Nathan Boyes              What has the dog brought us today?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6281-Crying-Through-The-Laughs

Why does the dog always die in the movies? Has it done something morally wrong, so much that retribution may only be gained by its death? Of course not, the dog is always the character that deserves to die the least, and the scene where the dog dies is hated by its viewers. It would appear to be a slaughtering done purely to drive viewers away from a film.

Games, however do not feature this unruly slaying of dogs, clearly they are superior to films for not trying to drive their customers away right? Wrong, Games are about killing demons, horrible aliens and subterranean creatures but they're not killing enough of our dogs, in fact they're not even giving us dogs! What we have is worlds where there is nothing to be lost as its already gone, dark storylines with no hope and no reason to continue. This leaves us with bland games relying on a single emotion. Humans are very emotional beings though; one emotion cannot be felt without the pairing of others. Even South Park knows that in order to truly have tragedy, it must begin with something happy. http://south-park-gifs.tumblr.com/post/17158146251/for-betweenlifeandthought

So what does this make of the dog? The dog is a character who you know and trust, their cheerful creatures who just want to make their master happy. There is no reason for bad things to happen to them, and it gives you a drive to move on. It's nearly an impossible task, and maybe you can do it, but not without injury. The dog is the accent to the sadness; it makes us feel the target emotion stronger by giving us a contrasting one and pulling it in the direction of the target emotion.

Now I love this commercial, it's executed perfectly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdWkKKSckNk It makes each character a dog, something its master wants to protect that is loyal to its master. It feeds you each of the characters worlds that are desperate for salvation and gives you a character that brings hope into each of their hearts, a character that protects them, their master. That master it creates is you. Their world isn't lost yet because they still have you! In a game, however, the characters within the story cannot talk or interact with you. You are supposed to be immersed in their existing world so much that you are the character you are playing as. If you take away "You" from this commercial, what are you left with? A stream of worlds where all hope is lost, there is no saviour. You can't feel for these worlds because the moment you enter them there is nothing. There are no characters that play the role of the dog, something you want to protect in the otherwise lawless world.

The dog always dies for us. We care about the dog and the dog cares about us, giving us a multidimensional field of emotions to play with when tragedy is mixed into the equation. I believe that people are starting to see the relevance of the dog and are bringing it into the gaming world. You will see this in games like Journey, which handles this in a very unique way making the dog be a player that you have never met before. Only once our dogs have returned will we have truly fulfilling sadness and happiness in games once again.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6281-Crying-Through-The-Laughs

Why does the dog always die in the movies? Has it done something morally wrong, so much that retribution may only be gained by its death? Of course not, the dog is always the character that deserves to die the least, and the scene where the dog dies is hated by its viewers. It would appear to be a slaughtering done purely to drive viewers away from a film.

Games, however do not feature this unruly slaying of dogs, clearly they are superior to films for not trying to drive their customers away right? Wrong, Games are about killing demons, horrible aliens and subterranean creatures but they're not killing enough of our dogs, in fact they're not even giving us dogs! What we have is worlds where there is nothing to be lost as its already gone, dark storylines with no hope and no reason to continue. This leaves us with bland games relying on a single emotion. Humans are very emotional beings though; one emotion cannot be felt without the pairing of others. Even South Park knows that in order to truly have tragedy, it must begin with something happy. http://south-park-gifs.tumblr.com/post/17158146251/for-betweenlifeandthought

So what does this make of the dog? The dog is a character who you know and trust, their cheerful creatures who just want to make their master happy. There is no reason for bad things to happen to them, and it gives you a drive to move on. It's nearly an impossible task, and maybe you can do it, but not without injury. The dog is the accent to the sadness; it makes us feel the target emotion stronger by giving us a contrasting one and pulling it in the direction of the target emotion.

Now I love this commercial, it's executed perfectly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdWkKKSckNk It makes each character a dog, something its master wants to protect that is loyal to its master. It feeds you each of the characters worlds that are desperate for salvation and gives you a character that brings hope into each of their hearts, a character that protects them, their master. That master it creates is you. Their world isn't lost yet because they still have you! In a game, however, the characters within the story cannot talk or interact with you. You are supposed to be immersed in their existing world so much that you are the character you are playing as. If you take away "You" from this commercial, what are you left with? A stream of worlds where all hope is lost, there is no saviour. You can't feel for these worlds because the moment you enter them there is nothing. There are no characters that play the role of the dog, something you want to protect in the otherwise lawless world.

The dog always dies for us. We care about the dog and the dog cares about us, giving us a multidimensional field of emotions to play with when tragedy is mixed into the equation. I believe that people are starting to see the relevance of the dog and are bringing it into the gaming world. You will see this in games like Journey, which handles this in a very unique way making the dog be a player that you have never met before. Only once our dogs have returned will we have truly fulfilling sadness and happiness in games once again.

Why is the achievement system so important in games.

Source:

http://www.gamingfuture.co.uk/opinion-the-real-value-of-achievements/

Game achievements are one of the reasons that makes games fun today. The achievement system gives game developers what they want the players in the game. Achievements aren't mandatory to do when you are playing games but it gives the player a task you can do for fun. The two services that use the achievement system are Xbox Gamerscore system and Sony's Trophy system. Both systems are mostly the same but just different consoles.  Today we see many players going for achievements because it shows how we like our games are played.

Game developers made achievements as a reward back then which gives players how they played their games. There are achievements where you have found an Easter egg, completing a challenge in a game level or to just show off your friend you have beaten the game at the highest difficulty.  Game developers feel that achievements are required to be in games. It wasn't because it was fun but it was a reason why it gave players to continue to play the game. If gave players an accomplishment when they finally reached a certain objective in the game.

Microsoft gave players an achievement system also known as Gamerscore. Gamerscore was a way to tally up player's points earned when they complete achievements. You can compare with friends how many points you have and even show off how much you have. This system is very simple for players to get achievements. Sony made their own achievement system by introducing trophies. Trophies are scaled up from bronze, silver, gold and platinum.  Both achievement systems work really well and are used in all their games released.

                Achievements also spawned a new entire group of gamers also known as achievement hunters or achievement whores. Achievement hunters don't just play the game but instead they go for the achievements. A game released on the Xbox named "Avatar the Last Airbender: The Burning Earth" which featured only five achievements which was easily obtainable in less than 3 minutes. The game was lackluster but profitable because it was so easy to get the achievements in the game. This game created a stir in the achievement system where developers could make money by the achievement system. Microsoft and Sony now have a restriction on their games on how the achievement system works. Achievement hunters prove games aren't bought just for fun but it was just for the achievements.

Achievements are fun and many go for them for fun. The system prove worthy to games by trying to get the player to keep playing in their games. Achievements are important in games as a mechanic like others are invented.

Pre-owned games on the next-gen consoles

Blog # 4

Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/393246/sony-exec-on-ps4-pre-owned-games-we-will-do-the-right-thing/
    
Sony's Vice President of Worldwide studios, Michael Denny says that they will "do the right thing" when it comes to used games on their next gen console. This seems to me that they are just waiting to see what Microsoft is going to say about the matter. The idea that used games will not work on the next gen consoles is not a new thing. We have been talking about it for years now but there are so many debates and it's hard to say whether it will fall through or not.

Being a gamer that does not buy or borrow used games, unless they are for older systems like the N64, I would not care if Sony and Microsoft implemented such a rule. Although I know that I am one of the very few who would say that. Most people buy a game, complete it and then sell it online or back to the store they bought it from. I believe that if used games were to be banned on the future consoles there would be many people who would be far from happy. Not everyone can afford to go out and spend $60 plus on a brand new game two or three times a month. These same people love the used game section where they can find games from $10 - $35. Not only that but stores like EB games will be impacted by not being able to re-sell these games—which gamers sell to them for a fraction of the price might I add. I'm assuming that a good chunk of the money that EB games makes is from used games.

The one thing I hope that Sony and Microsoft do is keep the ability to play your games on another console on your own account. If I am not allowed to play used games on any other console but that of which it was originally played on, that's fine but I better be able to play that game through my account on any other console.

Written by Adam Zacharias

Electronic Arts + Microsoft

source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/393418/microsoft-to-reveal-ea-partnership-at-next-xbox-event/

EA is supposedly going to partner up with Microsoft and its next-fen console. Although this has not been confirmed it seems highly likely that this is going to happen. When Sony introduced the PS4 last week, EA did not attend. This leads me to believe that they have some sort of partnership deal with Microsoft. This will be a good choice for EA considering what they have gone through in the past two years or so, the lay-offs and such. On top of that this will more then likely increase the sales of Microsoft's new console because there are so many loyal EA fans that will want to buy Microsoft's console for the sole purpose of these games.

Some people speculate whether EA will release an entire game or just downloadable content that will be exclusive to Microsoft. However, I believe that there will be an exclusive game. This has been a popular trend ever since the current generation consoles have been released. On Microsoft's side we have the Halo series from Bungie and on Sony's side we have the uncharted series Naughty Dog. This has worked very well for these two companies and more and more companies are starting to do the same.

If EA is able to pull this off they will be able to retrieve fans that they have lost and maybe even gain new fans. They will have to compete with not only other large companies but also the abundance of independent game creators that have created fantastic games that millions play.

Written by Adam Zacharias

Guild Wars 2 Updated with Brand New Fun Content!

Source:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/26/guild-wars-2s-the-gathering-storm-update-lands-today/

                Guild Wars 2 (GW2) has finally released its February patch today! Many players has been expecting for the release of this update will many added new features such as guild missions, more achievements, a new PVP map "Spirit Watch" and other changes to the game. I for one have been waiting for this patch to come out because the current meta game of this game has been rather boring.

                First up in the update will introduce guild missions, a fresh new event for guilds members to contribute events for rewards. This is a whole new game mode brings five new guild events you can do with your guild. They are Guild Bounty, Guild Trek, Guild Challenge, Guild Rush and Guild Puzzle. Guild Bounty is a mission where your guild kills enemies in order. Guild Trek is a traveling game where members travel to certain points of a map in a certain time. Guild Challenge focuses on the event system where the AI will tell the players what event will happen. Guild Rush is an event where members will run together as chickens while working together to get through challenges. Guild Puzzle is a puzzle mission where members will work together with coordinated effort to solve challenges. I can't wait to play these especially Guild Rush where I can transform into a chicken.

                More new things added are achievements and a new PVP map named Spirit Watch. Before this patch, there were five daily achievements you do to get laurels, also known as achievement currency. This patch now gives freedom to achievements where the player can now choose five achievements to do from a list. This is a very good way for players to choose which achievement they want to do. Many players wanted this because the achievements were very repetitive and some were not fun to do.

                The new PVP map Spirit Watch introduces orb capturing. This is similar to capture the flag but this is great because each time you play, new class rotate each time giving a new diverse gameplay. I haven't PVP much recently but a new map will bring many players back to playing PVP. I can't wait to play this.

                Lastly there are many dungeon class changes. Dungeons in GW2 are fun because one dungeon features three different paths. The reward system has been revamped and many new dungeons were fixed.  Many classes in the game were fixed as well. The warrior, mesmer, guardian, elementalist and thief has not been affected. Engineers and nercomancers were given fixes but hunters were given a nerf. I don't agree why they gave hunter a nerf, it is the most underrated class in the game and I don't agree on the changes in the game.

                This patch gave us a load of content to play. I can't wait to play this game when I have time to play it. Guild Wars 2 has been growing since the beginning and I can't wait to see what other content is up ahead.

               

New Technology in Video Games

Source: http://www.gamespot.com/features/five-technologies-that-will-change-the-future-of-gaming-6403158/

There are always new possible technologies emerging, and none of them tends to make it to the market or to fame and fortune. Why are they unsuccessful? Too bold, too complicated, unrealistic, are some possible reasons. Which technological innovation will be featured in the next 2 consoles by Sony and Microsoft? Are people tired of technological innovations? Maybe they just want to play a game with a standard controller: control sticks, D-pad, some buttons, maybe they don't want to jump around the room, slapping holographic images out of mid-air.

Well, I'm not sure what Sony or Microsoft plans for the future, but Technology is changing, and the old controller style could be a relic. Consoles are moving half-heartedly away from classic gaming and into motion controls, peripherals, and what some might call a gimmick market. Gimmicky controllers and ideas that are supposed to make games more accessible for the masses; not just core gamers. Notwithstanding the fact it can drive core gamers away, it's a business model that's been fairly successful.

Microsoft's IllumiRoom project is very interesting to me. Some sort of device that projects images on your walls, helping you feel like you're more immersed in the game. Making a copy of your walls, and beaming a duplicate image of your room on the wall, then adding motion blurring effects to it in driving games to make you feel like you're moving fast. It is a novel idea and I think it's very clever.

Beyond that, we've got Oculus Rift, a new head-mounted virtual-reality type system. Developed for the military, and featuring a wide field of view, gyroscopes and plenty of other features, its certainly interesting. Is it perfect? I highly doubt it, but if it does take off and become successful, it will probably need to ship with a console, but I see it being possibly successful.

At the end of the day, all these new technologies are interesting, but technology is never as great as it sounds. I want holographic images and displays, and jet packs, and all the futuristic technology we see in video games, and in movies, but that technology is either years away from being feasible, or more likely it was never feasible at all. Seeing all the new technologies is interesting, but until next-gen consoles are released from Sony and Microsoft, its all just possibilities and ideas.

-Mark Johnsen

Game design ate my life

[ Source: http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-emotional-price-of-making-video-games-6404156/ ]

What makes a video game great? The tireless work of the individuals who dedicate a piece of their lives, and perhaps even their souls to make the best game they possibly can. This is a very truthful situation in certain entertainment fields, video game design, film-making, and even writing. When you create something for others to enjoy, you are putting your all into it, and making something that you hope will stand the test of time, and be beloved by all those who are touched by it. 

I'm discounting the fact that in our industry there are those who only care about money, perhaps studios who only want a sequel, a product, and for consumers to purchase and spend as much as possible on downloadable content, but I believe the occurrences of these money-hungry freaks is rare, frankly. I think by and large, the industry we all want to be a part of strives to make everyone happy, and to make products that aren't just products. They're works of art. They're immersive. They matter.

So what kind of toll does that effort and work ethic and dedication take on a person? Are we video game designers all nuts? Are we all loners? Do we all have emotional problems, work so hard we lose track of the real world? Are we living in some sort of sick dream-world of game design, where we're only semi-conscious of reality most of the time? These are stupid questions, because game designers are human beings, and those questions cross into the realm of stereotypes. Some of us might be bat-shit crazy. I probably am, but at the end of the day, we're all unique, and the types of games we love varies, and how much effort and time we're willing to dedicate probably could vary too, along with our mental state, and intelligence. We're made of variables. 

Game design is wonderful, and I'll tell you why. It's the magic of creating an immersive world outside of reality. A world where anything is possible. From humorous to serious, from first-person shooters to role-playing games, we create because we must. It's very much like creating a movie that you get to be a part of. If games could be equal to movies in every way quality-wise, movies would almost be archaic. Why simply watch a movie when you can be a part of one, and influence the ending?

So should we all just escape to a video game fantasy world, where our dreams come true, and where our imagination and the limits of computing power are our only limitation? Of course. Will designing games for a living drain away all our time and energy for everything else, and suck the life out of us? It could, but that's what I'm in it for. I knew the job was dangerous when I took it.

-Mark Johnsen

blog 4

Not Just for Killing…

By Christian Zannetti

Sources: http://www.educationalsimulations.com/ , http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/ , http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2003/10/60688 

Some stubborn more hard headed parents have insisted that video games make their kids aggressive and angry little demons.  They think that playing games will make their kids "all-star" shooters and instantly have guns and want to go kill their classmates because a game told them to. Okay, some parents may not take it to that extreme but you get my point, they think video games are bad. But what these "parents" neglect to mention is that there are a lot of educational based games, most of them implored by the government to doctors and military personal.  There are even some games based around understanding and peace, you know that whole coming together as a people crap. Whatever the game may be, point is, it's not all just for killing.

In 2004 a game was released solely with the intent for military simulation. It was meant to give a soldier the real feel of how to handle a real combat scenario. This was just the first game on the start of a whole bunch more to come and more and more realistic to boot. Other games such as Americas Army and Guard Force had started to come out and they trained the soldiers well, but many feared that the virtual could never substitute the reality. The upside was it was a stress free training style that could be practiced every day. Now some parents may argue "Well I don't want my baby learning to be a soldier!" fine I get it, you want to raise a little punk ass.  Well if that's the case, I guess the world needs doctors too; have him/her go play The Blood Typing Game.  This game plus many more can help your son or daughter become the doctor you always dreamt of them becoming so you could exploit their income when you're old and lazy. 

There are many types if game your kids can play, it's not always about killing things. The Sims is one of the man simulation games where you can live a fake life as who and sometimes whatever you want. There is also a game called Real Lives where the player gets to pick a culture and a live under a different form of government, in a different geographical landscape. Video games have surpassed the "hobbies" or "play-thing" era and are now in the "life-tools" age. These instruments we "play" with aren't toys anymore, yes they are fun and they can be the most entertaining time wasters. But put into the right hands with the right game, you got yourself a learning device. 

Blog3

Equip a Sack For Once.

By Christian Zannetti

Sources: http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_II 

You're on an island, some of your family was killed the rest are alive and captured. What do you do? Do you A. grab some guns and go hunt the fuckers down, B. Call for help, or C. curl up in the fetal position and cry your eyes out like a little bitch? Not like you have the choice these days; games now are SOOO annoying with how the main character is portrayed. You never get to start out as "Billy-Bad-Ass" and if you do, you don't get any "badder" you stay the same semi bad ass self and probably fall for some chick and get all emotional. Bullshit. Most games today have you start off as a whiney little bitch that has never shot a gun, let alone held one. The sight of blood or dead bodies usually frightens you, and you're afraid of half-naked women! I thought games were supposed to be your escape from reality? Well in reality, I have shot guns, I have seen dead bodies and I sure as hell ain't no virgin. So why the hell am I some pussy in a video game??

 In a recent game called "Far Cry 3" you start off as a young character called Jason Brody. A young boy who obviously has been sheltered his whole life, but let's ignore the fact that his nagging girlfriend probably never puts out and his parents fed him with a silver spoon. You and your brother are being held in a cage when you both begin your escape from the enemy camp. On your sneak run through the camp your brother happens to save your ass and kill some dude, but you freak out and are all like "OH EM GEE! Grant you just killed that guy! You can't do that!" (Even though he's a part of the whole crew that has your family and friends captured)  As soon as I heard that shit I almost turned the game off. Yes the character development in the game is amazing; you soon become a gun wielding sicko who likes to shoot anything that moves. But why do we have to wait till half way through the game for that to happen?

Ok now wait, that's not the only issue with characters these days.  Have you ever been playing a game and the character is just the most diesel mother f**ker on the face of the earth? Nothing can stop him, you have the biggest guns and girls are just falling all over you. Yeah and I bet half way through the game you meet one chick who you save and is just so rude to you and always gets in the way, but magically you guys fall in love and have some big and played out sex scene and you become Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the last scene of that movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I've seen it time and time again, like in Assassins Creed. When they first introduced Ezio Alditore in Assassins Creed 2 he was the shit!!! You start off as a young kid, the girls are swooning, you beat the crap out of a mob of kids by yourself, you're the man! You grow up, still "macin" girls, but now you kill people and fly from rooftop to rooftop. What more could a kid ask for? Well that "Billy-Bad-Ass" persona comes crashing down in Revelations. Of course at the start he meets a girl, beautiful as she is smart. Names Sophia, cool girl, but always nagging you and sending you on errands (already sounds like a marriage), needless to say the bad guy captures her and you now have to save her cause. But why do you have to save her, oh what a surprise, you love her now.  Can't a guy just not deal with feeble emotions in a video game and just go on a rampage of plundering, maybe some killing, and sleeping with every girl who crosses his path? You know, like a true barbarian. 

Will Microsoft be able to keep up with Sony’s captivating speech on the PS4?

Source:[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/02/23/microsofts-lessons-from-the-playstation-4-reveal]

By: Danielle Merrithew

In terms of new consoles coming out, Sony is miles ahead of Microsoft thus far. Although the newest Playstation isn't coming out until the end of 2013, It already has a huge fan base who are excited for the release. With Sony's recent speech of the unveiling of the PS4, Microsoft should be taking notes on Sony's presentation. Is this captivating speech about the new generation the Playstation going to make or break Microsoft's ?

Sony's captivating speech was a huge success. This is because they kept their focus on the services that the PS4 will offer that are targeted towards the core gamer. At the beginning of their announcement, they awed the audience by throwing out terms such as "Teraflops" and "GDDR5 RAM." Most people probably have no idea what the definition of those terms are, that is what Sony wanted. Sony explained this to the crowd so the math of the console would be more identified. Sony felt it was important to highlight the technical aspects for the next generation of the Playstation name. These services that the Ps4 offers are not only an effective strategy to win the hearts and money of their fans, but to set the bar for the future of the Sony company.

Since Sony jumped the gun on the unveil of the PS4 in our eighth generation of consoles, Microsoft will either be able to improve their console, or hide in the shadows of Sony. It's always been a console war between the two companies. PS4 is better than Xbox 720 or vice versa. Reality is, neither are a better console, it's just the way they are marketed. With this speech that Sony recently had, it gives Microsoft a chance to watch their competitor and either win back their audience or drive them away. Microsoft needs to pack a punch with their technicality in their unveiling, it's the only way they can compete with Sony as of now. With the console wars still continuing in 2013, it's up to Microsoft to come up with a great marketing strategy to win over their customers.

Another aspect that makes Microsoft a weaker contender is the Kinect. The PS4 also has a Kinect-like camera sensor, that was only mentioned once or twice during the whole speech. It wasn't just a coincidence that they mentioned this only at the beginning of the speech and hardly touched on it later. To put it bluntly, no one gives a fuck about the Kinect. We as gamers could care less about motion sensors and cameras, we just want to fuck enemies up and enjoy our gaming. Contrasting from Sony's speech, we all know that Microsoft will highlight the Kinect multiple times, to the point that they will be deep-throating us with the damn thing. They had better make up with the Kinect with some facts that core gamers will actually enjoy.

The year of 2013 in consoles currently belongs to Sony and their Ps4. Sony's unveiling has excited players new and old, those whose hearts belong to the sony franchise for the nostalgia or those who have finally reached the age that their mom allows them to play games. The effective marketing strategy that Sony has displayed has put us in awe and Microsoft in dismay. Will Microsoft be able to remind us that they have the superior game console or will their speech
make customers follow through with the Ps4? Will Microsoft's' Xbox 720 unveiling become more captivating than Sony's Ps4? Only time will tell.  

Creating Compassion in Video Games (How to take games like Skyrim from art to Art)

by Lindsay Comeau

In pursuit of creating games that are open and as close to reality as we can get visually we have forgotten to make games fell 'human'. It breaks the veil of illusion when NPCs (non-playable characters) lack human qualities like emotion or reaction to extreme events. It makes the whole experience of the game unbelievable as a tangible (virtually of course) universe. This also brings up the argument of games as Art, which needs to be better defined first before we can make that arguement.
Back in 2011 Dennis C. Scimeca wrote an article called "Skyrim is Soulless" for the Escapist. Scimeca talks about an interaction he had with a NPC that lacked human feeling. He describes that after killing everyone in a particular fort the only character left was an old woman named Angis. Angis worked at the fort as a cook and housekeeper for whoever occupied the fort at the time. Given that Scimeca just slaughtered her captures/employers he assumed that she would have a natural human reaction such as fear or shock, instead she says this: "I just cook and clean and do whatever they ask of me,". She gives a few more variations of dialogue but nothing that could be seen as a logical reaction to her surroundings. She even sweeps around the dead bodies that lay naked on the floor (Scimeca of courses looted them of anything valuable) and never reacts to them.
This causes a problem for gamers and developers because a video game is suppose to be immersive and this sort of situation is like breaking through the 4th wall strapped to the front of rocket. Here you are, believably existing in this world of dragons, dungeons and magic. You trust that your every move dictates the world around you and BAM! you realize your nothing but a regular guy (or girl) playing a virtual avatar in a virtual world. Unfortunately this is what happens in Skyrim. I have experienced this, and so did Robert Rath as he explained in "Desperate Housewives of Skyrim" in the Escapist back in November 2012.
A few months ago Bethesda came out with a DLC called Hearthfire. In this DLC you can build your own house, get married and adopt children. Building a house is pretty straight foreword but getting married and adopting children are pretty serious life decisions and are usually very emotional. According to Rath, this isn't the case in Skyrim. Having a spouse or children in this fantasy world involves nothing more then empty rhetorical dialogue. You cannot physical connect with your spouse (or children) other then attacking them. You can't hug them, kiss them, or (in the case of your spouse) take them to bed with you. Rath even explains that many players have admitted to murdering they significant others, and he doesn't blame them. The dialogue that is available is mind-numbingly repetitive. Its no wonder why people are driven to murder.
For a game to be successful we need to care about the characters that populate it's virtual world. This concept is where games merge with Art. I capitalize Art because art (the consumer product we buy at Walmart and hang on our walls) and Art (the creative constructions that make people THINK as well as LOOK) are different things. If a game can make you feel a particular emotion then I would consider it a work of Art. In my experience (former Art student) that method of influencing a persons emotional response is what Art is all about. A game can be visually stunning, like Skyrim, and that would make it art worthy. To make it Art worthy would be to make us feel emotionally attached to the world we are exploring.
To wrap things up, Bethesda missed the boat on making a wholly believable experience in Skyrim (though still enjoyable). In order for games to advance from art to Art we need to bring back that 'human' connection being over looked in modern, open world games.


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10056-Desperate-Housewives-of-Skyrim
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/firstperson/9265-Skyrim-is-Soulless

The Financial Burden of Free Content

By Cameron Hills

Source Article:  Why An Indie Chose Free DLC Instead Of Microtransactions by Allistair Pinsof, February 13, 2013.

                Sometimes free is not free.  TANSTAAFL (There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch) is a term that has been used since the mid 1800’s and verified to the 1930’s and 40’s.  The concept is that something called free always costs someone, if only “Society.”  A decision to charge or not to charge for additional game content has to be considered in combination with the other marketing efforts of the company and the depth of the developer’s pockets.  To understand the decision we will look at the costs, the benefits and the balancing to make this all work.

                Free DLC (DownLoadable Content) cost a company in terms of time and money.  Time spent developing free content is time that could be spent on new games for money.  Employees cost money for payroll and benefits.  Fans also pay the price in that they have to wait longer for new games instead of the free content.  Also, how motivated are the programmer’s and artists when they know they are putting the company at risk working on free rather than paid content?

                On the other hand, companies spend money on marketing efforts.  They have to ask themselves “Is it better to spend $20k on game magazine ads or pay a team of artists, level designers and programmers to work on free content?”  As Phil Savage of PC Gamer points out “If you give people free things they will like you.”  This builds up the company’s profile and players feelings; a term finance people like to call Goodwill.  In addition, Steve Piggot, Torn Banner President, feels that free content is “investing in our fans.”  “I just think for us it’s more important that people are happy….”

                In the end, the decision to provide free content depends on the characteristics of the company.  Do they have the financial resources to put out the free content and work on the next game or add-on pack?  Is the free product of high enough quality to leave a positive sentiment with the game owners?  Will that translate to sales of the next game or add-on pack?  Does the company have sufficient marketing skills to get more bang-for-the-buck out of traditional advertising and marketing?  Every company and every project is different.  Developers have to make a case by case decision.

                In the end, it comes down to the fans and how they respond to these efforts.  Yes, they like free content.  But will they translate that liking a company for providing free DLC enough to stick around for future games and expansion packs?  Stick around to see if Torn Banner can make this happen.