Not enough time for good and why Kaos studios closed

I have been doing this blog now since February (sorry for the recent infrequence of posting.... will resume 4 to 6 posts a week very soon as my schedule clears a bit) and in easily 66% of my posts I talk about the hard fact that the average gamer is not the 12 year old boy with negligent parents, or the college frat kid wasting $50k a year to get drunk and make bad decisions, but rather the average age of a gamer is 34. (Side Note: I link to that report so often but it is relevant in most every point I try and haphazardly make!)

Here is the thing though with people who are all grown up; they have outside obligations. Most of us have jobs, lives, etc and we don't have the 40 hours a week to game like many of us used to. Problem is with the lack of free time, the leisure activities we do engage in need to be as worthwhile as possible. Getting to my point....

Publisher THQ recently shut down Kaos Studios. Despite decent sales, the poor precieved quality of recently released FPS Homefront ended up being the final release from the New York based studio.

How did everyone not see this coming?

Saying the FPS market is saturated right now is like saying there are a few polygons in the models for Crysis 2. Thing is that the core demographic for these games, the "34 year old's", don't have enough time to play every FPS that comes out. We are going to only get the best titles that all of our friends are getting. We want new ideas that make the interactive medium more enticing. You can't just say "well we have an awesome story!" That only works in books and movies; it takes more to carry a game (see this post).

Right now the FPS war is dominated by the Battlefields, the Call of Duties, and the Halo's. Unless you are willing to spend millions of dollars and throw as much top notch talent as you got, you can not compete with a standard FPS. If you are clever you can try something completely different (upcoming post on why Left 4 Dead is the best FPS series in the last 4 years), but ultimately AAA publishers are not willing to put enough eggs in one basket and really take a risk on a product.

The video game industry needs to realize that the business model of good makes more money than great will not propel them to profitability. What I am really trying to say is that if I can only play one new game every couple months it's not going to be good. It's not even going to be great. I, and the core demographic whom I represent, only have time for the best.

How many layoff's from Valve have we ever read about? Even Blizzard?

I don't have time tonight but I really want to expand on this idea with my thoughts on publisher Kalypso, with whom I am very torn.

Portal 2 is Coming in 2 weeks!

In 2 weeks we will finally receive the highly anticipated sequel to the most important game to come out in the last 4 years. That game of course is Portal 2. I don't think a single, rational person had a bad thing to say about Portal. It was to the point, it was brilliantly written, and, in my opinion, is the first video game in history to reach that artistic emotional impact where I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the end. Any video game (or any artistic meidum) that can be that emotionally confusing and impactful is absolutely brilliant. Portal is the shinning epitome of how to take a cool, unique concept and make it so god damned effective that years later we are all still running around proclaiming that the cake is a lie and humming still alive.

Being the internet troll that I am I feel obligated to mention that there is certainly a lot that could go wrong with Portal 2. One of the most important elements of the first was its brevity; the game never felt padded or wore out it's welcome. Because of it's short length every single inch of every level was perfect, every line of, well, monologue was so meticulously well written, and the ebb and flow of the game was so well paced and thought out that there was never a single point that felt like filler (for instance Highway 17). With Portal 2 there is now 2 full length campains (8 hours each) and the biggest question I have is can they fill 16 hours with as much brilliant writing, pacing, and mechanics as they could just 3?

There have been a lot of game play demo videos, ads, and other media released for Portal 2 and from it all the game looks absolutely spectacular. It really goes to show what Valve does better than anyone; use the meidum of video games to tell stories that would not work as movies, books, musical theater, etc.

I love BioWare, and as I have ranted about frequently in this blog, I am even loving the clearly rushed and half-assed Dragon Age 2. They are a great developer, but they are not the best because their games would work almost as well as movies. Dialogue is a big mechanic and common theme throughout BioWare games and, while immensly fun to watch and navigate the conversation pie, we are not as immersed as we are in, say, Left 4 Dead. In Left 4 Dead there is very little "dialogue" and the story is told soley through brilliant level design. It is why Left 4 Dead would be a lousy movie, but works VERY well as a video game.

I'm getting a little rambly here, but bottom line is Valve is really the only AAA company that is really pushing the boundaries of the FPS. Crysis 2 may look brilliant, but it is still soldiers running around shooting soldiers. Homefront may have sold very well, but it is still soldiers running around shooting soldiers. Halo, CODBLOPS, etc.... Soldiers running around shooting other soldiers. Same base mechanics. Only Valve really shows that fantastic (and profitable) AAA games can be made if you take risks and push the boundries of the genre.

/Rant

Why the Dragon Rage???

Dragon Age 2, the anticipated sequel to BioWare's 2009 surprise hit Dragon Age Origins, released a couple weeks ago to a firestorm of mixed reviews and fan rage. The major complaints seem kind of silly to me because they all boil down to one real complaint:

It's different.

I love(ed) DA:O. I played it through soup to nuts 3 times. I am 100+ hours in to the game through all my experiences with the game. I am certainly an old school RPG guy, hence my nerd-affair with a high quality AAA western RPG that is difficult, unforgiving, and decidedly unwelcoming to newbs. I liked the fact that the world, although kind of generic high fantasy, still had more than enough personality to keep me engaged and interested and that the voice acting was above average (not that it is difficult). The writing of course was top notch cause' it's BioWare. That's what they do. Of course the game had a lot of shortcomings, but us hardcore RPG nerds tend to see those as necessary as we are crumudeonly stuck in our hater-like ways.

Dragon Age 2 is a very different game from Dragon Age Origins. The combat is much faster paced, the interface looks a lot more minimalist, the art styhas chaged (although both games look like ass), and the story structure is a lot less "epic hero makes epic, heroic journey with his friends to save the world from an ancient evil because he is the one and ONLY one who can" and more struggle to survive. The game breaks a lot more old school tropes in favor of a more Grand Theft Fereldan (or Kirkwall) type feel which I for one also really like. There is still a lot of depth, resource management, tactical options, and fantastic writing, but is very decidedly different. On normal dificulty it also is not so punishingly arduous a task to get through basic encounters.

I really like that BioWare didn't push out another overpriced expansion pack. I like the differences in gameplay, the new art style, the minimal interface, and the REALLY intesne and fast-paced combat. It's a welcome change for the IP. If I wanted to play more DA:O I would play through it again. Now for full disclosure I haven't finished DA2 yet, but I am over 10 hours in, playing through my first playthrough on hard, and am having a lot of fun with the game.

We live in an industry now where the status quo is beaten in to us. People pay $60 like clockwork every year for a roster update in Madden, or a couple new maps in Call of Duty. Rift, despite being EXACTLY like WoW but not as good, is off to a strong start. Homefront sold incredibly well despite mediocre reviews and cloned game play. Hell, even my darling Starcraft 2 is very identical to it's 11 year old predecessor. It's not just that publishers and developers fear risk and change, but us as consumers are starting to fear it as well. The only place we are really seeing any innovation is in the indie and mobile gaming scenes and even there I feel like we are drowning in cartooney 2D platformers.

Fact is BioWare has done a lot to draw nerd-ire and flame recently, but releasing a poor followup to Dragon Age Origins is not one of them.


Fact: 4 out of 5 people get crushed by giant diamonds every day.

Homefront and the questions it raises

The launch trailer for Homefront was released at PAX East over the weekend and I have to say that it looks pretty damn awesome. I love the classic rock!

Now you will notice in the trailer it advertises "violent, shocking and brutal" as a quote from GamesRadar, and that is a whole other beef of mine to begin with, but I honestly could have high hopes for this game because it set itself up to be mentally challenging and thought provoking (something I think would be great for our industry). A game about North Korea invading America, with themes of culture clash, xenophobia, and in general not just another Tom Clancy-ish war thriller would be a fabulous break from the Call of Duty franchise.

Now the first thing that really concerns me about this game is that it is reportedly very short (thanks Escapist). Now to claim, "well a person of average skill will take 3 hours longer to play it" is saying that you count difficulty curve as a way to pad out game length which is unacceptable. If you have such an amazing story because you hired famed writer and director John Milius to do your game, I would think you would want to make the most of your investment. Of course there is a separate question of the differences of writing for a videogame over a book or movie, but that is another topic for a future post!

A prevailing argument is that a large bulk of their resources went into developing the multiplayer experience. I am sure they are out there, but the only AAA strictly single player FPS to come out in the last 4 years without mp I can think of would be Bio Shock, and that game did just A-okay monetizing (as of March 2010 the game was reported to have sold 4 million copies on the XBox alone). Despite their success it seems that developers feel compelled to add a multiplayer in their game to compete with COD, but it brings up the same concerns that I raised for competing with WoW.

Despite pretty damn good reviews so far, Homefront will make me sad for what it could have been and represented. I suppose it is the same argument that has been presented time and time again; that in this console generation with the graphics and development costs it is just way too expensive to take a risk, so publishers demand that developers put out cookie cutter games to guarantee a return on investment rather than take the high risk-high reward route, but there are so many recent and amazing examples that buck this trend. I just wish that I could stand behind Homefront as one of them.