If you haven't noticed lately, the definitive good guy is seemingly being slowly shifted out of the gaming pop culture as we know it. Gone are the days of Link, Mario and the heroes we knew were definitely good, the white knights that would always do the right thing, even if it meant something terrible in store for them simply for a belief. They've been replaced with the anti-hero, the character that does what they have to do, because they know they have to do it. They don't do it for the sake of being good. They do it for peace, revenge or by sheer moral ambiguity, they do what they wish.

From a narrative perspective, maybe video game characters are just too good to be considered evil or just too bad to be considered saints. John Milton said in his tale Paradise Lost, "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" so are we to infer that being good is equitable to servitude? Take Captain Price from Call of Duty 4, an SAS operative and life-long soldier. His character is ingratiated with the knowledge that sometimes bad things have to happen and overall he possesses the qualities we would expect from any hero. He is brave, succinct in word and deed, and able to go above and beyond the call of duty (excuse the pun). But when he has to rough up a prisoner or ultimately execute them in what some would call cold blood, he isn't exactly hesitant about it. Perhaps in his years of military service, he has come into the understanding that his enemies wouldn't hesitate to do the same to him. Therefore, it can be argued that Price, as with many characters influenced by military backgrounds, isn't out to rule the darkest pits of Hell nor is he a white knight by any stretch of the imagination

Solid Snake is another prime example of this mentality. Being genetically derived from Big Boss the 'Greatest Soldier to have ever Lived' Solid Snake prescribes to the same military beliefs and traditions such as honor and courage. However, there is a small difference. When the Metal Gear, a walking tank capable of launching nuclear strikes from anywhere on the planet, is introduced into the equation Snake has a change of heart. In a world where every soldier is apart of a greater Paramilitary Corporation, Solid Snake stands alone to stop the Metal Gears to ultimately safeguard the world from nuclear annihilation. Through every shred of espionage and tactical combat, Snake believes and excels in hand to hand fighting as well as small arms, but differs on the use of nuclear armaments. So while not completely evil, as Liquid Snake is, but not completely good in the sense of playing all sides to achieve a goal, Snake stands as yet another anti-hero.

Why then do players accept a role where their objectives are not clearly defined as good or evil and are to play, in a sense almost forced, to make difficult moral choices for their characters? Because moral ambiguity and ultimately the anti-heroes are best left undefined until players come along to define them. The main character in Bioshock, for instance, was faced with the choice of harvesting little girls to become more powerful or helping them. The possibility seems trivial at first as helping the Little Sisters could mean being underpowered later in the game, but this is what set Bioshock apart from other titles, the ability to decide what to do with that character.

Choice.

Some heroes such as Kratos, of God of War, may not have a choice. Bargaining with Ares to spare his life, he becomes a slave to evil, so to speak, and in his rage not only decimates his village, but kills his wife and child as well. Thus, Kratos begins a quest to slay Ares as vengeance consumes him as the way to atone for his sins. Maybe under different circumstances, Kratos would have returned home after being all slaughtered out. However, since he continued his conquest, his fate was sealed before the player even presses the start button.

Touching on Infamous and Prototype, both open world titles that have stood comparably well side to side offer the same prospects, despite the narrative of either title, both characters have the choice of ultimately using their powers for good or evil and that is truly the basis of the anti-hero. Very much like Batman was portrayed in the Dark Knight, it has become trendy for developers to create a hero that isn't quite good, isn't quite evil, but all around badass and I think that is what gamers want. They don't want to be enslaved to saving the princess, rescuing orphans and getting the kitty out of the tree. They want the chance to kidnap that princess, punch those orphans in the face and cut the tree down while laughing with glee about the cat. I'm not saying gamers are inherently good or evil, but the same could be said of these anti-heroes. In order for gamers to feel like Alex Mercer, who really just wants to know what exactly has been done to him and what he is becoming, they have to feel disoriented and given a clean slate for their choices to have some impact. If you give players a sandbox that already has sand castles built in them, they can then choose to work around them, build more castles or lay waste to the entire neighborhood. This exists in parallel with Cole McGrath’s world of Infamous, where the player is face with multiple choices and avenues to go about being good or evil as they see fit.

So are the characters really the anti-heroes or have we as gamers simply grown tired of being the savior that everyone looks to for rescue when the world comes crashing down? As previously stated, soldiers get called upon to face the grim realities of war. However, sticking to the pillars of courage and honor are ultimately what separate them from their actions and principles. Even the noblest soldiers, such as Captain Price, can be called upon to do the worst of deeds. Likewise, Vengeance is another factor that drives the anti-hero forward, to atone for a horrible deed that can never be forgiven as Kratos has done and will continue to do right into God of War III. Conversely, some characters such as the main character of Bioshock and Alex Mercer of Prototype merely want to know what has happened to them, why they are there and how will they survive. But truly, it comes down to choice for us as players. If we choose to make that character commit an evil act or stand by while evil occurs that is our choice as much as if we decide to level a city block. So, who then is the real anti-hero, us or them?

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ 

Alright Blizzard, we gotta have a little chat. I was doing okay until you started this whole, "let's take LAN out of Starcraft 2" because ultimately, as long as I got a finished product in hand, I was going to be pretty okay with it. Then, I get out of WoW after hitting level 70 with my Death Knight and having a few mid-sixty characters. That was okay because I needed to get outside since I was forgetting exactly what color the sky and that big glowing orb that floated there was. But now with Cataclysm, Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 next year, you never want me to go outside ever again, do you?

Don't you realize I have a family?

You knew I would want to play as a Goblin, I know you did. The leveling experience is just fine, but now that you've given me the incentive to shoot for the moon and move through until I hit level 85, well that's just cruel. Okay fine, I bet the starting area's are going to be shoddy for the two new rac...they won't? Hold on a second. What's this whole reshaping the face of Azeroth? What do you mean that several territories will be changing hands? The Barrens is getting split in half? The Horde is getting Southshore? I know these are a lot of questions Blizz, but all of this information is staggering.

I admit, that I didn't have the desire to have a flying mount because, why fly if I can't fly in Azeroth. It wasn't rewarding enough for me to just be able to do it in Northrend or Outland and oh, I see, I can do that now too. Well haven't you just thought of everything. I was happy when I got out Blizzard, but being able to play as a Goblin or Worgen and the supposedly streamlined experience from 1-60, I'm going to come back. But you'd know I would come back, because nobody gets away from Blizzard, do they?

I admit that the overall proposal here is rich and worthwhile, and yes Blizzard, I admit that I've missed you sometimes when I'm on Xbox Live alone, but this is madness I can't come back to Azeroth. I'm already going to be playing Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 and unless you can make a time machine a pre-order bonus or pack it in with the collector's edition, where am I going to find the time. Granted, once the world ends, I don't think my generator will have enough power to keep my computer going and the floodlights that'll keep the legions of the undead at bay.

But we'll see what happens I guess.

In the meantime, I'll say it straight that Blizzcon 2009 looked to be something amazing this year and hopefully, as always, next year will be the same. But this year will be a hard act to follow. It would be like me going on stage after Trent Reznor, and all I had was an accordion. Somehow I get the feeling the audience might be a little disappointed.

In an unusual deviation from my regular posts, I felt this was necessary. It isn't exactly an open letter to Blizzard. More or less, its a lamenting for the time I know I'm going to lose next year to these games. I'll place the bare details at the bottom of the post for what you absolutely should know that came out of Blizzcon, but I will say this for my sake, I'm really pulling for that time machine.

WoW - Cataclysm Expansion announced for 2010.
* Two New Playable Races: Adventure as one of two new races—the cursed worgen with the Alliance or the resourceful goblins with the Horde.
* Level Cap Increased to 85: Earn new abilities, tap into new talents, and progress through the path system, a new way for players to improve characters.
* Classic Zones Remade: Familiar zones across the original continents of Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms have been altered forever and updated with new content, from the devastated Badlands to the broken Barrens, which has been sundered in two.
* New High-Level Zones: Explore newly opened parts of the world, including Uldum, Grim Batol, and the great Sunken City of Vashj'ir beneath the sea.
* More Raid Content than Ever Before: Enjoy more high-level raid content than previous expansions, with optional more challenging versions of all encounters.
* New Race and Class Combinations: Explore Azeroth as a gnome priest, blood elf warrior, or one of the other never-before-available race and class combinations.
* Guild Advancement: Progress as a guild to earn guild levels and guild achievements.
* New PvP Zone & Rated Battlegrounds: Take on PvP objectives and daily quests on Tol Barad Island, a new Wintergrasp-like zone, and wage war in all-new rated Battlegrounds.
* Archaeology: Master a new secondary profession to unearth valuable artifacts and earn unique rewards.
* Flying Mounts in Azeroth: Explore Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms like never before.

Diablo 3 - Monk class announced.

Starcraft 2 - Single and multiplayer details announced. Spoilers here, spoiler-free here.

Battle.net - updates and an impending revamp.

Forgive my rant, but maybe Blizzard had it coming.

--Andrew
spawn more overlords

 So, I have this problem, you see. I usually choose the worst weeks possible to start things. It seems that on the occasion when I do make a resolution of some kind, the stars, moon, sun and planets all align and like the quacking of a duck on the other side of a planet causes Swine Flu on a continent, so too does my starting new things cause the Earth to haphazardly shift. But it never hurts to adapt, overcome and well, do what has to be done, right?

Below I have organized the data to the best of my ability for the first week of Wii Fit use. Overtime, you will notice that I may or may not change the formatting depending on how well it is received by the gaming community. Conversely, I may alter the information based on how well I deem it conveys the scientific data I believe it should, based on my original hypothesis. As I stated, I would be recounting the foods I consumed, along with any outside exercise garnered in addition to my time with the Wii Fit. Noteworthy though, as I stated above in regards to natural disasters, I did hurt my back and neck this week while moving furniture - it was a pleasant reminder that I am not He-Man and I shouldn't be bucking for a shot a Skeletor quite yet - so for the past few days I didn't push too hard, relied on Advil and of course, left Castle Grayskull undefended. So, having a slightly improved outlook on next week helps keep me warm and fuzzy, but so would a soda, which I haven't had all week. Damn.

Day 1 - August 17, 2009
Morning: 1 cup oat bran cereal, 1 cup organic fat free milk, 40 oz water
Lunch: 20 oz water, 1 bag Act II Light Butter Popcorn
Dinner: 1 cup chopped potatoes (grilled), 1 cup green beans, 1/2 green pepper, 1/2 cup cooked ground beef, 48 oz water.

BMI: 40.25 (Obese)
Weight: 287.5 (-2 for light clothing)
DOB: 10.20.1985

Basic Balance Test:
Round 1 - 4.42
Round 2 - 3.00
Round 3 - 5.38
Round 4 - 8.10
Round 5 - Incomplete
Total - 30.00

Wii Fit Age: 31
Actual Age: 23

Goal: -22.0 Pounds (265.5)
-3.09 BMI (37.16)

Deadline: 3 months (-3.4 pounds / wk)

Exercises:
Torso Twist: - 2 min
Push-up / Side Plank - 2 min
Deep Breathing - 2 min
Half - Moon - 2 min
Warrior Stance - 2 min
Soccer Heading - 4 min
Basic Step - 12 min
Hula Hoop - 2 min
Ski Jump - 1 min
Ski Slalom - 1 min

Outside activity: Walked 2.6 miles

Notes: I'm fairly convinced that while I unlocked some pretty cool games, I rediscovering muscles I forgot I had.

August 18th was the date I injured myself because I was trying to be a help move a piece of furniture and it didn't turn out too well.
Breakfast: 30 oz water (Propel), blueberry bagel (plain)
Lunch: 16 oz water, lowfat shrimp spaghetti
Dinner: 1 cup of ground beef (sloppy joe) on wheat bread

Outside activity: Walked 2.6 miles

August 19th stayed home from work, lounged around in pain.
Breakfast: Bagel (plain), 20 oz water
Lunch: Asleep
Dinner: 2 cups pasta, 2 tablespoons ground Parmesan cheese. 30 oz water (Propel)

August 20th
Breakfast: Wheat toast, plain. Fat free organic milk 16 oz.
Lunch: None - swamped with work
Dinner: 1 grilled chicken breast, 2 cups green beans, 30 oz water (Propel)

BMI: 40.21 (Obese)
Weight: 284.5 (-2 for light clothing)
DOB: 10.20.1985

Basic Balance Test:
Round 1 - 4.44
Round 2 - 2.21
Round 3 - 6.28
Round 4 - 9.32
Round 5 - 8.75
Total - 30.00

Wii Fit Age: 39
Actual Age: 23

Goal: -22.0 Pounds (265.5)
-3.09 BMI (37.16)

Deadline: 3 months (-3.4 pounds / wk)

Exercises:
Warrior Stance - 10 min
Soccer Heading - 7 min
Basic Step - 9 min
Hula Hoop - 4 min

Outside activity: Walked 2.6 miles

August 21st
Breakfast: Bagel, plain. 16 oz orange juice

Outside activity: Walked 1.3 miles


And I won't be playing Wii Fit until late tonight. So, while I'm not totally satisfied with my first week out of the gate I'll grant myself extenuating circumstances in this case because I was stupid enough to injure myself. In the meantime, I'm feeling mediocre out of the fact that I really haven't worked out aside from my commute walking through the city of Chicago. However, I think that altering my diet is a step in the right direction, but I feel like I'm going to shift my diet to five smaller meals a day as opposed to the traditional three. Taking a page out of body for life couldn't hurt. And of course, taking vitamins is always a plus unless you do it wrong, in which case that's some expensive urine you just expelled.

Overall though, progress in any direction except back is progress all the same and I'm not going to belittle what little I've made. I should be able to garner more time next week and this weekend as my back improves more and more. Although it does still hurt at times, I'm stretching and getting the kinks out as any old man should.

--Andrew
going to pump you up!

 I was going to originally write today about the decline of music games in the industry and among the gaming community, but instead I have decided to gush further over the joy that is Shadow Complex. Besides, discussing music games would have still let me around to the fact that I'm still probably going to end up getting the complete Rock Band Beatles edition. But, I sat down to play Culdcept Saga yesterday and noticed on the dashboard that Shadow Complex was up for download and being 400 points short, I opted to get it and at least scope out the demo.

I wasn't disappointed.

Starting off in the role of a fully-armored character, very much like starting off Metroid and Castlevania with all of your abilities at full power, you are repelling an assault against Secret Service agents from unknown enemies. After shooting down a Blackhawk helicopter, the suit locks up and after some very disturbing dialogue about assassinating the vice-president as well as chess and many pawns being in play, the game cuts to the title followed by the intro cinematic.  The first thing I enjoyed about Shadow Complex is that you start with nothing but a flashlight. You also are not a space marine or some badass out on a mission. You play a guy in the woods with a girl and you stumble on an underground facility from which a secret group hopes to destabilize, sink the US into civil war and seize control. Not bad for a nature hike if you ask me.

After playing through for about fifteen minutes, I noticed something. I was having fun. A lot more fun that I remember having recently with arcade titles, barring Monkey Island of course, and I was immediately seized by a feeling I hadn't had since I was a kid. There was a time when I was more excited to explore a game as opposed to find something else to kill. Shadow Complex gave me that feeling again. I'm not saying the combat wasn't something I started looking forward to, but it was slightly beaten out by the urge to explore that the game gave me. Every single time I was crawling through vents or ducts I was interested in what I might find and caught myself saying, "ooooh" more than once when I shambled upon a health upgrade.

The upgrade aspect in definitely something I found myself sincerely enjoying. To put it candidly, I haven't been that excited for simply getting a pistol since I played Wolfenstein 3D when I was little. And it just stacks on and on from there. Every time the map filled in a little more, I had to remind myself that this was just the demo, but I haven't stopped remembering the potential exploration once I have the full game unlocked. Suffice to say, it definitely bleeds Metroidvania and will remind anyone who enjoyed those games of the downright great time that was had when playing them. Sincerely though, as soon as I picked up grenades, and got passed how cool that felt - I was confronted by a giant mechanical spider with a machine gun. At that point, as you can imagine, I was sold. Yeah, spiders are okay as enemies, but giant mechanical spiders? Well sir, that's just appealing to the weakness I have for damn awesome boss battles.

Whittled down to its core though, its nice to see that the Unreal Engine can be used for something else besides, say, Gears of War. And while I do love the exploits of Marcus and Dom, I think that Shadow Complex touches a nerve that I forgot I had. Sure, maybe it is a blend of nostalgia, the dazzling beauty of the graphics along with the succinct controls. But if that's the case, it's a blend I can serve up with a large pizza and a weekend kill. Be sure to keep watch for the full review once I've had a chance to get through the whole version, though after visiting the demo more than once, the whole thing may be worth the same time investment.

--Andrew
giant metal spider!

 So I bought a game about a year ago, and it has been sitting on my shelf all this time, while I thought I wouldn't have a great time with it, yet I would still give it a shot. Holy crap, Culdcept Saga is amazing. Granted, I'm aware the game won't be for everyone as it appeals to a certain type of gamer, hell let alone a certain type of nerd. The best way I can really describe the game is a combination of Monopoly, Magic: The Gathering and a slight flavor of Mario Party even seems to be present. I can tell you that normally, this type of game wouldn't appeal to me as I long since grew out of Monopoly, feel Mario Party is only fun when utilized as a drinking game and Magic: The Gathering, well, I could still play Magic, I just need to find someone who has a deck. My point is, this idle freakin' gem was sitting on my shelf and for a very long time, I forgot I even owned it.

The game begins predictably with your character having a dream. After a bit of droll dialogue describing how special you are, your character is bought by a slave trader. After some very minor character customization, and by minor I mean imagine Fallout 3 and toss ninety-nine percent of that out the window, you'll be led out of town by this slaver only to have a young woman stop you both and begin offering to buy you as your value is quite immeasurable apparently. During this conversation a woman dressed in black and red, with a clearly evil persona, stops everything so you can battle. This is where the mechanics of the game begin to shine.

Aside from the storyline, which I've been skipping as much as I can, only really serves to play as a vehicle to the real meat of the game and that is the board, cards and the actions therein. The game takes place on a board, which consists of four colors (red, blue, green, and yellow) reflecting the four elements (fire, water, earth and plains). For anyone who has ever played Magic, this will make sense to some degree. To the people who haven't, prepare for a learning curve that will feel like scaling the Matterhorn. Players start their turns by drawing a card and may never have more than six cards in their hand at any given time, as drawing a seventh will force the player to discard. Prior to moving, a player may cast a spell card, which can help themselves, hinder their opponents or somehow benefit a creature in play. After casting, players are free to roll the dice and move. Depending on where they land a couple of actions are possible, which brings in the Monopoly elements.

Say you land on one of the element spaces, you can usually deploy any drawn creature to it unless the card specifically prohibits it. However it will always be beneficial to place a creature on an elemental space that share a common trait, such as a blue ogre being placed on a water space, which grants additional hit points and strength making the creature stronger as it digs in on that space. Furthermore, there are forts scattered about the map that the player must land on before returning to the starting space, where a castle is located. Conversely, landing on the fort spaces as well as the castle grant the player magic in order to purchase upgrades to spaces under control as well as activate creature abilities. Ultimately, the goal of every game I've played so far has been the gathering of total magic. Upon gathering enough magic and reaching the beginning castle you win that particular match.

Like I said, it feels a bit complicated at first. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't even start writing this until I clocked at least ten hours with the game.

Overall, I think there is something worthwhile here, but that doesn't necessarily go for everyone. Keep in mind, I grew up playing D & D and Magic along with the wicked amount of video games I found the time to play. Yeah, kind of a geek, nerd, or social outcast - really I just call it as I see it. So, if you are, in fact, into this kind of game and want to give it a while it should be able to be procured pretty cheap or rented somewhere, if you can find it. Otherwise, I'll do my best to make more sense of it once I've clocked a far more notable amount of time into it.

--Andrew
hitpoints, mana!

 I regard Gabe Newell with a sense of awe because when it comes to game designers, he ranks up there with some of the best in my humble opinion. However, he recently postulated on the future of the game industry as well as theorized on the possibility of games financed by their respective fan bases stating, "What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, 'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game." In essence, while this may not immediately be feasible, it does pose a refreshing prospect and concurrently proposing a troubling conundrum.

When all is said and done all gamers want at the end of the day is a great game to play. The problem however is it can be incessantly difficult to create an incentive, let alone a working build of a title that would make a fan base finance to see the game through to completion. Take for instance Left 4 Dead 2, the sequel to Valve's runaway apocalyptic hit Left 4 Dead. When the title first appeared at E3 this year, internet petitions and message boards were immediately aflame with insults and aggravations. People felt that Valve was betraying them, that Valve was abandoning support for the original, that the amount of people available to play would be too small when split between the two titles and that Left 4 Dead 2 should simply be released as an add-on or expansion for Left 4 Dead if Valve knew what was good for them. Eventually, Valve is seems satiated a certain amount of that population of their fan base by promising to continue support for L4D. However, Gamers feeling betrayed by Valve is a bit asinine and odds are some wouldn't have paid for Left 4 Dead 2 were it up for debate pre-development. Ultimately, and I'm looking in the direction of Activision here, if a company wants to produce a title and has the financial backing from a publisher as well as developers willing to continue creating then they can really do whatever they want. As a gamer, the loudest voice has and always will be the dollars and credit cards in our pockets.

To a different degree, Starcraft II has had LAN support removed from the title. This may not be important to some who don't mind playing over Battle.net, but to the 100,000 who have signed the petition to try and get it back into the game prior to it shipping (hopefully) in 2010, it's pretty important. Again though, it goes back to the very simple principle that it's a Blizzard title and while they have listened and done the best they can to appeal to their communities, they don't give them free run of the design process. That's simply not how it works. If you were trying to draw a picture and you had a crowd of 100k standing behind you screaming that the kitty's whiskers you were drawing are lopsided, it would get very hard to get anything done, let alone finish that drawing. Same basic principle here. Yes, I'm excited for Starcraft II and I will decisively pick up the game when it is released, despite having signed the petition asking for LAN not because I'm upset about a lack of LAN but because I don't want to miss out on what the rest of the package has to offer. But it boils down to financing. I didn't finance Blizzard or Starcraft II so the way I see it, in regards to signing the petition, I'm merely requesting that Blizzard takes a step back in the final stages of development and if they can eke LAN into there, then I'll be all the more happy. But if not, it won't rain on my parade. And even if it does, it's not like they're twisting my arm to buy it.

So what's the solution?

Community financed titles could work, if they have the financial support they need. If they don't, then they just end up a failed pipe dream or get picked up by a publisher who may demand to change the prospective game from its original incarnation. What's the average budget of most titles currently? Gabe Newell stated between 10 and 30 million dollars, so we'll use that figure. Hypothetically, let's say that the game is well thought out and has the possibility of being a really great title, something you, mom, grandma and all the neighborhood kids believe is really worthwhile. It would take 6 million gamers investing 5 dollars each to get the 30 million start up cost. However, I admit, that is at the far end of the spectrum. But how do developers appeal to gamers so they can share the potential financial burden and go from simple end-user to investor?

Zero Point Software showed off proof of concept in 2006 for Interstellar Marines. The game was supposedly going to be a completely community financed product. They sold memberships on their page and offered incentives to those who gave more money such as avatars, customizable properties in-game such as special patches / armor, as well as first dibs, so to speak, on demos, playable builds and free copies of the game in the proposed trilogy of titles which I further discussed here. While the trailers, teasers and then remastered works were something interesting to see, the problem became a lack of funds. Devoid of the money to pay the licensing fees for the engines they proposed to use for the games, ZPS was forced to file for bankruptcy per the last post on their website dated about a month ago. But what fascinates me is that those gamers who have invested their money and time in the community, when offered a refund for the money they had invested many, if not all, declined a refund. Personally, I think it was because they believe in the product they had been shown as many investors would. More cynically though, maybe they just didn't see a sinking ship. But recently on the ZPS twitter feed, there is supposedly an impending site update - perhaps bringing the lauded title back from the dead once more. It seems the Interstellar Marine community is waiting with baited breath. Here's hoping they aren't disappointed.

Maybe Zero Point Software was dreaming too big, maybe the team needs to be smaller and the project smaller or is it really so impossible to defeat the beasts that are the publishers? Cave Story was an independently developed title that is one of the few free games I have played that I would have honestly paid for and had I seen a proof of concept or had it pitched to me, odds are I could have seen my way clear to throw whatever money I could to invest. World of Goo is another independent title that had I seen on the PC though, I would have passed on, but on the Wii I still believe it was worth every point and penny. So maybe it is time for the developers to appeal to their fan base or potential fan base and ask for a donation if not a flat out investment. After all, if the game is a success I wouldn't mind a bit of a return on top of knowing that game sitting on my shelf was possible because of a bit of the money I threw into it. But it all boils down to a different kind of choice and that is what separates gamers from investors.

Gamers do invest in games whenever they shell out money for a title, a final product after it has been created, Investors do it based on what the game could be. But if a gamer chooses to invest their money into a game during the pre-production and development cycle, then do gamers get more of a say in what they see in their titles? I hope so because woe befall the developer that bites the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I'm not talking about financing another Ion Storm, I'm talking about one day a site posts a proof of concept, storyboards and the forms to make me, as a gamer, a fully-fledged investor so that if I put money into that game, I've just become apart of that titles creative process, albeit in some small way. But, who knows how long until we see a model that truly works.

In the meantime, what would you as a gamer like to invest in? What games would to play more of if you invested in it? Would you invest? Would you not? What games in recent memory can you think of that you would have paid to help be developed?

Every little bit does count and if a game is good enough, I have a feeling the gaming community would pay to see it completed. But, they won't just pay for anything - I have a feeling the world doesn't need another Army Men title.

--Andrew
good as gold.

  Piracy has always been apparent in many societies, however digital piracy has always been a rather sensitive issue, which is what garners it the most attention for both good and bad. Being the first to admit it, I believe that if something is worthwhile, then it should be paid for. That being said, I'm not about to go didactically White Knight and preach to the choir about what they should do because simply said, the line between the pros and cons of piracy are still very blurred in my opinion. On one hand, you have those who believe it is perfectly okay to download individual games, movies or songs as well as those who torrent albums or collections of games. Conversely, there are those who believe that when a product is worth more that the effort it would take to acquire for free, that's when it becomes truly worth while. In the age of information, it has seemingly become exceptionally difficult to decipher what true value of digital information is worth.

Take Nintendo DS games. Retailing in the United States for roughly $10 to $40 dollars, the price barrier isn't especially high or out of reach for many. This is considered true by many, especially during this economic situation of ours, which I am obligated to mention. The Sony PSP is even better at it, allowing gamers to play Playstation 1 titles amongst the many other classic games that can conveniently be emulated by even the most non-technically savvy. But for the time being, let's stick to the Nintendo DS. For a relatively cheap price, a gamer can pick up a flash cartridge and a mini-SD memory card allowing for a virtually unparalleled collection of games on one cartridge. With one EDGE or R4 card and a 16gb mini-SD card, it becomes possible for gamers to carry what some would regard as an entire collection of titles in their pocket. Some are relatively content with this and it has sparked outrage in one capacity or another. But from my personal experience piracy, in regards to games, has always been around.

The first time I played Doom, it was off floppy discs that friends had "borrowed" to me along with Close Combat, which was off of a copied CD with the key written on it. And the ball rolled downhill from there. The Pirate Bay allows for access to entire series, collections and franchises of titles. Alternately, as early as this weekend, it is possible to go on to certain sites and find Nintendo DS Roms. But with attempts to combat piracy, it seems like developers and publishers are locked in a constant arms race to try and stay one step ahead.

The Nintendo DSi is a quirky little machine, I'll give it that. The camera's are okay and the access to the DSi shop is interesting, but it isn't enough for some to warrant those who already own a DS to purchase it, so why did Nintendo create it? To combat pirates of course. At least at first it worked, but that was quickly overcome. However, as new firmware updates are now able to be downloaded to the system this could be a step in the right direction for Nintendo to battle pirates. Simply said though, many people who utilize the DS and DSi for homebrew as opposed to piracy are simply not downloading the updates and the pirates just as easily follow in turn. No matter what fix a company believes they have that can stop piracy, I'm firmly convinced that the nerds and geeks out there will, if they want to badly enough, find a working solution around whatever may be standing in their way.

After I stopped working at Gamestop, I was related a story from a former fellow employee who found it funny enough to convey to me. A woman had purchased a DSi for her child and less than an hour later had returned to the store to complain. Apparently, she wanted to make a return. When he asked if the system was broken or not working properly, she simply replied her dismay that the DSi wouldn't play pirated games and that she'd like to return it. I applaud the employee for not reaching across the counter and giving the mother a dose of reality, but speaking candidly, if you're going to pirate something, you don't exactly broadcast that nor use it as a reason on a return. That's just dumber than jumping into a tub of ground beef before running through a police dog training facility. Granted, I laughed at the anecdote, but something stuck with me about that.

So what is the answer? DRM? I have a problem with companies, corporations or anyone who believes that when I pay for a product, that product really isn't mine. Sure, I like to see the boxes of video games nestled snugly on my shelf for the world to see, but what if without warning, a company decided that the build of a game I had wasn't good enough for me to have? Or what if they decided I simply shouldn't have access to content I have already purchased anymore? This is when piracy becomes the only option. That's the flipside to the entire argument. Where does a company end and my rights begin? And what if there is no way a game can be found anymore?

Blurry lines, huh?

Let's take an alternate approach. A gamer wants to play the original Legend of Zelda, but doesn't have access to the cartridge for one reason or another, but has an internet connection. So he/she downloads the rom from a website as well as the emulation software to play it and gets about an hour in and stops. This goes on for a few days until by a dice roll of the cosmos, be it eBay, a garage sale, etc, this gamer finds a copy of the cartridge, throws down the money and goes home to play - deleting the rom and the emulation software off their machine in the process - immediately going on with life.

Additionally, what about about someone who spots a DS title that they want to play, but aren't sure about dropping the $40 dollars to play it. They head to a website, get the rom, and play it on their DS for a while before deciding that the final product has the wherewithal, via replay value and overall package, to be worth their hard earned money. Upon purchasing the game, they delete the rom off their flash cartridge, but repeat the process. Is this then okay?

As I've said, I'm not here to make judgment calls on piracy as it seems everyone has done so at one point or another in their lives. But how does it stop? This boils down to either allowing for total and complete flow of information for free or make the product worth more than the trouble to get it for free.

Case in point, Xbox 360 games. Let's use Modern Warfare 2 as our primary example. Releasing on November 10, 2009 it is supposed to be a media juggernaut for Activision. However, Bobby Kotick has found it fitting to raise the price on the title in certain regions of the world as he feels the game has a "AAA-title" status (a phrase/label I hate) that can be exploited to garner as much money as possible to pad the financial outlook of Activision. Well, without much speculation, I can haphazardly guess that there will be quite a few gamers who wait in line at midnight for this title to release, along with others who will pick up the title in the subsequent weeks. However, there will be those unable to afford Modern Warfare 2. Some will most likely wait until the game makes it's way to resale and purchase it used. Alternately, I have a feeling that if some were able to pirate the game for play on the 360, it most certainly would be done. But how much trouble is that for the average gamer, let alone the average consumer? While the game may be worth the cost, and to many it is, others may opt not to purchase it in favor of other titles or not even purchase it at all as the recession may hit those in particular harder. Please pardon my candor though when I say that, in regards to free information, I don't think Bobby would part with Modern Warfare 2 for free. No. Not even to a house full of orphans.

But Chrono Trigger on the DS. Now that is a game worth playing. I'm aware of no less than five people alone in my small circle of friends who pirated the game. Why? Because they'd played it on the Super Nintendo and didn't feel that they should purchase the same game at such a premium. And believe it or not, for many people, $40 is a premium price to pay. Frankly, I can't bring myself to blame some of them as the reasoning is somewhat sound. But wouldn't this hurt developers in the long run?

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't heard of a developer or publisher going down the tubes because of piracy just yet, but it all boils down to how widespread piracy is and remains to be as well as the overall quality of the title in question. You can have the best game in the world, and if it is worth paying for, then people won't mind shelling out the dollars and cents to get it. But if it is available for free and a rather mediocre title at best, then people won't mind going through a few hoops to make sure they aren't wasting their money.

So what do you think is the answer? Do we really own the media we're sold or are we just licensing it from a company and are paying for the privilege to simply use it? Is the DMCA, DRM or any other form of security the right way to go or are people inherently good and not out to just get something for nothing?

I'm interested to see where the arms race goes, because it has been a cold war between creators, consumers and pirates for a long time. The static defenses of keys and codes only work so long, while active defenses merely aggravate the established fan base.

I'm intrigued to see how crystal clear those lines eventually become.

--Andrew
Avast ye scurvy dogs.