The second Golden Age of Video Games in the late nineties wasn’t limited to legendary titles; it was an era where companies won fans by empowering them.  In Starcraft’s case, Blizzard dangled a free-to-play gaming service alongside a “spawn” function where potential buyers could beat the crap out of each other with a friend’s copy of the game.  The corporatization of game development has caused this empowerment to regress.  Hey, why would Sony want a backwards-compatible Playstation 3 when they can charge for digitally-downloaded Playstation 2 software?

In addition to the removal of true local area play and the increase of digital restrictions management, Blizzard Entertainment’s current platform for Starcraft II online play is “one game, one account, one name”.  Why?  Yeah, this approach is about making money.  But it’s coming from more angles than you’d think.

At BlizzCon, Blizzard employees affirmed this decision was to prevent smurfing (talented players “resetting” their record by creating a new account).  Smurfing has two purposes: To experiment with new strategies without tainting their “real record”, or to ego trip through the ranks of mediocrity.  Neither situation addresses the Warcraft III matchmaking system that forces good players to make new accounts in order to find games, and it doesn’t address that bad players will complain anyway because that’s what bad players do.

It’s really a public relations ploy.  Blizzard has plugged three strategy games into Battle.net since smurfing entered the culture, and only decided to hard-line the approach when “millions of World of Warcraft players” came into play.  And since the MMORPG is predicated on making time and effort the most important assets for overcoming challenges, Blizzard is going to make every concession in making sure these players don’t become frustrated.

So, you’ve stripped functionality by convincing new gamers that experts won’t ruin your party.  And thus, Blizzard can to grant that functionality back for a price.

(more…)

I’m rather embarrassed to admit I’ve just discovered Tetris Friends.  Without question, it’s the greatest Tetris web site I’ve been to in the last week.  Competitive Tetris with instant matchmaking, better known as “sex without the mess”.

I was groomed on matchmaking by Warcraft III, which starts you in the middle of the pack and adjusts north or south based on your skill level.  Imagine my surprise when I start my first game and discover the lowest levels of the food chain, or at least their pets.  Is it possible the average player is this awful?

After playing to level 15 (out of 20), the reality is that the matchmaking is consistent.  Too consistent.  Your opponents always roar back after a bad start, and never run the table.  When Anthony Burch of Destructoid prompted site support about the swift matchmaking, he answered my own curiosities:

I emailed their support line about it, and was surprised to find the game’s speediness had a much more interesting and unusual explanation: yes, you’re playing against five other human beings, but you’re not playing live against them. “You are playing against a recording instead of a live player,” Tetris Friends customer support responded. “The recorded game is [an] actual saved game from other players which the system selects randomly…the recording seldom make[s] mistake[s] because you are playing against their best game.” The team is evidently working on implementing a live multiplayer mode as we speak, as well as other additions to the site such as the implementation of a friends list.

Sure fooled me. As somebody accquainted with online rhythm gaming, I’d like to suggest Harmonix and Neversoft steal this idea.  When I’m playing a versus mode where I can’t impact a single thing my opponent does, I would rather not wait ten minutes to find a match.

This week, there’s been an uproar about Nintendo’s new “demo play” mode, which will first be featured New Super Mario Brothers Wii.  It’s simple: Suck at video games?  The game can now play difficult sections for you.

In an exclusive interview with Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto, the legendary game designer confirmed this optional feature called “demo play” (tentative name) is something the development team has been working on.

“In New Super Mario Bros. Wii, if a player is experiencing an area of difficulty, this will allow them to clear troubled areas and take over when they’re ready” confirmed Miyamoto, through his translator. “And yes, we’re looking into this for future games, too” Miyamoto says.

It’s as much an ethical quandary as video games can have: Should games play themselves?  Unsurprisingly, this spurred an uptick in “good ol’ days” bullshit, since “demo play” is a symbolic statement for modern game pussification.  Lore Sjoberg made a modest proposal in his tongue-in-cheek experience with the Wii-Ware download of Super Mario Brothers 2:

Every game, in addition to the standard easy, medium and expert modes, must have a “1988 mode.” In 1988 mode, you don’t get to save the game, ever. If you lose, you start over from the beginning of the game. Every hit from an enemy reduces your hit points by 25 percent, minimum. Extra lives and hit points are tough to come by, not handed out like Mardi Gras beads to bosomy exhibitionists.

This applies to all games, not just shooters and platformers and the like. Lose against the big boss in an RPG? Hey, guess what, you’re Level 1 again and townsfolk are going to remind you to press X to pick things up. Flub “Painkiller” in Rock Band 2? Time to start over with “Eye of the Tiger.”

Only those who complete a game in 1988 mode get to call themselves “hard-core.” Everyone else, from tourney winners to Minesweeper addicts, is a “casual gamer.” Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Of course, this sort of talk spurs retro gamers from the floodgates, reminiscing on their past life as a gaming badass.  Unless they’re quoting the Angry Video Game Nerd (or ther internet personalities I stole the concept of “swearing” from), you’ll never once hear a game was hard because the gameplay sucked.  No, you’ll hear “Man, that game was so hard!  It took me nine years, and it was frustrating as hell, but I finally beat it!  These Halo noobs could never hang with this!”

I’m tired of explaining it, so let’s drop the hammer.

Dance Dance Revolution features an arcade-style “Oni” mode where the player gets three lives.  Every time he scores below “Great” on a step, he or she loses a life.  Run out, you lose.  This may be more difficult than playing the chosen songs with a normal life bar, but it’s no more challenging, because you are utilizing the same skills and playing the exact same notes.

Gaming has become more challenging over the last twenty years.  Over the same period of time, they’ve become less difficult for gamers as a whole.  I consider that a very good thing.

(more…)

(Regarding this entry: I don’t know how World of Warcraft matchmaking works, and won’t claim else wise.   I merely find it ironic World of Warcraft has a competitive ladder system.)

Depending on one’s opinion, Warcraft III was either an exceptional foray into role-playing strategy, a mini game on Defense of the Ancients, or a game that was horrible because your Starcraft build orders didn’t work in it.  Most forget its undeniable legacy: An anonymous matchmaking system that became the standard for competitive online play.

Starcraft II will use a form of this matchmaking system.  I’m merely concerned Starcraft II will use the variation that did significant damage to Warcraft III’s competitive community, instead of the one that fostered it.

(more…)