Game Design: How Much Help Do You Need?

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening is one of the best games for the Game Boy and one of the best of the Zelda series.  It has tricky puzzles, smart dungeons and cool enemies.  We're going to focus on one dungeon in particular.  In this dungeon, there are four pillars on one of the levels and a steel ball that you can pick up.  The game doesn't really tell you what to do, but it expects you to do the math.  You throw the steel ball at the pillars (which are rather difficult to get to), which collapses the top level of the dungeon down to your level and enables you to fight the boss.  There aren't a whole lot of hints, so you have to sort it out yourself.

Compare that to Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks.  Most of the time you'll have your assistant telling you what to do, whether it's Midna, Ciela, or Zelda.  If you walk into a level, Zelda might tell you, "Oh no!  Look at those guards!  You better avoid them!"  Midna might say something like "Take a look at the jewel on that guy's head!"  They'll pretty much walk you up to the solution or tell you where to go next.  So, the question is, was it better before?  Were games better when they didn't tell you what to do, or is the extra help a good idea?

First, it's important to ask why we got so little help on older games.  Was it because the designers expected us to figure things out?  They trusted us more?  Not really.  It's because they couldn't give us any more help due to system limitations.  The cartridge memory for Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda was prohibitively small.  For instance, the clouds and the bushes in Super Mario Bros. are the exact same sprite, just palette-swapped.  Those were the kind of things they had to do by necessity in order to get the full game onto the cartridge.  So, the reason why they only said "Dodongo dislikes smoke" is because they couldn't say anything more.  They had no space for it.

Game designers always wanted to provide more pointers, and they tried to do so in instruction manuals and the like, but there weren't a whole lot of choices.  Was the game better off for it?  That's open to debate, but a lot of the games of those days were solved with hint books and heated debate on the playground ("I was able to do an infinite hair-pull kick!"  "Nuh-uh!").  Most gamers didn't go it alone, as much as they'd like you to believe they did.  Those playground conferences are gone for most of us, but in its place we have our group of friends that we game with, as well as the big playground:  The internet.  When we get stuck in a game or find an insurmountable obstacle, we're able to go to that bastion of groupthink and get the help we need.  For the most part, we're still not going it alone.

So, if you're a game designer, you know people are going to seek help and space is no longer an issue, what do you do?  You provide the help in-game so that frustration is reduced to a minimum.  If you're a designer, you don't want the gamer to step away from your game for a moment, especially in a moment of frustration.  Therefore, you provide those in-game tips to gently nudge (or shove) the gamer along so they can see the next location.  Another option is one provided by Demon's Souls, where the community provides tips and help and recreates that "playground" environment, where multiple gamers provide help on a solution.

However, where do you draw the line?  How much help is too much help?  It's an especially difficult problem now that more gamers are entering the fold.  For instance, you show me a small key in a Zelda dungeon and I know exactly what to do with it.  If you show my wife a small key, she'll need the full explanation.  She'll need you to tell her what the key is used for, what the doors look like, and how to open them up.  If you don't tell her these things, she'll get frustrated and throw controllers.  (Yes, she throws controllers.)  That makes giving tooltips and explanations a bit of a moving target:  Too many and you alienate more experienced gamers, too few and you alienate inexperienced gamers.  How do you accommodate all these different players?

The best solution that I've found is in one of the most sneakily revolutionary games of the last couple of years:  Professor Layton.  In Professor Layton, you're presented with a puzzle and given all the time you want to solve it.  You have the option of getting hints, and in order to use them you spend coins which are scattered throughout the world.  If you use the hints, great.  If you don't, no biggie.  You can do whatever you want with them.  It's a sliding scale of hints, and it works.

PC Games have had this sort of sliding scale for years, allowing tooltips and tutorials to be either used or skipped.  Granted, they won't help you outright with the game, but who's to say that's not a bad idea?  I mean, think of this:  You're playing Zelda.  When it starts up, it asks you how experienced of a player you are.  If you're a Beginner, tooltips will be all over.  They'll show you which doors have just been opened by your actions.  They'll point you in the direction of the solution.  If you're Intermediate, they may just show which doors have been opened by your actions and tell you what you've just picked up the first time you get it (i.e. "You got 20 rupees!").  If you're an Expert, you get no help whatsoever.  You picked up a small key?  Congrats.  You know what it does, so we're not going to tell you.  You have a boomerang?  Great.  You figure it out.  If you get a brand new, never-before-seen item, they'll explain what it is, but they won't belabor the point.  This sort of sliding scale works excellent in a game with a long reach like Zelda, but what about games like Modern Warfare 2 or God of War?  Honestly, those are OK the way they are.  They have varying difficulty levels, and most experienced gamers don't need to have their hand held throughout the game.  Most enjoy the thrill of the hunt and like figuring out where things go.

The underlying issue is that we're used to thinking of solutions in a 3-D space, or using video game logic to solve puzzles.  If we see a torch and a spiderweb, we know we can use the torch on the spiderweb.  If we see a block with strange markings on it and tracks by it, we know we can push that block.  Most new gamers, however, need a little push in the right direction.  They need to have someone basically point at the solution, and that's OK.  It's up to developers to sort out how much help is too much for everyone involved.

Run, Don't Walk To GOG.com

They're having a holiday sale right now.  I just got the Lords of the Realm Royal Edition (Lords of the Realm 1 & 2 and the expansion) and Beyond Good & Evil together for $11.  GO GO GO GO GO.

I Know Why The Caged Reviewer Whines

I've been trying to figure out why game reviewers hate Wii games so much.  Is it because they have some predisposed bias?  Is it because they represent some mysterious "hardcore" gaming cabal who is hell-bent on the destruction of the Wii at all costs?  Not really.  The answer is actually much simpler.

Consider this:  Many early Wii games got great reviews.  Metroid Prime 3 is holding at a score of 90 on Metacritic.  Zelda: Twilight Princess has a 95.  Super Mario Galaxy has a 97.  Those are arguably some of the most motion-intensive games around for the Wii. Reviewers liked those games and had no problems with the motion controls.  They might have thought of them as a slight inconvenience, but the reviews usually rated that games on their own merits and didn't throw in backhanded compliments like, "It's good for a Wii game."

So what changed?  Well, there's no denying that the Wii had some lean times through 2007 to 2008.  There were virtually no games that came out during that period.  We had Smash Bros. Brawl, Mario Kart Wii and Wii Fit.  That was it.  However, if you're a reviewer you still have to review something, right?  You can't just ignore a console for an entire year.  So, if there are no good games coming out but you have to review something anyway, you end up reviewing some incredibly crap games.

After a while of playing awful games, what happened to their perception of the system? Instead of seeing the Wii as the Next Big Thing, they started seeing it as a nightmare. Every time they put in a game, they expected that it was going to suck because that's what usually happened.  Since they had to wade neck-deep into the waters of crapware and stay there for a long time, they thought the Wii is bad.  That's totally understandable.  Nintendo's awful Wii Music-revealing 2008 E3 conference didn't help matters either.  Instead of seeing a future of better games, they saw a bleak future of awful minigames and worthless ports, leading to no hope in sight for Nintendo's white monster.

Gamers at large, however, don't have to buy a new game every week.  They don't have review schedules or deadlines.  They can sidestep crappy games if they so choose, and for the most part they do.  Therefore, the Wii keeps selling because their perception of the Wii is completely different than the people who've been forced to play awful games for a year.

The next step to this process comes when the game reviewers look around after all this time playing crappy games and they see that the Wii is STILL SELLING.  They reason, "The Wii sucks!  I've played more crappy games for the Wii than for any other system!  These people must be idiots!  It's my job to steer people away from it so they don't get burned."  They become anti-Wii advocates and end up turning more gamers away from the system.  However, the vast majority of consumers don't care about reviewers or reviews, and instead rely on first-hand accounts and recommendations from friends.  Their friends are buying the Wii and Wii games, so they keep buying them too.  This makes the reviewers even more upset, since they're being ignored by the gaming public at large.  That makes them even louder. Remember, as a reviewer, it's your responsibility to be an advocate for games that are good and a warning for games that aren't.  When people keep buying the Wii, the reviewers get desperate because they assume that the public is buying crappy games for a crappy system.

Add to this the fact that lots of people are being exposed to gaming for the first time through the Wii, and you can see why reviewers are even more upset.  If the Wii sucks, and people are getting their first exposure to gaming through it, then these people will assume that gaming sucks.  However, since the Wii doesn't really suck, these people aren't drawing that assumption, and more people keep buying Wiis despite the protests of reviewers, and the circle continues.

When we analyze it from this angle, we can understand why reviewers see the Wii like they do.  In many ways, it's Nintendo's own fault for not spacing their releases a little better and giving reviewers a reprieve or even throwing them a bone once in a while. However, now that there are better Wii games, it's also the responsibility of the reviewers to put aside their prejudices and review the games for what they are, not what they could have been.

Creating A Need

I'm studying marketing right now with a view to getting a degree in the field.  I'm learning some things that demonstrate why Nintendo is more successful now than in the past.

There's a hierarchy of marketing performance: Selling Products, Meeting Needs, Anticipating Needs, and Shaping Needs.  Typically, companies that merely sell a product are in the weakest position.  They're depending on other companies to create the need and then moving into that gap, so if the need goes away so does their business.  Companies that merely meet needs are in a slightly stronger position, but it's kind of a reactive field.  Someone else has found the need and probably filled that gap, so you're just competing with them in that field.

Those who anticipate needs are in much better shape.  They'll see, like Sony has, that high-definition video is becoming a big deal, so therefore there needs to be a new standard for it.  They saw that a need was coming up and they're anticipating the need.  However, Nintendo has shaped the need.  There was no need for motion controls in gaming until Nintendo made it a big deal.  Of course, Sony now talks about motion controls as being the "holy grail" of gaming, but it wasn't there until Nintendo created it.  Nintendo also created a need for touch-screen gaming and has benefited from it greatly.

I think the gaming public in general (Yahtzee excluded) is coming around to this idea.  The new market has been extremely beneficial to gaming.  Can you imagine what would have happened to gaming in this economy without the Wii?  As it was, the other consoles benefited from Nintendo's exposure and helped everyone out.  The problem is that you have to keep innovating and not rest on your laurels, but Nintendo might do just that.

This is the whole "Red Ocean/Blue Ocean" strategy that Nintendo talks about from time to time, but it's a lot simpler than that.  It's about creating a need and then filling it, which they did.

Digital Distribution And Dennis Dyack

Dennis Dyack loves digital distribution, but you'll notice something telling about his comments.  Before we get to them, remember how I said that digital distribution isn't good for the average gamer, and that they'll reject any system that isn't in their best interests?  Dennis Dyack thinks so too, so he's trying to make you think that it's good for you.  Take it away, Dennis:

"In some ways it's the absolute elimination of any hardware as far as the consumer is concerned, because the hardware is the cloud," offered Dyack, a long-time advocate of a single standard format for games. "It helps on so many levels because it resolves the piracy issue, which is a massive problem today, and the used games issue, because you buy something and it's yours forever – it resides on the cloud. These are wins for the consumers and wins for the game developers."

I love the quote at the end.  What exactly is the win for the consumer?  You notice that he doesn't really have any benefits.  Both of his supposed "problems" are only problems for the companies themselves.  For instance:

1. Piracy.  Piracy is the ultimate consumer-benefit system.  I mean, all the games you want and you don't have to pay?  SCORE!  Don't misunderstand me:  Piracy is not good for game companies, but "free" is the ideal system for a consumer.

2. The Used Games "Issue."  Oh, you mean the issue where you can buy a game for less than retail instead of being beholden to the company who makes the games?  Yeah, by all means, let's get rid of THAT.

Both of these issues are problems for the companies themselves and not necessarily the consumer.  Dennis knows this, so he's going to try and make it sound like these are issues for the consumer.  It's a hearts-and-minds battle, and one that they'll lose.  For instance:

People confuse a one console future as a monopoly and that's completely wrong.

His argument is that it would be easier for anyone to pick out games because it would be all the same console, which is understandable.  If your grandma wants to buy you a DVD, she doesn't have to find out if you use DVD-X or DVD-Y, if you're running version 6.2.4 of the DVD-X firmware, or if you're connected to DVDLive! so you can watch the bonus features.  However, the vast majority of consumers understand the multiple-console system.  It's not a rampant problem, so it's a gigantic solution for a tiny problem.

In a perfect world, a one-console future wouldn't be a monopoly.  In a perfect world, games would be just like DVDs or CDs, with one format that's easy to use for everyone.  However, Sony is already stepping all over the next high-def format.  When someone makes a Blu-Ray drive or disc, they pay money to Sony (which is why Nintendo will never put in a Blu-Ray drive in their systems).  Blu-Ray is now the only high-def format available, and Sony charges at least $5 to $15 more per disc than standard DVD.  They want to make money.

In what future can you see a company selflessly creating a console format that everyone can use and make games for and NOT gouge customers?  Nintendo won't.  They make copious amounts of money off of their consoles.  Microsoft won't.  They want a foothold in the living room.  Sony won't.  They just spent millions of dollars on Blu-Ray, so they're not going to make a new format anytime soon.  That leaves a mysterious fourth contender, a dark horse, to make this nebulous "one-world" open format that will work on all consoles.  It would need to be a company with the clout to tell three giants what to do.  Can you think of any company that fits that bill?  No.  All three companies are extremely rich and don't have to answer to anyone.

Dennis, it's understood that you want the cloud.  We get it.  It would be great for your company, but it's not going to happen no matter how much you want it.  It's not good for the consumer so they'll reject it.  The main console makers won't agree to it.  And a word of warning to developers:  If you put too much emphasis on it, you'll run into major problems down the line.

Are you psyched for Mega Man 10?

...because I can't say I am.  

This is weird for me.  I like Mega Man games, but for some reason Mega Man 9 turned me off of them due to the tremendous difficulty.  I played it for about 4 hours and only beat one boss.  Heck, I could barely get through half the stages.  I miss having the charge shot and the power slide.  I want to be able to duck.  

Sometimes, changes to the formula are there for a reason, Capcom.  You learned the wrong lessons from Mega Man 9.  I'll have to dive into it at some point.  Right now, I'm playing catchup on a lot of games (thanks Goozex!) and powering through Spirit Tracks, so I'm too busy for a whole lot of in-depth articles.  They'll be back shortly, though.

↓C Games of the Year: 2009

Most Game of the Year articles are going to look about the same:  Modern Warfare 2, Uncharted 2, Dragon Age, Demon's Souls.  That's not how we roll at ↓C.  Here's our Game of the Year picks in reverse order.

3. Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box

The last Professor Layton game was enjoyable for a lot of people, but I couldn't stand it.  Frustrating puzzles, worthless clues, a boring location, and people who stop you every second for another puzzle bogged down what could have been an intriguing title.  Diabolical Box improved on every aspect of the game, making the puzzles feel more natural, the locations more varied, and the story a much more gripping tale.  I read spoilers on the finale (as I am wont to do, unfortunately) and STILL got misty-eyed.  One of the best DS games, hands-down.

2. Batman: Arkham Asylum

Theoretically, brawlers should be fun.  The issue with most is that you never really feel any stronger than the people you're fighting.  Stealth games should also be fun in theory, but never end up being as fun you would hope.  Add to that the dearth of good licensed games, and you have a recipe for failure that Batman: Arkham Asylum could have easily fallen into.

However, Rocksteady did a fantastic job on several fronts.  First, combat is simplified greatly, with only three buttons controlling the majority of moves.  Second, when being stealthy, you have a lot of ways to get around and realistic behavior from enemies (but not too realistic) that makes the whole exercise ridiculously fun.  For instance, it's great seeing the Joker's minions getting more and more panicked as you take them out one by one, until they're randomly shooting their rifles in the air and screaming, "Show yourself!"  It's in those moments that you feel like the Caped Crusader himself, and it makes for a fantastic game.

You could have even stripped the Batman license out of the game and made a fantastic game, but this is one of the rare instances where the license adds layers of fun.  It's a blast hearing the Riddler get upset as you find more of his trophies, and it's awesome roaming the halls of Arkham.  It's also extremely welcome to hear Mark Hamill's Joker ripping it up again.  If you have any interest in Batman at all, you should play Arkham Asylum.  If you already have, then you know what I'm talking about.

1. Beatles: Rock Band

Much like Arkham Asylum took classic gameplay styles, prettied it up and added a layer of familiarity that made the game that much better, The Beatles: Rock Band did the same thing.  It took a now-standardized music game format and polished it to a sheen, which would have been great if the game was just a standard Rock Band/Guitar Hero game.  Instead, the Beatles wrapper made everything that much better, with tons more style, background and texture than the cardboard-cutout characters of a standard music game.  Add to that the solid locations, dreamscapes, and automatic online leaderboards and you have a definite winner.  Your enjoyment of the game definitely hinges on how much you like the Beatles, but if you have any appreciation of their music at all, this is the game you want to play.  There's really no reason for any other Guitar Hero/Rock Band games after this one.

Civilization MAKES ME SO MAD

It drives me insane.  OK, there's two nations right next to me, and then all of a sudden, they attack for NO REASON and start tromping all over my lands.  It's crap.  Every time I start playing Civ again, I wonder why I ever quit, and then it's crap like this that shows me why.

Interesting Graph Re: SD and HD Media Consumption

Here's a fascinating graph from the University of California San-Diego which shows how people consume data (click to embiggen).  Notice how many users there are of SD TV.

Totaling all SD sources, you reach the astounding sum of 169 million users of standard definition media.  Now, certainly there's some overlap of people who watch TV in HD, but some programs are in SD.  Just subtracting the number of HD users from SD users, you come to the number of 46.5 million users of ONLY standard definition services.  There are probably also a group of people who use nothing BUT HD media, but that's probably a small number.  If I'm interpreting this information correctly, that means that there are a lot of people who have no problem with SD so they mix it with HD and a large group of people who have no interest in HD services.

What does that mean, and why am I posting it here?  Well, for most of us tech-heads, we're adamant that HD is the way to go and that Nintendo MUST release an HD version of their system.  In reality, while that's a nice idea, it's not imperative.  There's a huge section of the population that neither has nor cares about HD media, as evidenced by cold, hard statistics.

Second, Sony and Microsoft are aiming at the small subset that does, and while they've carved a niche there they haven't run away with the console race.  Nintendo, however, has aimed at the squishy belly where there are 253 million users of DVD media.  They're successful.

This all means a lot, and maybe I'll dissect it later on.  Suffice to say, this teaches us an awful lot about how games are viewed by the public at large, and what drives success in the gaming world.

Music Thoughts

A few thoughts about music on a blustery Wisconsin day:

- Dirty Projectors' "Bitte Orca" is getting thrown around as an Album of the Year candidate, and I can see why.  First, it has two girls in the band, which turns it into indie catnip.  Second, if you "appreciate" Dirty Projectors, you now have intellectual cred and can sniff at people while explaining that they don't "get" it.  Look, Dirty Projectors has a lot of interesting ideas, but ideas do not a song make.  You need a lot more, like melodies and tunes that are pleasing to the ear.  If you don't have that, then you're just showing off what you know.

- It took me several years, but I finally get Beck's "The Information."  I'm one of the biggest Beck fans around, but I felt really let down by "The Information."  It felt too cold and clinical, just like a pure stream of information.  All the beats, absurdist lyrics and hooks were there, but they didn't add up right.  Usually, what happens is that one song brings me around to a band or an album.  For Animal Collective's "Merriwether Post Pavilion" it was "Lion In A Coma."  For Sleater-Kinney it was "One Song For You."  For "The Information," that song was a live version of "Nausea" that sounded fantastic.  The rest of the album fell into place shortly thereafter.  I still think you could cut out a few songs and make it a much tighter album, but I enjoy it now.

- Speaking of Animal Collective, couldn't they have picked a better song to open their album?  For someone unfamiliar with them, it sounds like a circus on meth and is really offputting.  Just a suggestion, guys.

- My favorite album of the 00's?  The Walkmen's "You and Me."

Pachter Is At It Again

Michael Pachter is now declaring that the XBox 360 will have another price drop next year.  Here's why that's so irresponsible:

1)  If Pachter starts it, other analysts will pick up on it and start repeating it.  That filters down, and eventually you have sales frozen because people are waiting for a price cut that Microsoft wasn't planning on, which leads to...

2)  A price cut happens out of necessity, making Pachter's declaration a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I know that analysis is what the guy does, so I can't fault him for it too badly.  Making a prediction based on numbers, trends and history is his job.  Still, it's a little irresponsible.

Will Digital Distribution Take Over Gaming?

A lot of companies are talking about digital distribution.  Activision wants it.  Sony wants it.  Microsoft wants it.  Nintendo has been dipping their toes in it.  Steam is taking off.  It seems that digital distribution is the way that things are going, right?  Within ten years, won't it be the norm to download your game or even stream it with a service like OnLive or Gaikai?

You might think so.  There's so much talk about it that you would assume that it's the next big step.  In fact, companies like Apple are showing that it can be done with iTunes on a huge scale and be wildly successful, so that should shut the book, right?  Let's dig in a little deeper and see if we can't figure out where the future of gaming lies.

Obviously, Apple has been amazingly successful with iTunes.  It's really one of the biggest success stories of the digital revolution, with millions of songs bought over the service.  However, most songs are 99 cents.  That's a cup of gas station coffee.  It's easy to drop a buck on a song if you like it, and if you don't like it, it was only a buck, so no huge loss.  It's a service that's set up to cater to the consumer's best interest, so it works.

Therein lies the key.  If a service is in the consumer's best interest, it will work.  Steam is a great example.  Steam not only provides a centralized hub a la XBox Live for your games, but it also provides protection against cheaters and the ability to install your games on any new computer.  It's not difficult to move your Steam account from computer to computer, and once you've purchased a game, it's always there.  Plus, Steam promotes the crap out of indie developers, sets fair prices when they can, and offers fantastic deals.  In the last few months, I've purchased World of Goo for $5 and Team Fortress 2 for $2.50.  Those are prices you would never find in any store under any circumstances.  On top of that, when people purchased the Orange Box, they were able to give away copies of Half-Life 2 and Episode One to other Steam users for free.  The whole system works in the customer's best interest.

Video game companies are trying to push digital distribution because it will help their bottom line.  Imagine, a world without piracy, with nothing but new games as far as the eye can see!  No packaging, manufacturing or shipping costs!  It's enough to make a publisher swoon.  However, here's the kicker: Most services will not be in the customer's best interest.

The PSPGo, for instance, is not in the consumer's best interest.  A system that doesn't work with my previous games or any of my accessories and costs more than other systems?  Where do I sign up?  Therefore, the PSPGo is failing.  Here's a money quote from Traveller's Tales founder Jon Burton: "I'm betting on Sony making PSP Go games much cheaper than the UMD versions, or the PSP Go will die."  It's telling that they haven't released any sales numbers for it but lump it in with their regular PSP numbers, unlike Nintendo who breaks down their numbers for the DS, DS Lite, DSi, and DSi LL.  It wouldn't surprise me if the PSPGo loses support from Sony and gets dropped sooner rather than later, since they tried something that was solely for their own benefit and not for the customers.

Another straight-line comparison is the Kindle, which has attempted to combine books and digital distribution.  The dream?  "All your books in one place!"  The reality?  "Some of your books in one place!  Oh, and you have to buy them from us.  And we can delete them at any time, but we won't do it anymore even though we could."  How is that in the consumer's best interest?  Kindles are selling in decent numbers, but e-books are not going to supplant regular old books anytime soon.  Why?

Well, because as bulky as books are, when you buy a book, it's yours.  No one can delete the book from your library without your knowledge.  You can read it as long as you have decent vision.  You don't need any special equipment to read books.  You pick it up and read it.  You can buy books for 50 cents at a garage sale.  Sure, it can be annoying having to get up from the couch and grab a different book, but no one complains about it.  That's because the majority of the time, it's in the consumer's best interest to own books rather than e-books.

Console makers have dipped heavily into digital distribution, with a plethora of games available for download at any time.  Is this proof that digital distribution is winning?  Not really.  Most of these games are $5 to $10.  In other words, they're cheap.  When Braid was priced at $15, there was a great hue and cry since that was more than consumers wanted to pay for a game.  They did, of course, but not without a lot of complaining.  It was weird to a lot of people, since we'll willingly pay upwards of $50 for a hard copy of a game.

Why the complaints over a simple $5 price hike?  With a game like Modern Warfare 2, if you don't like it you can trade it on Goozex, sell it on eBay or trade it to Gamestop.  You have options.  That $60 isn't lost forever.  If you buy Braid and you don't like it?  Tough.  It's yours now and forevermore.  For instance, I have games on my Wii that I bought and wish I wouldn't have, like StarTropics, Milon's Secret Castle, LostWinds and MegaMan 9.  These are games that received a lot of acclaim when they launched.  They're good games.  Reviews looked really, really good.  I played them and didn't really like them.  That's not a knock on the games themselves, it's just that they weren't to my liking, and now I'm stuck with them.  That's $34 frozen on my Wii that I'm never getting back.  That sort of disappointment is manageable when you're dealing with a $10 game.  Losing $10 isn't worth crying over.  However, losing $30, $40, or $50?  That's worth complaining about, and that's where digital distribution is headed.

Don't believe me?  Here's the cold, hard truth.  Nintendo has sold eight million copies of Super Mario Galaxy.  They've sold over eight million copies of Super Smash Bros. Brawl.  They've sold 16 million copies of Mario Kart Wii.  How much are those games?  They're still $50 apiece new.  Every other company has launched a "Greatest Hits" line putting their best-sellers at $20 apiece, but Nintendo steadfastly refuses.  During the Gamecube years, they reduced the amount of copies that was necessary to label a game a "Greatest Hit" from a million to 250,000 because they were in third place and needed to push more software.  Now that they're in the lead, they have no such need, so they're acting in the company's best interest rather than the consumer's.

Say it with me:  When a company is successful, they feel less responsibility to the consumer.  Think of it this way:  If you have one miniature candy bar and someone asks for it, you'll be extremely hesitant to give it up.  If you have several, you'll be more willing to give one up.  If you're sitting on mountains of miniature candy bars, you'll gladly throw a pile to your friends.  The same thing happens with a business.  If you have a small group of clients, you'll fight tooth and nail for them.  If you have a huge group of clients, you won't panic if a few of them leave the nest.  You'll start shedding some of your problem clients and focusing on the most profitable ones.  For instance, when was the last time Nintendo offered a special on Virtual Console games?  Sony and Microsoft will sometimes offer little deals, but that's only because they're trying to encourage more people to buy.  If they were in first place, they would behave the same or worse as Nintendo has.

A company's sole aim is not to entertain or make the world a better place.  Their only purpose is to make money, pure and simple.  Whatever makes money is what they will do.  If they can get more money out a customer, they'll gladly do it because that's what they're there for.  Their stockholders don't give them any bonus points for being nice people.  Another prime example:  Modern Warfare 2 was $60 in retail and $60 via Steam.  That price wasn't decided by Valve, but rather Activision.  Even though Activision's cost for the digital option is far cheaper than the retail version, they sold the digital version for the same price.  Why?  Well, why not?  People are going to buy Modern Warfare 2 whether or not you charge $60 for it.  Why not get more money out of the customer?

What's the harm?  Well, if you buy a $50 game, you really hope that it's good.  If it isn't, you know you can switch it out for a different game.  If you purchase a game digitally, you really hope that it's good.  If it isn't, you're stuck with it now and forevermore.  This means you will be less willing to purchase a $50 game unless it's a sure thing.  Companies are hesitant to lower prices on their games unless they're not selling as well as they'd like, in which case they'll lower prices reluctantly.  Put it all together and you will purchase fewer games, and only "sure thing," big budget games will succeed in this environment.

There are exceptions to this rule.  Steam has showed that, with proper promotion, indie games can succeed and thrive in a digital environment.  Valve is showing that there's a right way to offer digital distribution, and it's working.  It's valuable to the customer.  They promote games like World of Goo, Zeno Clash, and others that would have had a quick death at retail.  They're working in the customer's interests and not the company's interests, and it's benefiting the company.

But can you trust most companies to behave this way?  Take OnLive, for instance.  They have support from EA, Activision, all the heavy hitters in the industry.  OnLive needs the big companies, not vice versa, and those big companies can exert an enormous pressure on a small startup like OnLive.  Are they going to willingly bow to a nobody indie game?  We can safely say, after all the money that's at stake, that they're probably not going to want smaller indie releases to be promoted.  This means that the indie boom that's gathering steam could be quickly quashed by greedy companies.

Let's bring it all together.  Companies really, really want consumers to adopt digital distribution since it's in the companies' best interest.  However, they refuse to lower prices on their games even though it's cheaper to provide digital distribution than retail distribution.  Consumers buy less games, further weeding out the amount of companies that can do business, paring it down to a lucky few who are able to survive the bloodbath.  These companies will exert even MORE control over the gaming public at large, thereby making prices go higher.

Obviously, this is a worst-case scenario, but it shows how unreliable the idea of pure digital distribution is.  Fortunately, it won't happen.  Consumers simply won't buy something unless it's in their interest to do so.  The marketplace has a way of weeding out good and bad ideas, and we've seen that historically.  For instance, in 1996, McDonalds attempted to launch a line of upscale sandwiches with a $100 million dollar advertising campaign.  Their flagship burger was the Arch Deluxe, which was basically a fancy-pants version of the Big Mac for more money.  It was a bad idea so no one bought it even though McDonalds pushed it incredibly hard.  It wasn't in the interests of the consumer, so it died.

DivX was also a notable failure that launched in 1998.  DivX was a movie rental system that was $4 per disc for two days.  If you wanted to keep watching the movie, you had to pay $2 additional for two more days of use.  It doesn't sound so bad until you realize that they were trying make it the standard instead of the Open DVD format we enjoy today.  Consumers rejected it soundly and it died a death a short time later.  It was a system that was in the interests of the companies promoting it, but not the interests of the consumer.

In the video game world, the PS3 launched to a massive ad campaign and had the best graphics of any next-gen system along with downwards compatibility.  However, the price was ridiculous for the vast majority of users.  It was in the company's best interests, but not the consumers.  It wasn't until the price expectations were closer to the norm that it gained widespread acceptance.

You may argue that consumers will buy any old crap that's thrown their way as long as it's promoted, and to a degree that's true.  A few years ago, Big Mouth Billy Bass was one of the most popular items around.  It wasn't long ago that we were all swept away by the Macarena.  Snuggies are the current "it" product.  However, in each of these cases, these items aren't a fundamental lifestyle change.  They're items that can be used and discarded with minimal loss of money.  They're all cheap.  They're not big deals.

However, charging a customer for what amounts to a glorified rental is a big deal.  DivX failed because people don't want to pay for something that's not theirs.  Even though we're moving to a more virtual economy, we're still the same old people we've always been.  We like trading money for goods and keeping those goods in our physical possession.  Companies don't like that idea, but that's too bad.  You're not going to get consumers to suddenly forget about their own personal property rights when there is virtually no upside.  See, by and large consumers aren't stupid.  They know when someone is just playing them for fools or when they're being presented with an item that's legitimately useful to them.  Digital distribution has no upside.  It's not in the consumer's best interests.  Unless every company adopts Valve's excellent pricing structures and flexibility (which is highly unlikely), expect physical distribution to be the norm for a long, long time.

300

This is post 300!  I can't believe I've made it with this many so far.  Thanks to all of those who keep on tuning in and checking out the site, and thanks to Blogger for keeping this site up and running.  Here's to 300 more!

Seriously, don't go to gladwell.com...

...unless you have hours of free time.  Malcolm Gladwell's writing is mesmerizing.

Delirious Cackle (PSPGo)

The UMD is set to return to the PSPGo thanks to a peripheral by Logitech!  Ah, delicious irony.

Neat Article From Malcolm Gladwell

Taken from gladwell.com:

Johnson develops the same argument about video games. Most of the people who denounce video games, he says, haven't actually played them—at least, not recently. Twenty years ago, games like Tetris or Pac-Man were simple exercises in motor coördination and pattern recognition. Today's games belong to another realm. Johnson points out that one of the "walk-throughs" for "Grand Theft Auto III"—that is, the informal guides that break down the games and help players navigate their complexities—is fifty-three thousand words long, about the length of his book. The contemporary video game involves a fully realized imaginary world, dense with detail and levels of complexity.

Indeed, video games are not games in the sense of those pastimes—like Monopoly or gin rummy or chess—which most of us grew up with. They don't have a set of unambiguous rules that have to be learned and then followed during the course of play. This is why many of us find modern video games baffling: we're not used to being in a situation where we have to figure out what to do. We think we only have to learn how to press the buttons faster. But these games withhold critical information from the player. Players have to explore and sort through hypotheses in order to make sense of the game's environment, which is why a modern video game can take forty hours to complete. Far from being engines of instant gratification, as they are often described, video games are actually, Johnson writes, "all about delayed gratification—sometimes so long delayed that you wonder if the gratification is ever going to show."

At the same time, players are required to manage a dizzying array of information and options. The game presents the player with a series of puzzles, and you can't succeed at the game simply by solving the puzzles one at a time. You have to craft a longer-term strategy, in order to juggle and coördinate competing interests. In denigrating the video game, Johnson argues, we have confused it with other phenomena in teen-age life, like multitasking—simultaneously e-mailing and listening to music and talking on the telephone and surfing the Internet. Playing a video game is, in fact, an exercise in "constructing the proper hierarchy of tasks and moving through the tasks in the correct sequence," he writes. "It's about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order."

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 7: What Will The Next Ten Years Hold?

There are lots of predictions floating around about the next ten years of gaming.  Yoichi Wada of Square Enix just said that "In ten years' time a lot of what we call 'console games' won't exist."  There's talk that gaming will move to "the cloud," and the whole nature of the industry will change.  What's true and what's false?  What will happen and won't?

Digital distribution will not become the norm.  As much as companies would like it to be, it won't ever take off the way they would like.  I'll have more on this in a different article.

3-D gaming will be the only reason to get a 3-D TV, but it won't catch on until the end of the decade.  Everyone just upgraded to HDTVs and aren't going to shell out even more money for a 3-D TV, and they aren't going to be buying 3-D TV to watch The King of Queens reruns, that's for sure.

There will be a completely unheard-of genre that will take the world by storm.  Just like music games became huge last decade because of improved technologies, a new genre will arrive next decade due to the new motion controls and 3-D gaming.

All three companies that are standing at the beginning of this decade will be in the game during the end of the decade.  Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all have too much money and too much at stake to back out at any point.  Sony's been to the peak and wants to go back.  Microsoft wants inroads into the living room.  Video games are all Nintendo does.  No one's going anywhere.

Microsoft will recognize its need for a stronger first-party lineup after the PS3 passes it by early next decade, and will make overtures to a big studio.  They already thought about acquiring EA, even though they didn't do it.  They'll try again.

Consoles aren't going anywhere, but it will be a while until Sony and Microsoft release a new one.  Nintendo will put one out early next decade, though, and put the screws to both companies in the HD market.

Nintendo will go through another bust cycle, but it won't be the Wii's fault.

Nintendo will radically redo Zelda at some point next decade, and not just by adding Super Guide.

Microsoft will stop trying with Japan and let nature take its course.  They've sunk so much money into Japan for such a little return that it's not worth it anymore, especially with the shrinking market in Japan.

Miyamoto will retire, and there will be much sadness.  However, Yoshiaki Koizumi will step in and nothing will change.

Sony will stick to the ten-year plan and be rewarded at the end with either a victory in the console race or a tie with Nintendo.

Natal will be a game-changer, but traditional controls aren't going anywhere.

Call of Duty and Guitar Hero will see diminishing returns.  By the end of the decade, they'll be non-starters.

EA's patience with new IPs will be rewarded, but not until there's more corporate bloodletting.

If the 00's were the start of the indie developer, the 10's will be the decade of the indie.

Single-player games on the PC will be even fewer by the end of the decade.  MMOs will start migrating to the consoles, but they won't be there by the end of the decade.

Diablo III will be excellent, but it won't arrive until 2012.  I can't believe there's even debate about the quality of it.

Blizzard will refocus on new IPs and will struggle for it.

We'll see a new No One Lives Forever game.  Maybe that's just wishful thinking.

The Old Republic will be the next big MMO.  World of Warcraft will still stick around, just like Everquest and Ultima Online have.

Someone, somewhere will finally revisit X-Com.  It's been far too long to let it lie fallow.  It will disappoint the hardcore fans.

Finally, the more things change, the more things stay the same.  We're not going to be jacking into the matrix by the end of the decade, and we won't have everything streamed to us in a set-top box.  We'll still be putting discs into machines and sitting on the couch with controllers.  Granted, it'll be a space couch, and we'll be wearing hovershoes while connecting to the overmind, but some things simply won't change.

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 6: The Decade of the Music Game

We've already talked about the importance of Guitar Hero.  It sold tons of copies and created a large pile of spinoffs, copiers, and detractors.  However, in talking about Guitar Hero, we're touching on something very interesting about this decade: In the zeroes, music games really went supernova.  Dance Dance Revolution launched in 1998, but didn't really make it into homes until this decade, where it sold in huge numbers.  DDR became part of the cultural lexicon so much that even people who hadn't played it knew what it was.  So what caused music games to become so popular so quickly when they hadn't been a big deal before?

The answer comes down to the music in games.  Video game music was very similar for a long time.  Even the best music still sounded a little chippy:

Granted, a lot of these songs were great, and there's no denying that they did wonders with what they had, but chiptunes don't hold a lot of significance for people other than gamers.  It's really hard to show someone who's not familiar with gaming how great a chiptune is because they don't understand how difficult it is to make them sound good.  Most systems had ho-hum sound chips that could do a little bit of digitized audio, but the sound was still garbled and not-quite-right.

It wasn't until the PS1 that we finally had CD-quality audio available for the first time.  However, most of the tracks were still chiptunes, albeit excellent ones.  Even some of the best soundtracks on the PS1 were still MIDI tracks with a lot more flexibility.  Sure, they could put in realistic-sounding instruments and more layers, but it was still MIDI with all the limitations inherent in MIDI.

What changed in the zeroes?  One, compression technology improved, meaning that a song could be compressed and still sound good.  Two, disc capacity took a huge leap from 800 MB on a standard CD to 4.7 GB on a DVD.  Space was no longer at a premium on a disc, so you could actually fit real, actual tracks on a disc.  With those technological improvements, we started seeing a genre that heretofore was impossible to achieve with any success become very, very possible as well as very, very profitable.

Of course, this opened the door for Guitar Hero and its imitators, but what can't be understated is the effect that Guitar Hero had on the industry as a whole.  It's hard to remember now, but at the dawn of the decade Activision was a failed brand that floundered a bit.  Before Guitar Hero, Activision's acquisitions were mostly mid-major studios like Neversoft, Infinity Ward, and Vicarious Visions.  They were positioning themselves to become a player, but hadn't taken the next leap.  After 2005 (when Guitar Hero launched) they started merging and changing, eventually becoming the behemoth we know and tolerate now.

Now, correlation doesn't always equal causality, and Infinity Ward certainly had a lot to do with Activision's rise to prominence.  Still, instead of having one major tentpole franchise (Call of Duty), Activision had TWO that could be exploited which allowed them to play with the likes of Vivendi, acquire Blizzard, and become a money-printing, price-hiking machine.  In other words, Activision is where it is because of music gaming.

So what do the next 10 years hold?  What will change?  What shiny new technology is going to change things forever?  There's no way to be certain, but we'll make some educated guesses in the next article in this series.

I Know Sometimes I Rag On Kotaku Readers...

I know sometimes I rag on Kotaku readers, but in this case I have to hand it to them for a job well-done.  This article just came up, which talks about Nintendo's commanding lead among female gamers.  I knew I had to read the comments on this one, since I thought I could pull out some choice comments to mock.  Instead, I ran across this exchange, which happened after someone talked about Nintendo widening their fanbase:

Slagathorian:
I imagine that if they put in some theatre production in football, it would also widen their fanbase. I imagine if the Resident Evil movies had an angst filled teenage love story, it would widen the fanbase.
The number one goal should not be to "widen" fanbase at the cost of alienating their existing fanbase.

That was what I expected the comments to be filled with, but here was the rebuttal:

shouryuuken:
*shrugs* its not like nintendo has stopped making their classic franchise games. this gen has seen some fine examples if not some of the best of what theyve been doing for the past 20 years.
i see no crime in only adding to their portfolio, even if the new additions are aimed at a different audience.
your complaint would be the same as kids complaining about cartoon network debuting adult swim because the cartoons werent aimed at them.
its a business, not a hobby.

Good work, folks.  It's about time that people start realizing that they're NOT abandoning their bread-and-butter audience, but trying to get a bigger base that will ensure their survival into the 21st century and beyond.  I have nothing else to add.

I have got to stop messing around with the site

Every time I do it messes up my tracking numbers, and then I have to put back in my Google Analytics codes, and then there's a period of a week where I wonder if they're in right.  Next time I try and mess with my site, just slap my hand gently but firmly and say "no."

Review: New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Developer: Nintendo
Publisher: Nintendo

By now, you pretty much know if you like 2-D Mario games or not. They've been around for over 25 years, and most every game has you stepping on enemies and/or killing them with fire in order to rescue Princess Peach from the clutches of Bowser. It's a simple formula that's paid dividends for years.
Mario made a successful detour into 3-D while other iconic characters failed (hello, Sonic), but the success of 2006's New Super Mario Bros. for the DS convinced Nintendo to return to his 2-D roots once again for New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's Mario's first 2-D console outing since 1990's Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo, so he's long overdue. Was the return trip to the Mushroom Kingdom worth the wait, or is a trip that should have been skipped?

It's-a Me

I had a few complaints about the DS version of New Super Mario Bros:

1. I finished the game on the same day that I purchased it.
2. Going through the levels and getting every Star Coin didn't seem to add anything to gameplay. It was just so much busywork.
3. Some of the later levels were just hard for the sake of being hard. They would throw in random enemy attacks, and it was just unfair.
4. The boss battles were nothing to write home about. You just fought different versions of Bowser Jr. until he finally stopped attacking you.
5. Finally, in order to get to some of the worlds you had to take really roundabout ways to get there. You had to beat some of the world bosses with a mini-mushroom in order to unlock worlds 4 and 6, and mini-mushrooms were hard to come by.

In other words, I still liked the DS version, but we had a strained relationship.

It pleases me to say that New Super Mario Bros. Wii has cleaned up almost all of the defects of its predecessor. It has more levels that are more involved than the original and display much more imagination than the DS game. While it appeared that Nintendo's B-Team was working on the DS game, the success of the DS game convinced Nintendo to use their A-Team to make the Wii version, and it shows.

Two, getting the Star Coins unlocks levels that are reminiscent of Super Mario World's Star World in a good way. You actually feel like digging around for the Star Coins because there's a tangible reward.

Third, when the game gets difficult, it's still fair. You always know why you died and what it takes to get past that point. There will be times where you scrape through a level and legitimately feel a sense of accomplishment, not frustration over stupid decisions made by the level designer.

Fourth, the Koopalings are back. While their battles aren't amazing, they're definitely better than the drab Bowser Jr. fights of the DS game. On top of that, the final battle with Bowser even made this jaded gamer's jaw drop a little bit.

Fifth, there are no worlds that you can't get to without a little elbow grease. You should see every world on your first playthrough without having to resort to weird tactics, although there are several levels within them that can be rather difficult to find. Once you find the solution, it's head-slappingly easy to understand, but you never feel like getting there was overly esoteric.

Whoo-Hoo

In fact, just about everything in New Super Mario Bros. Wii is aces. Some have referred to it as Super Mario Bros. 5, and that's an apt description. Everything about it screams quality, from the tight, intuitive level design to the bopping, bouncing music that accompanies your journey. The controls handle like a dream, as you would expect from a Mario game. Yoshi is back, and he handles just like you would expect. The graphics are crisp and clean, looking exactly like a traditional Mario game updated for the 21st century. Everything is exactly what you would want in a new sidescrolling Mario game.

But is that a good thing? Some may complain, "The fact that everything is exactly the way you would expect means that they didn't really try." While there is a bit of deja vu throughout, there aren't a whole lot of places where you roll your eyes and say, "I've seen that before." There are intelligent nods to your skills, but most everything is something new yet familiar. If you played a Mario game back in the day and enjoyed it, playing New Super Mario Bros. Wii will put a smile on your face.

Some have also complained about Super Guide, the revolutionary new way that Nintendo plans on opening up games for inexperienced players. Basically, Super Guide can play through a level for you, allowing you to complete levels that are giving you problems and help inexperienced players to reach the end of the game. Some feel that it makes things too easy. I mean, if a game can play itself, that what's the point?

Super Guide doesn't really work like that. If you die more than eight times in a level, a green block will appear above your head at your starting point. If you hit it, it'll ask if you want to use Super Guide. If you don't, don't hit the block. Simple as that.

In fact, the game will give you a medal if you never die enough for Super Guide to come up. It's a clever way of rewarding experienced players and giving them a badge of honor of sorts. It's unobtrusive, and can be safely ignored if you don't want it. If you do want it, it's there. It's a great way for Nintendo to crank up the difficulty while still allowing everyone a seat at the table.

Oh Noooooooo

That's not to say there aren't problems. For one, while the music is nice, I would much rather have heard more traditional Mario themes than the newer New Super Mario Bros. theme. That's a little nitpicky, but one thing that separated a game like Super Mario Galaxy from previous entries in the 3-D series was the use of music from the original Mario games. If you're aiming for updated nostalgia, as Nintendo was clearly trying to do here, that music alone calls back better memories, and it would have been nice to hear more of it.

Another addition was the much-ballyhooed multiplayer, which allows four players to be onscreen at the same time. With the wrong group of people, this can be frustrating and limiting. It sucks when you're the only person who knows how to play and you end up carrying each and every level. A player that's more talented than others may find themselves having to wait for other players to catch up before proceeding, or having to bail out other players repeatedly. However, with the right group of people, this can be an extremely entertaining mode. Having someone hold off enemies while you go for a Star Coin can be really fun, and having someone to help you try out a new tactic is great. More often than not, though, the multiplayer is more frustration than anything else.

Let's-a Go

Most everyone who has seen New Super Mario Bros. Wii has made a judgement one way or the other. If you decided you don't want to play it, this review probably won't change your mind. But I have to ask, if you don't want to play it, why not? I mean, it recalls the older Mario games in the best possible way. It's challenging without being overly difficult. Super Guide only bothers the weaker players, and great features from previous games, like airships and keeping a stockpile of powerups, have come back.

There's a reason why New Super Mario Bros. sold a ton of copies on the DS, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii will continue tearing up sales charts: It's fun for everyone. If you're still on the fence about New Super Mario Bros. Wii, get off the fence and get it.

Final Grade: A-

121

I did it.  Pics forthcoming.  After 72 hours and 12 minutes, I just can't believe it.

118 Stars As Luigi

I'm getting achingly close here, people.  Just two more left to go, and they're both Cosmic Races (ugh).  Wish me luck.

Mother 3 and Consumerism

One of the keys of Mother 3 in the early going is "the happy box."  It's a glowing box that Fassad, the shady dealer in league with the Pigmasks, convinces everyone in the town that they need in order to be happy.  In short order, the town is full of happy boxes, and people sit and stare at them for hours.  They run home from work to see what's on the happy box.  They want bigger happy boxes.  I think you can see the analog here, but the crux is that after the happy boxes arrive, everyone wants to buy more and more things so that they'll be happy.

It's really quite a bold statement for a video game to make, and it made me think of how perfectly tuned video games are to consumerism.  It seems that as soon as a new game comes out, the question becomes, "What's next?"  Even games that are two or three years old are considered outdated and relegated to used game racks.  People who don't keep up with the newest games are considered weird.  If you have a video game system that came out eight years ago, you're behind the times and need the new gaming system that just came out.  "Have a regular TV?  You need a high-def TV!  Here are some games that look great in high-def!  Buy a high-def console!  Have a high-def TV already?  3-D games are going to come out!  You'll need a 3-D TV for that, and a powerful console to boot!"

The odd thing is that we're not really happy when we walk down that road.  The new only satisfies us for a bit, and then it's not new anymore.  This is demonstrated by the boom in retrogaming, from "Rebirth" games to Virtual Console games to emulators.  If it was in our nature to always want the new, then why would we always go back to the old?

Video games also really tap into that consumer culture in another area.  The joy of a game is in the accomplishment.  When we finish a game, we've accomplished a task, which stimulates happy parts in our brain.  If we're replaying a game, we've already accomplished the tasks at hand, which means that that little happy part in our brain isn't getting stimulated by what we've done, which means that the second time around feels empty somehow.  It's like watching someone else's vacation slides of a place we've been:  Yes, this is all very interesting, and I remember that spot, but it's not as exciting as when we saw it the first time around.

In the end, what we want as human beings is not a constant stream of new and exciting things, but rather the joy and comfort of what we like.  That's one of the lessons of Mother 3, and a lesson we could do well to learn.

(As a sidenote, it's a testament to Mother 3 that it makes you think about these things.  Play this game.)

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 5: Most Important Games of the Decade

When we talk about gaming, sometimes we make the mistake of discussing the systems or the technology behind the games instead of the games themselves.  That's a shame, because all of the technology in the world is worthless unless there are games to play it on.  To that end, here are the ten most important games of the decade.  These aren't the best games, but rather the games that had the farthest-reaching and hardest impact in gaming, in order of appearance.  If you've played these ten games, then you understand what the whole decade of gaming was about.

Super Mario Advance - Game Boy Advance - June 11, 2001

At first glance, having Super Mario Advance on this list sounds ridiculous.  Hear me out.

It wasn't just that it repackaged Super Mario Bros. 2, a Criminally Overlooked game, but it started the trend of repackaging and updating older games to modern standards.  There was a huge, untapped market for updated nostalgia that was revealed by Super Mario Advance, which in turn opened the door for the Virtual Console and the Rebirth series of games.  It also showed that 2-D platforming wasn't dead at all, and needed to be supported and nurtured.  This led to tons of new 2-D platformers, including games like Shadow Complex and the New Super Mario Bros. series, and proved that some types of gameplay never go out of style.

ICO - Playstation 2 - September 24, 2001

There hadn't really been a game quite like ICO.  It was a strange game, with little dialogue, little direction, and a weird, helpless mute girl who you led around.  It's not the sort of game that flies off of shelves, and the fact that it was released two weeks after 9/11 didn't help its chances at retail.  However, those who played it found that it was a starkly personal story of affection and trust, set in a beautiful, mysterious backdrop. There was darkness around the edges, but the darkness could be dispelled with bravery and kindness.

Not only was it a great game on its own merits, but it also opened the door for other triumphs, like Beyond Good & Evil, Shadow of the Colossus, Mother 3, Braid, Okami, and a host of other atmospheric, emotional tales. In many ways, it was really the start of the prestige game: The game that won't sell a lot of copies, but is a game that the makers and publishers will be proud of.

Grand Theft Auto 3 - Playstation 2 - October 22, 2001

Rockstar Games was a standard developer with a couple of fun games to their credit, but nothing special. Then Grand Theft Auto 3 hit, and they became a household name. GTA 3 was one of the first examples of an open-world game that felt real.  You could either follow the missions or not.  You could waste hours driving around, listening to the radio, and exploring. You could get into a fight with the cops and have them bring down the military on you.  The choice was really yours.  

It also brought mass media attention to gaming, and not always in a good way. The howls of "You can have sex with hookers, run over them and take your money back!" were extremely loud, and it helped give crazies like Jack Thompson a pulpit to scream from. It's telling that these choices are built into the game, but you don't have to take them if you don't want to. You don't have to go on rampages. You can just follow the well-plotted gangland storyline if you choose. In an ironic twist of fate, what you choose to do in GTA says more about you than it does the developer. If it weren't for GTA 3, we wouldn't have the other games in the GTA series, obviously, but we also wouldn't have games stretching from Saints Row to Prototype to Just Cause.

Halo - XBox - November 15, 2001

In fact, between GTA 3 and Halo, you can almost understand the entire decade. Before Halo, console multiplayer was done split-screen, where you got a few of your friends together and played in the same room. After Halo, console multiplayer was worldwide and unified. Before Halo, shooters were an also-ran on consoles, with most being ports of PC games or just plain inferior to what the PC was doing at the time. After Halo, shooters made their homes on consoles first and then filtered down to the PC.

The archetype of a space marine doing battle versus an alien horde goes back to DOOM, but Halo was what prompted the next wave of grizzled space marine games. Gears of War, Killzone, Resistance, and even Metroid Prime all owe their existence and popularity to Halo.

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - XBox - July 15, 2003

Bioware already had made a name for themselves with fun, deep RPGs, but this was their first time with someone else's work, and their first time outside of the constraints of Dungeons & Dragons. Lucasarts was also beginning to let others handle their license after several years of mismanagement. Could Bioware work with someone else's material?  Could Lucasarts actually make a good Star Wars game? Also, RPGs on consoles had been the province of spiky-haired angsty emo kids with gigantic swords. Could an RPG that didn't have an androgynous hero sell on consoles?

Yes, yes and yes. Not only was the gameplay great and the characters sharp ("Shall we find something to kill to cheer ourselves up?"), but KOTOR set the stage for a new type of console RPG, one where you dealt with real characters and real emotions.  It announced Bioware as a major player on consoles and set the stage for Jade Empire and Mass Effect. Additionally, along with Jedi Knight II, it brought Star Wars games back from the dead. Sure, there are still spiky-haired brooding heroes running around on consoles, but thanks to Knights of the Old Republic, there are more identifiable characters there too.

Half-Life 2 - PC - November 16, 2004

Half-Life 2 was important for a variety of reasons. It was one of the best games of the decade, no doubt. That much is a given. It also deserves a place on this list for offshoots like Team Fortress 2 and Portal, as well as for the physics-based gameplay that's become de rigeur for most games in the decade. It also proved that there was still a place for tightly-scripted single-player experiences, which led to the Call of Duty games exploding.

However, Half-Life 2 was one of the first major games that could be purchased digitally via Steam. If it wouldn't have worked or would have been a major hassle for customers, digital distribution would have been dead in the water. Instead, it gathered steam (pun not intended) and made its way into consoles, including the all-digital download PSPGo. Also, as stated before, Half-Life 2 killed the used PC games market, which hastened the gathering death of the single-player PC experience.

World of Warcraft - PC - November 23, 2004

Everquest arguably did just as much to expand the MMO audience, but it released in 1999, so it's not eligible for this list. Instead, we'll focus on the game that brought MMO gaming to the masses, World of Warcraft.

Everquest proved that there was a market for MMOs. World of Warcraft showed how big that market was, and in so doing, opened the door for myriads of MMOs. Before World of Warcraft, setting up an online game was a risky proposition that could very easily fail. Once indoctrinate players understood what an MMO was, the market was enlarged to the point that more MMOs could coexist. Sure, some failed, like Asheron's Call 2 and Tabula Rasa, but many free-to-play MMOs leapt into the gap and opened the door for a new type of experience. Even Facebook games like Farmville owe their existence to forerunners like World of Warcraft.

Guitar Hero - PS2 - November 8, 2005

NEEEEEOOOOOWWWWNNNN! (throws up horns)

The second half of the decade was owned by music games, and Guitar Hero led the way. Harmonix developed a fun and unique experience that went supernova within the space of two years. Guitar Hero III quickly became one of the biggest-selling games of all-time, but it came with a stark warning for future companies: When a game becomes popular, the knee-jerk reaction of most companies is "let's make more of them." That's not a bad idea, obviously, but within the space of five years, here's the list of Guitar Hero games and derivatives:

Guitar Hero, Guitar Hero 2, Guitar Hero 3, Guitar Hero World Tour, Guitar Hero 5, Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80's, Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, Guitar Hero: Metallica, Guitar Hero: Van Halen, Guitar Hero: Smash Hits, Guitar Hero: On Tour, Guitar Hero: On Tour Decades, Band Hero, DJ Hero, Rock Band, Rock Band 2, Rock Band Track Packs, Rock Band Unplugged, The Beatles: Rock Band

That's 19 games in five years, or almost four a year. That's insane. Of course, the brand is starting to weaken. The Beatles: Rock Band sold on name recognition of the Beatles alone. DJ Hero and Band Hero are flopping. Guitar Hero 5 isn't selling up to expectations. While there's a tendency among publishers to want to do what's successful, it has to be measured against long-term success, and that's the lesson we can learn here.

Brain Age - DS - April 16, 2006

Brain Age got scoffed at when it first launched, and with good reason. Who wants to play a game with nothing but math problems? The answer: About 17 million people.

Brain Age showed that there was a market for games beyond the established boundaries of gaming. You can make games that appeal to a wider audience, and they'll sell. Despite what many people thought at the time, lots of people want to play games but can't find an entry point. The most popular games are too complex and scary, and most people don't want to start out by playing kids games. Nintendo hit upon a viable idea: How about making a game that is mature but at the same time allows new people to play? It's absurdly simple, but this premise opened the door for the Expanded Audience, which, for better or worse, begat the Wii.

Wii Sports - Wii - November 19. 2006

Wii Sports is one of the most controversial games of the decade. It's not because it's violent, because it isn't. It doesn't deal with adult subject matter, and there's nothing objectionable about it. However, it's become a flashpoint for the biggest debate of the decade:  hat constitutes a game? When is a game too slight? Is this the direction that games should go in? Is this the future of gaming?

The answer, of course, is that there's room for everyone at the table. There's room for Modern Warfare 2 and Game Party 2. There's room for Mass Effect and Deca Sports. There's room for Halo 3: ODST and Rayman Raving Rabbids TV Party. Perhaps the biggest lesson from Wii Sports is that fun is universal. Maybe everyone can enjoy gaming. Maybe they won't want to jump in to Manhunt 2, but that's OK. It's a big market out there, and every can have a share.

Also receiving votes:

• Deus Ex - Real moral choices in a game, along with wide-open decision making and multiple routes. The only reason this didn't rate higher is because of the abysmal, immersion breaking voice-acting and the lack of true successors.
• Diablo II - Fantastic action-RPG that created a lot of imitators, but merely an improvement on the original Diablo, which had already spawned lots of imitators.
• Metal Gear Solid 2 - One of the leaders in cinematic story-telling and the first game that truly announced the new generation of consoles. Also way too long-winded and convoluted.
• Final Fantasy X - The first Final Fantasy in full 3D and with realistically-proportioned characters that spawned loads of imitators. However, the typical console RPG still hasn't changed in 20 years, so not as influential as you would think.
• Call of Duty 4 - One of the biggest games of the decade, with shocking, disturbing twists and one of the most supported online games to boot, but hasn't really influenced a lot of newer games yet.
• Super Mario Galaxy - A rousing return to form for Mario after the disappointing Super Mario Sunshine, but hasn't had a lot of influence in other games yet.

Reggie: "The addition of HD capability will not be the next step for us."

Taken from this article:

"The fundamental issue in the logic flow is that — and this is what I'm hearing, whether it's from you or Geoff or Michael himself — is that, gosh it's such an opportunity to take HD capability and link it with the Wii. And what we have said, repeatedly, is that that's not the way we at Nintendo do things. The way we at Nintendo do things is, you know, when we will move to a new generation, it's because there are some fundamental things the [current] console cannot do. What that says is that simply the addition of HD capability will not be the next step for us. There will be more to it. There will be additional capability. There will be additional elements, and, given that, it is far into the future."

Fair enough.  However, there are some fundamental things that the Wii can't do, technologically speaking.  The reason why guys like Activision don't make Modern Warfare or Assassin's Creed for the Wii is because it can't keep up with the big boys graphically.  Therefore, they're not able to just port the game, but rather have to remake it.  Why would you want to spend tons of money on doing something so extensive for a non-guaranteed return, especially in a down economy?

DJ Hero's Sales Tank

Wow.  What bad sales for DJ Hero, but not entirely unexpected.  Of course, Activision claims that it's a "new property" and they always have trouble getting off the ground, but Borderlands is also a new property and TRIPLED the sales of DJ Hero with LESS promotion.  DJ Hero's review scores were even better than Borderlands, and it's still flopping.

What's the lesson here?  First, don't release PS2 versions anymore, as DJ Hero sold about 3000 PS2 versions.  No one is buying new PS2 games.  If someone is still playing their PS2, they're playing old, cheap games for it.

Second, yes, we're coming out of a recession, but we're STILL IN A RECESSION.  Don't release expensive peripherals in the middle of one, okay?  That means you, Tony Hawk Ride.

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 4: Everything Is Set In Motion

Up until recently, there was really only one way to control a game: You plugged in a controller and pressed buttons to make the character on the screen move.  It was a seemingly simple system, and everyone seemed to be fine with this system, but there were a few flaws in it.  For instance, in order to add more functions to games, controllers needed to get more and more complex.  From 1990 to 1999, they'd jumped from three or four face buttons and a D-pad to two analog sticks, four face buttons, and four shoulder buttons.  The Dualshock 2, released in 2001, made those analog sticks pressure-sensitive, adding essentially two more buttons, while the D-pad stayed behind and got reassigned to create even MORE face buttons.

So, now we're dealing with what amounts to 10 face buttons, two analog sticks, and four shoulder buttons.  For the gamer who had been brought from basic, two-face-button controls on to more complicated controllers it was easily manageable.  There was a curve of difficulty that we followed and we had no problems managing it.  New users had no chance whatsoever.  Add in wacky button layouts like the Gamecube controls, and it was all getting a little ridiculous.  At the rate things were going, games would soon be demanding full-size keyboards within a short while.  Clearly, controllers needed to be simplified.

The first shot across the bow was the DS.  At the time, the touch-screen mechanic was looked at as "interesting, but why?"  The only game that Nintendo showed that really utilized the screen was Yoshi Touch N' Go, and it was awful.  It was only until Kirby: Canvas Curse launched that developers and gamers alike understood the potential of a touchscreen:  Making simple motions easily accessible and understandable for the average user.  It didn't take long for other developers to jump on board with the idea, and the DS has become one of the most successful systems of all time.

However, the DS was just the beginning.  Nintendo experimented with motion controls with the Power Pad and Power Glove back in the NES days.  They were sloppy and confusing, and died quick and well-deserved deaths.  Sega even released the Activator, which was an absolute mess.  For those who don't remember the Activator, it was a ring you placed on the floor.  When you moved your arms or legs over the Activator, it was akin to pressing buttons on the controller.  You couldn't use it in areas of low ceilings, you couldn't use it with reflective ceilings, and I think you can see the problem with trying to hold down multiple buttons at once.  The Activator basically turned your gaming experience into high-speed, inaccurate Twister.  So we can see that the concept of motion controls were nothing new, but they never caught on.  They were either too clumsy or not accurate enough to make a difference.

That changed when Nintendo launched the Wii.  Here, in a tiny little remote control, were simple, responsive and fun motion controls.  On top of everything, the Wii was cheap and inoffensive.  It may be hard to convince your grandma to play Gears of War, but ask her to try Wii Bowling?  She's on board right away.  Anyone could grasp the simplicity of swinging the controller to imitate playing tennis, or moving your arm to bowl.  In a sense, the Wii brought gaming full circle.  Gaming didn't automatically start with an audience, but it built one up over the years.  Similarly, the Wii started a whole new group of people along the path of gaming goodness.

At first, Sony and Microsoft scoffed at the Wii, only seeing the poor graphics and not noticing how people connected with the controller.  After seeing the Wii take off, there was a motion-control-induced panic, as Sony and Microsoft both tripped over themselves to come up with their own motion controls.  Sony especially jumped the gun with their Sixaxis controls.  Instead of focusing on one thing, like the Wiimote did, they tried to meld traditional controls with motion and ended up pleasing no one.  Microsoft took a longer view and unleashed Natal, a controller-less system that looks promising.  As of yet, there's no release date or pricing, but the tech behind it promises to further reduce the barrier between the gamer and the system.  Sony is also giving it another go with their Wand that they hope to launch, but there are still a lot of hurdles for Sony to overcome.

Some have decried motion controls, calling them "waggle" and complaining about the amount of crapware on the Wii.  First, waggle can be defined as unnecessary movement in a game that doesn't need it.  It is an issue, as developers race to place motion controls in places where they're not needed.  The same issue plagues early developers of the DS, as they tried to cram stylus controls in every nook and cranny.  Now, they use the stylus more judiciously, if at all.  Motion developers will also learn when is the right time and the wrong time to deploy motion.  Second, crapware comes with the territory.  The NES had oodles of crapware as well, as developers tried understanding this new medium and how to make it work.  Motion controls represent a paradigm shift in game design, so there are bound to be some growing pains.  Add in the fact that many people purchasing the Wii are first-time buyers and don't what games to avoid and you can see where the problems come from.  Over time, these problems will be ironed out, as developers learn how to make games that handle motion controls judiciously while still providing good content, and consumers get savvier with which games they purchase.

That's really the crux of the matter here:  Reducing the amount of barriers to success.  With a standard controller, in order to pilot a character onscreen, you need to have a substantial knowledge of hand placement, hand-eye coordination and muscle memory in order to accomplish anything.  Most gamers have that ability since we have experience in gaming.  Those who are new to gaming don't, and motion controls provide them with a helping hand while allowing old hands like us to view games in a different light.  It's a win-win.

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 3: Microsoft, Or The Terrifying Large Corporate Behemoth That Could

In 2000, there were three players in the console race:  Sony, Sega, and Nintendo. They were all established companies, they'd all been in the game for a bit, and they were all Japanese. That's how the industry had worked for 15 years, and there seemed to be no reason to change it. True, Sega was a little shaky, but the Dreamcast was a good machine and things were looking up all around.

When Microsoft threw their hat into the ring with their XBox, derisive snorts from the playerati were all over the place. How could Microsoft, a software company, make usable hardware? How could they whip together a game studio that could compete with the stables that Sega, Nintendo and Sony had developed? When they first released their giant controller, howls of laughter pealed across the internet. Surely Microsoft would be out of the gaming business within two years, three years tops.

However, there were a few things that people forgot.  Microsoft had already unified software developers with the DirectX platform. The basic underpinnings of a console were already there:  It just need a computer to run on, and that's what the XBox was. Second, Microsoft had been making hardware for years, with the Sidewinder game pads being the de facto standard for PC gaming for a while and Microsoft keyboards and mice being solid equipment. Therefore, it wasn't a huge stretch to make something a little more complex. Lastly, Microsoft has money. Gobs and gobs of the stuff. If they want to be successful at something, they will be.

The success started with Halo. Halo isn't exactly a great shooter. In fact, it pales in comparison to some of the other shooters that were gracing the PC, like the No One Lives Forever series, Half-Life, Counterstrike, the Thief series, and the Medal of Honor games.  However, it did a few things very well:  Unique, realistic-handling vehicles, good physics and easy-to-set-up online multiplayer.  The first two things could have been done easily on the PC, and they have.  The third was what really revolutionized console gaming.  The Dreamcast had done online gaming over dialup speeds, but what Microsoft did changed things.

The weird thing is that PC makers had been trying (and failing) to make a unified place for online gaming for years. They tried with Kali, Battlenet, Steam, and GameSpy, among others. None were really sufficient, so gamers had to make due with expensive private servers and different usernames. It was all right, and it wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but this was the next step. It took Microsoft to accomplish what no other company could, and that's what changed gaming.

Their competitors reacted in different ways. Sega gave up. Sony tried decentralizing multiplayer gaming. Nintendo tried sidestepping the issue and avoiding it. However, it was inevitable. The people had spoken, and they liked this brave new multiplayer world, where you didn't have to make sure that the servers were working before connecting, didn't have to download 50 custom sound files in order to connect to a server, and were able to keep track of your friends in one place. The die was cast. Nintendo was even begrudgingly forced to admit their mistake and try and include some semblance of online multiplayer in their next console.

One area of concern for Microsoft is their inability to break into Japan's market. So far, they've only sold 3 millions units in Japan of the original XBox and the 360. However, that's not a huge deal. The Japanese are big spenders, but Japan's gaming market is also shrinking. They're not as big a deal as they used to be, and if Microsoft decided that they were just going to forget about Japan, they wouldn't have any appreciable profit loss. The cost of shipping and marketing in Japan is probably negating any net gain that they would have gotten from selling their consoles, but Microsoft is stubborn and will probably keep plugging away until they've broken the market there.

Either way, Microsoft has accomplished something pretty startling in the space of 10 years. They went from industry laughingstock to innovator. They've done it by cannibalizing the PC market, but the PC market was on its way out anyway. It'll be interesting to see what the next 10 years hold for them.