I know that the fourth quarter of every year typically consists of crème de la crème, big budget, high profile video game releases; but this year is truly something to behold. Generally speaking I try to focus on one new game at a time. By “new” I mean in terms of release date, not simply new to me. New games warrant special attention in order to be able to review them accurately and promptly, discuss them with peers, and of course clear the way in time for the next new game. What makes this year special is that for the first time in years I’m literally overwhelmed with the amount of great games to choose from.
The quarter started off with a bang thanks to the release of the sleeper hit, and PS3 exclusive, Demon’s Souls (10/6). It was swiftly followed up by the blockbuster titles Brutal Legend (10/13) and the critically acclaimed Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (10/13). Lastly the most recent smash hit and my personal favorite is none other than Borderlands, which is another huge success at meshing RPG and FPS into one title. The aforementioned titles are certainly a precursor to the spectacular games planned to release in Q4, and luckily for gamers everywhere, there’s an abundance of them.
Forza Motorsports 3 (10/27)
Dragon Age: Origins
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (11/10)
God of War Collection (11/10)
Assassin’s Creed 2 (11/17)
Left 4 Dead 2 (11/17)
Avatar: The Game (12/1)
The quarter started off with a bang thanks to the release of the sleeper hit, and PS3 exclusive, Demon’s Souls (10/6). It was swiftly followed up by the blockbuster titles Brutal Legend (10/13) and the critically acclaimed Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (10/13). Lastly the most recent smash hit and my personal favorite is none other than Borderlands, which is another huge success at meshing RPG and FPS into one title. The aforementioned titles are certainly a precursor to the spectacular games planned to release in Q4, and luckily for gamers everywhere, there’s an abundance of them.
Here are just a few of the stellar titles that are coming to a console near you this quarter (in chronological order):
So what happens when you get a game that is packaged with a medicore story mode, and a stellar multiplayer? Do you simply throw a 7.3 rating at it based on the main campaign aspects alone, despite having a 9.3 multiplayer experience hidden deep within it? Should one portion of the game be weighted more than the other, or should they be assessed side by side as equals?
Those are questions I’ve been asking myself for the better part of a decade now. The reason being that since I started to heavily partake in gaming with friends, especially when consoles made it easy to do so via a high-speed internet connection, I noticed a trend. Some games that I thought were only so-so in terms of their single player content and campaigns were mind blowing in regards to their multiplayer functions. Every console has had that one or two games that really enthralled me with one dimension of the game, and appalled me with the others.
For the PC one of the biggest games that come to mind is the original installment of the Age of Empires series. The multiplayer was just so damn fun for me and I wouldn’t have even discovered it if I hadn’t been challenged by a friend just moments before I was about to delete it from my computer. I can easily say that the MP in that game, for me, was a high 8 or maybe even a clean cut 9. The campaign however was bordering along a 5.
For the Nintendo 64 the obvious contender was Goldeneye, but it was also several other games on the 64 that really started this internal dilemma. Perfect Dark, Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart 64, Ken Griffey Jr., and even NBA Jam were all games I was obsessed with for their multiplayer and could hardly stomach to play any other way. I would pick up GamePro or go online and read about these games that people were going nuts for, as a whole, rather than for one or the other.
Recently game ratings have started to mean a lot more to me. They’re easily accessible thanks to the internet. Sites like IGN and GameFaqs even allow you to write your own reviews which actually have an impact on the games public rating, as well as finding heated debates on the forums. The truth of it all is that I play certain genres for the multiplayer, and others for the personal experience. I enjoy shooters, sports, and racing for multiplayer. While on the flip-side I crave RPG’s and Adventure games for the super personal “me time” that can be found in a superior campaign. If a game/genre is able to mesh multiplayer in a way that enhances the campaign gameplay through co-op, that’s great. If it has its own standalone MP that most games could never hold a candle to, that’s absolutely superb.
The reason I feel this way is unlike a campaign that has a script and tentative completion time, multiplayer is ever evolving and contains limitless replay value. While I reflect fondly on some of the best single player experiences I’ve had none can even compare to some of the highs and lows I’ve had thanks to multiplayer. I am much more inclined to purchase a good Shooter or Fighter than I am to purchase an awe inspiring Action romp. For example: recently I really enjoyed the games Infamous and Batman: Arkham Asylum. They’re both quite lengthy and in depth for their genre, but I absolutely loved Killzone 2 multiplayer. I loved it so much that I didn’t even get to the campaign when I rented it for the first time. Not only that, I spent so much time playing the MP that it was boggling. By the time I finally got around to playing the campaign I was quickly uninterested and wanted to go back to playing the multiplayer. Another shooter that had me feeling similarly was last years Far Cry 2.
So what’s the answer to the question then? In my opinion it’s very simple: give the games three ratings. I’ve yet to see a site or magazine take this approach and I think fans would really appreciate it. There’s an entire population of gamers that play games strictly for their multiplayer aspects, and hate to play alone. I have a ton of friends like that and as previously stated, certain genres are that way for me. Here is how I think it could be done effectively:
Overall Score: Multiplayer averaged out with single player. Say for instance a games lackluster campaign is deserving of no higher than 7.3 rating. However, it’s coupled with a kick ass multiplayer that clearly deserves a 9.3, so that game would average out to be a respectable 8.5 overall. Why overall? Because frankly a game in the end is a total package. There are many parts of the game that make up how good it is, but it’s very important in my eyes to distinguish between the multiplayer experience and the single player experience if they choose to delve into it. Some will be completely content with the standard overall view which covers all bases.
Multiplayer: This will take into account all multiplayer features. This includes leaderboard capabilities (for stage/boss/other clear times, challenges and other non-traditional multiplayer settings), co-op challenges (Horde mode in Gears of War 2, Survival mode in CoD: WaW, Academy in Peggle), co-op campaign (2 player only or more? How does it function? Enhance game or nuisance? Etc.), and the good old traditional multiplayer modes that you’d expect a game to have.
Single Player (*Excludes co-op?*): This would incorporate any and everything done by yourself. Ranging from the actual story mode, to something like say a “Challenge Mode” that you would find in Batman: Arkham Asylum, or even Peggle (which I’m a fanatic about completing). *This could include a games co-op feature if it has one, seeing how a lot of games play completely different when you incorporate another player into the mix. It would depend on if it really skewed the ratings or not.
If someone was a huge fan of one play style or another it would be useful if they could distinguish between several ratings to know what they’re getting into ahead of time. If I am going to go buy a shooter or fighter, I want to know I’m getting a game with amazing multiplayer aspects. If not, I don’t want it. Being able to check on such a rating and get an in depth review of it would really ease my mind and greatly influence game choice.
It should be noted that by DLC I am strictly referring to the additional content you can purchase to further expand a game. I am not referring to the ability to download demo’s, entire games that you purchase via online, or anything else of that nature.
For the last few years the phenomenon known as “DLC”, or Downloadable Content has been sweeping across the console gaming industry. Some would say like wildfire, where others would say it’s more akin to a plague. While both imply rapid spread and obvious popularity in this context, whether it be on the consumers end or the publishers end, they clearly have different outlooks on the scenario. Some gamers view DLC as a refreshing and original way to get semi-frequent updates for their most beloved titles. Others are far more skeptical of the fad, claiming that it’s a new way to rob consumers, intentionally withhold game content at release, and has an overall adverse effect on sequel creation. Regardless of what side you’re on the lines have been drawn and arguments for both sides are equally as abundant as they are valid.
Here are the prominent arguments for and against DLC:
Against DLC:
Price Gouging: Some feel that game developers are pricing content substantially higher than their real value. Where a full 10-12 hour game (excluding multiplayer) costs roughly $60 US, a mere thirty minute side story often costs $10. The replay value vs. the money spent is imbalanced when compared to the dollar:playtime ratio of the full game itself. For the price of a short amount of extra content you can go rent an entire game that will last you
Content Holdouts: Rumors often fly that developers are intentionally excluding certain content from the game release, just so it can be released later as DLC. This goes as far as saying that rather than putting as much enjoyable content as possible in a finished product, the developers chop up certain portions of a game in order to distribute it bit by bit, increasing total revenue.
Damaging Community: Games that are highly multiplayer oriented such as Halo 3, Gears of War 2, and Call of Duty: World at War offer an abundance of downloadable multiplayer content. The problem is that when several friends have the content and you do not, you’re unable to participate in that content alongside them. This can make it hard to find people to play with and hurts gaming relationships. Halo 3 is the best example of this, due to the fact that many game type’s offered aren’t even accessible without the DLC even though they were originally at launch. By making originally public content exclusive to DLC users, this somewhat counters the optionality of DLC in its current state.
Postpones Franchise Progression: This issue is tied with content holdouts as the most prevalent anti-DLC sentiment. Many gamers feel that rather than conceptualizing and putting forth maximum effort to create new installments of the franchise, developers spend far too much time working on DLC. Often when the quality of a new installment of a game comes into question, the development time and resources come into question. If Mass Effect 2, Gears of War 3, and Fallout 4 (whenever the last two are finally announced) aren’t up to par, you better believe that people will cite excessive DLC focus as a potential reason for shortcomings.
Bad For Renters: It’s particularly bad if you want to take full advantage of the multiplayer options. There’s generally no incentive for purchasing a game that you have only for a short while, especially when the price of the DLC is more costly than the price of the rental itself.
For DLC:
Completely Optional: Hands down the most abundant argument of DLC supporters is all that DLC is considered optional. No one is forced to shell out cash and pay for what is described as “additional features” in any game in order to play the original product.
More bang for your buck: By being able to expand upon a game you’ve already purchased you essentially get more replay value from it if you really enjoy it. This can be a huge selling point for potential customers that feel active DLC support by a developer goes hand in hand with a solid title. Games with extensive multiplayer DLC can extend the replay value of a game almost indefinitely with a streaming source of multiplayer content.
Free/Discounted Eventually: A good amount of the DLC that is introduced is eventually given away free, allowing everyone take advantage the full experience the game has to offer. The ones that aren’t given away free are discounted to a more reasonable price, or bundled with other specials.
GREAT for developers: The gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar affair and is purely money driven. DLC is absurdly profitable for developers, and the Xbox 360 raked in over $300 million USD in 2008 from DLC alone. Not only that but games with DLC support have a “16% longer lifespan“. The more money developers can make, the more money they’re able to pump into their development teams and games. This is obviously good for both the consumer and the developer alike because higher budget games generally yield a better end product, and superior gaming experience.
Downloadable Content isn’t exactly a new concept to gaming. PC gamers have been able to download additional content for over a decade for their titles. Whether it be user made/modified, or offered by the developer, the PC gaming community has had many outlets to expand upon their games. It’s become commonplace for developers of open ended games like MMO’s (World of Warcraft, Everquest, Ultima Online, LOTR Online, etc.) to be constantly developing expansion packs, which are a PC games equivalent to a console’s DLC, though in most cases substantially larger in scale. These PC game expansion packs were harshly criticized at times, though no where near as much as a consoles DLC. Mostly because the amount of content added drastically altered the game to the extent that it almost felt as though you were playing a new game altogether. Problems arise when you transition the idea to a console game that is not persistently taking place twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a week, like that of an MMO or ther multiplayer driven game.
Console developers over the last two years have began releasing DLC either on the day of release, or within a very short timespan following it. Ranging from two weeks to a month on average. A lot of this content is being offered in a peculiar fashion: unlockable codes. Essentially games are being sold with a code that when entered activates or “unlocks” some type of content within the game. Sometimes the content is already present on the disc you’ve already paid full price for, and other times you simply download it really quickly and it’s available to you.
How you get the code however will greatly vary from game to game, and vendor to vendor. Some games only offer these codes if you pre-order the game, or purchase a special collector’s edition. Game vendors like GameStop are perhaps most well known for such promotions. Anyone that is familiar with GameStop, gone to a gaming website, or has even watched T.V. recently should have come across some of their commercials advertising special content bonus content with pre-order. Examples of the “free” pre-order DLC from Gamestop includes Batman: Arkham Asylum’s exclusive challenge map, Borderlands‘ “Mercenary Weapon Pack”, and most notably Dragon Age: Origins‘ slough of items.
I know what most people are thinking right now, and that is that most of the above sounds like a great bonus for anyone looking to purchase the game, right? The problem is that these special codes come with a catch. The codes are for obvious reasons only usable one time, otherwise they would be simply traded around from person to person ’til everyone had it. When the codes are used they are bound to that specific user account and/or console. Not only that but if the code came with the game inside the box, rather than a special pre-order option, the value of that game drastically decreases. In most cases it becomes virtually impossible to trade-in the game, or sale it period thanks to the diminished resale value.
So what about those that were unable to pre-order the game and would rather wait until they read a review, rented it? In 99% of the cases there will be none. This means that you either are left out of the content that is already available, or you will have to shell out the cash to pick it up. This may seem like depriving consumers, or perhaps like an amazing business plan to A.) increase pre-sale figures, B.) bring in tons of extra cash, and C.) increase the shelf life of a game.
Whether your love DLC or hate DLC, it’s here to stay. Developers and vendors are constantly thinking of new and improved ways to incorporate DLC. What’s in store for DLC in 2010? Could we see special DLC that can be won or unlocked via in game and/or online accomplishments? Is there DLC that will be hailed as franchise specific tools that will carry over to the next product produced in that line? Who knows at this point, but if the developers don’t meet the consumer at least half way in determining price and quality of the DLC they could see a serious backlash in the near future. It’s already happening with Rock Band, Resident Evil, and the Gears of War franchise. But as long as the Downloadable Content generates a large enough revenue, it will continue to stay the same.
