The top two teams of League of Legends competing in Major League Gaming were disqualified after both teams were found to have colluded and agreed to share the price money (links below). After news of this came out, people started bashing on MLG claiming they banned the teams because they played an unorthodox match by going All Random, All Middle.
Though I'm not into DotA style games, I'd guess that it would be pretty exciting and quite a hype to see teams going random, and then going to play a style that's not generally seen, especially in a genre that can normally take a long time for a match to play out. Even so, it puzzles me that people would actually assume this is why the teams were disqualified after MLG has official statements posted about the decision and some even say that the money belongs to the teams, so they can share it if they want to. (I don't want to use such strong words, but do games really make people stupid?) The hate here for MLG is clear, and it's so strong that gamers would rather be blind to what has happened so that they can find an excuse to hate on them even more.
Is it ok then to agree to share the money? I'm sure it won't be an issue if one team wins, feels sorry for the other team and decides to share part of the winnings with them AFTER the competition is over; the money would be theirs, and the outcome of the match would not be affected. However, knowing that you'll get the same amount of money whether you win or lose, will you put in as much effort as you would have? I understand there's some scoring system going on here that would still make winning an incentive, but what if one team does not need the points? I don't know, but I just feel that if this is allowed, why don't all the teams that join the games just walk away with the same amount of money whether they win or lose? And if that's the case, do you think you'll get to enjoy a competitive game? I think it would be ideal to be the weakest team then, because you would earn money in the shortest time possible. Go in, lose, travel to next competition and repeat...
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/an-important-message-regarding-mlg-summer-championship-league-of-legends/
https://twitter.com/MrMLGAdam/status/239878409382133760
http://asia.gamespot.com/news/top-two-league-of-legends-teams-disqualified-in-mlg-summer-championship-6393270
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Kickstarter - Planetary Annihilation
Planetary Annihilation looks to be a very interesting project, though the graphics seem to be lacking now, the game has premise. The way it handles inter-planetary battles seems like a combination of the Turn-based Strategy Genre with Real-time Strategy. Textures look like they need some work, but the interface looks slick and if they can pull off Supreme Commander-type large-scale battles, this could turn out to be a pretty cool RTS.
Considering the company already has a game out (Monday Night Combat) and the devs have experience with RTS games, this looks to be worthy of a support.
Considering the company already has a game out (Monday Night Combat) and the devs have experience with RTS games, this looks to be worthy of a support.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Kick it, start it.
www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/08/21/when-kickstarting-fails/
This particular article reminded me of this post that I have been meaning to write.
Games have moved into Kickstarter territory. For independent developers, Kickstarter gives them a chance at creating and publishing their games without having to submit to the whims of publishers like EA or Activision, and yet still be able to get the funds for game development.
It does come with it's flaws of course. Kickstarter isn't exactly built for advertising games development. For starters, other projects tend to take precedence on the main page; and even when you go into the games sub-category, it doesn't differentiate well between computer games, mobile phones, board and card games and so on. There's also a noticeable lack of differentiation into genres, making hard to look for the kind of games you might be interested in inside the haystack.
Funding in itself is a risk. There's no guarantee you'll get the product eventually. Like the article I posted stated, sometimes it's not because of the person who started the project, but many other things can and will affect the success though the project in question wasn't a game development and that In facts shows how much uncertainty there is as game development is a much more complicated process.
There are projects though, where the games are pretty much in the alpha stage and where the makers actually have something to show people who are willing to help out. The money basically is for the final stages of the project and a form of support to let the developers know that people are willing to buy their game and that encouragement can sometimes be worth more than monetary support.
All in all, it is a good platform for the development of games and also a good way for gamers to show support for indie devs. Kickstarter needs to work on the games section though, and indie devs should try to make sure the influence of big name publishers doesn't contaminate their projects (EA is eyeing crowd funded games). Devs need to have more to show before setting up their project on Kickstarter and supporters need to remember their donations will not necessarily give a return. As long as these risks are taken into account, crowd-funded games have a potential to compete in the gaming market.
Edit: Kickstarter actually allows you to seperate board and card games from video games, but that's about it.
This particular article reminded me of this post that I have been meaning to write.
Games have moved into Kickstarter territory. For independent developers, Kickstarter gives them a chance at creating and publishing their games without having to submit to the whims of publishers like EA or Activision, and yet still be able to get the funds for game development.
It does come with it's flaws of course. Kickstarter isn't exactly built for advertising games development. For starters, other projects tend to take precedence on the main page; and even when you go into the games sub-category, it doesn't differentiate well between computer games, mobile phones, board and card games and so on. There's also a noticeable lack of differentiation into genres, making hard to look for the kind of games you might be interested in inside the haystack.
Funding in itself is a risk. There's no guarantee you'll get the product eventually. Like the article I posted stated, sometimes it's not because of the person who started the project, but many other things can and will affect the success though the project in question wasn't a game development and that In facts shows how much uncertainty there is as game development is a much more complicated process.
There are projects though, where the games are pretty much in the alpha stage and where the makers actually have something to show people who are willing to help out. The money basically is for the final stages of the project and a form of support to let the developers know that people are willing to buy their game and that encouragement can sometimes be worth more than monetary support.
All in all, it is a good platform for the development of games and also a good way for gamers to show support for indie devs. Kickstarter needs to work on the games section though, and indie devs should try to make sure the influence of big name publishers doesn't contaminate their projects (EA is eyeing crowd funded games). Devs need to have more to show before setting up their project on Kickstarter and supporters need to remember their donations will not necessarily give a return. As long as these risks are taken into account, crowd-funded games have a potential to compete in the gaming market.
Edit: Kickstarter actually allows you to seperate board and card games from video games, but that's about it.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Playing Sports in front of a TV/Computer Screen
Been watching Evo 2012 highlights and got really stoked about fighting games. Watching Street Fighter IV and Marvel Vs Capcom 3 and even King of Fighters was a blast, but Soul Calibur V was confusing. I realized it was because I understood the mechanics of 2D fighters better so I could better tell what was going on and with a good commentator, the match was way more exciting. Watching other games like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 The Frozen Throne was great because they were games I played. I found FPS boring and DotA styled games too slow for my liking.
This could be why it's hard for eSorts to kick off in most places other than Korea. Non-gamers probably won't be interested in watching eSports while gamers will only be interested in games that they play and understand.
How then did Starcraft take off in Korea? My guess is Blizzard made a game that's not just fun, but very watchable as well. Two armies killing off one another isn't hard to differentiate. And while build orders might not be immediately intuitive, a good commentator will be able to draw people in.
Watching fighters is a different story even though 2 people beating each other up should be understandable. Fighters have deep mechanics and most commentators do not readily focus on the action and on what's going on, or they use too much jargon in their commenting. Games like these are difficult for the general population to watch unless the commentators make it easier to understand.
Check out the first 3 minutes for an exciting match.
Do you watch eSports? What games hype you up and why do you watch the games you do? Are there ways to make more games enjoyable by the general masses so pro-gamers can get more recognition for their abilities?
This could be why it's hard for eSorts to kick off in most places other than Korea. Non-gamers probably won't be interested in watching eSports while gamers will only be interested in games that they play and understand.
How then did Starcraft take off in Korea? My guess is Blizzard made a game that's not just fun, but very watchable as well. Two armies killing off one another isn't hard to differentiate. And while build orders might not be immediately intuitive, a good commentator will be able to draw people in.
Watching fighters is a different story even though 2 people beating each other up should be understandable. Fighters have deep mechanics and most commentators do not readily focus on the action and on what's going on, or they use too much jargon in their commenting. Games like these are difficult for the general population to watch unless the commentators make it easier to understand.
Check out the first 3 minutes for an exciting match.
Do you watch eSports? What games hype you up and why do you watch the games you do? Are there ways to make more games enjoyable by the general masses so pro-gamers can get more recognition for their abilities?
Friday, August 3, 2012
Why I'm going to actively boycott publishers/developers
This more of a personal rant than anything objective.
I've been careful to not buy games that have always-on DRM as a form of protest against this particular form of 'punishment to legitimate gamers'. Ever since I learnt of the DRM for Assasin's Creed 2 (I think), I've stopped buying Ubisoft games at full price for PC, but probably only got 1 for the Wii. I bought Command and Conquer 4 from EA, not realizing that it had the same DRM and have since been weary of buying their games. I gave Blizzard a chance because I have always liked their games even though I was upset with Diablo 3's required online access and also the Real Money Auction House. I bought Capcom's fighting games for the PS3 even though I know they had a habit of making new versions and selling them as a new game instead of providing it as DLC for the older version. Even for some of the games I boycotted, I still ended up buying it at a Steam sale or when they finally removed the offending portions of the game.
What I'm starting to realize is that you can't have your cake and eat it (duh). Partial boycott doesn't help matters. Publishers will keep putting out such crap until gamers put their foot down and hit them in their wallets. I understand that what one person does is not going to do much, but I believe more and more gamers and fighting back against publishers. Bioware changing their ending and Capcom saying they'll change their stand on on-disk-dlc shows that gamers do have the power if they stand together (though I think Capcom will still make content and then not put it on the disk, but rather make people pay for it later so I don't believe them at all).
So I'm going to totally boycott games made by EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard and Capcom, and mind you, I have games from EA, Activision, Blizzard and Capcom that I really love. I would really love to continue following the story and playing the games (Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo series) made by Blizzard, the various great games published by EA like Dead Space, and Capcom's fighting games and Resident Evil series (I love my survival horror if you haven't noticed, but those games are dying, being replaced by 'action-horror'), so this is really a painful choice for me. But it has to be done, and anyway, there will be people streaming if I'm really interested in the story. I am still interested in gaming though, and will look towards independent developers and other publishers like Paradox, THQ, CD Projekt and the like.
I've been careful to not buy games that have always-on DRM as a form of protest against this particular form of 'punishment to legitimate gamers'. Ever since I learnt of the DRM for Assasin's Creed 2 (I think), I've stopped buying Ubisoft games at full price for PC, but probably only got 1 for the Wii. I bought Command and Conquer 4 from EA, not realizing that it had the same DRM and have since been weary of buying their games. I gave Blizzard a chance because I have always liked their games even though I was upset with Diablo 3's required online access and also the Real Money Auction House. I bought Capcom's fighting games for the PS3 even though I know they had a habit of making new versions and selling them as a new game instead of providing it as DLC for the older version. Even for some of the games I boycotted, I still ended up buying it at a Steam sale or when they finally removed the offending portions of the game.
What I'm starting to realize is that you can't have your cake and eat it (duh). Partial boycott doesn't help matters. Publishers will keep putting out such crap until gamers put their foot down and hit them in their wallets. I understand that what one person does is not going to do much, but I believe more and more gamers and fighting back against publishers. Bioware changing their ending and Capcom saying they'll change their stand on on-disk-dlc shows that gamers do have the power if they stand together (though I think Capcom will still make content and then not put it on the disk, but rather make people pay for it later so I don't believe them at all).
So I'm going to totally boycott games made by EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard and Capcom, and mind you, I have games from EA, Activision, Blizzard and Capcom that I really love. I would really love to continue following the story and playing the games (Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo series) made by Blizzard, the various great games published by EA like Dead Space, and Capcom's fighting games and Resident Evil series (I love my survival horror if you haven't noticed, but those games are dying, being replaced by 'action-horror'), so this is really a painful choice for me. But it has to be done, and anyway, there will be people streaming if I'm really interested in the story. I am still interested in gaming though, and will look towards independent developers and other publishers like Paradox, THQ, CD Projekt and the like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)