Mass Effect

I've come a long way on the notion of shooting things.  I really preferred my games with more slashing and less shooting.  Shooting requires precision, patience, planning... slashing a sword only requires - well, slashing.  But I've found that I have increasingly and increasingly been evolving to enjoy active combat and a weapon that can aim.

The Mass Effect series were the games that put Bioware on the map: a space opera series about Commander Shepard, human extraordinaire, and his ragtag group of adventurers.  Having finally been re-released for the PS3, the time was ripe to play and enjoy the series.

Statistics

If you click it, you can actually read it.  Data in the jump.

I like statistics, so when I learned that I could get some gameplay information from the Wii, I booted the old baby off to take a look at what I had played.

Online Social Environments (Beyond the MMO)

Usually, when I blog, it's to talk about how awesome (or slightly less so) games are; but sometimes, I like to go a little off the deep end and apply my knowledge about social constructs to the design and play of video games.  Today, I wanted to talk a little bit about online social environments and how they influence, impact, and have changed the way we game.

Gaming in social environments is not a new concept by a long shot.  Only recently did the scope of social environments involved in gaming expand exponentially.  An online social environment is a community (best defined by Pillari & Newsome as "[a social system] by the personal or affective ties among their members ... people with a common identity and bond").  This community's common identity is the game play.  And whereas many communities form in geographical locations, the space in which this community meets is virtual: the online social environment.

Before I lose you, here's a graphic representation of community (as we traditionally have understood it) and how an online social environment might be perceived.

Traditionally, communities are formed of cohesive groups of individuals - the community representing the focus of support for the individuals creating the group.  However, with online social environments, we are looking more at structures created (sometimes manufactured, sometimes grown organically) between individuals linked together through network connectivity (also known as the interwebz).

Okay, so what?  Well, the creation (especially the manufactured creation) of online social environments remains a major issue in online social gaming.  Everything from Facebook games to World of Warcraft create and utilize online social environments.  These are the foundations for which the game is designed, developed, and eventually, driven.  Where the theories of community development come into play are in considering how the environment and the individual interact.

There are two concepts of environment when considering systems theory.  I know I'm on the cusp of losing you again, so here's another drawing:

So, a symmetric environment (also sometimes called a symbiotic environment) influences the individual and the individual influences it.  Theoretical democracy is a symmetric environment.  An unbalanced, or directive environment is one which shapes the individual.  Online social environments can be applied to either category.  Consider a server community on Minecraft, for example.  This is a very symmetric environment - users create based on the materials available; the environment is shaped by users and provides the materials for construction (and also, Creepers). 



That'sss an awfully nice ssssocial environement you have there.
It'd be a ssssshame is ssssomething happened to it...

But not all games with online social environments work so nicely.  Let's take my arch-nemesis Farmville for a ride: users have little-to-no interactive ability with the environment, save for cosmetic changes.  There is little environment to speak of, because Farmville holds all the cards.  And rightfully so!  Relying on microtransactions would become difficult if you enabled community members to openly interact (especially on an economic basis). 

I don't want to go crazy into economics, but there is a huge problem between manufactured online social environments and profit motivation theory.  The notion to create a symmetric environment may be at diametric odds with the notion of creating a revenue generating environment.  So, in a capitalist based society, profit may beat out community development.

Because of this (I promise, the econ is almost done) profit problem, organically created online social environments tend to thrive more, because they are naturally uninhibited by those constraints that would generally plague a manufactured environment.

Of course, that sounds delicious to an investor.  Like wanting to capitalize on viral marketing, there is no magic bullet to ride the coattails of Web 2.0 to instant profit.  The motivation differences create a series of problems, lead to social entropy, and the decay (and eventual death) of the online social environment.

If you are an avid gamer, developer, or investor, I strongly recommend that you continue your investigation into online social environments - how we impact them, and them us.  Better understanding our mechanical interactive world can help make it better, not just for us, but for everyone else we share the community with; which, really, is what community is all about.

Fallout: New Vegas DLC - Old World Blues

Old World Blues is the most recently released DLC package for Fallout: New Vegas, and it's also the only pack I've had any experience with.  After about five hours of play yesterday, I feel like I've got a good enough grasp to give it a review, even if I haven't played the whole thing (this sort of behavior makes me reek of professionalism, right?).

Firstly, there is about a half hour of dialogue at the beginning of the DLC.  Yes, a half hour.  Do you know how long I wanted it to be?

Portal 2

No beating around the bush: Portal 2 lived up to and exceeded my expectations (which were high).  And here's how:

1.  Simple game mechanics explored by every angle imaginable.

The game play is pretty easy to understand: open up a blue portal, open up an orange portal.  Whatever goes in the blue portal comes out the orange portal.  Lasers, weighted cubes, yourself.  Use the portals to get from the entrance of each area to its exit while evading any obstacles designed to cause your demise.

Any time I'd get stuck on a puzzle (it happened a couple dozen times), the solution was nearly always a simple return to the basics: take a step back and open up some portals.

2.  Stupendous writing coupled with excellent voice acting.

The bar for comedic writing was set fairly high in the original Portal, and I'm delighted to say that Portal 2kept up pace incredibly well.  The three "main" characters have excellent interactions with each other and plenty of great monologue opportunities when interacting with the player character.  But in addition to just being hilarious: the writing creates excellent moments of sympathy for the characters.

And the voice work is exactly what it needs to be.  Each character is full defined and encapsulated within their first few lines of dialogue.

3.  Story, story, story - but don't shove it down my throat.

We also get a great look into Aperture Laboratories and its development, but it is fully at the player's own interest to discover it.  There is very little delivered narrative, but plenty to discover, which earns Portal 2 an A+ in creative writing and story delivery.

And that's just the single player campaign.  Once I've got a chance to play co-op I'm sure I'll be continuously wow'd.  Worth a pick up, indeed!  Though the game was somewhat brief (I bested it in about 6 or so hours, total), I'm sure it'll be the kind of game I play again and again...