I've been playing fantasy football this year and it's brought to mind two things. One, it's hard to play games where I don't have any control over the outcome. More about that another time. The second problem is that I can lose (and, in fact, have lost a number of times). Our gaming tradition is founded on competitive play where there is a winner and there are losers. Video games, especially single-player games, introduce a new dynamic. The competition is the game itself; and, with a little effort and dedication, the player can always "win."
I was playing Dragon Age: Origins the other day and I reached an especially difficult battle. I failed several times. Eventually, I was forced to dial down the difficulty, beat the bad guys, and continue on my way. Failure did not result in me losing, it was just a temporary setback on my way toward eventually winning by beating the game. I like this model much better than competitive gaming. I don't usually play online because there are winners and losers and I don't much like losing. Online co-operative play (as in Burnout Paradise or Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2) is a lot of fun. Even when I'm playing with my kids, I'd rather play LEGO Batman than Super Smash Bros.
I don't know if there's any deeper meaning to this. I just don't like to lose.
I've long maintained video games are a good entertainment value. Compare the average video game to the average movie. A movie costs $20 on DVD and provides about 2 hours of entertainment ($10 per hour). A game costs $50 or $60 and provides at least 10 hours of entertainment ($5 to $6 per hour) and frequently provides more. The new BioWare RPG, Dragon Age: Origins, is a great value. There's at least 40 or 50 hours of gameplay (without the mandatory replays for earning trophies/achievements). At $60 for the console version of the game, that's about $1.50 per hour of entertainment.
DLC (downloadable content) is another matter entirely. The "Stone Prisoner" DLC is included free with new copies of the game, so that's a wash. If you buy a used copy of the game, however, it will cost you $15 to download about an hour's worth of additional content. The $7 "Warden's Keep" takes about 30 minutes to play (if that). That's half again as expensive per hour of entertainment as a movie! No wonder publishers love DLC.
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 recently released a character pack that gives you five new characters to play with (that don't actually add any playtime) and four missions that take about 20 to 30 minutes of extra playtime. All for $10--a rate of $20 per hour for the extra entertainment!
DLC makes sense for online competitive games where extra characters or items can change and freshen online play. Burnout Paradise made extra cars that added great value to online play and some extra playtime to offline single-player. It's hard to measure extra online play; but, generally that will be a good value. It seems, though, as if DLC intended for offline, single-player games is extremely over-priced.
With the cost of game development spiralling ever higher, it's only natural for publishers to seek to recoup costs through other avenues than just upping the cost of the game itself (which they can't do because the console manufacturers want to keep game prices low to increase attach rates). Still, the price-gouging that takes place with DLC seems a bit excessive. Surely they could sell-through more DLC if they reduced the cost to put the value at least closer to the $10 per hour of entertainment provided by a movie.
This is about games, just not video games (well, games relate tangenitally to the topic). Rather, it's about the NFL games played yesterday (Nov 15). Two of them, anyway. In one game, the coach made a good decision that didn't work and he is now being excoriated by fans and sports "experts." In the other game, the coach made a bad decision that did work out and he and the player who executed the play are being hailed as geniuses.
In Indianapolis, Bill Belichik decided to attempt to get a first down on 4th-and-2 with 2:08 remaining on New England's own 28-yard line and ahead by 6. The play failed, Indianapolis got the ball back and scored to win the game. Everyone thinks Belichik should have punted and forced the Colts to drive 70 or 80 yards for the win. But, Belichik played for the win. He had just watched his defense get carved up by Manning for 2 quick TD drives and he had no reason to think they could hold after a punt. (There are many who say the coach dissed his defense. Of course he did! They were great for 3 quarters and then rolled over and played dead.) Had the 4th-down play worked, Belichik would be hailed as a genius and a courageous coach who played for the win. Punting is playing not to lose. Belichik played the percentages (the Patriots convert 4th-and-short over 60% of the time) and it failed. That doesn't make his decision "bad," just the result.
(What was a bad decision was trying to stop Indianapolis. New England should have let the Colts score quickly and then driven down for a winning field goal.)
In New York, Maurice Jones-Drew was heading into the end zone with the Jags down by 1 and only 1:00 left on the clock. Instead, under his coach's direction, he went down at the 1 yard line and the Jags ran down the clock and then kicked a winning field goal. Del Rio and MoJo are considered to be very smart; but, what he did was stupid. You're behind, you take the points! A figgie, even from the 3, is not automatic. You're going in for a TD, take it! Then challenge your defense to hold since the Jets will need to drive the length of the field with no timeouts in less than a minute. But, the field goal was good, the Jags won and everyone thinks it was a smart play. The decision wasn't "good;" but, the result was.
This is a lot like real life. We don't really know whether a decision is "good" or "bad" until we make it and play out the result. One of the things I really like about Dragon Age thus far is the fact all the decisions in the game are not "good" or "bad". There's no "karma meter" or "axis of evil". All you have are decisions and the results of playing out those decisions.
Oh, and I've read The Blind Side by Michael Lewis. If the movie that opens this week is half as good as the book, it will be worth seeing. (And you should also read the book.)
I had an interesting discussion a couple of days ago. I was chatting with a relative and the conversation turned to video games. We discussed Fallout 3, Halo, Oblivion, and various other games. We compared playing styles and talked about what we liked and didn't like in games.
So, what's interesting about that?
Well, I'm 42 and the relative was my wife's uncle who is in his 60s. A conversation about the merits of FO3's VATS system would not be out of place between a couple of young adults. But, two men with gray in their beards?Not as unusual as you might think.
You can now become a fan on Facebook or follow me on Twitter. I will also continue to try to post a blog here once-in-a-while (or more often). I'm doing this in lieu of trying to set up my own little social networking community here. After all, why reinvent the Web 2.0?
UPDATE: The inFamous premium guide is available! I'm selling this exclusively through Lulu as I've had a lot of problems processing downloads automatically through PayPal. Enjoy!
UPDATE: The inFamous guide is complete and I'm working on a premium version, which I hope to have out by the end of June!
Working on an inFamous guide. My first new guide in over two years. Woot! It's already partially complete and posted to GameFAQs. You can now also follow me on Twitter. I'm "tweeting" my gaming sessions.
I'm playing Burnout Paradise pretty heavily; but, I've mostly finished the single-player game (earned my Elite license) and I'm looking to spend more time online. I'd like to hear from anyone that wants to do some organized online playing. If you have a PS3 and Burnout Paradise, please contact me at barry@papagamer.com and let me know your PSN ID and when you would like to get together online. My ID is PapaGamer66. I'm available most evenings from 10pm to midnight Eastern (US) Standard time (2a-4a GMT). See you around Paradise.
I've said a lot of bad things about the Playstation 3. I questioned its abilities. I bemoaned its excessively high price. I postulated it wasn't worth getting when a Wii + an Xbox 360 (the so-called Wii60) was a better deal with better games.
I'm sorry, Sony.
I own a PS3 now (giving me the PSWii combo) and it's freaking awesome. This Fall was to be the "build a new gaming PC". This new rig would play Fallout 3, Dragon Age: Origins and lots of other great games. But...something funny happened on the way to Newegg.com. Instead of a new PC, I ended up with a new HDTV and a PS3. I think I came out on top on this deal. Especially now Bioware has confirmed Dragon Age: Origins will come to consoles. The last coffin nail in my PC gaming days has been driven in. I'm officially a console fan-boy.
This has nothing to do with games; but, I thought I would run through the movies I actually saw this Summer. Especially since we're starting to be inundated with the DVDs. I didn't see every movie (or even every "big" movie); I'll only comment on the ones I saw. I'll rate each movie on a ten-point scale, even though I don't really think you can find 10 gradations in quality; but, anyway...In the order in which I think of them...
Iron Man (10): One of the best movies I've seen in years. I can watch this over and over and never get tired of it. Everything about the film--led by Downey, Jr.'s acting--is spot on.
Kung Fu Panda (9): Second-best movie of the Summer and the first Dreamworks CG film to stand up to Pixar (and win). KFP is just a really, really fun time for the whole family.
Prince Caspian (6): I was really disappointed the spiritual part of the book was effectively neutered. Of course, the Caspian book is the second-worst of Lewis' series (Magician's Nephew is--by far--the worst) and extremely talky, so I understand why they didn't want a faithful translation. Still, the movie was more about Ben Barnes looking soulful than how the Pevensie children regained their faith.
Blog
