Group Think In Video Games?

Hello everybody, I've been busy with school lately (as usual).  I've been tired but my Super Sprint game is coming along nicely and the only time I have to "think" about blogging is before I go to bed so here goes.

I've been thinking about this for a while.  It's about video games.  I notice that when it comes to gaming (particularly multiplayer), a few games get the most attention of all.  And I can think of a few....oh, Call of Duty?  Halo?  Battlefield?  World of Warcraft?  Starcraft?  Etc.

That's not to say these games are bad but let's think about this for a second.  People nowadays are madly social.   It's why we have Facebook, Xbox Live, and all these rave clubs where people get drunk and rub up on girls/guys they want to date.  So you're some cool dude and a couple of your friends are playing games.  A few are playing Call of Duty.  So which game are you going to play?  Something else and get thrown out of the loop?  No, you're going to play Call of Duty, even if you don't like it as much.  And this also applies to single-player experiences too....don't play Zelda or Skyrim?  Eh...there's no help for you.

What seems to be happening is that a lot of people want to play the same exact games.  Sure, there are some games that are actually good, but the idea that SO MANY PEOPLE love the hell out of the same games?  There's something going on here.  Like it's easier to hop into a game hugely supported by some community than one that doesn't.  So there's not much "trailblazing" going on, is there?

As they say, "the rich video games get richer."  OMG THE TOP 1% OF GAMES OWN 99% OF THE PLAYERS!!!  Well, I'm not going to turn this into an "Occupy Activision/Electronic Arts/Microsoft/Sony" tirade cause frankly, I'm sick and tired of this "meme" (it's the 'cool' thing to talk about, just admit it...sticking it to The Man) and I'm not going to let a few rich folks put me down from making video games, sorry.

And back on video games, I'm not a "social" guy.  Which is perhaps why I'm not into Facebook, MMO's, or anything really popular.  It's why I sit here on this stupid blog and post about games that few people are aware about.  And that's okay cause I'm doing what I love.

But about the popularity thing.  I remember about a year or two ago, Perfect Dark (the N64 version) came out for Xbox Live.  And at the time, it was a HUGE deal, kind of like Daytona USA today.  If you don't own the game already, then you're just an idiot...go buy it now.  For those of you who've already played it, you can freeze the crosshair in the middle of the screen thanks to a patch (the moving crosshair turned off a lot of people...I agree).  Got all the achievements and still love the game today.  Read my previous Perfect Dark experiences here.  Granted, the game isn't perfect and there's a few things I'd change, but there's one glaring problem...

After about a month or two of playing, I noticed that the number of XBL players began to dwindle.  It was to the point where I had to wait a minute or two in the lobby just to play a 1 vs. 1 against some randoms (not to brag but most of whom I handily beat).  On the other hand, you had Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops which had over 100,000 players.  If I liked both games equally, which one do you think I'd prefer?  CoD, because it's much easier to jump into games against randoms, friends, you name it.

I'm still disappointed by this.  Perfect Dark literally was manna from heaven but no one's buying.  Instead they asked for meat.  Well, they got meat...though we all don't know how long until they tire of it.  Yes, this is a story from the Bible, in case you didn't know already.

I just wonder how long until Daytona USA succumbs to the same fate.  Now we have Forza 4 out which IMO isn't bad though I haven't bought it yet (Christmas present, maybe?).  But that game has a much more robust community.  So what's one to do--ostracize one's self from society playing a crusty old game or to join the crowd?  Hell, I remember playing the very recent Sega & Sonic All-Stars Racing game (my comments here) but the number of players dropped to zero so...off to Forza 3 I went!!!

Speaking of which, I just checked out Major Nelson's XBL charts and in the week of Oct. 24, Daytona USA was the second most purchased XBLA game.  Within in a month, it's drofpped off the Top 25.  Although for some strange reason, Crazy Taxi, OutRun, and Sega Rally were back on radar for that week as well.  EDIT: Turns out Sega racers are on sale for a limited time (except Daytona, of course) so go buy them all now.  No signs of Perfect Dark or anything else I really like.  It's also disappointing that Daytona USA has a 3.8 of 5 rating on Xbox Live, I mean, what's up with the inconsistency here???

The way I see things, all things go through cycles.  What was cool yesterday really isn't cool today.  So if the goal in life is to enjoy popular things and then dispose of them, what's the point?  Why can you like something for being great?  I still draw strange looks from people who don't "get" my obsession with racing games and the Sega Racing posters I have up in my cubicle.  I don't know man.  I know the games I talk about aren't bad and yes, many people like them for that reason, but how many people like them for the fanbase???

All I have to say is this.  Don't abandon popular games altogether, but give some other games a shot if you haven't already.  Like give OutRun Online Arcade a try.  It's only 400 MSP and it goes off the marketplace at the end of the year.  Just worth it...who knows, you may become addicted to it as well.

Oh, and one more thing.  I was thinking about game design, as usual.  The question as a game designer is how much content should one put in one's game?  Think about this.  If you release a Call of Duty game with 50 guns and 30 MP maps, it would probably sell the same as a Call of Duty game with 25 guns and 15 maps.  So why go back and improve the game?  Improving the game requires time and money, two things game studios usually don't want to give up.  In the end, the cost outweighs the extra sales.  It's why they stopped releasing extra content for Black Ops...so people will buy MW3, then the next CoD, and then whatever's is in style at the time.

And it's not just an "evil Call of Duty" thing.  I mean, if I were part of the dev team working on Perfect Dark, I'd love to go back to the game and polish a few things in a month's time for little or no time.  It's not like this was some grandiose release game that needed a hype machine to get by--some sites like Gamasutra popped the news and then the game was release.  No "marketing campaigns" to work around.  But that didn't happen  Why?  Because it has no impact on game sales.

I wonder if this is something that's holding back Sega.  They say, "Well, we put out Daytona USA, OutRun, and Sega Rally ports, so no more racing games..."???  And how about other racing games like Forza or Need for Speed?  What's the point of trying to compete with those when those are the only two racers you really need?  Need for Speed, HA!  Like if you go to a restaurant and you wanted a Barq's Root Beer and all they had was Coke, you accept defeat and take the Coke.  Come on, go the extra distance.  Money is temporary, but glory is forever.  So go for the glory of great games, not great profits.  Make the great racing games.  Sega, make Shenmue 3 NOW.  That's just my two nickels' worth.

EDIT: This is me:

Wanna Sell A Video Game? Jump Through Marketing Hoops!!!

Bro, I've been staring at lines of Assembly code for hours recently.  So it's been an aggravating weekend thus far.

Now, to talk more about game design stuff that I learned at school.  This is where things get really convoluted.  Most everyone (including I) have had this romantic notion of video game design.  That is, you think of a game, hire the employees necessary to make it, and then copied are distributed worldwide and you all walk away $800 million richer.  No, it's much more complicated than that.

What's the number one thing that sells a game?  MARKETABILITY!!!!!

If you want a major publisher to market your game for you, it begins with the pitch.  The "best game idea" doesn't always get selected.  It's all about creating that illusion of "fun" for the previewers.  Get your hands on some great pitchmen & laser shows and sell that game to the guys.  Find ways to inspire the audience.  For instance, games like Super Mario Bros. or The Sims sound boring on paper (play a fat plumber/go to the bathroom 4 times a day) but you need to flex your creative muscles in order to sell a reasonable product.  In general, the best games are the ones that are the easiest to pitch and are most likely to produce sequels/spinoffs (easy to reproduce success).

Then again, I'll never know how the hell this game got past the producers.

Okay, so now we assume that the game has been green-lighted and production is under away.  Hire your 100+ employee team and start plugging away at this!  This is where marketing REALLY hits home.  Up until the official release date, publishers are finding ways to pique the public's interest in the game via screenshots, videos, interviews, demos, etc. released in timely intervals.  Interest is measured from numerous variables including stats from Game Journalists (GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy) and discussion topics on message boards (GameFAQs and NeoGAF).  Sometimes, devs will even post in these forums with the sole purpose of stirring game interest or garnering public opinion.

DO NOT DOUBT FOR A SECOND THAT GAME DEVS DON'T DO THIS.  THEY MAY BE EAVESDROPPING ON YOU OR ME AS WE SPEAK!!!!

With consumer interest at its max point by release date, the game will go on to sell the most possible copies.  Now this is something that I loathe but is apparently a big f'n deal in the industry: DO NOT DELAY OR PUT OFF THE RELEASE DATE!  The schedule that the publishers have in place "guarantees" max sales at a given release date.  To push it later would get rid of some that interest that you've worked to build up thus far.  This means less copies sold (as well as more money to pay employees).  So sadly that's how the big game devs work--release the game half-finished, patch it later, but sell lots of copies anyway.

This brings me to my next point.  Let's take a look at the most wanted games of the Christmas 2011 season.  Modern Warfare, Gears of War, Madden, Assassin's Creed, Batman, Zelda, etc.  Now, to tell you the truth, these games are going to sell lots and lots of copies.  Modern Warfare 3 will probably sell more than 7 million copies in the first 24 hours of release, a record set by Black Ops a year ago.

And certainly, upon the game's release, the bitching and whining will begin.  You can almost see it a mile away--people buy Modern Warfare 3, love it, then all the glitches, game exploits, and "lack of skill" come through and then everyone hates the game.

This is the public's opinion of the game in a span of three months.  So people don't like Modern Warfare 3...so what?  Does Activision really care?  You've already bought the game so what does it really matter?  And odds are you'll go on to buy that expensive DLC no matter how "lousy" it is.  Even worse, you may be charged more money upon the game's release...see Gears of War 3's Season Pass.

EDIT: I know it's late but here's three fun Reddit pics I found:

 DLC is fun.
You don't just get the game in one piece, you get it in a million pieces...

As a matter of fact, you can defy the whole game design process with a single good marketing scheme.  I know I'll touch a nerve here, but games like Homefront, Duke Nukem Forever, Sonic the Hedgehog (2006), all mediocre games that sold a lot anyway because they had name recognition or were in the limelight.  So remember, marketing is a BIG DEAL these days.

...

Okay, I'm making it look like members of the mainstream gaming industry are greedy a-holes who take no pride in their work.  That's not true.  But this is part of the reason why we get unbalanced or flawed games--because there's little to no incentive to go back and correct things when they're already out on the marketplace.  Hey Treyarch, are you going to go back and patch up some of Black Ops' flaws just before Modern Warfare 3 is released?  No, because Black Ops means nothing now anymore--it's in the past, no one cares, it's vestigial...

Also, see the Cracked.com article on flaws in the game industry, particularly the part about creative bankruptcy.  Why get creative and bust their asses on something really convoluted when a straightforward FPS/shmup/platformer will sell just as much?  Taking chances doesn't pay off as much as it did in the past.

...

Now one more peculiar topic.  We're on the subject of MMORPG's--World of Warcraft the most glaring example.  Now MMO's are a different animal altogether since you have to keep the game good in the long-term in order to keep subscriber sales up.  So that's well and good, right?  But MMO servers are shut down all the time.  NOT FAIR, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ITEMS I WORKED FOR OVER ALL THESE YEARS???  Read the Terms of Use under "No Ownership Rights in Account":

NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN ANY ACCOUNT STORED OR HOSTED ON A BLIZZARD SYSTEM, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY BNET ACCOUNT OR WORLD OF WARCRAFT ACCOUNT, AND YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL RIGHTS IN AND TO SUCH ACCOUNTS ARE AND SHALL FOREVER BE OWNED BY AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF BLIZZARD. 

In other words, all the stuff you "own" in the game you're just borrowing from Blizzard.  The day they close the servers, you can't sue them for anything because you never owned any of that stuff in the first place.  It's brutal, but it's right there in permanent ink.  Big servers cost a hell of a lot of money to run anyway so it's a given that they'll pull the plug on the game some day.  When the game ceases to be profitable, then Blizzard will move on with it...

...

Okay, enough of this discussion, it's depressing.  Hey, they are providing a service for many people so they deserve what they get paid.  I'm not begrudging anyone here.  Although I am turned off by many mainstream games nowadays because of their lack of ingenuity....kind of like a processed vegetable that is available for anyone to eat but has lost all of its nutritional value.

EDIT: Let me reiterate a bit.  Not every big-name title is bad.  Some are actually good and wholesome--everyone rallies around the game's icon (Nintendo games like Mario & Zelda come to mind).  But the trend nowadays is if you pump enough money into marketing & production values, that means the game is somehow "better."  I don't always agree with this.  They say that money can't buy happiness, therefore, money can't buy games that can buy happiness, mirite?  Or is this a logic FAIL?

Like I said before, it would be nice to flex your creative muscles and work on whatever games you want, but it's not that easy anymore.  As a matter of fact, in the never-ending debate in which games are or are not art, I say that games err toward NOT art.  Why?

Take a look at things that are labeled "art."  Paintings, sculpture, music, poetry, literature, plays, etc.  These are things that one or a handful of people have worked on.  They would create these things to express themselves, to feel good, not to "sell out" or become rich.

Now let's take a look at movies/film/cinema, etc.  Now that's a beautiful medium.  We've had great movies that you could call "art" such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, etc.  But would you say that ALL moves are art?  Like would you label films such as Epic Movie and White Chicks as art???  Like games, movies have cashed in for a long time...some good, some bad, but only a handful are truly memorable over the years.

Alright, now how about our beloved video games.  Well, stepping through the production process, the whole game is filtered through the minds of so many individuals...the producers, the artists, the programmers, the publishers, that it's no longer any one person's "baby"--it's just this massive abomination that many people have their fingerprints on (the more employees, the worse it gets).  Then it's sold to millions of people for $60 a pop.  Is that how art works?  I thought art was about observing in a museum or listening to in a theatre, not paying lots of money to run home and blow up all sorts of crap on your TV (and curse out little kids thousands of miles away).  And then when the game's run its course, you lose the CD or sell it to GameStop for $2.  Yeah, so much for "art appreciation."

This is not to say art has never been monetized or that all games are not art.  But with the way that games are so consumerized I tend to think it's arrogant that gamers are so quick to label every game as a piece of art.

Kind of sucks that you can't make a game just for "yourself."  Something you can say is your own "baby."  Things that I worked on alone such as Counter-Strike maps and Forza 3 cars...things I can say are "mine"--that I did to entertain myself and anyone else interested.  Or not even just yourself--maybe you and some good friends or a team you know very well.  That's what I thinking about.  But with the resurgence of the indie game market (miniscule game studios making games like Angry Birds, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy), I think aspiring game devs have a bit of freedom to defy the traditional rules of corporate game design.  Just don't expect to make any super-huge 3D games unless you have connections with a damn good producer/publisher.

...sooo, "JUST WIN, BABY!!!"  Al Davis, 82 years old.

Cracked.com Cracks Open The Game Industry (And I Reply)

Cracked is a good website if you want to read engrossing articles about nothing.  A lot of it is ridiculous but some of it I actually agree with wholeheartedly.  This is a remarkable article I alluded to before but now I'm going to be lazy and leech off of it for one of my post.  I scrapped my original write-up to this article so I'm doing it again here.

The 6 Most Ominous Trends in Video Games by David Wong.  TLDR:

6. Technology is going backwards.  First you had Pong on the Atari which was revolutionary.  Then you had Wii Bowling which was a nice improvement.  Now motion control games haven't improved as you wave your hands in front of the TV like an idiot (especially Kinect).  The Wii U and PS Vita are basically iPhones/iPads which are nothing new either.

5. "Big Brother" online servers are ruining gaming.  Can't run some games without hooking up to a server, including single-player ones (see Starcraft II).  Security measures are horrible.  Also hackers and poor maintenance are proving this point even further since when Sony's server went down, everything went to hell.

4. Many video games promote endless playability by grinding for items (see any MMORPG).  Even worse, you have to pay for perpetual online subscriptions, cheat codes, additional single-player addons, basically things you never had to pay for except in the last 5 years.

3. Creative bankruptcy.  Almost all new games are sequels.  Most obvious are FPSes like Call of Duty: MW3, Battlefield 3, and Crysis 2 which are strikingly similar in nature.

2. No real vision for the future.  First it was make games look realistic, which we've done already.  Now it's make a bunch of $1 apps, crap motion control games, and other awkward gimmicks (Nintendo 3DS).

1. We don't even know what a game is anymore.  First it was "get a high score," now it's split into many different "art" forms--largely interactive movies with limited replay value, mini-games that involve decorating a landscape for s***s and giggles, etc.

And if what I wrote was still TLDR, then let me TLDR that for you...Today's Video Games SUCK.

------------

Well, let me reply to these and throw in my three cents right now.

6. I can understand the hate-on that everyone has for motion controls.  I don't like the Kinect either--I've already made that clear before.  Now these motion controls are starting to seep into my beloved racing genre.  But the majority of the industry seems to be clear of motion controls for the time of being.  I'm playing Rock Band &  Call of Duty without the Kinect so this is a completely exaggerated point, right???

If you haven't known already, Microsoft has spent over $500 MILLION on Kinect advertising (Fun Fact: at $150 a piece, MS has to sell 3.33 mil Kinects to break even on the $500 mil benchmark alone).  You can tell MS is trying to ram this thing up our ass.  As a matter of fact, I hear the new Forza & Halo games are going to incorporate the Kinect somehow.  And as for the Wii U?  Well, everyone already pissed themselves over that already...remember, this is NINTENDO we're talking about, everything they produce is GOLD.  Disregarding more motion control crap, I can't imagine playing with that big-ass iPad controller which hardly looks comfortable.  So in other words, we're closer to this motion control "utopia" than we think.

5. Big online servers, heh.  Remember back in the PS2/Xbox/GameCube days when you didn't need an online server for permission to play a game?  Eh, those were the days.

While I am not familiar with DRMs and that madness, I've already talked about online servers being the life force for games and how they're rigged to blow.  I already talked about OutRun Online Arcade, which'll be removed from XBL at the end of this year and you can't play it again.  I also talked about MMORPG's.  I also talked about Halo Wars and Call of Duty!  Basically, once the server disowns the game, you really can't play it anymore.  I could go on but I'm not gonna repeat myself even further.  I really do like this quote for the Cracked article, sums it up perfectly:

Imagine if every time you drove your car, you had to first check in with the car manufacturer to confirm that it's you behind the wheel. Let's say that this relies on an Internet connection, and if the connection is down, you can't drive.

4. Eh, I don't have a problem with DLC if it means getting tons more content than normal (Rock Band songs in particular), but I see how things like cheat codes and already-on-disc content are really getting in the way.  Elements of the game completed before release but were held back for monetary gain.  Basically anything they can charge money for, they'll do it.  Hey, I like capitalism and think they have the right to charge whatever they want but there's only so much that I'm willing to pay.  That's why I'm such a scrooge when it comes to gaming--I only maybe play a few games and that's it--screw the rest and their media hype...

3. I don't have that big of a problem with sequels as long as they add something new or refine gameplay that we've come to love, but I do have a problem with all these damn gritty FPSes and fantasy adventure/MMORPG's.  I've already talked about game violence and how its prevalence is driving me nuts.  I'd much prefer a new Daytona game which, even though it's a sequel, is much more refreshing than anything else that these devs have put out nowadays.  Anyway, don't have much to say about this though this quote SUMS UP MY THOUGHTS PERFECTLY: 

This here is why all of the innovation in games seems to be about going backward, simplifying instead of pushing the experience further. They are trying to lower the barrier of entry for gaming as a hobby, because they don't know where else to go with it. So I guess what I'm saying is that one thing is becoming clear ... 

2. Basically a repeat of #6.  When game companies who think technology sells & gameplay be damned push faster and faster, then they reach the end and then we do get tons of random crap.  Then at this point, dollar apps become the norm and it's all about watering down games in order to make everyone feel "involved."  The only really good thing I see about dollar apps is that now anyone can be a game designer--you don't have to be part of some 500-man game studio with a $50 mil budget (read what I said).  Ridonkulous...

1. I really hate these games that are trying to be like movies more than games.  Need for Speed: The Run and all these FPSes.  I'm anything but a movie buff so this really pisses me off.  But I still think this point is being a bit harsh since there's some good movie-based games that actually have some variation, like Shenmue and LA Noire.  But yeah, I do long for the days where ACTUAL GAMING TALENT was a necessity rather than the ability to click a few buttons and then you're now a certified "Gamer"...

Conclusion:  The above quote in #3 really sums things up perfectly.  Back in the 20th Century, gaming was sort of a "reclusive" activity--like only nerds and miscreants would play games.  But it was cool because we got a lot of classics that still make us smile...Super Mario, Goldeneye, Zelda (yeah I admit), Sonic, DAYTONA USA, everything by Sega in its glory days, and so forth...

Nowadays, everyone loves games.  Gaming studios are getting bigger and pushing better graphics and new gimmicks.  Well, I believe that if things become too popular (in this case, gaming) then they are crushed under their own weight.  Now that gamers have become "accepted" into society, everyone wants to join in. Everyone wants all this crap like movie games with state-of-the-art graphics, motion control skill-less games, etc. so what you get are well...a lot of soul-less products pushed merely to sell tens of millions of copies and everyone eats this junk up like we're pigs at the trough.

I've already mentioned this before so I'll do it again.  As an aspiring game developer, I almost think I have to play politician and not offend everybody...like I'm supposed to say "Oh yeah, MMORPGs and mindless racing games like Split/Second are okay."  If I get in as a programmer, then I'm basically a hired mercenary--tell me to make something, I'll do it and I get paid.  If I go around trashing something, then that's going to cost me a job.  Simply put, I gotta make money first and foremost.  How many game devs do you see pushing blogs about how much this sucks or that sucks.  Not many--the fan can rant cause he has nothing to lose...

I almost think I was born too late.  Ugh, sorry if this article was too pessimistic.  I'll get to Sega Racing Stuff LATER.

Video Games (MMORPG's) Rigged To Blow (Games Are Art?)

EDITED plenty of times on 5/13-14

Okay, we're back online.  Blogspot was undergoing "maintenance" not for one hour but for two days so I was completely in the dark here.  And my blog's poll went from 18 to 31 votes in a matter of hours...what the hell's going on here.  I do appreciate more votes, that's for sure.

-------------

But anyway, I see that the never-ending grind versus dumb mainstream games will never end.  I wanted to address Scud Race but let's take care of this first.

This is on Kotaku.  Now I wouldn't read this site anymore except for the fact that the other game blogs are not as comprehensive or run by complete idiots, such as G4TV which causes massive trauma, stomachaches, and erectile dysfunction.  The topic of today: Why play an MMO when you know it's going to end?  You pay for subscriptions, hence you are just "renting" the game.  And when the servers go down, that it--the game's gone for good.  Can't play it anymore so all progress made before is lost.

The typical Kotaku response: "why even bother living if your gonna die anyway???  its about the experience and social aspect more than anything!1!  you're little single player games last 10-20 hours anyway so whats the difference???"

Here's what I have to say.  My idea of a long-term activity should be something that leaves me with something positive and/or tangible at the "end."  According to the responses, after playing some MMO until you become burnt out or the server closes down, you get the memories, a few friends, and carpal tunnel.  To me, that doesn't seem worthwhile since MMORPG's long-term worthiness is stemmed in grinding levels by clicking on bad guys and talking with friends.  These things I feel that I can do elsewhere, particularly with games that don't become a paperweight in 5-10 years...games that I can play "forever."  Games that I can plug back in and say, "Hey, look at what I accomplished or learned to do," while going through the motions like before.  On the other hand, MMO's are just wiped out for good so you can't go anywhere near them.

And as for socialization--can't you just do that on Ventrilo, message boards, chat rooms, or, dare I say, face-to-face in real life?   Better yet, can't you spend some (or all) your time playing sports, making artwork, reading books, and spending time with family which can do wonders for your health and well-being?  Why is it that even in the face of these revelations, people still think MMORPG's are money & time well-spent?  Hey, I really don't mind if people cared so much about these MMO's but the fact they're so flippant to the idea that one of their "extra lives" will be flushed away in a couple of years is rather startling.

Or here's a theory--maybe people are hopping aboard these MMORPG's because they're like college parties with booze and strippers...get in while it lasts because it's not here for long (see the "social" aspect of these games).  Though I'd opt for something with a bit more substance and integrity so no thanks.

EDIT: It just dawned on me a day later...isn't it a bit perturbing that we're comparing a MMORPG to a person's life?  Just off the top of my head, you DON'T HAVE to play a MMORPG while you DO have to live your life.  Come on, people.

I don't know.  I've already talked about WoW before.  I actually think the idea behind a MMO is interesting--creating a character to interact with other players' characters, but not how WoW or any of these big shots do it...with the fat kids, the medieval/fantasy setting, the servers going down, etc.  Maybe I just don't get it but if you do then hey, who's stopping ya....  And this is my

It's too bad that many games (well, Xbox 360 and PS3 in general) nowadays are rigged to these servers.  Like Call of Duty.  Okay, I am somewhat guilty of this.  I'm Prestige 1 on CoD4 and CoD:WaW, Prestige 4 in MW2, and Prestige 10 in Black Ops.  I'm probably going to regret this later, but I'm playing these games cause I want to shoot people, not cause I want to run through the hamster wheel.  I guess it's just nice that more people are opening up to the reality that they may not be able to play certain games in the future (see OutRun Online Arcade).

Thankfully, if there's one good thing I see coming out of gaming technology these days, maybe it's that they can sustain these servers longer.  Send petitions and whine--maybe you can keep these games up or at least salvage something for the future (XBL achievement points???  I hope).

------------

But anyway, one of the fabled arguments in video game culture is whether or not games are art.  Well, it depends.  It's mostly on the developer's intent on whether to create a "unique" game or something cookie-cutter just to make mass profits. Check out this quote:

"The best thing about a picture is that it never changes, even when the people in it do."

-Andy Warhol

And that's what's nice about games.  You just pop in the game and it's not going to change on you.  You go away to a (hopefully) magical world where you don't have to worry about germs, diseases, pain & suffering, global wars, paying bills, etc.  Like Sega Racers.  Daytona USA, OutRun, Crazy Taxi, just cool places to be.  And that's why I made Counter-Strike maps so I can create my own "worlds" to visit.

It's just terrible that up until this point, you no longer "own" a game forever; they just go away eventually which is completely contrary to the last 30+ years of game history where you could own the tangible game forever as long as you took care of it.  Now you know why I'm a bit saddened by these revelations.

Pssh, I'm done here, I've gone way overboard.  I hate video games.