD STOP WHINING!" or "I LIKE BOOBS IN GAMES BECAUSE THEY ARE FUN!" These opinions are just knee-jerk justifications and attempts to ignore the issue, and that is simply not okay. We need to get past that point. Electronic Games are so new and have evolved so much in recent years that we are still coping with the growing pains, but we need to stop just accepting that "sex sells" and allow the medium to mature.

Alright, good, now that's over. I've challenged everyone to open their minds, and that's all I'm going to say in regards to that. From here on, I'm going to talk about how I think things need to change. I don't pretend to know the solutions to everything, but let me humbly suggest what I think might help.

As games have progressed, especially in relation to technology, the ability to represent the worlds gaming takes place in has really exploded. Environment, narrative, immersion, all of these things and others have benefited from the technological advances of the hardware our games run on. These advances, though, are not without pitfalls. As the infamous NYU Street Fighter Panel recently illustrated, much of the sexism in games is possible these days because of the tech available in game development.

So, let me suggest that part of our problem is that certain aspects of our ever changing game industry have outpaced others. While we can render much more realistic characters, with so many more details, these details are often blatantly shown without personality or context. We are far too often presented with "sexy" views of women before we know anything else about them, as Latoya Peterson pointed out. So does that mean that we have to get rid of all the sexiness in games?

Some of the more over the top stuff will simply have to go, but it doesn't mean that these scenes will all disappear. But we will, at the very least, need to tone it down, and change the order of operations. Instant gratification is sometimes important in games, but too often it can get in the way of tasteful presentation. ESPECIALLY when dealing with characters. It's not acceptable to have games march characters out and, before we learn a single thing about them, present their near-naked bodies. That makes playing the game with any sensible group of people very awkward, and should make all of us a little uncomfortable, really.

Allow me to present you with two examples of how gaming has, in my opinion, done a good job avoiding the pitfalls of sexism:

The first has to do with Final Fantasy 6. The main character in that game, Terra, was presented as a lost soul hoping to find her heritage, and this made it very easy to relate to her and feel for her in the struggles she would pass through during the game. We didn't have to endure humiliating shots of her, scantily clad in rags in her role as a slave of the empire. Her first on-screen appearance wasn't one that tried to snag the attention of teenage boys through sex appeal. The female characters in this game were presented respectfully and their backstories are learned through the gameplay, allowing the player to relate to them, instead of having their only link to them be riddled with lust.

The second one is tainted, I know, but I think it's still a valid illustration. Metroid. The NES title really, really blew people away when they finally learned Samus was a woman. Of course, it didn't really help that she was in a bathing suit, and that you could play through the game in that bathing suit using a cheat, but my point is that you didn't know she was a woman until you had really come to know the character by playing through the game (as much as Metroid really could). There was context to that encounter, and so the reveal was a fun surprise that added depth to the avatar, instead of sexualizing her.

Now, I know both examples are from times when technology didn't allow for a lot of the issues that modern video games struggle with, but it just goes to show that "eye candy" isn't the only thing that should be boosted as consoles and PCs improve. As the Metroid example illustrates, it doesn't take much more than the bond of player and avatar, forged through struggling through obstacles and challenges, for there to be context for more personal, and even intimate, details of a character to be revealed. And that's the thing that too many games ignore, and the flesh is exposed right off the bat.

Ultimately, when making design choices, the simple thought of "Some people playing my games won't be male!" will help a lot to change. Games will still be fun without the petty visual stimulation, because the main emphasis will likely remain with gameplay no matter what approach is taken. Once the design emphasis of the women in games moves away from sexuality, the communities that have formed around gaming will slowly change, allowing for a stronger base of respect between all players, regardless of who they are.

Thank you Leigh, Nicole, Latoya, and all the others who have stood up and pointed out the problems games have with sexism. The time to change has arrived, and I think that all the buzz about sexism is a sign of this.

Read more!

MMORPG Formula Running Dry

I'm writing this post up knowing that its content will be somewhat controversial. I just cannot help but wonder why more people aren't bothered by the repeated formula involved in MMORPGs. I suppose that part of my frustration is that I feel like the MMO genre is evolving much slower than any other genre I can recall, but perhaps I am just recalling things incorrectly. At any rate, I have some thoughts in the way of MMOs.

Let's start light and talk about quests. It's funny, because I've always played RPGs, and there was actually a time in my life where I didn't consider "Go kill x number of monsters" as a common quest line. But it just blows me away how many MMORPGs open with that exact quest. A certain number of monsters need to die, or a certain number of flowers need collecting, something along those lines. The main reason for this is motivation in design. When a game is built around a story, you likely aren't going to waste time having the player gather things or count monsters they've killed so they can get their starting gear. There is motivation to be doing other things! The MMO has two main problems when it comes to starting quests: With so many players, not everyone can truly be the hero, and with a vast, never-ending world, it is very difficult to push a final goal. Without a final goal, and with thousands (if not millions) of characters that aren't really main characters in any way, you have a lot of people going about doing silly things.

Narrative is an interesting thing in games. Sometimes you simply don't want it, and sometimes you hate the fact that a game's narrative falls short. And I don't think this is necessarily linked to genre, but it is certainly hard to push for a game that is normally considered heavy in the way of storyline when you have no story to tell. But when it comes to an MMO, there is simply not enough story to go around, no matter how much time the dev team pours into creating a detailed world. In part, this is why I think RP servers exist at all. People who really get into role playing their characters in MMOs are trying to fill this lack in narrative by generating their own. It is admittedly a limited group of people who play seriously on RP servers in MMORPGs, but all the same, this group exists and the fact that is does MEANS something.

When I was about ten years old I discovered MUDs for the first time. I immediately fell in love with the concept, despite the fact that MUDs were already starting to be considered dated. With everything text-based, and with some very dynamic options of communicating to the people around you what you were doing, it really felt like I was living the life of another person in a very real place. My MUD experience was cut short, and when I finally revisited the world of MUDs more than ten years later, I found things very different. People were playing MUDs just for hack and slash, and there was very little attempt at actually playing out the roles of the characters people were playing. It left me a bit discouraged, but I decided to really push to see if I could find something the replicated that old feeling.

After much research I finally discovered RPI MUDs. RPI stands for "Role-Play Intensive", and much of the design mechanics revolve around motivating players to actually play their characters as people who have motivations, emotion, even relationships. RPIs seemed to come about due to the fact that there was a rift in MUDs during the mid and late 90s. Some people just wanted to casually go about fighting monsters and maybe partying up to take on difficult challenges and nothing more, while others wanted to mix in role playing, much as was common in MUDs of the past. While these two groups had always existed, with the advent of action RPGs and graphical MMORPGs, MUDs found a whole new breed of player joining, and there became a need for separation. While RPI is a relatively extreme result of this schism, it is a very interesting one. A very rare one. One that suffers from extreme splintering and a very limited player base. But the fact that it exists at all is very indicative of something: People crave story, especially one they can be involved in.

With a good, single-player RPG, the story is easy enough to tell. The developers have a great deal of control over what a player will experience, and they don't have to complete for developer time, because the design is meant for only one person. The narrative, despite how dynamic it is, is much closer to traditional storytelling. In film, for example, you experience exactly what the director wants you to experience, especially when a lot of skilled people are involved in the production. Single-player gaming can be a lot like this, should the developers choose. But imagine, for a moment, a film that allowed for people to wander around the settings without constraint, without need to focus on the "main characters" or the major events that received the most time and dedication from the people behind it. Experiences would be very mixed, and it would likely be nothing more than an interesting social experiment.

But let us be honest. As much as many people like to see games as art, or a strong platform for storytelling, games always come down to gameplay. This is ultimately why games are so hard for some to deal with. Games require a certain set of skill and interest, and that is a very difficult hurdle for a lot of people to get over. Unless, of course, you make the hurdle smaller.

What started out as design decisions due to technical limitations has evolved into a surprisingly refined form of casual gameplay. MMORPGs have a simple point-and-click combat norm, where much of the process is automated in an auto-attack, with the rest of the player's skills capable of being used at will. Targets are always highlighted and locked in, area effects are simple, and the whole process uses surprisingly little data transfer, which allows for good server response even in poor internet connection situations. But there is a reason for this. Back before the days of "braodband" internet, the information sent between a client and a server needed to be kept at a minimum to allow for dial up connections to keep up with the action. MUDs were easy to do this with, and much of the practices from MUDs were used in Online RPG games with graphical interfaces. In fact, it can be argued that the early Graphical Online RPGs were simply graphical interfaces for the hack and slash aspect of MUDs and other games like them (and games that came before them) at the time, with the same routines and functions used, but with the parameters necessary to use them now provided through graphical interactions instead of the command line.

And so, here we are, more than 25 years after the first commercially avaiable online RPG games, and the combat systems have evolved very little. And I don't mean in terms of what appears on screen, but how a lot of the data is handled, and what kinds of calculations are occurring. Transitions to more dynamic systems have been attempted, but are usually heavily instanced and deliver inferior experiences to First Person Shooters, which have come a long way in the area of multiplayer experiences. Computer hardware and internet connections have improved enough, though, that some of these ideas need to start being developed by more companies, in my opinion (and in some cases have been, such as TERA). The genre is suffering from degredation with old norms.

So, in my opinion, the MMO genre needs to incorporate more role-play into design, or far better combat systems. It is too ambitious at this point to attempt both, but either of them will present a huge enhancement to the player experience. Unfortunately, the reason that MMOs have become stuck is because of the player-base, which is likely content with the old system. Here's hoping things change soon.

Read more!

State of the PC

It seems like everyone is going cross-platform these days. Development tools are gearing in that direction, and the assets that games use in consoles and on the PC are so similar that cross-platform has become easier than ever. For years now, the push for console cross-platform titles and the declining status of the PC as a gaming platform, it has oft been said that PC gaming is dying. I beg to differ, and instead offer this: PC Gaming is simply going back to its roots.

Kotaku's Brian Crecente recently wrote on the throes of PC Gaming. He makes some very valid points and left me wondering whether there is much future in PC gaming. What really hit home were Michael Morhaime's comments, that basically all PC Gaming has left are World of Warcraft and Facebook games.

Now, Morhaime's comments might not have been meant to be so... dismal, but let's face it. Blizzard is moving away from the PC after being dedicated to it since the mid 90's. Diablo III is likely going to suffer a bit of a delay because it is going to be ported to consoles (which is why I'm betting it doesn't come out in 2011). But that's just a sign of everything coming around full-circle. So many people forget that Blizzard had some of its earliest success with titles like Blackthorn, The Lost Vikings, and Rock N' Roll Racing, which were all console titles. But what does that mean?

When Blizzard moved to the PC platform, the PC had really blossomed as a platform that had spawned hugely successful game studios, largely due to how open Windows was for developers to make their software. It was a time of Indie startups, long before the term had ever been applied to the world of gaming, at least widely. Lucas Arts was creating original IPs, id Software had turned several developers into virtual rock stars, game modding was slowly starting to gain momentum (yay for custom levels!), and anyone with a good idea and the right skills could make a game, more or less causing shareware to become the distribution platform of choice (imagine if shareware were still popular?!).

The amazing part of PC gaming in the early nineties is how much it really pushed gaming and changed it for the best. The Super Nintendo Entertainment System was at the top of the gaming world, and its success seemed to almost squelch true innovation in its games. Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite games of all time are for the SNES, but they largely fell into the archetypes that had been defined in the days of the NES, with most of them being direct sequels that simply improved upon the game mechanics and went beyond the limitations of the 8-bit era. PC games, on the other hand, were pushing for better graphics, new challenges, and were really seeking out new ways tell the stories of virtual existence.

When it comes to the whole PC vs Consoles debate, you'll be pretty hard pressed to argue that consoles provide environments as rich for innovation as the PC does. And that's basically what PC gaming has been all along. An arena for change, for pushing the envelope, and for creation. Sometimes PC gaming is seen as a great platform for the consumer, but only the hardcore gamers will keep updating their systems to keep up with the pace. Companies who want longevity will always go to the consoles (and likely services like OnLive) because of how much easier it is for most families to justify the cost.

PC Gaming is not dying, it is just returning to where it once was. Innovation will always find its home on the PC, and the next wave of blossoming companies, big players, and huge ideas are already present on the PC platform, ready to prove yet again the PC gaming will never truly die.

Read more!

Beat Netflix's 30 day limit, free

A lot of people have been bothered by Netflix no longer getting new DVD and Blu-Ray releases until a month after they've been on shelves at stores and other select platforms and locations. I'm not a huge fan of picking up the newest releases, but every now and then something comes out that I wish I could pick up (*cough* Inception *cough*). Well, fortunately, there is a great solution to taking care of this, without having to spend anything.

First off, my wife recently decided to dive back into her love of reading, and that's been a great thing for our home. We've all started to read more, and this has naturally brought us to the library. The funny thing is, we've noticed that the library has had a pretty good selection of movies available. While our local library doesn't carry Blu-Ray (and I would guess that most do not), it has been amazing to me how on top of new release DVDs the place is. For example, Inception just came out yesterday, and the library already has several copies available for check-out. For free! I know that libraries are going to be very different from location to location, but it would definitely be worth checking to see how your library is and taking advantage of this to subsidize your Netflix queue.

While I know that Netflix is pushing to eventually move things to streaming movies (and who can blame them, it costs them much less!), it is going to be a while before that transition is done with its growing pains. For me, my library probably won't replace my desire to have physical discs from Netflix, but some out there may see this as a great way to drop to the streaming-only plan that is offered. Either way, if you're dying to get your hands on a new release, and you're cool with getting the DVD, the library is probably the cheapest place to look!

Now, this solution is not without its problems. Libraries are going to have a limited number of copies available, and waiting lists may make you wait a whole month anyways if you wait to reserve a copy. Fortunately, most libraries these days have sites you can reserve copies on, making the process very easy. Basically, you go online, reserve your copy, then pick it up once they put it on hold for you. In some libraries the check-out system is even automated, you just need your library card and you check out at a kiosk. Even so, you may need to throw a reminder on your favorite to-do list/calendar software to make sure you get your request for a new movie the day it comes out (or the soonest you can reserve it) to make sure you don't have to wait too long.

Hopefully you live in an area with a Library that allows for these kinds of features, especially if this is the kind of thing you'd love to take advantage of! Plus, if you go to the library, at least you don't have to give any more money to Blockbuster. It's time to just let those guys die in peace.

Read more!

Mother 2 Playthrough

So, since taking an introductory Japanese course last year, I've been dying to play through Mother 2 in Japanese. The only reason this is going to be at all possible is the fact that Mother 2's text is almost completely made up of kana characters (further details here under Coffee Time. As I know next to no Japanese, the process has been a little slow...

With a newly repaired Super Famicom-ready SNES and a copy of Mother 2, I've been able to start playing the game by sounding out the characters and then looking up the meaning of the words online. While this is an incredibly slow process, I'm using this as an opportunity to improve my ability to read kana. I'm also hoping that, at some point, I'll gain a better understanding for why the original Japanese text is considered to be so heart-felt and genuine. And who knows? Maybe this will fuel my desire to actually learn some conversational Japanese.

As I mentioned, progress has been slow. It took me about an hour just to get through the naming screens of the game, which I could easily have blown through in less than a minute, but I'm determined to be thorough. I'll be sure to post an update to when I finally get to where Ness isn't running around in his PJ's anymore.

Read more!

Steam for Mac, Portal Performance

Steam for Mac went live today, so I thought I'd run it on an iMac from 2008 and a MacBook Pro from 2009 together with a friend of mine. We were actually surprised on how well it ran on some of the hardware we are running. See more details on the systems and performance after the jump.

Both systems were run in sidescreen resolutions, the iMac at 1280 x 800, and the Macbook Pro at 1152 x 720. Most settings were at about medium or enabled, with Model detail and shader detail set to high and blur effect disabled. Check out resolution and Advanced Settings screenshots for exactly what we ran on the iMac.

The iMac ran the game very well. I was impressed at how well it handled lighting effects, how good the shaders looked, and how little stuttering there was. The iMac stuttered a little bit, especially when jumping, but the game was otherwise solid.

The one thing that bothered me in both cases was, despite Vertical Sync being enabled, the game still seemed to jump a bit. It almost felt like tearing, but not quite. Turning off vertical sync, though, showed a major increase in graphics tearing.

Running a framerate counter on the iMac showed the game to run at around 25 - 40 fps, and even an occasional 50 - 60 fps. This was nice, as it showed the Source engine for Mac seems to be taking advantage of the graphics processing available. As more updates are released for titles that are Mac ready, we may see an improvement in graphics performance, but considering that this is a very fresh release, the performance is very satisfactory. Disabling V-Sync left the game running pretty solidly above 50 fps, which is fantastic. Gone is the era of game ports for Mac that rely heavily upon software graphics processing. Awesome.

Maxing the settings on the iMac dropped the framerates to about an averages of 4 fps, and maxing out at 14 fps, though this was likely just a fluke. The screen even started to glitch out quite a bit, but never crashed, which I eventually expected it to. I love OpenGL stability.

When you think about it, Apple really does have an ideal situation going for its gamers, a situation that still needs to be taken advantage of. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Source Engine for Mac looks at the system it is being ran on and easily scales the graphics to what that system is capable of, all due to Apple's relatively closed hardware set. Everything is easily categorized and tested, as you only have to deal with the Mac Pro, the Macbook Pro, Macbook, iMac, and the mini. This makes the hardware configurations much more predictable and allows for better long-term optimization. This means less fuss and better performance for the end user, and less issues in testing for the developer. So, yeah, creating a larger gamer base on Macs is a great thing.

Final impressions, I still think there is room for Valve to improve their engine's performance, but it's a lot closer to being simply awesome than most things right at initial release. I'm excited to see the other source games coming out, and easily can see success in Valve's move to get things rolling on the Mac.

MacBook Pro Specs:
2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo
4 GB RAM
Geforce 9400 M 256 MB

iMac Specs:
2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo
2 GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 256 MB

Read more!