On Achievements

The latest bandwagon for game developers to hop on is achievements. It seems that every gamer wants them and it allows developers to push gamers into otherwise unvisited corners of the game. A game has even been made mocking the current achievement heavy culture called “Achievement Unlocked.” The entire purpose of the game is simply to unlock mundane and pointless achievements. Just by starting the game you get an achievement for starting the game, getting to the menu, starting the game, and lasting more than 5 seconds. Other than all the achievement hoarding, there is no other point to the game.

However, what truly makes achievements fun? When I play games, I don’t play just to get all of the achievements. In fact, I am usually bored by many achievements. The basic achievements like “beat the game” or “get to level x” are completely uninteresting to me. They provide nothing in game and don’t even have much in the way of bragging rights. The only achievements that I truly enjoy getting are those that are not part of the actual game and are more quirky or offbeat. Achievements that force you to figure out what you must do based on the name are also a plus.

For the most part, I find that Valve has done achievements right. In Team Fortress 2, every major update comes with new weapons for a character class and a slew of class specific achievements to unlock. These achievements help to strengthen the character back story. However in addition to the standard achievement aspects you would expect, simply reading through them is entertaining. The things that Valve makes its players do and the names it has for the achievements are absolutely hilarious. In what other game are you rewarded for killing another player by using a taunt? In fact, what other game even has that ability?

On 3D in Games

Sparked by a student presentation today, I wanted to write about some reasons why 3D is not prevalent in the consumer sector, and much less the gaming sector today. Although 3D technology has been around for many years, ever since the cheesy red and blue glasses took advantage of an ingenious trick played on the brain, such technology is still not prevalent.

First of all, the hardware limitation of being forced to wear goggles while experiencing a movie or game is huge. For those that must wear glasses, many 3D vision goggles are cumbersome and uncomfortable. Many others find that extensive 3D movie watching causes nausea. The disconnect between vision and actual motion is only increased in the brain by 3D experiences. Furthermore, games that require 3D vision are extremely difficult to play with more than one person. As the game world continues to move further into the internet age, I am increasingly disappointed by the lack of ability to simply play games with friends in the same room.

Furthermore, the advantages gained by 3D are minimal compared to the cost of the hardware for the consumer. Many games and movies do not support 3D at this point in time as developers do not see it as economically viable to spend money and time developing 3D effects. As far as the effects that do exist, many of them are simply gimmicks. Even when watching a 3D movie in theaters, I usually forget that it’s 3D after about 20 minutes. By that time, the initial gimmicks have already been used and the movie generally continues to play as usual.

Regarding games, Nvidia has broken into the 3D market with the GeForce 3DVision. However, most of the games that “support” 3D vision don’t actually have 3D effects. Instead, these games simply have a 3D HUD. This is truly a gimmick, not something worth spending hundreds of dollars for a sufficient video card, monitor, and goggles. Ultimately, there is not much utility at this point for 3D beyond little gimmicks.

On the Potential Death of Blu-ray

With the announcement that Microsoft is reopening the Video Marketplace with streaming 1080i content, is this the final death knell for Blu-ray? Video content has been moving increasingly towards the cloud and this is the next logical step. Assuming one has the bandwidth necessary, this will add immense convenience to the consumer who will experience little to no delay between choosing a movie and viewing it and eliminates the need to leave the comfort of the living room to actually purchase the movie.

I find this to be a loss however. Blu-ray, DVD, and packages in general usually offer far more than simply the movie. For those who want a look into the labor and thought that went into the movie, commentary is invaluable. This provides a more personal understanding of the movie and is an invaluable asset for any movie buff. However if you are simply streaming a movie, all of these extras evaporate. There is no need for content providers to add value to a streaming movie, and viewing the extra features also becomes cumbersome. In a sense, this will destroy a view into the culture that created the movie you just viewed.

On the other hand, the lack of physical media makes DRM easier for developers once again. Physical media is static and can eventually be cracked. Digitally distributed content, however, can easily use new encoding schemes. All it takes to change is a quick firmware update and hackers are forced to start over from square one. From this perspective it makes sense for developers and publishers to move towards digital distribution.

On Microsoft's Project Natal

At first impression, Project Natal wowed me just like everyone else and I began to see visions of the future finally coming true. We are going to be able to use freaking hand gestures to maneuver through menus and control things in game. Augmented and virtual reality is infinitely closer and more attainable to the common consumer. However, I quickly realized this might not be the whole picture. Perhaps it is just the cynicism in a number of the industry speakers we have had in class talking, but I soon saw Natal as a beautiful and horrible form of DRM protection.

Tying content to accounts is simply the easiest way now to limit use of content by those who have not paid for it. However, this is still somewhat easy to get around. Our apartment has only one Xbox 360 and my account is the only one with Xbox Live Gold. Therefore, I make all of the purchases, namely for new Rock Band songs. If other people want to play, my account has to be signed in to ensure that the songs are playable. As far as Microsoft is concerned, this is simply a failsafe to ensure that the content is only able to be enjoyed by me as the one who paid.

On the other hand, if Project Natal has the advanced face tracking that Microsoft claims it does, and the automatic account sign in based only on facial recognition, then it is now increasingly difficult for my friends to “impersonate me” and play the content that we have all collectively purchased without my sitting within view of the all seeing Project Natal. Alternatively, this could lead to a future where we all wear masks of each other’s faces to “trick” the system, almost a form of identity theft.

So does Project Natal really benefit the consumer or the developer more?