negative
Latest
The Nexus Telegraph: Is WildStar a World of Warcraft clone?
No. That was quick, so we can all -- oh, wait, no, I need to write more. Also saying we can all go home is pointless; most of you are reading this from home. All right, we'll start over. This is one of those things that gets trotted out every time a new game comes along, and in WildStar's case it comes out twice as regularly, since it's the first game in history to use colorful and stylized graphics other than World of Warcraft, except that it isn't. It's kind of ridiculous, and it's a bit of a pet peeve. As someone who has played World of Warcraft extensively, I find the list of similarities between the two pretty shallow, and it comes across more as a way of dismissing the game without bothering to learn about it. So let's talk about where WildStar does take its cues from Blizzard's game, where they differ, and why saying it's just a clone is absurd.
The Soapbox: 'L2P' and the antisocial MMO
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. I'm amazed how often I still hear the phrase "learn to play." It's become a nasty term that makes me suspect those saying it just don't want other gamers around at all. And I can hardly blame them when the MMO market is pushing a markedly single-player agenda. MMOs tout our ability to play with friends and interact with others, but in the end, they are selfish games that breed and attract selfish gamers. In modern MMOs, interaction barely rises above single-player co-op. Guild Wars 2 exemplifies this by dropping you in a world with the potential for thousands of players to be all around you, but its alienating mechanics often make you feel like a lonely ghost who wants nothing more than to hug someone. L2P and other stock insults are rooted in something ugly: the literally antisocial nature of many MMOs.
Film camera measures 35-feet long, makes photojournalists keel over in worship / pain (video)
To all photographers who measure their talent by the size of their equipment, it's time to give up the race. Folks, step right up and meet the Eye of America: a 35-foot long film camera that captures negatives measuring six by four and a half freaking feet. Currently in the possession of Dennis Manarchy, the retro-styled rig is said to barely fit into a truck, and yet can deliver images 1,000 times greater than the average negative. When Manarchy's not capturing stills for exhibitions that stand two stories tall, he uses the gigantic contraption to teach average folk about how cameras work. Then again, most negatives don't need to be inspected through windows rigged with LED lights. Frankly, we didn't think any piece of kit could strike fear into the Maxback -- but, that was yesterday. As for a damage deposit on the Eye of America? Well, if you need to ask, you can safely assume you've just priced yourself out of the market.
The Lawbringer: Positive value creation from the negatives in the games industry
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? The no-win situation is, at its core, a sad state of affairs. Seriously, no one is winning in a no-win situation. In fact, everyone could be said to be losing. Piracy has been long held to be the dire no-win situation in the video game industry because it represents a perfect culmination of utter loss -- an infinitely copyable product that took millions of dollars to produce being distributed for free. No profit means the studio gets its windows shuttered and no one goes home employed. Last week, I read an article on PC Gamer that talks about Runic Games's Torchlight. The game is a fantastic spiritual successor to the Diablo series that the company's CEO, Max Schaefer, served as lead designer for. Runic Games was essentially bought by Perfect World, a Chinese MMO company that seeks to release an MMO version of the popular game. Schaefer has some different views and conclusions about how piracy effects his game. In a nutshell, Schaefer sees no problem with the millions of illegally downloaded copies of Torchlight in Asian markets. When the MMO is released, the brand recognition and audience building that piracy affords will bring in new customers for the eventual MMO, where it is harder to pirate a service. With so many games going online these days with multiplayer components requiring authentication or even a license purchase (as with used versions of PS3 and XBox 360 games), is this the right attitude to have in world where a game's success is made or destroyed based on sales? Is this line of thought able to coexist with the fickle dev studio and publisher system in place now in the industry? Ultimately, we can learn something from Schaefer's comments, especially about audience building. And, potentially, we can see the future of World of Warcraft's distribution as the game gets a bit heavy in terms of barrier to entry.
How reputation governs the game
Ravius over at Kill Ten Rats ruminates on the importance of reputation in these very social games that we're playing with each other, and it resonated with me in terms of a few different things going on in World of Warcraft right now. We've talked lots before about ninjas and how that back-and-forth works -- in that case, karma is directly driven by what other people think of you, and of course that's seen more weakly in lots of other places around the game, including guild recruitment, your friends list, and just the general server at large. Ravius talks mostly about the negative reputations we earn, and certainly that's a powerful motivator for a lot of people. But positive reputation is also a strong force in this game -- I'm interested to see how we deal with earning and keeping positive reputation in the new Dungeon Finder and eventually the Battle.net system. Gone may be the days when you build up a good reputation by saying "remember me if you need a good DPS" at the end of a run. It'll be interesting to see what methods we replace that one with.
The Daily Grind: Do you prefer good news or bad?
Today we're going to be a little bit meta for our discussion topic of the day and ask a very simple question with larger meanings: do you consider yourself on the positive or negative side of the fence? When you see news on the site, do you prefer the good news and the uplifting stories, or would you rather see things with a bit more bite to them? Certainly the negative can be a fair bit more entertaining, and if there's a game you don't like (which many of you seem to have) it's kind of nice to feel vindicated in your dislike. Positive news, on the other hand, can only bolster morale if you're a fan of the game in question -- but you get a lot more fuel out of that than a thin shot of schadenfreude. So. All things being equal, if we post a story about Game X, which you neither play nor have any strong opinions about -- are you happier if it's good news or bad news? And as a point tied to that, do you generally consider yourself to be a more positive person or a negative one?
The Daily Grind: What games can you just not stand?
We all have games we love, that's a given. But some of us also have games that we have a deep and abiding resentment toward. Maybe you were so disappointed with Champions Online that now even the mention of the game gets you annoyed. You might have disliked the grind in Aion to the point where you're actively happy to hear about people unsubscribing from it. Or maybe you're annoyed at World of Warcraft being as huge as it is and want it taken down a few pegs. Even as you know it's silly to dislike something that brings people happiness (we hope you do, at least), we can't help but do it here and there. As long as we're getting things off our chests lately, here's the question: what game do you just not like? You don't play it if you ever did, you have no real investment in its success or failure... but you really just plain dislike it. Do you dislike it because of changes, because of what you think its presence did to other games, or just for silly personal reasons that you know are ridiculous but you can't help?
Variety says Mario Galaxy shows Wii's weaknesses
Here at Joystiq, we like to have some fun with our Nega-reviews. When the critical apparatus tells us almost unanimously that a game is undeniably good, we like to pick apart their words and find out what small negatives can be found in the overwhelmingly positive whole. This was a bit tough for Super Mario Galaxy, a game that got high praise all around. It wouldn't have been nearly as tough if we'd had access to Variety's review of the game, which went up on Monday.While the Variety review praises the game's original level design and gravity-based gameplay, the majority of the writing picks apart the game's weak story, limited two-player mode and awkward camera controls. What's more, a large portion of the review seems targeted at the Wii itself, from blanket condemnation of the two-handed controller ("Holding the nunchuk, ... and the Wii-mote ... in separate hands, is an awkward arrangement") to criticism of the system's graphical prowess ("Fans may claim that the graphics are good 'for the Wii,' ... but given the vastly superior quality of the graphics in a game like Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction ... Galaxy looks old fashioned and lifeless.")While we can't say we agree with all the criticisms, it's always interesting to see a major outlet going against the tide of positive opinion to create a negative review. You know, a real one.Previously:Variety praises writing in The Simpsons GameVariety takes flak for negative Metroid Prime 3 review
Sony's naysayers, then and now
Pop quiz time, readers. Guess what product a Salon author was referring to in the following quotes: "Whether or not Sony was sincere in its claim that a supply crisis led it to cut its initial shipments ... there's little question that the corporation was successful in the arena of hype marketing. Lines of obsessed PlayStation fans were a news staple ..." "Don't get me wrong; it's definitely the most powerful video-game machine on the planet right now. But that's not enough. ... There's just not much software available that can take advantage of it." "Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play ... movies is a huge selling point. ... I'd rather pay less and get a machine that just plays games instead." If you guessed the PS3, you'd be wrong. No, the October 2000 column that the above quotes come from was talking about the then-recent launch of the PlayStation 2. Careful readers might remember the PS2 as the system that went on to sell over 115 million units worldwide and dominate the console market for the better part of the decade. At the time, though, Salon recommended hardcore gamers opt for the cheaper, easier-to-develop-for Dreamcast and wait on the PS2 for the time being.Why are we posting this? Mainly because it's always fun to point out just how different media opinion and popular opinion can be, but also as a way of tempering the gloomy predictions that are still surrounding the PS3 nearly five months after its launch. Remember, Sony has come back from negative media attention before, and there's still a chance it could do it again.[Via Chrominance]
