There Are Rules and There Are Rules

Stop press: if you're rude to people and disrespect their social customs, they retaliate. Who woulda thought?...

But that's the startling revelation uncovered by Loyola University media professor David Myers. Now, there's science. And there's science. And there's describing the self-evident in banal terms. Guess which camp Myers falls in to?

Myers basically rolled around the City of Heroes/Villains PvP zones, teleporting other players to a "cartoon robot firing line that instantly defeated whomever he zoomed before it." By this I gather he teleported foes to within range of the NPC base defenders, who can kill with one shot.

According to Myers, what he was doing was within the 'rules' of the game, although it was clearly unsporting, and he was told so - politely at first - by other players. But then, he had a brainwave that makes me wonder how he ever became a professor of the humanities:

As part of his experiment, Myers decided to play the game by the designers' rules -- disregarding any customs set by the players. His character soon became very unpopular.

Eventually, lo, the other players were pissed at him. Sure, he was playing within the rules of the game, but he was disrupting the meta-rules that apply to PvP - such as giving the opposition a fighting chance of fighting back.

This eventually led to "death threats" that "shook" the professor. Good grief. Man up, man! Any MMO gamer who blatantly disregards the customs of the game and then freaks out when someone says they want to "kill" him is either terribly naieve or terribly pathetic.

But still, Myers is publishing book about his experiences in the game. One can only imagine what other revelations await. Perhaps that 'females' in the game aren't always played by real females? Or that some people leech xp from a group without contributing, and they subsequently get kicked. Or that some people don't like it when you - brace yourself - 'ninja' loot, even though it's within the 'rules' to do so.

One insight that will probably be missing is that gamers create their own meta-rules; their own social customs that they expect others to adhere to. And these rules are entirely separate from the programmed rules of the game.

In fact, people in any social situation will do just this, whether it be a playground, office boardroom or down at the pub. There are no explicit laws preventing you from talking too loudly in a meeting, or never buying a round of drinks for other people, but such behaviour quickly gets you ostracised. Crikey, people might even threaten you to stop you breaking the social norms.

Phwoar, maybe I should write a book...

Other Kinds of Games Journalism

Although I don't tend to hold traditional games 'reviewing' in particularly high regard, I think the broader category of games writing is getting better every year. Take, for instance, Trains in Games, a site dedicated to taking:

...a closer look at details in video games that developers missed. It’s about all the small bits and pieces you always found odd or hilarious, and the big nonsense you’ve been mad about. I put the focus on trains, partly because I like them very much, partly because no developer seems to care about them.

This stuff is worth a thousand IGNs.

(Via Edge.)

Minecraft. That is all.

So, Minecraft is making the rounds. I took a quick look at it and promptly decided I would be obsessed with it. I have too much to say about it, so I won't even start (at least not yet), but let's just say it's the yin to my Dwarf Fortress yang.

Trembling Hand has its own little server puttering away here, so feel free to jump on. I'm taking five minute backups, so send me an email if you get griefed.

What EVE Can Teach Us About the Global Financial Crisis

Within the boundaries of this economy, there are countless opportunities for those who are willing to put time and effort into their career as pilots in EVE. Unemployment is not possible in EVE since all pilots, even those that have lost it all and have minimal entrepreneurial skills, can start again with what matches a bucket and shovel in real life. This also confirms an old and valuable lesson for real life economies; give people the chance to pursue their dreams and they will solve their own problems.

Another lesson to learn from EVE is the importance of trust. Within EVE you must build your trust with other pilots over a long period of time. However this trust is easy to break and is in fact consistently broken. This means that those who are able to maintain trust acquire the most valuable asset of all. Although EVE might be a harsher world when it comes to fraud and trust than real life the lesson which can be drawn from EVE is that without trust there will be no rebuildingof the world’s economies.

The leaders of the world must make certain that trust is not broken within their own country nor between nations. Without that trust there is no trade. Without trade everyone would have less and the world would fall into an unstoppable downward spiral.

EVE can teach world leaders how important trade is for any society, and how valuable trust is within them. EVE can teach all of us that by working together there is no obstacle that is too large for us to overcome – there are no bridges we can´t build.

This comes from EVE's trademark Quarterly Economic Newsletter, authored by Dr. Eyjólfur Guðmundsson, Lead Economist at CCP.

It possesses some sentiments that resonate well outside the cold space of New Eden. One is that trust is the very lubricant of cooperation. Trust can never be guaranteed, and there will always be those who seek to exploit others' trust for their own self-interested ends. That means cooperation involves risk. As another adage goes: ships are safe in harbour, but that's not what ships are for.

Trade is another big theme in EVE. Globalisation gets a harsh rap these days, but the fact is that the failures of globalisation are often due to the limits imposed on it by protectionist governments (i.e. basically all of them...) rather than letting globalisation unfold in a natural, if moderately regulated, way. The more trade we see across our small world, the better off everyone could be.

Then there's the sentiment of individual enterprise. Give the people the tools, and watch them build. However, on this note, EVE has it easy. There's no cost to providing pilots with their "bucket and shovel", unlike in the real world. This gives EVE a thermodynamics-defying boost that we lack, but the sentiment is sound. We should at least give every individual the opportunity to develop and employ their abilities - not only to reap the rewards for their own ends, but to promote the ends of all. Hayek, meet Marx.

This is Why Many MMOs Suck

Here we have Bill Roper from Cryptic announcing that the eagerly anticipated superhero MMO, Champions Online, will be delayed from July 14th to September 1st:

It is critically important for an MMO to be as good as it possibly can be at launch. Through our constant dialogue with our vocal and supportive community of beta testers, we quickly realized that in order to implement certain features that we all considered important the development of Champions Online would require more time. So that's what we're going to give it. Cryptic has a proven track record of releasing solid games and we want to maintain that with Champions Online.

I'm no fan of Bill, myself, given the travesty that was Hellgate (and he's yet to earn my trust again after that fiasco), but I heartily applaud this delay in the launch of Champions. Too many MMOs launch before they're ready - and finally it seems the MMO playing public have had enough.

Or have they.

If you scroll down that thread on the Champions forum you'll see post after post whinging about the delay.

NO!

I'd spam and scream -_-; but I'm to sad -_-;

WWHHHHHYYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!?!?

Well I must say this is absolutely horrible news.

Etc. Yes, there are comments applauding the delay, but that there are any comments saying the developers should rush the game out the door when even they admit it is unready, well they're just irresponsible at best, desperately selfish and stupid at worst. It's these people who contribute to the rush-to-release mentality that is thrust upon developers by publishers and marketing departments.

Surely it's better to have patience and wait for the game to be good rather than get it early and have it stink.

We Can Put a Man on the Moon, But...

It's the little things...

Like the updater has no 'close' button. You have to shut it down using Task Manager.

And each patch (of the dozens after you first download the game) pops the installer up in front of whatever you're doing - roughly every 30 seconds. Then it pops the updater up again. So you're constantly ALT-TABing.

Might have no bearing on the game - but why is it 2009 and coders *still* make the same stupid (or lazy) decisions? And why does no-one hold them to account?

What Makes a Good Game Review?

Seems like a trivial question. But given the recent fallout from the Eurogamer review of Darkfall, it's a question worth exploring.

In case you missed the circus, here is the firebrand Darkfall review from Eurogamer, in all its glory, with a record low 2/10 score. And here is Aventurine's response. And Eurogamer's counter-response. And Aventurine's counter-counter-response. All fun and games so far.

For mine, I felt the review was indeed harsh, but interestingly it resonated with a certain percentage of the population (including myself), as backed up by many of the 1,000-odd comments following the review. Yet, pivotally, it resonated in the exact opposite way with another percentage of the population - I'm loath to call them Darkfall apologists - but despite their vitriol, it's clear they love the game.

So how can we have a review of a product that is so polarising? Does this mean it's a bad review?

Short answer: yes.

What Is a Review?

Long answer: I've long wrestled with the notion of what makes a good review from three distinct perspectives: as a journalist and game reviewer myself; as a commissioning editor of games reviews; and as a gamer. But I've come to a conclusion that instead of defining a review by what it is, it's better to define it by what it's for; a functionalist defnition, if you will.

So in that sense, a good review serves three main functions:

1. It describes: it informs the reader about a game and what it's like to play it.
2. It judges: it advises the reader on whether they should or shouldn't buy the game.
3. It entertains: it should be an enjoyable tract of prose for a game-playing audience.

Of these, I'd suggest only (2) is a sufficient condition, but (2) alone isn't a great read. Likewise, (1) and (3) together might be an enjoyable piece of game writing, but without the critical aspect, it doesn't make a good review. Whether a review is good or not rests on the execution of these three functions. And it's in this sense that the Eurogamer failed, at least on (1) and (2).

More Than the Facts

In terms of description (1), it's clear from the comments that Zitron's review contained factual errors. Either Zitron didn't take the time or do enough research to understand the way the game worked, or just didn't get it. The crazy thing about Darkfall is, despite it's seemingly crazy design, it's not accidental - it's exactly the way Aventurine want it! Zitron seemed to see odd design choices as a failure of execution when, in fact, they weren't. And this influenced his judgement of the game (2).

Necessarily, all game reviews are going to have an element of subjectivity to them: does the reviewer enjoy more strategic to tactical gameply? Do they enjoy firey visceral games or story-driven narrative games? The type of gamer the reviewer is will influence whether they enjoy the game, which in turn could influence what they write in the review.

However, many good game reviewers will attempt to transcend their subjective impressions (although without ignoring them) to imagine whether other types of gamers might enjoy the game. Some don't. But they wear their subjectivity on their sleeve; they're saying 'I loved/hated this game, and if you're like me, you'll love/hate it too.' But mainstream game reviewers on general gaming sites - like Eurogamer - can't presume their audience has any particular disposition and they have to cater for the full spectrum of gamers.

This is where Ed Zitron fell over with the Darkfall review. He a) called it as he saw it, and b) didn't flag up front that he was doing so. So he failed with condition (2) of the function of a review: to advise. He might have assumed the vast majority of his readers were like him. But he was wrong. Enough of them disagreed with his judgement to make his objective-seeming 2/10 look ridiculous.

The Score

Which brings me to scores. Dave particularly hates scores. And I agree with him. A score locks down the judgement to one figure as if it applies to everyone. But a game that is brilliant to a strategy enthusiasts might tank for an action enthusiast. We all know that. But scores persist. Should they?

Well, I think there's one area where scores are useful: execution. A game can vary all over the shop in terms of gameplay and what kinds of gamers it will satisfy. But even if a game is intended for strategic gamers, if it's execution sucks, then it's not going to appeal to anyone.

What is execution? Things like performance, interface, balance, difficulty, the manual, the tutorial, consistency, grammar etc. These things don't necessarily impact to whom the game appeals, but they do turn a great concept into a great game - or a great concept into a pile of crap.

In this sense Darkfall is a funny beast, as I mentioned above. Although it does seem reasonable to mark it down for the lack of a tutorial and some of the more clumsy elements. But not for things like not being able to move while looting - that's a deliberate decision, and seems to have been executed well, even if you don't like the decision.

Second Opinion

I must say, I'm looking forward to the second review by Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Kieron Gillen. I'm particularly interested to see how he differs from Zitron in his description of the game, and how that influences his judgment. I'm also interested in whether he acknowledges that there are some people in this world - strange, psychopathic people, maybe, but gamers none the less - who will love the game.

In any case, I think it was the right thing to do for Eurogamer to both stick up for Zitron - any editor worth his or her salt would do the same for a valued writer, even if they think the writer screwed up (although you can be certain Tom Bramwell unleashed both barrels on Zitron in private) - and for them to commission the second opinion. We await it with anticipation!