op-ed
Latest
The Soapbox: Yes, Virginia, sexism still exists
About two years ago (two decades in internet years), I wrote a piece about sexism as it pertains to MMOs. I didn't write anything about it for a long while afterward because I would just be reiterating points that were stated in the first article, something I'm not fond of doing. But when I wrote another article praising a game for mostly getting equality right, well... I'm not fond of rehashing old points. But I'm also not fond of the idea that people have evolved from saying "it's not sexist" to "oh, there's no sexism here in the first place." As I said two years ago, there's a lot that MMOs get right that gaming in general still gets wrong. But there's also a lot that MMOs get wrong still. So I want to look at the issue, look at some of the common attempts to pretend it's not really an issue, and possibly provide some links of relevant interest. There are a lot of those.
The Soapbox: No game is cooler
I don't think I'm ever going to understand why some people have what seems to be an outright phobia about bright colors. There are people who look down on WildStar and World of Warcraft and Free Realms because the games are colorful, stylized, and uniquely designed. I can't understand it, but I can accept it, even if I disagree with the premise. We've all got our own tastes. What I can't accept is people who try to argue that as a result, another game is somehow inherently better than these games because it's "not as cartoony." This is something that crops up time and again in MMO fandom, this sort of never-ending back-and-forth over how one game is cooler than others because of reasons. Here's the skinny, people: Your game is not cooler than anyone else's video game. Your playstyle is not cooler. Your choices in story are not cooler. And if you're trying to play games based on which game is the coolest, you are officially doing this wrong.
Why I Play: Clone Wars Adventures
I'm Jef, and I love Star Wars. This is the part where the rest of you addicts chime in with "hi Jef," before we go about trying to cure ourselves of a life-long obsession. Except we're not going to do that today, are we? In fact, I'm going to dangle another death stick that you may not have considered as of yet. It's called Clone Wars Adventures.
The Soapbox: Commitment issues
I have friends who have a hard time settling down into just one game. This is not inherently a problem; if you want to jump into many games a month at a time, more power to you. But that's not the case with these folks. They want to be in one place, to stick to just one or two games. These friends look to me, not because my friends assume I am a font of all wisdom as it pertains to MMOs but because I'm pretty stable in games. Barring my participation in things like Choose My Adventure, the games I play are staples. I've been playing Final Fantasy XIV and Star Wars: The Old Republic since launch, the only thing that stopped me from playing City of Heroes was a shutdown, and even my briefer incursions last four months or more. So how do I do it? The answer is the same as the answer to how you make a long-term relationship work: You commit.
Why do you play what you play?
Life is complicated. There's no simple answers to most of our problems, and even if you think there are, there are lots of people who disagree with you. Life is fraught with tension, with situations that require tact and even diplomacy to navigate. This is one of the reasons I enjoy playing warriors. I enjoy their straightforward approach to problem solving. In the real world, my troubles are usually things that simply can't be dealt with via the application of a gigantic axe to their heads (my bills just refuse to die no matter how much I try and stab them) but I face no such difficulty in World of Warcraft. To me, the game is escapism, a couple of hours in a world where the stakes are larger than life, but the solutions are much more primal and basic. Sometimes you just want to yell Hulk smash.
The Soapbox: The stuff from the stuff
There was a great quote from the second season of the short-lived sitcom Sports Night when one of the characters chastises a friend who's overreacting by saying, "You've got to be able to separate the stuff from the stuff." Translated from Sorkinese, it means you need to stop lumping everything into one generic category to be upset about and instead sift through what's important and what is not. I think this is quite applicable to the MMO community, as I see countless examples of people who just can't separate the stuff from the stuff. Everything, for some people, is a matter of utmost importance and worthy of a spontaneous riot on the same level as everything else. There are no degrees of importance; a mild nerf to a player's class is equally demanding of a 10-paragraph rant as a studio going back on its word just to screw players. Not everything is life or death. A sign of maturity is learning to pick your battles and to mellow out the rest of the time. Let's see if we can take some steps together toward that goal.
Why I Play: Star Wars: The Old Republic
Star Wars is awesome, and Massively's Dylan is here to tell you why. He's a member of Massively's Stream Team, which produces live coverage of MMO titles every week with commentary and special features. So you won't be surprised to find out that this is an unconventional edition of Why I Play in that it's actually a livestream-style video rather than an article. Have a look and listen after the cut!
Why I play: Lord of the Rings Online
A year ago I came to Massively as an odd-man-out of sorts. I had very little experience with MMOs, but for the previous two years I had podcasted and blogged about Star Trek Online. That being my only experience with the genre, I had very little interest in (read: I was fearful of) trying any other game. Trying another game meant that I was leaving my comfort zone and also, maybe, risking the perception that I was being disloyal to the game that gave me so much enjoyment. However, a new friend and co-worker, Justin Olivetti, changed my mind. Because of him and his great The Road to Mordor columns here at Massively I decided to take the plunge and give Lord of the Rings Online a try. So in June of last year I took the plunge and I have found myself smitten by yet another MMO based on a powerhouse franchise that I adore.
The Soapbox: Joy in the little things
Some people play MMOs because they love the challenge. Some are there for the social aspects. Still others stick with their favorite titles because they're deeply in love with the content or lore. Every single gamer reading this post has a different reason for logging into their MMO of choice instead of watching television, reading a book or choosing any other type of recreation. There is no right way to enjoy a game. Despite the fact that our comments section is often filled with people letting others know what they "should" or "shouldn't" be playing based on their affinity for certain in-game functions, having fun is a very personal experience that depends entirely on your tastes and desires. If you're having a good time in a game, you're doing it right. It's all about the little things.
The Soapbox: Can we reward fun over persistence?
MMOs are games of repetition. Advancing past a certain point is always a matter of doing the same thing over and over, whether it's repeating raids in World of Warcraft, playing the market in EVE Online, or taking part in the same event to clear daily achievements in Guild Wars 2. Whether or not you enjoy these repeat performances can make the difference between the grind from hell and a pleasant upward climb, but it's still a game of repetition. It's not exactly the ideal state of being. Nearly every new game seems to recognize this and advertise itself as free from grinding, which at best is true in a very narrow sense. You won't be grinding daily quests, but you'll be grinding events or PvP maps or dungeons. So why don't we have a game out there that rewards fun instead of persistence? Is it possible to create a game that's free of repetition and focused on enjoyable experiences?
Why I Play: EVE Online
When I was a child, I was obsessed with space. In elementary school, I'd spend my library time reading books with titles like "The Moon" or "Space for Kids." It wasn't so much that I planned to be an astronaut (poor eyesight and math incompetency quickly blocked this ambition) but that I wanted to know what was out there, among the stars and moons and planets. "It can't," I reasoned as a very precocious second-grader, "be empty." Unfortunately, I never did make it to space. I haven't walked on the moon, flown a starship, or engaged in a series of humiliating and challenging physical conditioning challenges (oh, The Right Stuff, how I love thee). What I did do, however, was discover EVE Online. It's sort of the next best thing. And here's why.
The Soapbox: Stop reminding me that I'm playing a game
To me, the most amazing part of a video game is the way that it can steal you away from the real world in a way that nothing else quite can. A good book or film will take your focus for several hours, but you're still aware that there's a layer between you and the media. A good game blurs that, lets you creep into the game world for a while and experience things you never would otherwise. There are moments of wonder and joy that you can feel from a few hours in games that are simply unmatched. So please, stop ruining it. MMOs in particular have gotten bad about this. It's ironic, as the genre as a whole lends itself to people taking a step into another world. But what's changed isn't a matter of systems or mechanics, just a sense of what designers feel are completely acceptable breaks between in-game reality and the real world. It's annoying. So stop reminding me that I'm playing a game, will you?
Reality Absorption Field: Peering into the crystal apple
photo by carl.lacey2 | flickr Should auld iQuaintance be forgot and never brought to mind? Last year was a landmark year for Apple that saw significant leadership changes. Tim Cook has committed to preserve Apple's culture and seems committed to many of its fundamental tenets -- high-quality products, owning the customer experience, product secrecy and innovation that matters to the mainstream. But Cook has also vowed not to run a museum and has noted Steve Jobs' urging to do what is right and and not what the legendary Apple co-founder would have done. As we head into 2013, there are three classes of predictions one can make about the company and its products. Playing it safe The new year will almost certainly see revisions to OS X and iOS. Facing competition against a relaunched Google Maps on iOS, Apple Maps will see meaningful improvements. There will be a new iPhone even if it continues Apple's emerging pattern of sticking with a case design through one revision. And while one can debate the merits of a spring versus fall launch for the next iPad, it's all but certain that it will appear sometime within 2013 along with at least one more go-round for the iPod line. We also know that the first Macs to be made in the USA in many years are coming soon, presumably in 2013 -- and potentially in Apple's small form-factor desktop if the latest round of rumors prove true. Going out on a limb As one digs down a layer of specificity, there are a few areas that seem like reasonable extensions of current trends. Many believe we'll see an iPad mini appearing with a Retina Display and NFC may come to the iPhone or the whole Apple product line. As one arrives at the airport from which to board a flight of fancy, of course, there is that old Apple television set trope, so breathlessly anticipated that Tim Cook's mere repetition that it is an area of keen interest sets the rumor mill into overdrive. Connected to any discussion of an Apple television set is that the company would package up a television service to compete with cable or, alternatively, partner with leading pay TV providers much as did with cellular carriers for the iPhone. And as long as you're dipping into new subscription or freemium Apple services, there's the Pandora-like radio service rumor. Once, having an operating system provider offer pay TV seemed far-flung, but Google is now doing just that in Kansas City, and Nokia seems to have finally found a viable way to differentiate its music experience with Nokia Music. Then there's the even more far-flung notion that Apple might mash up the MacBook and iPad in strange ways such as an ARM-based MacBook, a touchscreen MacBook, or (if one purchases a first-class ticket on the flight of fancy) a Surfacesque keyboard-equipped iPad. The unexpected One way Apple could certainly benefit from all these rumors is if they all serve as a smokescreen for something completely out of left field. It is hard to believe that the iPad was introduced only in the beginning of 2010. Of course, prior to that, the iPhone was introduced in 2007 and the iPod in 2001. It may be a little early for a brand new product line from Apple. On the other hand, the company is investing more in R&D than ever. If Apple doesn't surprise and delight customers with a new product category in 2013, customers wil be counting on it to find other ways to do so. ---- Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research and blogs at Techspressive. Opinions expressed in Reality Absorption Field are his own.
The Soapbox: The heartbreak of altitis
In the MMO culture, there are those who alt and those who don't. Sometimes there's a hilarious rift between the two factions, as one side can't understand why you wouldn't want to try out all of the game's classes and the other side can't understand why you wouldn't specialize and excel in a single character. I'm one of those who alt, which is a blessing as much as it is a curse. I blame City of Heroes for starting me out on the path to altoholism. C'mon, it was simply impossible to play that game and not be rolling a new superhero concept every other day. By the time I moved on to more "traditional" titles, I was hooked on the idea of alts. It's a curse as much as it is a blessing. I'll be the first to advocate that alting can give you a wider perspective in a game, offer you more play flexibility, and perhaps keep you in a title far longer than if you played a single character until you burned out. But there's a darker side to it, a path to heartbreak. For those of us who alt, this is the unspoken danger that lurks in every reroll.
The Soapbox: What MMOs could learn from social gaming
I mentioned a couple of months ago that social gaming isn't going to destroy MMOs. That's good news for everyone other than Richard Garriott and Zynga stockholders. But I think taking this as a sign that we can ignore social gaming for now and forever as an aberration would be... a mistake, to put it lightly. See, there are things that social games do even better than MMOs tend to. And the hint is right there in the name. No, I'm not implying that these are better games; I'm saying that social games are generally much better about handling the social side of the equation. And the MMO industry as a whole would do well to pick up on the hints. Not everything, of course. We all have recurring nightmares about that one person on Facebook whose timeline is nothing but a series of dubious achievements in social games. But there are a lot of elements scattered throughout the games as a whole that could be oddly useful if taken as a whole.
Why I Play: The Secret World
I grit my teeth and issue a soft sound of anguish as my character dies yet again. I corpse run back, revive, and carefully plan my next approach. I dart in, tag an enemy cultist, and then pull him out of the path of his patrolling friends. I know I can take one at a time, but more than that will end me. I've found that out through bloody and bruised experience. The fight is tough; it takes me a good half-minute to put him down. The quest counter inches forward, mocking me with the fact that I'm still just on the first part of a six-tier mission. And I've been doing it for 45 minutes now. I focus. I triumph. The next stage has me figuring out a code and then attempting to open a door while mummies burst from sarcophagi all around me. I blow every cooldown I have and invent a few more tricks to survive. The door opens. I step through. There before me is a giant monster from the pit of hell watching me with blood-red eyes. I'm nervous because if I fail here, I have to do the last stage all over again. I mutter a curse at Funcom's developers and then run in screaming. And I'm loving every minute of it. This is The Secret World, the title that bowled me over to become one of my all-time favorite MMOs. Despite plenty of noticeable flaws, its daring approach to a stuck-in-the-mud industry more than compensates for that. This is why I play it.
Why I Play: DC Universe Online
Batman. He's why I initially played DC Universe Online. He's why I bought the collector's edition pre-launch, and he's generally why I got worked up into a sweaty lather of fanboy expectation that couldn't possibly be met by an MMO with a finite budget. A couple of years on, I've rediscovered DCUO, and now the reason I play it (a lot) boils down to three letters: SOE.
The Soapbox: I demand to pay more for this!
Champions Online launched amidst a bunch of controversy. Admittedly, this was back in a time when we as a community had a much lower bar for controversy, but still, there were accusations and recriminations flying around like, well, superheroes. One of the chief complaints was that the game had a subscription fee, but it also had a cash shop right from launch. Scandalous! These days we don't blink too much at this sort of thing. Pretty much every game in the world has a cash shop now, and the rare exceptions are games that try to pretend it's something else. But there are still a lot of people who object to the idea, who would much rather have a subscription or nothing or see everything from the cash shop free to subscribers. I am not one of those people. In fact, I'm happy when a game goes into the free model or just opens up a cash shop of any stripe. The way I see it, there are some definite upsides to having a cash shop.
The Soapbox: The trinity isn't so bad
The role trinity in MMOs has gotten a pretty hard drubbing over the last two years or so. Ask a lot of people with knee-jerk responses and they'll tell you that it's what's killing MMOs. Well, unless they tell you that tab-targeting is killing MMOs. Or themeparks. Or free-to-play. Or World of Warcraft or Star Wars: The Old Republic or subscription fees or lack of housing, or... All right, so there are people quick to announce the death of MMOs based on pretty much any feature that the announcer dislikes. But the trinity has still been falling out of vogue with players. Guild Wars 2 even made a selling point out of the fact that it didn't have a proper trinity, instead having a series of roles that no one seems entirely clear on. There's a very consistent idea floating around that a game based on the standard trifecta is in some way flawed or not trying hard enough. Except that the trinity isn't a bad thing. Tank, healer, and DPS is not a model that's lacking in some crucial area. And it deserves a bit more appreciation than it gets.
The Soapbox: Everybody wins
I make no bones about the fact that despite working in this industry for three years, I know there are parts about MMOs and the culture around them that I just do not get. For example, I still have no idea what possesses someone to think that "toon" is a good term for characters. But on a slightly more serious note, I have no idea what makes people cheer for a game to fail. You see it everywhere. World of Warcraft subscription numbers drop; people cheer. Something bad happens to EVE Online's community; people cheer. A game goes free-to-play; people announce the game's impending demise and begin cheering prematurely. A game closes down; people cheer. I don't get this. All right, I get it on the most basic level, inasmuch as this is a game you don't like and you're willing to publicly crow about your schadenfreude. The thing is that this is never a good thing. Cheering for a game you dislike to do badly does not result in anything good.
