Weekend Confirmed 124 - Army of Two, The Old Republic, Deadlight

Weekend Confirmed Fantasy League -- Interested?

Figured we'd get a reasonable start on having a league this year if there's interest.

I'm thinking 12-team, PPR. It being associated with the show there'd be no buy-in. I will ask that anyone wanting in be serious about sticking through the whole season committed to running their team--setting a lineup every week, considering trades, etc.

Reply if you're interested and with any comments and suggestions.

Garnett, have you tried "Datura" on PSN yet? It's a really interesting little "interactive art" title from Plastic, the guys who made "Linger in Shadows."

On the downside, you have to play most of it with the Move controller up at your shoulder like a torch or something, and it can be wonky to control at first (lean the wand to turn instead of twisting and it gets far easier.) It's also only a couple hours long.

Other than that though, it's a really refreshingly different experience with a novel Move-as-hand interface that lets you move a hand in 3D space in the game, realistically brushing and grasping at things. You explore a realistic forest, finding things that pull you into short dreamlike experiences with a moral choice aspect to them. The soundtrack is nice and ambient, and changes depending on the kinds of choices you make. I'd really recommend it for anyone who likes the short "art games" and wants something they haven't done before.

If you guys can't have industry guests on the show without it turning into 'riding their jock' (to quote Garnett), please stop having industry guests on the podcast.

You might not feel like it was, but this episode was hilariously loaded with praise for ND and Sony. Every positive example was a Sony product or franchise, every negative example was not. The ND guys kept going back to their own games for positive examples of game design, etc. Even when it was stuff like Multiplayer, which nobody gives half a fuck about ND games for.

This happens every time you guys have industry people on, Spec Ops: The Line Is another recent example, greatest thing since sliced bread when the guy was on the show, mediocre the next week when he wasn't. Either grow some balls and don't let them pimp their own stuff while you fawn at them, or just stop inviting them.

Integrity is not just a river in Africa.

I'm actually happy that EA is trying again with Army of Two.

I think there's a lot of potential in the franchise, and there are more than enough glimpses of co-op brilliance throughout the campaigns of the first two games to make believe there's magic somewhere in the formula.

I didn't mind the supposedly insensitive dialogue and interactions between the two characters, cause despite what people think, lots of soliders (both government-employed and privatized) have little issue swearing and celebrating their own survival post-enemy-exchange. Not all obviously, but quite a few.

And really, what's the difference between digitally fist-bumping your buddy after a hell of fire-fight, and that 'hug' button Garnett wanted so damn badly for Alex in Half-Life 2? It's just a digital expression of character-to-character interaction. In one case, it's giving players the chance to tell an NPC everything will be ok. In another instance, it's to tell a buddy online (or an NPC) 'hey man, I got your back' or 'good job'. If you don't like the characters, fine, the mechanic is fine though.

If anything, my issue with the games is that they tried to turn the series into a buddy cop movie, at least in terms of mood. I remember the original E3 trailer, set to Nine Inch Nails, and it really gave the game a sinister, cynical tone. Like the devs were aware and willing to explore the inherent grey areas of privatized military, the kind of sociopathic tendencies of the people drawn toward this line of work, and how they can go over the line between doing a hard job and enjoying the hell out of it.

Hoping this new 'gritty' take will take a look back at that original concept in terms of tone, and go forward with it.

Anybody else in here anticipating Phantasy Star Online 2 for when it comes out in English next year?

Anyone else see the "code of the princesses" trailer 3DS game looks freaking awesome:)

Garnett

I'm just dying to hear you talk about Track Mania 2 some time. You certainly know your realistic racing games, what are you thoughts on possibly the least realistic racing game yet conceived?

That car talk discussion was amusing but for anyone with a wheel almost entirely inaccurate. I guess I should of stopped listening when I heard about Iracer (as opposed to Iracing) . The Sony employee trashing wheels for some power assist nonsense was also a red flag. (There was some of this in Forza 3 but it was hardly enough of a factor to completely discount using a wheel at all.)

First off, they comment about how you can be just as fast with a controller. It is actually far easier to drive with a controller because of the buffers applied to the inputs from your controller. In Forza 4, I've had friends who only play with a controller transfer a car over to play with my wheel (CSR-E) and the car would be nearly undriveable and oversteer with minimal effort. In GT5, try the Lotus Top Gear challenge on a wheel and try not spinning out. At least in Forza you can retune the car to something useful but this challenge in GT5 doesn't allow tuning, Much less changing the tires from road tires that, in real life, the car never had in the first place.

The comment about maximizing the contact patch between cornering and braking was also baffling as it is essentially the exact opposite experience myself and other wheel users have had. Try playing Gt5 with something like Fanatec CSR-Elite and you will find that for whatever reason Polyphony Digital doesn't model any range of understeer; rather, the steering washes out completely once the tires break traction. On the GTPlanet forum someone seriously thought their wheel was broken because the effect was so jarring. They then played Forza and praised that game's force feedback because it models the transition to understeer and loss of front end grip so well.

Let's talk about oversteer. With a controller in Forza it is difficult to cause oversteer compared to gt5 Turn10 buffers the inputs a lot more. With a wheel oversteering is handled fairly well in both games but as mentioned before the communication of front end grip leaves much to be desired in gt5.

Btw that "japanese drifting track" is Fujimi Kaido a fantasy track so it is sort of useless as a comparison tool. You both go on an on about the importance of having a baseline by driving a 240, etc in real life but then the Sony employee trash's Forza's handling based on a track that doesn't even exist. Now you could say well it was based on roads in Japan but the track was built with drifting in mind so complaining that you have to use a handbrake is just plain stupid.

Now the clutch. This wasn't discussed but it is the main reason I prefer Forza. Personally I don't have that much of a problem with either game's force feedback or physics they are both different but my major problem with GT5 is the clutch. Anytime you shift gears you must completely press down the clutch, change gears, release the clutch, and then press the gas. Not accomplishing this perfectly forces you into neutral and you have to start all over. It makes no sense, PD really loves punishing me for pressing the gas slightly before completely releasing the clutch. To alleviate this problem I've read of users disconnecting the wires on their clutch pedal and leaving the clutch in automatic so they can use the clutch like in a real car without this penalty. (but then you have no clutch, obviously)

In Forza you can powershift and slip the clutch. It's not perfectly modeled but in this area it is far superior to what Polyphony has provided, If you misshift in Forza the penalty is a grinding noise, a later shift and some transmission damage and further misshifts will increase the grind and delay. This is a compromise,sure but it far better than just going into neutral.

Next the comment by the Sony employee "I could be driving on rims" when speaking of tire modeling in Forza. This applies to even with a controller. I doubt he has even played one of the 70's muscle cars in stock form the effect of tall tires is very noticeable in Forza but is nonexistent in GT5. If you didn't notice it on a newer car that's because there are diminishing returns on having a lower aspect ratio tire. This should be obvious to someone who races cars.

Finally F1. It is well known in the sim racing community that the Codemasters F1 games only simulate physics just slightly above the leagure of their other titles like Dirt . If Garnett knew that, he should at least point it out rather than hopping to that topic and misleading others into thinking they are in the same class as a GT or Forza as far as physics. //Now I personally don't consider either of those sims and this is a minor complaint but I'm just putting it out there.

Love the show, just thought that the segment provided a lot of misinformation especially to those interested in using a wheel.

Great episode guys!

Twice during the episode today, I found myself thinking about Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode, and how it might be relevant to your topics of conversation.

1. Micro Transactions / Free-to-Play

ME3's multiplayer mode is perhaps the most well executed FtP model I have ever personally played. Yes, I'm aware that it is part of a $60 boxed game, but go with me here for a minute :)

Bioware created a fun, engaging, and narrow-focused multiplayer mode. The entire game system has great monetization hooks built right in. Players can earn in-game credits to buy replenishment packs (which contain new guns, new character unlocks, or weapon and power upgrades). You can earn enough credits simply by playing to purchase a decent amount of packs and get some cool stuff. Or, you can spend MS points on the packs to unlock them without "earning" the in-game credits.

It's a balanced, in-obtrusive system. At no point do I feel handicapped for not spending money. I get all I want out of the game simply by playing.

But here's where the particularly clever part comes in: "Free" DLC.

Bioware has already released 2 (maybe 3? can't remember) Free DLC packs for ME3 multiplayer. These DLC packs include new characters to use in multiplayer, each with their own unique set of powers (so they're not simply re-skins of existing characters). The packs are free to download..... but that doesn't get you the characters. It just means they are available to unlock from the replenishment packs, just like all the original characters. So you might be able to unlock them if you buy enough packs, but I'm certain that the desire to use the sweet new characters leads to a heavy spike in MS point purchases of packs. There is a great incentive for players to drop a little extra cash to see the new content as fast as possible.

The other brilliant thing behind this model is that it prevents fragmentation of the player base. Most other online multiplayer games end up splitting their player base into 2 groups: those who have the DLC and those who don't. But with ME3's DLC being "Free", all players are able to download the assets and have the new characters in their game, even if they haven't personally unlocked them yet. This also equates to free advertising. If you jump into a match and see your teammates running around using cool characters that you don't have access to, it could easily push some people into splurging on some packs.


2) MMO Combat design.

I loved the idea of focusing less on the player vs enemy dynamic and shifting the focus of design to the way the different player classes fit and combine together. Once again, this is the beauty of ME3's multiplayer. Every time I start to feel like the game is beginning to wear a little thin, I switch to a new character class and force myself to learn a new set of abilities. This is a very complex and satisfying process, because learning to use a new character is more about learning how they fit with the other classes than how to fight the enemies. How does this character's powers react to the abilities of my teammates? What combos are effective against different forms of shields or barriers?

I constantly play with my brother and a few friends, and we have turned the art of "squad building" into a form of meta-game. We might try to design a squad around a specific concept, like a "Biotic combo" squad, or a "Melee" squad. We'll put a squad together with the idea of great mobility, so we can quickly move around the map together. Or we might design a squad with defensive positioning in mind.

This nature of design expands the replayability of the game to an incredible degree. It doesn't matter that your fighting the same enemies with the same objectives over and over again. There are just so many different ways to approach combat, that the players are capable of making it fresh.

I'd love to see more of this sort of design in the MMO space. Or if there are MMOs that already do this, maybe we should be looking a little more closely at them :)

Jeff is on the right track. As a long time EVE player I've been wondering for a long time why other MMOs haven't tried to learn from it. Having a player driven world that actually takes advantage of the fact that there are thousands of people in it creates something much more interesting than any theme park MMO could ever dream of. It's not even something new, the early MMOs like UO, hell even SW:G, were headed in that direction but then WoW came along and everyone stopped taking risks and just copied that.

The DayZ analogy is also spot on, it's easily the most similar game to EVE that I've played but because it's superficially a shooter it's much more approachable than EVE will ever be. I love it for exposing more people to how awesome a free form sandbox game can be and I hope that other developers finally start taking some lessons from that.

Am the only one who buys a micro transaction or purchases the ad free version of a game only to support the developer? As a software developer myself, I can understand the amount of work that goes into a game. So if I have been enjoying a game/app for hours and plan on keep playing, then I want to support them as they have certainly deserved my .99-4.99

The MMO talk was great two things.

1. MMO's lost their complexity as the graphic complexity increased and as more people flocked to them. UO was incredibly free form, EQ had classes all about Buffing, or Messing or Pulling. WoW took that formula and focused it to such a point that it became what the genre represents.

2. The combat in MMOs I think is the way it is due to latency and a lack of hardware uniformity. Massive scale multiplies the problems when it comes to providing an equal experience for everyone. You can limit the game to people with the 'same' internet but we all know it isn't the same. So ACTIONBAR and cool down techniques fulfills the technological adversities facing the genre.

Anyone remember Mortal Online? Didn't think so.

Thought I'd Tap in with my thoughts on the recent news of SW:TOR going F2P.

I believe that If the product is good enough, people will pay a monthly subscription for it. Blizzard innovated and differentiated with WoW enough so that even with the threat of F2P, their systems are still so well refined that 9-odd million users are willing to pay $15 a month. SWTOR, on the other hand, tried to hide a clone under the shiny wrapping of voice acting and a couple of extra clicks during dialogue sequences. Reductive, I know, but there isn't a whole lot else to it, aside from maybe space combat. The particular type of themepark MMO is under effective ownership of Blizzard, so it's easy to see why people are unwilling to pay for an inferior product.

Then there is EVE, which is targeted to a particular niche market and has flourished as a result. Its sandbox style is not only different, but very well tuned to those that most enjoy its mechanics and systems. The game is even older than WoW and still, people want to pay for it too!

Simply put - one can't go about the business of creating content that is done better elsewhere without proper innovation or enough of a differentiation and expect to be paid continually for it. WoW is good enough to charge $15.00. SWTOR isn't.

Thoughts?

I've always thought Dungeons and Dragons Online had an approach to an MMO that worked great but just ran out of steam for me.
Here's the good stuff:
-real time combat where position and all the objects (crates, rocks, ect) mattered. Also characters took up space and blocked attacks.
-Instanced quests that were crafted out to include traps, events (such as a floor collapsing), and NPCs rather than just dumb mobs.
-Multiple ways to complete a quest, such a disarming a trap or using a shield to block as others ran past.

The bad
-not enough content. Once I ran through all the well made quests I had little motivation to do them again since I knew exactly how to complete them. Also, not fun playing with someone in the group who just gives it all away. New content didn't come along fast enough to keep my interest and eventually they went to larger raid type quests to give something to do. I lost interest about that time.

What I wonder is if a microtransaction model could fund something like this enough to keep the content coming. Would someone be willing to pay 50 cents or whatever to run a new quest in an MMO?

Can't wait for the anus licking of "Last of Us" despite having the same level of violence as Spec Ops

Great discussion on MMOs this week.

I think all MMO gamers have asked themselves what to do about the "Holy Trinity"/"Wack-a-mole"/"Fetch-Kill Quest" problem that has become a real issue with the modern MMO space. I think Jeff hit the nail on the head when he started talking about the Day-Z MMO.

In this style of game, you're given finite resources, an interesting environment, and left to decide for yourself what kind of fun you're going to have with the game. This is Eve currently works, and, while I've not put any serious time into the game, this is one of the reasons it sounds compelling.

This Sandbox style experience is something that SOE's John Smedly hinted that his company is really focusing on in the future. "That's where the whole thing is going. That's where we're going. Emergent." from: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xlir0/iama_john_smedley_22_year_game_industry_veteran/

Is this the future of MMOs? Will games like Planetside 2 and War Z revitalize he landscape?

TERA actually IS free to play... sort of. They have an interesting new system, which I hadn't seen before. Basically, they created an in-game item called "chronoscrolls" that, when used, gives you 30 days of playtime. You can buy chronoscrolls in-game from other players with in-game money, so it's now possible to play this game for free if you're willing to grind currency to buy it.

The trick is that chronoscrolls are actually purchased by other players for 15 real dollars. They're creating a legitimate real-world money conversion into in-game money through this item. It's sort of solving two problems at once.

So Richy No-Time buys this item for 15 real dollars, then puts the item on the in-game auction house. Cheapy Grinder buys the item in-game and gets to play for free, while Richy gets in-game money for real dollars.

When you think about it, it's pretty slick, but then you realize that you now have a conversion rate for in-game to real currency. So that tier 12 chestplate that dropped can be considered to be worth "30 dollars," which is a really weird thing to think about when you're actually playing.

Here's EnMasse's blogpost on chronoscrolls: http://tera.enmasse.com/news/posts/introducing-the-tera-chronoscroll

I would definitely like to participate in the Fantasy Football.