Games are too broad and diverse a category. Let’s focus on (what else) Starcraft II. It will inevitably become the highest selling RTS game, surpassing its predecessor. The original was hugely popular in South Korea with multiple dedicated Starcraft cable channels and millions of dollars in prize money offered in the professional Starcraft scene. Is there something characteristic to America that prevents that from happening here? Let’s first examine and disprove some obvious arguments.

1)      Starcraft II hasn’t sold enough copies to generate the level of interest required for a serious spectator community. Consider that Starcraft II already sold three million copies in its first month and will likely sell over five million copies in the United States alone in its lifetime. American Football, the most profitable American spectator sport, is only played by about three million people in America on an organized basis. The Super Bowl annually draws about 100 million viewers. Almost every popular spectator sport has far more viewers than there are players and sports aren’t only enjoyed by those who play them.

2)      Starcraft II is far too complicated for a non-player to understand and because of that it will never catch on. There are many rules in the NFL that are confusing to the casual viewer but don’t prevent enjoyment. Many viewers likely aren’t familiar with the new overtime rules or the conversion safety rule, but that’s what commentators are for. As long as the basic outline of the rules can be absorbed swiftly, the rest of the rulebook can be fleshed out situationally. Cricket remains cryptic to lots of viewers, but that doesn’t stop it from being the second most popular team sport in the world.

Koreans get quite excited by their Starcraft

Legitimate roadblocks

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any serious roadblocks to Starcraft II becoming a spectator activity. Sports are helped by having roots and accessibility. Many children grew up with football, baseball or basketball, and have been playing it or were at least aware of it for their whole lives. Sports teams have regional affiliations and so it’s common to be supporting a team before you even fully understand the rules of the game. Roots in a sport go a long way and Red Sox fans feel it’s part of their identity, not just an activity that they enjoy. Videogames lack this aspect.

In addition, accessibility and cost are significant contributors to the popularity of sports. It’s no coincidence that football is the most popular sport in the world. Many children can play with a single $10 ball. A makeshift field can materialize almost anywhere. A computer that can adequately run Starcraft II, on the other hand, costs several hundred dollars, and the game itself is $60. Many American families already have the infrastructure in place but there is certainly a higher hurdle there.

Gaming has had some popular launches that capture public attention before. It's not a niche activity

Trends in gaming’s favor

All these legitimate hindrances to spectator gaming don’t mean that there is nothing going for it. There are far more gamers in the United States than there were even a decade ago, and so the base upon which to build a successful spectator platform is much larger.

In addition, gamers are much older on average than they were just a decade ago. Because games are such a new form of entertainment, the age of the average gamer is growing nearly as quickly as the age of the medium. Because PC gamers are now in their late 20’s on average instead of in their teens, they have far more disposable income to spend. The reason prize pools in golf and tennis have skyrocketed is because of the industry that has grown around the sport. Gamers have money to spend, and if plenty of people will shell out $100+ for a football season package, why shouldn’t there be the same interest in a Starcraft package? As long as companies like Razer can sell products as a result money won’t be an issue.

Finally, broadband internet has proliferated and improved to the point that streaming HD video is available to almost everybody. Who says Starcraft II needs a TV cable channel? Why couldn’t everything be hosted online? The internet and television are already converging with wireless modems included in almost all new TVs, and within a few years the source of entertainment might be completely separate from its viewing medium. While there are already independent online tournaments on Youtube there is no centrally funded league in the US, something that needs to happen before Starcraft II can truly go mainstream.

So when is it going to happen?

The setup is in place: computers are widespread, Starcraft II is selling like hotcakes, gaming isn’t looked upon as a nerdy leper activity (as much), gamers are older and have money, and the internet is now a viable delivery mechanism. So when is it going to happen?

If Starcraft II is going to hit the big time, it needs its Moneymaker moment. I refer to when Chris Moneymaker won an online poker tournament and won entry into the world series of poker, which he subsequently won along with $2.5 million. Suddenly, tournament poker wasn’t some niche game for Las Vegas professionals. It was a get rich quick scheme where anybody could win as long as you had access to the internet. Online poker tournaments instantly exploded in popularity, and ESPN 2, ESPN 3 and ESPN 8 ‘The Ocho’ had endless filler programming.

This is actually a picture of Starcraft tournament spectators, unlike the first image which was sadly the Olympics. Starcraft isn't quite that big (yet)

I think it’s clear what’s required for Starcraft II to make the jump: prize money. Currently there are monthly tournaments in Korea where the winner gets $83,000 so that is a step up, but imagine if there were four tournaments a year in the US where the prize pool was $1 million? That would increase excitement substantially above all other spectator video games and potentially vault it into the mainstream. When Blizzard is making hundreds of millions of dollars on the game, is that really unfeasible, especially with advertising and sponsorships? Many gamers would pick Starcraft II as their game of choice, as open invitational tournaments with a potential prize pool of $1 million are strong incentive to a teenager or college student.

This isn’t some crazy pipe dream either; it’s already happening in a grassroots way. The top Starcraft II commentators are now in the top 200 Youtube channels in terms of number of subscribers. Tournaments have gone from having several hundred dollars as a prize pool to having tens of thousands of dollars as a prize pool. Interest is growing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point in the next five to ten years there is a breakthrough. Only the lifespan of the game will hold it back, but each new game doesn’t have to start from ground zero, especially given older games are more accessible in terms of hardware requirements.

Cyber gaming tournaments will never be comparable to American Football. The goal is to be like online poker, with similar prize money and following. Early trends are promising, and I don’t think this level of popularity is out of the question. Many gaming leagues have failed in the past, but we finally may be reaching the point where the stars align and professional gaming in the US comes of age. If they money is there, the players will follow.

Is this really what it has come to? Is social gaming the future of gaming, as many Facebook gamers claim? Is a single player experience in the form of ‘core games’ a brief aberration that will be relegated to the least social of creatures?

Social Domination

The games director for Facebook, Gareth Davis, says that solo gaming is an aberration, and that games have almost always been social and with Farmville and other Facebook games they’re just going back to their roots.

He claims that Facebook is the largest game platform in the world and that more people play Facebook games than on any other platform. While there’s no official metric, with 350 million users vs. 120 million Playstations sold I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Shit yeah ... you're right, that *does* look fun ...

What Davis’ statistics don’t take into consideration is that Facebook games are just awful, and barely qualify as games. Farmville is a monotonous money grab, where millions of players fork over money to Zynga to be able to harvest their raspberries faster.

In addition, Facebook gaming is hardly a social activity. Mafia Wars is considered social because your abilities in the game depend on the number of friends you have on your social network. There’s no interaction in the game between you and somebody else though, other than through a generic ‘X player has attacked you’ message that appears every so often.

Many ’social gamers’ would suggest that they’d rather pay $15 a month to harvest crops with their friends than pay it to monster game designer Blizzard who steals lives through the ungodly juggernaut known as World of Warcraft.

According to them, World of Warcraft players are loners who cry themselves to sleep in the dark, rather than social butterflies who love interacting with guildies and other server denizens but are held back in real life by their most likely terrifying personal appearance and crippled self confidence.

Yeah, you're making 'successories,' that really makes you better

Core gamers, unite

Go to any game convention and you’re going to see people dressed up to celebrate their favorite game characters. Nathan Drake, Master Chief, Gordon Freeman, the Left 4 Dead gang, Final Fantasy characters and Solid Snake are just a few of the icons that have brought so much joy to so many. When was the last time you saw somebody dressed up as a blueberry, or a tractor, to celebrate Farmville?

Farmville takes advantage of a simple human need for easily defined accomplishment, and while many games do the same thing, there are also stories told and experiences shared. I guess you could recant the tale of the last harvest in Farmville, but if the person you’re talking to cares (and has played the game) they likely know exactly what you’re going to say.

I take it back ... plant cosplay is great

Core games are the past and the future of gaming, and while Facebook games are going to exist in their own niche, there’s room for expansion and not exclusion.

Brick breaker on the Blackberry is played by millions of businessmen across the globe. They likely don’t consider themselves gamers. I hesitate to call Farmville players ‘gamers,’ as that term is reserved for a different experience.

Does it concern anybody else that Mike Morhaime (head of Blizzard) now reports directly to Thomas Tippl? Is this the beginning of the end for Blizzard?

Blizzivision

When Activision bought Blizzard from Vivendi we all panicked a little at the prospect of the evil overlords at Activision getting their hands on some of the most beloved franchises in gaming. Both Activision and Blizzard were at the time adamant that the parent company respected the atmosphere at Blizzard and wouldn’t attempt to interfere.

With the new restructuring, however, we all now know that was merely to put us off our guard. They just needed to wait a couple years before making this move. It’s a slippery slope, and while I don’t imagine we’ll be seeing Guitar Hero: Azeroth or advertisements for Blur in Diablo III in the near future, that’s not what I’m worried about.

Diablo III brought to you by Activision's Blur

Activision has constantly shown they can’t manage a franchise. The only reason they got lucky with Call of Duty was because they stumbled across Infinity Ward, and they ruined that despite having a great thing going. Their latest creations, Tony Hawk Ride and DJ Hero, were by all accounts abject failures (despite getting sequels which are most likely a desperate attempt to recover invested capital).

Blizzard, on the other hand, has essentially never failed. Their games are not just constantly reviewed well, but have incredible longevity. World of Warcraft is the most successful MMO by orders of magnitude. Starcraft is the only game still played by millions of people (Koreans) a decade after launch, and is the only pro gaming RTS because of its quality. Finally, Diablo 2 is one of the highest selling PC games of all time and still widely played and updated today.

The secret for Blizzard, as I’ve mentioned in the past, is their incredible attention to detail and willingness to take the time necessary to refine a game. I have to believe this move at Activision was done because Starcraft II was taking too long, and they want to make sure release dates are met in the future.

At least bring back Lost Vikings, Blizzard, if you want to fuck up a franchise

Foreshadowing

While I don’t think this is going to screw up the current offerings of Starcraft II and Diablo III, they’re likely going to be the last hurrah. Maybe the next MMO that Blizzard is working on, which has been mentioned but not yet named, will avoid the taint of Activision. Nevertheless, Bobby Kotick’s commoditized approach to game design generates profit when costs are kept down, but that approach won’t work for Blizzard.

You can’t rush genius. Get out any way you can, while you can, Mike Morhaime.

Do games really need to be fun, though? Not all books are fun, and critics frequently ridicule ‘fun’ books like John Grisham novels or the Da Vinci Code. Nobody can really argue that The Hurt Locker was more fun than some of the other films released this year, but that doesn’t prevent it from winning the awards? Will games always just be fun?

Is fun exclusive from serious?

Think of the critically well received recent games? Grand Theft Auto IV was regarded as a landmark game due to the storytelling mechanisms, but that was still a ‘fun’ game. Bioshock was regarded as an innovative experience due to its narrative, and yet that game was still ‘fun.’

Games are unique in that you can’t entirely diverge from the fun aspects. At the end of the day, games aren’t that great at merely delivering a message. Instead, they’re only viable as an experience if the player is willing to continue.  Otherwise, it might as well be non-interactive.

Oh this? It's just my giant robot head. Oscar voters love that shit

It would be like if you had an Oscar bait film that had 10 minute Michael Bay interludes every 30 minutes or so just to keep you interested. Sure, there’s a message here, but there are also explosions! While Bioshock wasn’t really about killing the splicers but instead was about spinning a tale, there was a lot of splicer killing in there.

Games cannot survive, or at least nobody has figured out how to accomplish this yet, without being fun. Games don’t start with story. The best game designers generally have a concept but the early stages of game design are spent on finding a fun gameplay mechanic, not creating story.

While I think it would be great if the rest of the entertainment industry came inline with how videogames do things and started giving Best Picture awards to District 9 or Avatar, and literature awards to the most commercially entertaining books, I fear the opposite. As games mature, if they want to receive critical support from the greater community, they’re going to have to move away from fun.

Best Actor? Me? Is it my Cary Grant-esque good looks?

Even if you have a great message, if you wrap it up in a Bruckheimer package, people are going to view it differently from if it’s in a Scorsese package. Fun would seem to be antithetical to serious, and that is a shame.

Shigeru Miyamoto thinks games are all about fun, and that’s a great thing. He’s not going to be around forever, though, and I can only hope that the next generation of great game influence has the same world view.

Let’s talk about sex, baby. Let’s talk about you and me

Yes, this is a videogame sex line. You can choose what woman you want to play with, whether you want the encounter to be ‘flirty’ or ‘dirty,’ and what game you want to play. The current game choices include Halo 3, GTA IV, MW2 and Gears of War 2 as well as Yahoo Game classics such as chess and checkers etc.

This goes beyond the standard Lara Croft or Dead or Alive exploitation in games. This isn’t just a game that focuses on sex; this isn’t Leisure Suit Larry. Finally, somebody is using the communicative abilities of videogames for sex.

Dead or Alive: We thought this was as bad as it would ever get. We were wrong

While some of the women available for an encounter are of questionable quality at best, the reaction from the game community and general mass media community is confusing to me.

Why are most condemning gamers because of this? Sure, there are plenty of ‘oh my god, that’s so pathetic’ comments, but why is that the natural reaction? It’s not like people think the phone is a pathetic piece of technology despite the fact that there are tons of sex chat lines.

It’s not like people think the internet is embarrassing because of the way a number of people choose to use it. People have that reaction to gaming because they innately associate gaming with ‘loser.’

Scam alert! Russian trannies are trying to scam money out of you

Nearly 50% of US households have a videogame console, however. Pretty much everybody plays games in some way. It’s just like using a phone. I think the fact that game machines have finally graduated to ’sex chat hotline conduit’ suggests an increase in legitimacy.

Scam artists and sex fiends from Russia have finally realized that videogames are big, here to stay, and can be abused for money. We have hit the mainstream, ladies and gentlemen. Watch out.

A new game called Ribbon Hero attempts to turn learning and practicing Microsoft Office techniques into a game. This is just the first step: soon everything will use games to teach.

Games used to teach? Outrageous

Games used to teach in the past were fairly limited. We all probably used something to learn to type, either Mavis Beacon or Mario Teaches Typing or something along those lines. Sure, Mario Teaches Typing is far more of a game (and far less useful at teaching kids to type) but they were more useful than rote drills pressing various keys.

How many kids played Oregon Trail in lower school history? All I really took from that game is that dysentery is hilarious, never try to ford the river unless you have oxen to spare, and shooting buffalo is hilarious and the solution to every problem. I didn’t, however, learn much about US history.

Oregon Trail, like you've never seen it before. Bierstadt edition!

Games are used in the form of simulators to train the military and pilots. Games are used to teach learning disabled children exercises in focus. Games are used for many things, but for the most part they’re entertainment. Entertainment and work don’t traditionally mix.

Enter Ribbon Hero

Ribbon Hero aims to change all that. It’s a game that accumulates points when you do certain tasks in Microsoft Office. Did you just modify the formatting of that paragraph? 2 points! There are even challenges that you can perform specifically, most of which probably aren’t in your repertoire of skills. In this way, the game is teaching you what else the programs can accomplish.

Sure, this sounds kind of stupid at first. Who is going to play the Microsoft Office game when you can play Halo? This is obviously not for a leisure time situation. This is an extra boost when you’re doing work, or just need a second to focus on something other than the essay you’re writing.

Mario Teaches Typing ... poorly

Don’t underestimate the appeal of online leaderboards and competitiveness to encourage somebody to do something. A game like Farmville isn’t really all that different from learning Microsoft Word: you perform the same rote activities over and over, and your reward is a visual representation of progression, and competition with your friends.

80 million people play Farmville. Imagine how many are out there using Microsoft Word. You get higher points and a chance to compete against your friends through Ribbon Hero. Game designers know that they can tap into people’s natural desire for that feeling of achievement.

Is this man wearing a uniform to vacuum? Is he some sort of vacuuming cop? Or is this some weird sex game

Soon this could be implemented in many things. Maybe vacuuming turns into a game; I have to vacuum anyway, why not get some points out of it? Besides, you don’t want to be that guy that is made fun of all the time for having a disgusting apartment because his vacuuming score is the lowest.

It’s not something that’s going to happen this month, or this year. But it’s going to happen. Then we gamers will finally take over. So far we’re only taken over Korea.

A fan remade a portion of Mega Man 9 in HD, and while it’s identical to the original game (which was a retro throwback anyway) but with HD graphics, fans have not been kind to it. Critics say it removed the soul of the game. Are 8-bit graphics really that charming and expressive?

What is the appeal?

What is the appeal of the 8-bit graphics? Some of the criticism leveled at the HD remix is that ‘it looks worse despite being in HD,’ ‘the running animation looks really weird to me’ and ‘they sucked all the life and character from it.’

Let’s take these one at a time. The first is that it looks worse despite being in HD. What, exactly, does this mean? I guess what they’re trying to say is that they appreciated the blocky, jerky appearance of the original. Critics also mention the fact that colors were better in the bright and cartoony 8-bit days. Is it truly the pixellated sprites that make the difference vs. the HD version? Are they more expressive than their sharper counterparts?

The second criticism of the HD Remix is that the running looks strange. Take a look at the original mega man running animation. Yeah, that’s not strange at all.

Oh yeah - it's almost photorealistic. My mistake

Finally, critics claim the higher definition graphics suck the life from the game. What does this mean? The game has the same gameplay, and the same enemies, and the same everything except appearance. I thought graphics weren’t supposed to make a game and what really differentiated the Mega Man series was the great gameplay?

The source of all these points is that the HD version doesn’t tap into gamer nostalgia. Mega Man 9 and the recent Mega Man 10 were so well received because they were the first modern Mega Man games that just copied the style of the classic ones back when the franchise was successful. It harnessed that nostalgia that players had for the originals, and reminded them of the fun they had in the past with Mega Man.

The reason that the HD remix is disappointing to them is because this shares none of the nostalgia, and in the current context, Mega Man is simply a terrible game. Platforming games have gone in a different direction (think Ratchet & Clank or Super Mario Galaxy) because it’s far more fun. Without the nostalgia, this Mega Man offers very little.

The reason Mega Man 9 HD Remix failed is because this is how everybody thinks of HD Mega Man. Get it right!

Where is the 8-bit love?

Another reason 8-bit could be appealing is because it allows players to fill in the gaps in the graphics with their imationation. Mega Man used to run ‘properly’ to them because it was such a loose an unrealistic animation that they could interpret it any way they wanted. It was merely a signal that said ‘running.’

In the HD version, on the other hand, Mega Man is actually running in a fluid enough way that there is little room for interpretation. If your imagination of the manner in which Mega Man runs lines up with that version perfectly, great, but if not it’s going to look strange. It would be like a muscular Unreal Engine 3 version of Mario in new games; it just wouldn’t look right.

Artist renditions of 8-bit graphics are accepted because we understand it's merely one person's interpretation of the characters; once they're official, however, watch out. Fanboy backlash

The same thing can be said of the character portraits. In the old game, they were clearly vague and cartoony and I’m sure players imagined some of the bosses to be complicated robots. When you smooth out the graphics and put everything into HD, however, and they’re still just simple and bizarre foes, things get a little strange. The limitations on Galaxy Man in HD could previously be attributed to simplified graphics when to Mega Man he was a sophisticated foe; in HD he merely looks like an idiot.

There are many things to like about 8-bit graphics, but chief among them is nostalgia and room for imagination.

Is the flaw with the HD remix of Mega Man 9 really in the game, or is it in ourselves? Something to ponder. Until next time, be good to yourselves, and each other.*

* Not a serious conclusion to the article (for the inevitable flame responses)

PSN likes to push that it offers greater value because there’s no subscription fee. Is $5/month really that crippling? Is the worse functionality offered by PSN worth the savings? Hardly.

Missing the forest for the trees

Xbox charges a $5/month fee, or various packages if you sign up for longer periods of time such as $40/year, and there are also tiered subscription packages. Sony has long held that their PSN offering is much more valuable because it’s free.

Are you really going to care about paying the equivalent of 2/3 of a game for a better online experience for the year? Most gamers purchase 6-7 games per year for their console, so you’re talking about a required 10% increase in game experience quality on Xbox Live vs. PSN to repay that difference.

The real reason Xbox is better? Ground FX

PSN has come a long way from its early years. The store front is about comparable to Xbox Live. The internet functionality is about the same (although who really cares or uses a console for that?). The friends list is comparable.

PSN falls short in two specific areas: voice chat and developer support.

Nobody has a mic?

Cooperative has come into its own in the past 5 years with the expansion of online console functionality. While it’s possible to execute well in free for all deathmatch without voice chat, and even to do some team deathmatch without voice chat, it’s very difficult to coordinate with other players online without being able to speak to them.

On a computer you can type messages if you’re fast enough. On a console you merely have to sit silently. I was playing Borderlands for the first time online with a friend and we were using Skype to chat back and forth because neither of us had a PS3 mic. It was a revelation. I had given up on Borderlands other than in solo play because it was simply too hard to play with everybody when we were all silent. Being able to speak changed all that.

I know PS3 has their own proprietary mic although functionality is spotty at best and it’s horrifically uncomfortable. In addition, it’s ridiculous to have to listen to either a mic or the game sound. Turtle Beach is a hugely influential gaming headset manufacturer, and until recently they didn’t even offer a unified PS3 voice chat and sound headset. The demand simply wasn’t there, because voice chat functionality on the PS3 is laughable.

I'm jealous of all these Trials HD players. Sure, I can play it on the PC via Steam, but the controls are horse balls

PS3 simply falls short compared to Xbox in the voice chat department, and all the PSN store front changes or improvements in PS1 offerings online aren’t going to close the gap with Xbox Live. This is one of the few areas where I’m jealous of Xbox owners.

Developer support

The other difference where Xbox Live really wins vs. PSN is in developer support. Think back as recently as this past summer where the Summer of Arcade was happening on Xbox Live. Not only were there some great offerings like Trials HD, Splosion Man and even Shadow Complex, one of the most highly regarded games of the year.

I chose a PS3 over an Xbox because  I prefer the exclusives. I like Ratchet & Clank, God of War, Uncharted and InFamous over Gears of War and Halo. That being said, had I known the online functionality gap pre-purchase, I might have changed my mind.

Shadow Complex: Not just online game of the year, but contender for overall game of the year. Sadly Xbox only ...

PSN is making vast improvements, they’re just not in the areas that count. They need to step up their voice support and create some incentives to go into the store beyond Critter Crunch to really close the gap. They claim they have a value offering. Sure, it’s cheaper, but is cheap necessarily representative of value?

You know what’s also cheaper than PS3? Not buying a PS3.

Why are so many upset, then, when Ubisoft introduces DRM that requires you be online for game saves? Why are so many upset when there are delays to updates, or the Playstation Network goes down, or World of Warcraft server maintenance takes slightly longer than expected? Sure it’s inconvenient, but there are as many if not more benefits to having game services move online than there are drawbacks. Why fight it conceptually?

The outrage of being online

The reason so many are upset about the new Ubisoft DRM that requires online for game saves and authentication is two fold: what if your internet connection fails and you lose some progress in a game, and what happens in the future when they take down those servers and you can’t play a single player game?

My response: seriously? Some gamers were quoting power outages as their fear for their internet connection. I think you have bigger problems than your internet connection losing their servers when the power goes down such as your computer shutting down. I only know from my experience, but my internet fails maybe once every couple months, and if I lose 5-10 minutes of gaming since the last autosave I’m not going to be permanently traumatized.

In addition, there are very few games that couldn’t be played because the authentication or multiplayer servers were offline when people wanted to play them simply because years after a game’s release there is a very small community remaining. The only one that comes to mind is Halo 2 and that was because it was so stunningly popular. This is not going to be a common problem, but even if it is I’m sure there will be a patch to allow you to play without authentication servers. Very little revenue is generated by games years or decades after release so this wouldn’t be a huge profit hit for Ubisoft.

Want to know why your Xbox Live friends list can only go to 100 people? You now know who to blame

In addition, the reason these changes are being made on the PC is because there is so much piracy. I’m sure it will be a huge imposition on the user to download an authentication server crack when you want to play a decade after initial release.

The benefits of being online?

Removing the obvious benefits such as online multiplayer, game fixing updates and digital distribution, there are subtler updates to being online all the time. Services like Steam can be developed, which add massive convenience to the consumer.

I just switched to a new computer and wanted to continue to play Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. I didn’t have to find my discs again, or find those authentication CD Key stickers on the DVD jewel cases. I just downloaded the free Steam client, logged into my account and went to a movie. When I returned, they were all downloaded and installed and ready to go.

The convenience Steam offers is incredible. Goodbye DVDs, we hardly knew ye

In addition, the prevalence of cross game chat has made finding games and discussing them with friends even easier. You can chat to any Steam user while in any Steam game without leaving. The same thing is being done for the new Battle.net for Starcraft. You can plan a game or chat with a friend extremely easily even while playing another game. This is incredible convenience that wasn’t available in the past.

Finally, being always online allows for out of game experiences such as World of Warcraft’s armory and auction house. You can now see your character when you’re not even at your computer. Not only that, but you can trade through the auction house from your mobile device. This is incredible functionality and the slight drawback from the occasional lost connection is more than worth it.

I understand being annoyed that a game is DX10 only and therefore doesn’t support Windows XP despite that being the OS of choice for over 40% of the gaming community. Don’t fight an obvious and well established trend though. Pretty soon it will be unusual for a developer to assume you might be playing without an internet connection. All computers capable of playing games have a constant connection. Mobile devices now primarily have wireless connections and soon that will be absolute.

DX10 only? Outrageous

A developer can improve the gaming experience with the information and easy access that online gives them in regard to their player community. It’s ok to complain about internet lapses much as it is ok to complain about flight delays. But don’t say that you’re never going to fly again because you sat on the runway for a couple hours. If Ubisoft makes good games, you’re going to play them, because this online only policy is merely them getting ahead of the curve.

Heavy Rain is a unique product that pushes games in a direction that few have attempted in the past decade. Where does ‘experience’ end, however, and ‘game’ begin?

What counts as interactivity?

If you’re not familiar with Heavy Rain, take a quick look at this video. The game is essentially a series of conversations and gestural inputs that mimic what the character is doing on-screen.

If your character is brushing their teeth, you have to shake the controller back and forth to mimic the teeth-brushing motion. If you’re punching somebody in the face, you might move the analog stick to match a punching motion. You also choose what dialogue options you take with various characters.

Heavy Rain has ... yes ... rain

All of these inputs combine to tell a story. Although this sounds like most RPG games, there is a critical difference: you don’t have any input on what happens. Sure, you have to perform the teeth-brushing motion for your character to brush their teeth, but either you do it or they’re just going to sit there and wait for you to do it. The closest Heavy Rain comes to being interactive is when it allows you to control in which direction you’re walking.

The problem with all of this is 1) FMV games have been done before (Night Trap) and are largely terrible, and 2) There is no input on the outcome of the game. Sure, there are lots of linear games, but at least you’re allowed to fail. In Heavy Rain even if you are in a fight and you miss every QTE and get punched a billion times, you still succeed (you just end up with a few more bruises).

If you are given the facade of choice, but every time you choose what the game doesn’t want you to do it says ‘you didn’t really mean that right?’ is that really interactivity?

Night Trap: this looks high budget. So bad I didn't even care about horribly cropping the image

To be completely fair, the game hasn’t come out yet and there are situations where you can let a character die, changing the story. I’m sure there is more to it than some have suggested from previews and possibly I’m being unfair.

In addition, there are games like the Lego series that are for children where you’re not allowed to die; death merely slows down your progress, there is no actual failure. It’s difficult to choose what is encompassed in the ‘game’ definition.

Different demographic

I feel like the previous segment is me being hypocritical. I’m a big proponent of mixing genres in games, why not mix across genres? What’s wrong with adding a little interactivity to films?

Potentially there’s an entire audience out there that likes the slight interactive element in games but doesn’t really want to commit to learning a full control scheme. Maybe they just want to watch a fun story and feel like they’re a little bit involved.

This could easily be a situation where I’m not the target demographic. There’s a reason I don’t play Farmville (mostly because I have no Facebook friends) and it has 80 million users.

Farmville: This shit has 80 million users? Seriously? What's wrong with you people

I will be very interested to see the reception that Heavy Rain receives from the gaming public in terms of sales. Is this going to be a critical success (already looking that way) and a commercial flop, like most games from Quantic Dreams, or is this going to resurrect new FMV games?

Night Trap appeared to be the final nail in the coffin, but maybe everybody who played that is old enough now that they’ve died off.