If you don't agree with the title, then you're doing it wrong. Throughout games of all genres, you will face the option of whether to specialize or whether to balance. For the love of God, Thalos, Sephiroth, Kratos, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whoever you pray to, please specialize.
In choosing to balance, mediocrity is your best possible outcome, and this rarely leads to great success. Every game is about strengths and weaknesses, whether it be racial bonuses in RPGs, or gun stats in FPSs. The right choice is never to balance both equally, but to capitalize on strengths and utilize them efficiently in different situations. For example, an LMG is Call of Duty has various advantages over the other gun classes, while maintaining an equal amount of disadvantages just as severe. The smart move would not be to allocate your precious resources (here in the form of perks, attachments, and proficiencies) in minimizing the gun's weaknesses, but rather to chose resources that play to the gun's already existing strengths, in order to make them even greater. No, you will not be well suited for every encounter with this strategy, but if you pick your battles wisely, and move about the battlefield with precision, you will be exceptional at most.
As mentioned, the same rule applies for RPGs. It is surprising to see how many players chose classes or races that are considered to be the jack-of-all-trades. These characters rarely give you an edge during play, and are almost always frowned upon as potential companions for online groups or parties. Of course every team of players desires a well rounded makeup, but they seek this through a healthy mix of specialized characters, rather than an abundance of characters that are well rounded. This difference translates to a group that is designed to have at least one expert in any situation, and not 5 players that are mediocre in all situations.
The great fear that plagues many gamers is the fact that they will not always be the best. In specializing, this fear will become reality, but no more so than in balancing. A specialized character will be unsuited for some situations indeed, but no game is designed where success is not always possible, despite the struggle. A balanced player will find himself perpetually average; moderately suited for every situation, but succeeding at none with ease. Specialization is therefor the key to success in all genres, especially during online play. In video games, as in life, your talents are more beneficial than those skills you perform poorly in. Focus on these talents, build and develop them. If you settle for constant mediocrity, there will always be someone better.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
So You Wanna Be YouTube Famous
I'd like to take some time out of my day, and yours, to talk about gamers with YouTube channels. At least once a week I get a message from someone on Xbox Live claiming that their n00b pwning skills are far superior to anyone they sent the message too, and you should check them out on their YouTube channel. Understandable really, who doesn't want to get YouTube famous and be the next Justin Bieber (minus everything about him except for the fame)? However, before you embark down this long path, take a good hard look at your own videos and think, "Who the $#%@ am I?"
That's right, chances are, you're no one. To anticipate the obvious argument raging in your heads right now, yes, some no ones have blown up on YouTube and became overnight sensations, but they had some real talent (to the general dumb populous at least) or were just funny (which doesn't require talent). Let me give you an example. Yesterday I received a tweet to my personal Twitter account asking me to check out the guy's friend on YouTube, watch his gaming videos, and subscribe because he was trying to get "YOUTUBE FAMOUS." The use of ALL CAPITALS!!!!!! in the message was enough for me to know it was a teenager with hopes and dreams above his parents basement that he would never reach. So I did what any other normal human would do and sent him a reply saying that his friend was the very epitome of gaming trash and he would never be famous for video games. I didn't watch any of his videos of course, I have more important things to do with my life like stare aimlessly at my computer screen trying to think of something to cure my boredom. Later that day, I received a reply saying that his friend wasn't bad and that I had never played him. Against my better judgement, I clicked the previous link and went to his YouTube channel to confirm my suspicions. Suspicions confirmed. There was a plethora of videos around 300 views and one hilariously serious video of the player getting a MOAB using.....wait for it.....an ACR. Impressive I know, it must have been hard with such an underpowered gun; props random player. The best part about the videos lay in the fact that they were all clearly taken and uploaded with a phone. Now having my evidence, I again replied to the gamer's friend, mentioning, among many remarks on the players lack of skill, that anyone using a phone to create videos is obviously not serious about being YouTube famous. His response to my argument was 2 replies along the wording of "you little bitch all you care about is good graphics and editing" and "1: his finger is broken and 2: he doesnt have an hdpv so he uses his iPhone to upload his video." Let me take some time to respond to these remarks in length, as this should be a lessen to anyone posting gaming videos on YouTube.
Firstly, as much as it isn't related to player skill, editing and video quality are necessary to success on YouTube for such a genre of video. If you tell me to watch your sweet new throwing knife montage and it looks like you hired the camera man from Blair Witch, all my interest is lost. Video games these days are highly dependent on graphics for success, so it only follows that clips of video games should be the same. Secondly, if you are trying to make to most badass FPS video ever with the intention to get YouTube famous, but your finger is broken, you should probably wait until its healed. Now, about that MOAB. Twenty five kills in a row is not easy for any person, but if you are using an ACR, it's a hell of a lot easier. Not that it's not an accomplishment, but definitely not one that will impress others and showcase your skill. Drop a MOAB with a KSG and maybe I'll consider watching.
In closing, there are a few things you should remember if you are trying to be YouTube famous. One, "Who the @&^% are you?" Two, don't hire the Blair Witch cameraman. And three, impress ME, not yourself.
That's right, chances are, you're no one. To anticipate the obvious argument raging in your heads right now, yes, some no ones have blown up on YouTube and became overnight sensations, but they had some real talent (to the general dumb populous at least) or were just funny (which doesn't require talent). Let me give you an example. Yesterday I received a tweet to my personal Twitter account asking me to check out the guy's friend on YouTube, watch his gaming videos, and subscribe because he was trying to get "YOUTUBE FAMOUS." The use of ALL CAPITALS!!!!!! in the message was enough for me to know it was a teenager with hopes and dreams above his parents basement that he would never reach. So I did what any other normal human would do and sent him a reply saying that his friend was the very epitome of gaming trash and he would never be famous for video games. I didn't watch any of his videos of course, I have more important things to do with my life like stare aimlessly at my computer screen trying to think of something to cure my boredom. Later that day, I received a reply saying that his friend wasn't bad and that I had never played him. Against my better judgement, I clicked the previous link and went to his YouTube channel to confirm my suspicions. Suspicions confirmed. There was a plethora of videos around 300 views and one hilariously serious video of the player getting a MOAB using.....wait for it.....an ACR. Impressive I know, it must have been hard with such an underpowered gun; props random player. The best part about the videos lay in the fact that they were all clearly taken and uploaded with a phone. Now having my evidence, I again replied to the gamer's friend, mentioning, among many remarks on the players lack of skill, that anyone using a phone to create videos is obviously not serious about being YouTube famous. His response to my argument was 2 replies along the wording of "you little bitch all you care about is good graphics and editing" and "1: his finger is broken and 2: he doesnt have an hdpv so he uses his iPhone to upload his video." Let me take some time to respond to these remarks in length, as this should be a lessen to anyone posting gaming videos on YouTube.
Firstly, as much as it isn't related to player skill, editing and video quality are necessary to success on YouTube for such a genre of video. If you tell me to watch your sweet new throwing knife montage and it looks like you hired the camera man from Blair Witch, all my interest is lost. Video games these days are highly dependent on graphics for success, so it only follows that clips of video games should be the same. Secondly, if you are trying to make to most badass FPS video ever with the intention to get YouTube famous, but your finger is broken, you should probably wait until its healed. Now, about that MOAB. Twenty five kills in a row is not easy for any person, but if you are using an ACR, it's a hell of a lot easier. Not that it's not an accomplishment, but definitely not one that will impress others and showcase your skill. Drop a MOAB with a KSG and maybe I'll consider watching.
In closing, there are a few things you should remember if you are trying to be YouTube famous. One, "Who the @&^% are you?" Two, don't hire the Blair Witch cameraman. And three, impress ME, not yourself.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Proposed Battlefield 3 Changes (Post-Update)
The most recent patch for Battlefield 3 was certainly an improvement and a long time coming. That being said, there are still a number of issues with the game that demand correction. Here is a list of issues that I have personally experienced, combined with some ways to fix certain ones:
MG36 - Now has a 50 round standard capacity, despite visually featuring a double drum mag which would hold much more than 50.
RPK-74M - Now has a 100 round standard capacity, despite visually featuring a banana clip.....seriously? Extended mag brings it to 200, still with a banana clip.
QBU-88 - In my opinion, the SKS should be the only semi auto sniper that takes more than 2 shots to the body.
FIM-92 Stinger - Still does not kill even the lightest armored of choppers in one hit, completely unrealistic, also broken considering how fast flares recharge. Also, considering that the Javelin can lock onto aircraft when laser designated, the stinger should be able to lock onto land when laser designated.
Soflam - Is essentially useless as the designation wears off almost instantly and it really provides no benefits as locking on is still required. It is only useful if you are using a Javelin and want to hit aircraft. A good change would be that launchers do not need time to lock onto designated targets, and can be fired instantly, especially considering how overpoweredly fast flared recharge. Another acceptable change would be that designated target's flares have no effect on incoming missiles, this would still not be overpowered considering it takes 2 stingers to kill a chopper....dumb in its own right.
IR Flares - Should recharge much slower. If locked on with a chopper, can fire 2 sets of rockets at an enemy vehicle constantly locked and have them flare both sets.
Heat Seekers - If flare recharge stays as current, heat seekers should recharge faster to offset the painfully long defensive strategy of constantly flaring.
All LMG's - Should be more accurate when in full auto. Its really quite depressing to dump 200 rounds mid range at an exposed target and land 3 hitmarkers. Hipfire is also horrific on all LMG's. Takes an unrealistic amount of sustained hip fire time to kill a target no more than 10 feet away.
Parachute - You claimed that it is now easier to control, quite the opposite. You also now take around 30 damage many times when you land, foolish.
AK-74U - Should not be the greatest long range gun ever. Currently, it can whipe you across the map in just a few short bursts. If my M60E4 can't do that, I don't think a sub (technically battle carbine) should be able to. This goes with many of the subs.
Suppression - Should have a greater effect against snipers that are aimed down scope. Almost 100% of the time I am bipod full auto LMG suppressing a sniper I will be headshotted. No sniper should be able to shoot even remotely accurately down his scope while suppressed, otherwise what is the effect really good for?
C4 - It should not take 3 to kill an LAV if it takes 3 to kill a heavily armored T90 tank.
Disabling Vehicles - Vehicles should only be disabled when below 30% life. Currently they can be disabled at around 50% life, possibly higher. Given the fact that a disabled vehicle is utterly useless if an engineer isn't around (and they usually aren't when your vehicle gets disables, aside from the fact that most people on your team aren't helpful anyway and won't go 5 feet out of their way to repair), it almost always results in both vehicles in a shootout being killed, as the surviving one is often ditched since it is on fire.
Overall - I like the changes in the update and give props to DICE for listening to their fanbase, but there is still some areas of the game that are blatantly flawed or imbalanced.
MG36 - Now has a 50 round standard capacity, despite visually featuring a double drum mag which would hold much more than 50.
RPK-74M - Now has a 100 round standard capacity, despite visually featuring a banana clip.....seriously? Extended mag brings it to 200, still with a banana clip.
QBU-88 - In my opinion, the SKS should be the only semi auto sniper that takes more than 2 shots to the body.
FIM-92 Stinger - Still does not kill even the lightest armored of choppers in one hit, completely unrealistic, also broken considering how fast flares recharge. Also, considering that the Javelin can lock onto aircraft when laser designated, the stinger should be able to lock onto land when laser designated.
Soflam - Is essentially useless as the designation wears off almost instantly and it really provides no benefits as locking on is still required. It is only useful if you are using a Javelin and want to hit aircraft. A good change would be that launchers do not need time to lock onto designated targets, and can be fired instantly, especially considering how overpoweredly fast flared recharge. Another acceptable change would be that designated target's flares have no effect on incoming missiles, this would still not be overpowered considering it takes 2 stingers to kill a chopper....dumb in its own right.
IR Flares - Should recharge much slower. If locked on with a chopper, can fire 2 sets of rockets at an enemy vehicle constantly locked and have them flare both sets.
Heat Seekers - If flare recharge stays as current, heat seekers should recharge faster to offset the painfully long defensive strategy of constantly flaring.
All LMG's - Should be more accurate when in full auto. Its really quite depressing to dump 200 rounds mid range at an exposed target and land 3 hitmarkers. Hipfire is also horrific on all LMG's. Takes an unrealistic amount of sustained hip fire time to kill a target no more than 10 feet away.
Parachute - You claimed that it is now easier to control, quite the opposite. You also now take around 30 damage many times when you land, foolish.
AK-74U - Should not be the greatest long range gun ever. Currently, it can whipe you across the map in just a few short bursts. If my M60E4 can't do that, I don't think a sub (technically battle carbine) should be able to. This goes with many of the subs.
Suppression - Should have a greater effect against snipers that are aimed down scope. Almost 100% of the time I am bipod full auto LMG suppressing a sniper I will be headshotted. No sniper should be able to shoot even remotely accurately down his scope while suppressed, otherwise what is the effect really good for?
C4 - It should not take 3 to kill an LAV if it takes 3 to kill a heavily armored T90 tank.
Disabling Vehicles - Vehicles should only be disabled when below 30% life. Currently they can be disabled at around 50% life, possibly higher. Given the fact that a disabled vehicle is utterly useless if an engineer isn't around (and they usually aren't when your vehicle gets disables, aside from the fact that most people on your team aren't helpful anyway and won't go 5 feet out of their way to repair), it almost always results in both vehicles in a shootout being killed, as the surviving one is often ditched since it is on fire.
Overall - I like the changes in the update and give props to DICE for listening to their fanbase, but there is still some areas of the game that are blatantly flawed or imbalanced.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Spawn Camping - Your Fault or Theirs?
For me, it usually ends in one of two ways: trying desperately to form a late-stage comeback, or seeing how many I can spin while facing the sky before the next "Hit X to Respawn" shows up. I personally find the latter option to be more enjoyable in these circumstances, as both are quite futile. I am talking of course about the biggest double standard in FPS's. I mean, we are nice people, we have respect for the game, we would never spawn camp....right?
Now picture this. There you are, GanjaNinja420, strapped to the hilt with ammo for your FAMAS. Your team is obviously superior; CoDPwner1337 and BabySealClubber haven't died in 3 games, and its looking like number 4 isn't far away. The enemy team is falling back, BeiberLover1996 doesn't know how to aim down his sights, and GirlPowerRep isn't even competition. You reach their home base, ChickMagnet6t9 spawns in and you kill him before he can move. Guilt kicks in, your teammates feel it too. All of a sudden the mic light flashes and BabySealClubber tells you to back off so the game will be fair.
So what went wrong there, besides someone naming themselves after Justin Beiber (lets skip the obvious points please). The truth is, as much as we all hate spawn camping, we are all guilty of it. I mean what else are you really supposed to do? No one works hard to push the opposing team back, and once reaching their spawn says, "Hey guys, I think they have had enough, lets retreat and give up everything we have worked for. I just don't think we are being nice enough to them." FPS's aren't about being nice, and they aren't about giving the other team handouts. If your team is strong enough and the other team plays poorly enough to get pushed all the way to their spawn, it simply doesn't make sense to walk away. In reality, if you are being spawn camped, it's your fault; maybe not yours personally, but as a member of your collective team. Where this can lead to obvious frustration is where one person is performing well enough to gain ground, but being hampered so much by teammates that no ground is actually taken. If this is the case, go ahead, throw some @%&*#, some ^#&@*, and maybe even some *#^@#($&(@&# at the screen (be careful with that last one though). But if you are middle of the round on the team scoreboard, you really don't have any justification to complain, and you'd sure as hell be dishing out the punishment if you were on the other team.
Now picture this. There you are, GanjaNinja420, strapped to the hilt with ammo for your FAMAS. Your team is obviously superior; CoDPwner1337 and BabySealClubber haven't died in 3 games, and its looking like number 4 isn't far away. The enemy team is falling back, BeiberLover1996 doesn't know how to aim down his sights, and GirlPowerRep isn't even competition. You reach their home base, ChickMagnet6t9 spawns in and you kill him before he can move. Guilt kicks in, your teammates feel it too. All of a sudden the mic light flashes and BabySealClubber tells you to back off so the game will be fair.
So what went wrong there, besides someone naming themselves after Justin Beiber (lets skip the obvious points please). The truth is, as much as we all hate spawn camping, we are all guilty of it. I mean what else are you really supposed to do? No one works hard to push the opposing team back, and once reaching their spawn says, "Hey guys, I think they have had enough, lets retreat and give up everything we have worked for. I just don't think we are being nice enough to them." FPS's aren't about being nice, and they aren't about giving the other team handouts. If your team is strong enough and the other team plays poorly enough to get pushed all the way to their spawn, it simply doesn't make sense to walk away. In reality, if you are being spawn camped, it's your fault; maybe not yours personally, but as a member of your collective team. Where this can lead to obvious frustration is where one person is performing well enough to gain ground, but being hampered so much by teammates that no ground is actually taken. If this is the case, go ahead, throw some @%&*#, some ^#&@*, and maybe even some *#^@#($&(@&# at the screen (be careful with that last one though). But if you are middle of the round on the team scoreboard, you really don't have any justification to complain, and you'd sure as hell be dishing out the punishment if you were on the other team.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Why Borderland Developers Got It Right
If you have read some of my other posts, then you know that one of my main criticisms of modern games is that developers never seem to truly have the consumer in mind during creation. Kotaku recently released an article about Borderlands and how Gearbox Software developers acknowledge that their games belong more to the consumers than they do to the studio. I urge you all to take a quick look at the article (which I have posted below), as I believe it is one of the best examples of how a development team should view their work. Well done Gearbox, and thank you.
As a side note, the following quote from the article particularly sums it up:
"We make that as a joke. We'll say, ‘You're a bad designer if you tell your customer that you're playing the game wrong.' It's actually the customer's game. We should do our best to enable that experience. If someone is playing the game and they're not having a good time and it's because they're not playing it right, that's our fault."
As a side note, the following quote from the article particularly sums it up:
"We make that as a joke. We'll say, ‘You're a bad designer if you tell your customer that you're playing the game wrong.' It's actually the customer's game. We should do our best to enable that experience. If someone is playing the game and they're not having a good time and it's because they're not playing it right, that's our fault."
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Human Element and Why Games Need It
I'll be up front with it, people on video games suck. They scream in your ears, get in your way, talk like 10 year olds (because most times they are), and generally cant comprehend basic strategy or the core elements of the game you are playing. Regardless of all these facts that combine to make your life a living hell while online, it just wouldn't be the same without them. Video games need people as much as people need people, and I wish more developers realized it. It is disappointing to see modern games being released without aspects that speak to our species desire to socialize and share experiences. While this may sound like a lofty and philosophical idea that doesn't really apply to creating games, it could not be more closely relevant. In the video game world, the anomaly of our desire for interaction with members of our own species is directly reflected as one of the most important aspects of any video game and one many consumers base purchase intent on....replay value.
I recently posted about the upcoming release of Capcom's RPG Dragon's Dogma, combined with my admittance of boredom for Skyrim. I will start with the latter. What Skyrim truly lacks is a human element. It has all the class possibilities and environmental immersion one could hope for, but it has nothing to definitively change your experience every time you start the game. Whether I use bows, daggers, or spells, I know how my enemy will react and almost always know how each combat interaction will start and end. This all changes with the addition of another brain. A game like Skyrim with co-operative online (or even offline) play would have considerably more replay appeal and value. Each combat sequence would be unscripted as no two humans think the exact same and one cannot anticipate the actions of another. Randomized action can be minimized with teamwork, but this even furthers the amount of differentiation in each play session. Allowing users to work together, plan strategies, and take no two battles the same as each player has before with a different partner would blow boredom out of the water and open the game to endless hours of exciting and ever changing gameplay. This concept is captured within the genre of MMORPG's. The core component in the same as RPG's of course: quest, kill things, gain experience, level up, customize. But this component is built into an infrastructure of human interaction. Where no dungeon or group adventure could be replicated and no frustration as your tank goes AFK during the final boss fight more meaningful. Yes, we hate it, and we love it at the same time. It is drama we crave and only humans can create it. It is in our nature to share experiences with others, and it would seem that many modern video game developers are fighting this nature. This brings me to Dragon's Dogma.
I would like to make it clear that this post is not meant to be in conflict with my previous post on Dragon's Dogma. The game does look great and I am certainly excited about many of its aspects, but why no co-op? Is it really that hard or costly of an implementation? A system for players to hire "pawns" has already been added, and must have the same requirement of servers as online play would. Is it possible that developers are so blind that they cannot see the hole in the center of their games, the blatant lack of replay value created by making a game so ancient in fundamentals that it cannot be played with a friend? Video games are social creations, they deserve social features. In a modern gaming industry, and one that has long been exposed to the joys of co-operative and competitive online play, to create a new game without either is a months delayed death wish.
I recently posted about the upcoming release of Capcom's RPG Dragon's Dogma, combined with my admittance of boredom for Skyrim. I will start with the latter. What Skyrim truly lacks is a human element. It has all the class possibilities and environmental immersion one could hope for, but it has nothing to definitively change your experience every time you start the game. Whether I use bows, daggers, or spells, I know how my enemy will react and almost always know how each combat interaction will start and end. This all changes with the addition of another brain. A game like Skyrim with co-operative online (or even offline) play would have considerably more replay appeal and value. Each combat sequence would be unscripted as no two humans think the exact same and one cannot anticipate the actions of another. Randomized action can be minimized with teamwork, but this even furthers the amount of differentiation in each play session. Allowing users to work together, plan strategies, and take no two battles the same as each player has before with a different partner would blow boredom out of the water and open the game to endless hours of exciting and ever changing gameplay. This concept is captured within the genre of MMORPG's. The core component in the same as RPG's of course: quest, kill things, gain experience, level up, customize. But this component is built into an infrastructure of human interaction. Where no dungeon or group adventure could be replicated and no frustration as your tank goes AFK during the final boss fight more meaningful. Yes, we hate it, and we love it at the same time. It is drama we crave and only humans can create it. It is in our nature to share experiences with others, and it would seem that many modern video game developers are fighting this nature. This brings me to Dragon's Dogma.
I would like to make it clear that this post is not meant to be in conflict with my previous post on Dragon's Dogma. The game does look great and I am certainly excited about many of its aspects, but why no co-op? Is it really that hard or costly of an implementation? A system for players to hire "pawns" has already been added, and must have the same requirement of servers as online play would. Is it possible that developers are so blind that they cannot see the hole in the center of their games, the blatant lack of replay value created by making a game so ancient in fundamentals that it cannot be played with a friend? Video games are social creations, they deserve social features. In a modern gaming industry, and one that has long been exposed to the joys of co-operative and competitive online play, to create a new game without either is a months delayed death wish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)