For all things, there is an end, and last night, it was the ending of City of Heroes.
It was a wild and difficult night. I sit here, and try to think of how to describe the emotions of the night, but really, I can't. There just aren't really words for it. A joy and sadness mixed together. The joy of one last run with friends, the joy of playing a well loved game... but the inescapable sadness born of the fact that it was truly the last time.
The little things. Knowing that never again will there be another epic propel-created junkpile. Knowing that you'll never get to gut another spawn with a blaster's nuke. (At least in the stuff I've played, there really is not single spasm of joyous destruction that quite matches Build Up-Aim-Nuke).
Yet, and as much as I hate it, the last emotion, and the one that built up since then... anger.
In many ways, I get the decision. I know that despite how much City of Heroes has been improving the last few years (better writing, better gameplay and the like), the income of the game has not been holding up. Even the change to the promised land of free to play only arrested the decline. I get all that, understand it, and truly, can accept it.
What has upset me though is the way that NCSoft has truly devalued what the things they had. They did it when they suddenly put everyone on a 90 day notice, including all the staff who had built the game. These people had done good work, impressive work and yet there they were on the chopping block. They weren't moved to new products, where they could take their skill, passion and experience. They were simply let go. Yes, I'm sure the got a generous severence package, but even at that, it was only a beginning.
I watched the attempts to save the game with a fair bit of cynicism. I didn't figure it world work, but the wall of utter silence that came from NCSoft was truly disheartening. At one point, their only real statement was "please don't use this email address."
Last night though was the bit that really pushed me over the top. We got notices of the impending end (Virtue crashed shortly after the 10 minute warning in fact), but what I didn't hear was "thanks for everything" from NCSoft.
That's the thing, the Devs, CMs and the like? Positron, War Witch and Hit Streak and all the others? They said thank you to the fans many times in the last three months (and the fans said it to them). They were truly a part of the CoH community. They were there to the end, despite not being "official" any more.
Corporate NCSoft though? They showed no real appreciation for the community, or of the value of the community. Once their decision was made, they didn't engage the people who didn't want to see the game die. They didn't try to engage the crowds who were in game for one last memory.
The final blow though? Literally within 5 minutes of the servers going down... the CoH Community Forms... gone. The CoH Twitter... gone. The CoH facebook... gone. There could not be even a spare moment for people to use those places to enjoy their last memories, to connect and meet. To try to hold one last little moment. Everything that was CoH had to be sent to a dark oblivion, forgotten. Almost as if NCSoft was ashamed of the game.
All MMOs will come to an end sooner or later. The communities that have built around them will have to face this day. I can only hope that when those times come, the companies involved show more respect for those communities, and make it clear that they value those communities.
I'm sure the momentary anger will pass, and in time, the good memories will be dominate. CoH was truly a good run in so many ways, I cannot list them all.
Farewell CoH.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
How does one say goodbye to a game?
Tonight's the night.
Who knows how many people have passed through City of Heroes over the years of its existance, but tonight marks the point where it all becomes nothing more than a memory.
It's kind of funny in a way. Once upon a time, most people's communities lasted a lifetime. They were born in a town and stayed there. They went to the same Church from birth to death. Communities were one of the bedrocks of life.
How times have changed. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I doubt even half thirty-somethings live in the town they graduated High School in (much less the town they were born in...) We are a culture of constant change, and all of those touchstones are showing that as well (even the family, with the constant morphing brought on by divorce, remarriage, blended families and the like)
Online communities are no different. I can't even begin to think how many different online communities I have been in. Early chat rooms, IRC chats, wargame groups and on it went, until I came to CoH.
The thing is, in the MMO space, CoH was actually fairly old. Oh, it wasn't the oldest (UO and EQ have that spot taken), but it in today's change-a-minute world, it was certainly considered one of the "old men" of the genre.
Think about that for a moment, City of Heroes was about 8.5 years old. Even more, think about how many tell those hurt by the decision to kill CoH "oh, get over that old game, its day is past" (usually said rather less kindly for that matter). One of the older communities in the MMO space is being put to death because 8.5 years is "too old".
That is the new way of our world. Communities come, and communities go. The bonds built in them don't entirely shatter. I'm still in contact with a few people from my very first community online. I'm sure I'll keep in contact with a number of City players in the future too. Yet, our frame of reference will never be the same. It will not be consigned to the "good old days".
The odd thing is, I haven't truly been part of the community for a while now. For a variety of reasons (simple burnout, wounds from the wars of running a supergroup and the like), I've been largely detached from the game. Yet, it was always there. I could go in, and start in with the bad puns and jokes. I knew it was there when the mood hit, when the need hit.
Because of that, I'm not quite as torn by this as many of my friends are. I'd already detached, already gone through the grief process to a certain extent already.
Yet, there are things that it does hurt to realize... they will never happen again.
-The time a couple months ago where some... trigger in the way a mission went led both my character, and a friend's character to start humming ABBA's "Dancing Queen" at nearly the same second...
- The sheer power of running as a high tier Grav/Energy Dom through Freaks
- The groans in global channels as one of my legendary puns goes out.
Oh, many of those things will happen again, in other places, in other games, even with some of the same people... and hopefully those memories will be just as special in their own way.
Yet, it's a matter of knowing that... my pile of CoH memories will be complete in a few short hours.
To all those who were part of those memories, good or bad, I thank you.
God's Protect!
Who knows how many people have passed through City of Heroes over the years of its existance, but tonight marks the point where it all becomes nothing more than a memory.
It's kind of funny in a way. Once upon a time, most people's communities lasted a lifetime. They were born in a town and stayed there. They went to the same Church from birth to death. Communities were one of the bedrocks of life.
How times have changed. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I doubt even half thirty-somethings live in the town they graduated High School in (much less the town they were born in...) We are a culture of constant change, and all of those touchstones are showing that as well (even the family, with the constant morphing brought on by divorce, remarriage, blended families and the like)
Online communities are no different. I can't even begin to think how many different online communities I have been in. Early chat rooms, IRC chats, wargame groups and on it went, until I came to CoH.
The thing is, in the MMO space, CoH was actually fairly old. Oh, it wasn't the oldest (UO and EQ have that spot taken), but it in today's change-a-minute world, it was certainly considered one of the "old men" of the genre.
Think about that for a moment, City of Heroes was about 8.5 years old. Even more, think about how many tell those hurt by the decision to kill CoH "oh, get over that old game, its day is past" (usually said rather less kindly for that matter). One of the older communities in the MMO space is being put to death because 8.5 years is "too old".
That is the new way of our world. Communities come, and communities go. The bonds built in them don't entirely shatter. I'm still in contact with a few people from my very first community online. I'm sure I'll keep in contact with a number of City players in the future too. Yet, our frame of reference will never be the same. It will not be consigned to the "good old days".
The odd thing is, I haven't truly been part of the community for a while now. For a variety of reasons (simple burnout, wounds from the wars of running a supergroup and the like), I've been largely detached from the game. Yet, it was always there. I could go in, and start in with the bad puns and jokes. I knew it was there when the mood hit, when the need hit.
Because of that, I'm not quite as torn by this as many of my friends are. I'd already detached, already gone through the grief process to a certain extent already.
Yet, there are things that it does hurt to realize... they will never happen again.
-The time a couple months ago where some... trigger in the way a mission went led both my character, and a friend's character to start humming ABBA's "Dancing Queen" at nearly the same second...
- The sheer power of running as a high tier Grav/Energy Dom through Freaks
- The groans in global channels as one of my legendary puns goes out.
Oh, many of those things will happen again, in other places, in other games, even with some of the same people... and hopefully those memories will be just as special in their own way.
Yet, it's a matter of knowing that... my pile of CoH memories will be complete in a few short hours.
To all those who were part of those memories, good or bad, I thank you.
God's Protect!
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Into the Sunset a City goes
It's taken me the better part of a day to fully digest the news of City of Heroes impending shutdown. It's honestly odd in a way. I saw the signs, but simply didn't put 2+2 together. Even though I spend little time in CoH any more, I have still watched NCSoft's corporate earnings reports with considerable interest, largely to see how CoH has been doing for them.
The simple truth is, not well. Players have assumed that things are going great guns, but that's not really been the truth. Earnings on the game have been flat or even declining since about the time Going Rogue came out. That's right, if I read the numbers right, Freedom (and free to play) did little, other than possibly arresting the decline.
I'd noted the numbers, been troubled by them, but never really realized that the game's life was on the line. I guess deep down I assumed that at worst, they'd dump the game into maintenance mode and go on. It seems that is not NCSoft's way though. The statements I read didn't really make clear if the game itself was profitable (it lists revenues, but not costs). If it was though, the profit was very marginal.
It has been interesting to watch players reactions in lots of ways though. It seems that many players forget that CoH and the American market overall are really a very small part of NCSoft. Last quarter, North America brought in 4% of their total revenue. We'll have to see how Guild Wars 2 does, but at this point, I'd not be shocked to see NCSoft pull entirely out of the western market if GW2 struggles.
Yet, while I comprehend the business decision, and even think that it may well make sense from a corporate suit point of view, that still leaves the deeper, more profound side of things, at least to players.
In the MMO world, communities are always in a state of flux. People come in, they leave for new games. Guilds and groups have members who have been there since launch day, but many of the old timers have moved on and away. Yet, even with all that shuffling and change, there is still that sense of community. You return to a game and see familiar names (if perhaps not as many as you would like).
We've come to expect that level of permanance. This is the "natural disaster" of the online community world though. It's the earthquake or volcano. The decision to end a game, and incidentally gut the community.
Oh, the individual connections that people have made will go on, and certain subgroups of the community will find a way to keep in touch (forming up in a new game, using forums or social media)... but as a whole, the community of CoH has 3 months to live. Then the doom.
The suits that make these kind of decisions? To them community isn't really important. They may see it as an important marketing tool, to increase retention and bring in new players by word of mouth, but when the red and black numbers say it is time to close down, that community isn't even a single thought. (Note, I'm not saying this about the devs and community managers and reps who are in the end a part of the community. I'm talking about the people higher up who made the decision.)
Now, in the end, NCSoft is a business, and their job is the bottom line, and as much as we'd like to, we can't evicerate them for treating this as a business decision. (Of course, the way they did it, the sudden announcement, the "get out today" treatment of Paragon Studios is callous and reflects badly on them, but that's another issue).
What does that say about online communities though? We've come to expect a level of permanance, but really, that exists at the whim of the few. Any MMO game, be it WoW, SL, SW:TOR or whatever has Poe's swinging axe above their head. For some (like WoW), that axe is a distant threat, but even there, it does exist.
Truly a sad day for CoH players, and really for anyone who has been in a MMO community for an extended period. It is a harsh reminder that our communities are impermament and always threatened.
I'm getting too maudlin here I think. It's time to cut this off. I'll probably share some memories in time, but not right now I think.
The simple truth is, not well. Players have assumed that things are going great guns, but that's not really been the truth. Earnings on the game have been flat or even declining since about the time Going Rogue came out. That's right, if I read the numbers right, Freedom (and free to play) did little, other than possibly arresting the decline.
I'd noted the numbers, been troubled by them, but never really realized that the game's life was on the line. I guess deep down I assumed that at worst, they'd dump the game into maintenance mode and go on. It seems that is not NCSoft's way though. The statements I read didn't really make clear if the game itself was profitable (it lists revenues, but not costs). If it was though, the profit was very marginal.
It has been interesting to watch players reactions in lots of ways though. It seems that many players forget that CoH and the American market overall are really a very small part of NCSoft. Last quarter, North America brought in 4% of their total revenue. We'll have to see how Guild Wars 2 does, but at this point, I'd not be shocked to see NCSoft pull entirely out of the western market if GW2 struggles.
Yet, while I comprehend the business decision, and even think that it may well make sense from a corporate suit point of view, that still leaves the deeper, more profound side of things, at least to players.
In the MMO world, communities are always in a state of flux. People come in, they leave for new games. Guilds and groups have members who have been there since launch day, but many of the old timers have moved on and away. Yet, even with all that shuffling and change, there is still that sense of community. You return to a game and see familiar names (if perhaps not as many as you would like).
We've come to expect that level of permanance. This is the "natural disaster" of the online community world though. It's the earthquake or volcano. The decision to end a game, and incidentally gut the community.
Oh, the individual connections that people have made will go on, and certain subgroups of the community will find a way to keep in touch (forming up in a new game, using forums or social media)... but as a whole, the community of CoH has 3 months to live. Then the doom.
The suits that make these kind of decisions? To them community isn't really important. They may see it as an important marketing tool, to increase retention and bring in new players by word of mouth, but when the red and black numbers say it is time to close down, that community isn't even a single thought. (Note, I'm not saying this about the devs and community managers and reps who are in the end a part of the community. I'm talking about the people higher up who made the decision.)
Now, in the end, NCSoft is a business, and their job is the bottom line, and as much as we'd like to, we can't evicerate them for treating this as a business decision. (Of course, the way they did it, the sudden announcement, the "get out today" treatment of Paragon Studios is callous and reflects badly on them, but that's another issue).
What does that say about online communities though? We've come to expect a level of permanance, but really, that exists at the whim of the few. Any MMO game, be it WoW, SL, SW:TOR or whatever has Poe's swinging axe above their head. For some (like WoW), that axe is a distant threat, but even there, it does exist.
Truly a sad day for CoH players, and really for anyone who has been in a MMO community for an extended period. It is a harsh reminder that our communities are impermament and always threatened.
I'm getting too maudlin here I think. It's time to cut this off. I'll probably share some memories in time, but not right now I think.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
The Dark Knight and Theological Anthropology
One of the reasons I like comic books is that they are not afraid to deal with some very difficult and touchy issues. People might say that comics are "for children" but on the other hand, comics and fantasy novels are a place where authors truly wrestle with the nature of good and evil.
Because of that, comics and comic book movies can at times be remarkably theological. Superman Returns certainly was. Dark Knight Rises is also. The difference though is this. SR was playing around with issues of the nature of God, where Superman becomes a Christ analogue (Human/Kryptonian nature, as opposed to Human/Divine). It also questions the nature of salvation, and if we need salvation (Lois' editorial asking if the world needs Superman).
DKR though? It's firmly rooted in anthropology. Now, normally, when people say anthropology, they think of the formal academic discipline, and maybe think of Lucy or the Leakey's. In terms of theology though, it is the theology of the nature of mankind. Who is man? What is he? What does it mean to be created "in the image of God"?
DKR (and indeed all the Dark Knight Trilogy) dives into the deep end of the pool in regards to "what is the nature of mankind" Consider the situation in the beginning. The city is hopelessy corrupt. The police are venal and generally worthless, the streets are dangerous. There is a sense that Ras al'Ghul is right in wanting to purge the city from the face of the earth.
That basic corruption, the foulness of the city of Gotham continues into the second movie. The boat scene is maybe the best example of it, where so many of the fine "upstanding" members of the city are willing to sell others down the river, for the simple chance to survive.
Yet, in the third movie, something begins to happen. There is a change, subtle at first, but it grows. Yes, the city is as venal as ever. It has embraced the glorious lie of the legacy of Harvey Dent. Deputy Commissioner Foley is a prime example of this. He abandons the chase of a very nasty bunch of robbers in order to chase after the glory of capturing the Batman. He's manuevering, scheming, waiting for the day that he can become the commissioner.
Yet, something has begun to change. The change was begun in the first movie, when Batman sets himself up as everyman. As a symbol of one who stands against the chaos, the corruption, the fallenness of the city. That symbol begins to grow. We see more hints of a level of "decency" in the people of Gotham. The prisoners on the boat in DK. Then the rise of the Police, and the redemption of Commissioner Foley. The burning symbol on the bridge marks the turn. We had seen hints of it already (Officer Blake especially), but the city rises and shows courage in place of venal cowardice. It shows resilance instead of surrender. It fights on, and it wins. The victory was not that of Batman alone. Without Selina, without Jim Gordon, without Blake, indeed, without Foley? There is no victory.
That is the view of human nature in the movie.
That is a very common view in our world today for that matter. There is more good than evil, that in the end, good men will win out. It is comforting, it is in some ways true, but in other ways false though.
Theological anthropology begins with the question "what is man?" The answer is complex and more than I care to get into in a simple blog post, but a key part of that answer begins in a phrase we use in Church. At the time we confess our sins, we use the phrase "I am by nature sinful and unclean." That is what we speak of as Original Sin. Original Sin is one of those things that people don't fully understand, because it offends them. Yet, any look at the world reaffirms it in no uncertain terms. Every person is corrupt, every person is sinful. It goes far beyond "pobody's nerfect" or some such. It is the fact that within all of us, there lives evil and corruption. There lives ego and anger and self-centeredness. It is truly a part of the human condition.
This truth is why Gotham is what it is. Is the city venal and corrupt? Of course it is. If you build a house of rotted bricks, the house will be rotten. Whatever your base materials are will determine what you build. This is as true in movies as it is in the "real world". All cultures are broken, venal, corrupt. Why? Because they are all made by broken, venal and corrupt humanity. The exact expressions of that corruption may vary from society to society, but it is always there. (For instance, US society is violent, hyper-individualistic to the point of under-valueing other people, materialistic...)
Yet, there remains a certain decency in people. In theology, it's what we call civil righteousness. People can care for one another, want to work for the larger good. It's the thing that leads firemen to dive into burning buildings, what leads a soldier to dive on a grenade, what leads a parent to work twelve hour days to help a child go to college. Batman, Jim Gordon, Selina Kyle and the others are all expressions of this.
Now, if you want to dig into the theology of salvation, you see that there is a distinct and profound difference between righteousness and civil righteousness. For even the best deeds of civil righteousness are tainted by the corruption within us. To do the acts of civil righteousness does not save. Yet, they are indeed important, vital for society. But now we are heading back to Superman Returns, for we are once again approaching the question of "Does the world really need a superman?" Or, to get away from the analogy, does the world need a savior? I think my answer to that question is obvious. For even seeing the good that civil righteousness can do, that road remains a dead end, a hopeless end. Mankind cannot rise to good. Good must come to mankind.
Because of that, comics and comic book movies can at times be remarkably theological. Superman Returns certainly was. Dark Knight Rises is also. The difference though is this. SR was playing around with issues of the nature of God, where Superman becomes a Christ analogue (Human/Kryptonian nature, as opposed to Human/Divine). It also questions the nature of salvation, and if we need salvation (Lois' editorial asking if the world needs Superman).
DKR though? It's firmly rooted in anthropology. Now, normally, when people say anthropology, they think of the formal academic discipline, and maybe think of Lucy or the Leakey's. In terms of theology though, it is the theology of the nature of mankind. Who is man? What is he? What does it mean to be created "in the image of God"?
DKR (and indeed all the Dark Knight Trilogy) dives into the deep end of the pool in regards to "what is the nature of mankind" Consider the situation in the beginning. The city is hopelessy corrupt. The police are venal and generally worthless, the streets are dangerous. There is a sense that Ras al'Ghul is right in wanting to purge the city from the face of the earth.
That basic corruption, the foulness of the city of Gotham continues into the second movie. The boat scene is maybe the best example of it, where so many of the fine "upstanding" members of the city are willing to sell others down the river, for the simple chance to survive.
Yet, in the third movie, something begins to happen. There is a change, subtle at first, but it grows. Yes, the city is as venal as ever. It has embraced the glorious lie of the legacy of Harvey Dent. Deputy Commissioner Foley is a prime example of this. He abandons the chase of a very nasty bunch of robbers in order to chase after the glory of capturing the Batman. He's manuevering, scheming, waiting for the day that he can become the commissioner.
Yet, something has begun to change. The change was begun in the first movie, when Batman sets himself up as everyman. As a symbol of one who stands against the chaos, the corruption, the fallenness of the city. That symbol begins to grow. We see more hints of a level of "decency" in the people of Gotham. The prisoners on the boat in DK. Then the rise of the Police, and the redemption of Commissioner Foley. The burning symbol on the bridge marks the turn. We had seen hints of it already (Officer Blake especially), but the city rises and shows courage in place of venal cowardice. It shows resilance instead of surrender. It fights on, and it wins. The victory was not that of Batman alone. Without Selina, without Jim Gordon, without Blake, indeed, without Foley? There is no victory.
That is the view of human nature in the movie.
That is a very common view in our world today for that matter. There is more good than evil, that in the end, good men will win out. It is comforting, it is in some ways true, but in other ways false though.
Theological anthropology begins with the question "what is man?" The answer is complex and more than I care to get into in a simple blog post, but a key part of that answer begins in a phrase we use in Church. At the time we confess our sins, we use the phrase "I am by nature sinful and unclean." That is what we speak of as Original Sin. Original Sin is one of those things that people don't fully understand, because it offends them. Yet, any look at the world reaffirms it in no uncertain terms. Every person is corrupt, every person is sinful. It goes far beyond "pobody's nerfect" or some such. It is the fact that within all of us, there lives evil and corruption. There lives ego and anger and self-centeredness. It is truly a part of the human condition.
This truth is why Gotham is what it is. Is the city venal and corrupt? Of course it is. If you build a house of rotted bricks, the house will be rotten. Whatever your base materials are will determine what you build. This is as true in movies as it is in the "real world". All cultures are broken, venal, corrupt. Why? Because they are all made by broken, venal and corrupt humanity. The exact expressions of that corruption may vary from society to society, but it is always there. (For instance, US society is violent, hyper-individualistic to the point of under-valueing other people, materialistic...)
Yet, there remains a certain decency in people. In theology, it's what we call civil righteousness. People can care for one another, want to work for the larger good. It's the thing that leads firemen to dive into burning buildings, what leads a soldier to dive on a grenade, what leads a parent to work twelve hour days to help a child go to college. Batman, Jim Gordon, Selina Kyle and the others are all expressions of this.
Now, if you want to dig into the theology of salvation, you see that there is a distinct and profound difference between righteousness and civil righteousness. For even the best deeds of civil righteousness are tainted by the corruption within us. To do the acts of civil righteousness does not save. Yet, they are indeed important, vital for society. But now we are heading back to Superman Returns, for we are once again approaching the question of "Does the world really need a superman?" Or, to get away from the analogy, does the world need a savior? I think my answer to that question is obvious. For even seeing the good that civil righteousness can do, that road remains a dead end, a hopeless end. Mankind cannot rise to good. Good must come to mankind.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Dark Knight Rises
I just got home from Dark Knight Rises, and my first impressions are going to be more or less off the cuff here. (Spoilers abound. If you don't want, stop reading) In short, "wow". I was on the edge of my seat pretty much the entire movie. It is to my mind, by a fair margin, the best of the three Nolan movies.
Now, part of that is that I feel that Ledger's Joker is badly overrated (a discussion for another time). That said, even though the movie was closing in on three hours, it didn't feel it at all to me. It had a powerful focus and held to it.
Is it a better movie than the Avengers? No, but they are very different. In fact, comparing the movies really does show that those differences. Avengers is much more "old school" and just plain fun. A good ol beat em up. Yeah, the characters have their moments of introspection, but mostly, it's just a fun adventure. DKR? It is intense, just like the other 2 Nolan movies. It's much more likely to leave you emotionally exhausted than Avengers ever will be.
The continuing cast (Bale, Oldman, Freeman and Caine) were their usual strong self. I think that Hathaway did extremely well in her role as well. I don't think she brought the sheer sultry to the role that Pfeiffer did, but she was very good, and truly did bring out Selina's conflicted antihero nature. Gordon-Levitt was outstanding as Officer Blake. A fantastic job by someone I mostly remember from a sitcom I never really liked.
This movie will never be able to be separated from what happened in Aurora, and it shouldn't be either. In a deep and profound way, what we are seeing is the conflict that is deep within the movies playing itself out in very real and tragic form.
Why did the monster do what he did? I'm not about to play internet shrink here, but the fact that he did it where he did, the way he did does lead one down certain trains of thought.
The three movies do work with certain continuing themes. One of them is the corruption and hypocrisy of society. The darkness of Gotham, and what it has unleashed on the world is what Ras wanted to avenge back in the first movie, and this final movie returns to that theme. In reading Gordon's speech to the world, Bane highlighted that hypocrisy, even as he gave a false and lying freedom. Those movies of course are sandwiched around chaos unleashed, that is to say, the Joker. The Joker who tried to show the utter dog eat dog nature of this world, yet was foiled by a bunch of convicts (of all things).
Yet, that's the flip side of the movie. Even in the darkness of society, the utter corruption, the greed and avarice, the anger and hatred, there remains a glimmer of hope. A hope born of people who stand against that tide.
That hope begins of course, with Batman himself. In the first movie though, he has very few real allies. His inner circle (Alfred, Lucius, Rachel) and then the one honest cop (Jim Gordon). That circle doesn't really grow much in the second movie, but in the third? It grows profoundly.
The movie isn't the story of one man who stood against the darkness, but men and women who risked everything to do so. Batman may have been the pointman for it, and the inspiration, but he was not alone. Selina, Officer Blake, Deputy Commisioner Foley, the assembled police department.
The same police department that was hopelessly venal and corrupt in the first movie. When the hour came, they stood, they fought. They charged into the first outgunned, and they fought.
The inspiration that came from the symbol of the Batman has clearly grown through the movies, to the point that the forces of Order in Gotham are ready to give and sacrifice all.
The monster in Aurora? He patterned himself after chaos. He did his best to create chaos, and in a time and place, he succeeded. Yet, he stands out because what he did was so monstrous. He brought horror into the world, but in doing so, his evil is highlighted against the compassion and care of so many others. Instead of bringing down society, he will in the end show how strong it truly can be.
There is more that I can say, and given some time and awakeness, I may get into the theology of the movie. If Superman Returns played with the theology of grace, salvation and the nature of God, DKR is firmly rooted in anthropology (the theological version, though I'm sure the more familiar one would also have a great deal to say).
Now, part of that is that I feel that Ledger's Joker is badly overrated (a discussion for another time). That said, even though the movie was closing in on three hours, it didn't feel it at all to me. It had a powerful focus and held to it.
Is it a better movie than the Avengers? No, but they are very different. In fact, comparing the movies really does show that those differences. Avengers is much more "old school" and just plain fun. A good ol beat em up. Yeah, the characters have their moments of introspection, but mostly, it's just a fun adventure. DKR? It is intense, just like the other 2 Nolan movies. It's much more likely to leave you emotionally exhausted than Avengers ever will be.
The continuing cast (Bale, Oldman, Freeman and Caine) were their usual strong self. I think that Hathaway did extremely well in her role as well. I don't think she brought the sheer sultry to the role that Pfeiffer did, but she was very good, and truly did bring out Selina's conflicted antihero nature. Gordon-Levitt was outstanding as Officer Blake. A fantastic job by someone I mostly remember from a sitcom I never really liked.
This movie will never be able to be separated from what happened in Aurora, and it shouldn't be either. In a deep and profound way, what we are seeing is the conflict that is deep within the movies playing itself out in very real and tragic form.
Why did the monster do what he did? I'm not about to play internet shrink here, but the fact that he did it where he did, the way he did does lead one down certain trains of thought.
The three movies do work with certain continuing themes. One of them is the corruption and hypocrisy of society. The darkness of Gotham, and what it has unleashed on the world is what Ras wanted to avenge back in the first movie, and this final movie returns to that theme. In reading Gordon's speech to the world, Bane highlighted that hypocrisy, even as he gave a false and lying freedom. Those movies of course are sandwiched around chaos unleashed, that is to say, the Joker. The Joker who tried to show the utter dog eat dog nature of this world, yet was foiled by a bunch of convicts (of all things).
Yet, that's the flip side of the movie. Even in the darkness of society, the utter corruption, the greed and avarice, the anger and hatred, there remains a glimmer of hope. A hope born of people who stand against that tide.
That hope begins of course, with Batman himself. In the first movie though, he has very few real allies. His inner circle (Alfred, Lucius, Rachel) and then the one honest cop (Jim Gordon). That circle doesn't really grow much in the second movie, but in the third? It grows profoundly.
The movie isn't the story of one man who stood against the darkness, but men and women who risked everything to do so. Batman may have been the pointman for it, and the inspiration, but he was not alone. Selina, Officer Blake, Deputy Commisioner Foley, the assembled police department.
The same police department that was hopelessly venal and corrupt in the first movie. When the hour came, they stood, they fought. They charged into the first outgunned, and they fought.
The inspiration that came from the symbol of the Batman has clearly grown through the movies, to the point that the forces of Order in Gotham are ready to give and sacrifice all.
The monster in Aurora? He patterned himself after chaos. He did his best to create chaos, and in a time and place, he succeeded. Yet, he stands out because what he did was so monstrous. He brought horror into the world, but in doing so, his evil is highlighted against the compassion and care of so many others. Instead of bringing down society, he will in the end show how strong it truly can be.
There is more that I can say, and given some time and awakeness, I may get into the theology of the movie. If Superman Returns played with the theology of grace, salvation and the nature of God, DKR is firmly rooted in anthropology (the theological version, though I'm sure the more familiar one would also have a great deal to say).
Saturday, February 04, 2012
The limits of C-RPG's
It's always been obvious that any form of computer "role playing games" are going to be limited. That has been true all the way back to my early days playing Phantasie I,II and III on my Apple ][+, and it's still true today, for much the same reasons.
There's a few reasons for this, but in many ways, they start at the same point. They limit the ability of a player to "create and play a role."
In a pen-and-paper RPG, your character is largely up to you (with a certain amount of input from other players and the GM). You can choose pretty much everything: personal details, personality, powers, the whole works.
Now, think about a fairly traditional Japanese RPG. Final Fantasy VII is pretty familiar, so it's a good starting point. You got to choose none of those things. You were Cloud Strife. The entire realm of choice that a pnp game gives you was gone. There were few if any meaningful choices for the player to make in the game. The gameplay consisted of the mechanics of the gameplay (killing monsters, getting materia, such and so), and watching the story. It was a good story, and the gameplay was enjoyable, but even so, it really didn't qualify in any meaningful way as "role-playing".
Now, some of the more modern games give you a great deal more choice. Mass Effect makes you Shepherd, and you do get a certain amount of choice. You can choose your appearance, your gender and the like. Perhaps more importantly, you've got a great deal more input into the game, as your choices influence the gameplay, and the attitudes of your companions towards you. However, it's still limited. After all, you're still Shepherd. It's the role you are assigned, not the role that you choose.
Now, all of the above is obvious, and there's likely no real reason for me to even mention any of it. What about MMO's though? Don't they give more? That's where things begin to get interesting. They give much more, and at the same time, much less.
Now, in an MMO, your personality choice is far greater than any of the above games. Depending on the game, you can make an enormous series of choices. The process of creating a character in an MMO is potentially greater than anything short of a pnp game. Take City of Heroes. You have great ability to design a true superhero costume, a massive (and growing) list of powers to choose from, the ability to create a personality from scratch, the works.
Yet, at the same time, MMO's take a great deal away from you that a single player game is able to give you. Most importantly, it takes away the ability to make a difference. In both pnp and Solo RPG's, there is potential to have your characters actions reshape the world around them. The decisions you make have the ability to change things in various ways, some of them quite profound. In MMOs? Not nearly so much so.
One of the most telling aspects of this is something that MMO gamers have more or less learned to shrug and ignore. Since it's a shared world, your efforts effectively disappear in a matter of moments. For instance, there you are, a hero in Atlas Park, and see a little old lady getting mugged by a Hellion. You swoop in, and voila, the woman is saved. Hooray! Look back in 5 minutes, and there's the same Hellion mugging the same lady.
It's not just little things like that though. In SWTOR, I've been slowly pounding my way through the planet of Taris, and have been helping the Empire drive the Republic forces off the planet. I've just gotten the big victory, and our troops are victorious! Hooray! Oh, wait, I poke around in the areas where Republic troops spawn, and there's just as many, they aggro just as fast. (That doesn't even count seeing some other guy running around doing the exact same missions I am).
Because it is a shared world, there is no real permanance to your actions. The only way Taris will truly change is if the Devs decide to have an "event" where the entire planet is changed during a patch. (Which is certainly possible, but not for the immediate future I'm sure). You have to mentally suspend seeing all of those things.
So, in the end, you may advance your personal story, but your actions have no larger repurcussions.
This is all pretty obvious, but I'm as much putting this up to think all of this through (it's not like anyone is reading it anyway).
There's a few reasons for this, but in many ways, they start at the same point. They limit the ability of a player to "create and play a role."
In a pen-and-paper RPG, your character is largely up to you (with a certain amount of input from other players and the GM). You can choose pretty much everything: personal details, personality, powers, the whole works.
Now, think about a fairly traditional Japanese RPG. Final Fantasy VII is pretty familiar, so it's a good starting point. You got to choose none of those things. You were Cloud Strife. The entire realm of choice that a pnp game gives you was gone. There were few if any meaningful choices for the player to make in the game. The gameplay consisted of the mechanics of the gameplay (killing monsters, getting materia, such and so), and watching the story. It was a good story, and the gameplay was enjoyable, but even so, it really didn't qualify in any meaningful way as "role-playing".
Now, some of the more modern games give you a great deal more choice. Mass Effect makes you Shepherd, and you do get a certain amount of choice. You can choose your appearance, your gender and the like. Perhaps more importantly, you've got a great deal more input into the game, as your choices influence the gameplay, and the attitudes of your companions towards you. However, it's still limited. After all, you're still Shepherd. It's the role you are assigned, not the role that you choose.
Now, all of the above is obvious, and there's likely no real reason for me to even mention any of it. What about MMO's though? Don't they give more? That's where things begin to get interesting. They give much more, and at the same time, much less.
Now, in an MMO, your personality choice is far greater than any of the above games. Depending on the game, you can make an enormous series of choices. The process of creating a character in an MMO is potentially greater than anything short of a pnp game. Take City of Heroes. You have great ability to design a true superhero costume, a massive (and growing) list of powers to choose from, the ability to create a personality from scratch, the works.
Yet, at the same time, MMO's take a great deal away from you that a single player game is able to give you. Most importantly, it takes away the ability to make a difference. In both pnp and Solo RPG's, there is potential to have your characters actions reshape the world around them. The decisions you make have the ability to change things in various ways, some of them quite profound. In MMOs? Not nearly so much so.
One of the most telling aspects of this is something that MMO gamers have more or less learned to shrug and ignore. Since it's a shared world, your efforts effectively disappear in a matter of moments. For instance, there you are, a hero in Atlas Park, and see a little old lady getting mugged by a Hellion. You swoop in, and voila, the woman is saved. Hooray! Look back in 5 minutes, and there's the same Hellion mugging the same lady.
It's not just little things like that though. In SWTOR, I've been slowly pounding my way through the planet of Taris, and have been helping the Empire drive the Republic forces off the planet. I've just gotten the big victory, and our troops are victorious! Hooray! Oh, wait, I poke around in the areas where Republic troops spawn, and there's just as many, they aggro just as fast. (That doesn't even count seeing some other guy running around doing the exact same missions I am).
Because it is a shared world, there is no real permanance to your actions. The only way Taris will truly change is if the Devs decide to have an "event" where the entire planet is changed during a patch. (Which is certainly possible, but not for the immediate future I'm sure). You have to mentally suspend seeing all of those things.
So, in the end, you may advance your personal story, but your actions have no larger repurcussions.
This is all pretty obvious, but I'm as much putting this up to think all of this through (it's not like anyone is reading it anyway).
Friday, January 20, 2012
The TOR Elephant in the Corner
After a comment on my post earlier today (yeah, 2 posts in one day... shocking) I decided to push out a few more thoughts on the limits of the story system in TOR.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are limits to the ability of a player to "shape" the story in TOR. It is "on rails" to a large extent. This is most obvious in your class quest. You complete one part of the class quest and it... sends you to the next piece. You can make choices in the quest, and they can affect how your companions relate to you or the like, but the story continues. A Bounty Hunter stays on the Great Hunt (or the equivalents for the other classes).
Now, I can hear you say, your choices can do something else... they can give you... Light/Darkside points. Yep, they can, but so what? That's the elephant in the corner of TOR. What exactly do Light/Darkside points get you? A few different options in gear. In terms of story? Very little (outside of how you relate to companions).
What makes this such a big deal is that it sidesteps the most profound element of character development the game has to offer. A Sith gaining meaningful lightside points? That's important! A Jedi piling up darkside points? You might remember this guy named Anakin Skywalker. The Fall of a Jedi or the "rise" of a Sith (what *is* a Sith who goes lightside anyway? A fallen Jedi is a "Dark Jedi" but what, a Light Sith?) Your entire story should start to change! Every character should relate to you differently, and frankly, you should get different missions. There is no more profound piece of character development in the SW universe, and the game turns it into a matter of what kind of equipment you get to pack. That's a severe failing and lacking.
My level 33 Bounty Hunter currently is sitting around 3000 Light Side points, but is still employed by a very satisfied Empire. Now, of course, the non-Force User classes are going to be considerably different in how LS/DS works for them. However, it's still led me to a great deal of reflection on why a Bounty Hunter makes the choices they do. I may or may not write it, but I've got a fair backstory sketched out.
Now, for all those limitations I just mentioned, just imagine the amount of work involved in developing the core stories so that they react fully to player choices (even if it's only in terms of LS/DS, and not to specific choices).
Ok, so yeah, that's the elephant.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are limits to the ability of a player to "shape" the story in TOR. It is "on rails" to a large extent. This is most obvious in your class quest. You complete one part of the class quest and it... sends you to the next piece. You can make choices in the quest, and they can affect how your companions relate to you or the like, but the story continues. A Bounty Hunter stays on the Great Hunt (or the equivalents for the other classes).
Now, I can hear you say, your choices can do something else... they can give you... Light/Darkside points. Yep, they can, but so what? That's the elephant in the corner of TOR. What exactly do Light/Darkside points get you? A few different options in gear. In terms of story? Very little (outside of how you relate to companions).
What makes this such a big deal is that it sidesteps the most profound element of character development the game has to offer. A Sith gaining meaningful lightside points? That's important! A Jedi piling up darkside points? You might remember this guy named Anakin Skywalker. The Fall of a Jedi or the "rise" of a Sith (what *is* a Sith who goes lightside anyway? A fallen Jedi is a "Dark Jedi" but what, a Light Sith?) Your entire story should start to change! Every character should relate to you differently, and frankly, you should get different missions. There is no more profound piece of character development in the SW universe, and the game turns it into a matter of what kind of equipment you get to pack. That's a severe failing and lacking.
My level 33 Bounty Hunter currently is sitting around 3000 Light Side points, but is still employed by a very satisfied Empire. Now, of course, the non-Force User classes are going to be considerably different in how LS/DS works for them. However, it's still led me to a great deal of reflection on why a Bounty Hunter makes the choices they do. I may or may not write it, but I've got a fair backstory sketched out.
Now, for all those limitations I just mentioned, just imagine the amount of work involved in developing the core stories so that they react fully to player choices (even if it's only in terms of LS/DS, and not to specific choices).
Ok, so yeah, that's the elephant.
Musings on Games
Interesting article on games from games from Raph Koster today: http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-game-mechanic/
Assuming I properly understood all of it, and wish to unpack it, his basic thesis is this.
Content like videos, music or the like are not a core part of gameplay. They provide a measure of feedback which can make the game experience better, but they are not the game itself. A game that relies upon such and does not emphasize the play of the game itself will end up lacking.
Of course, right now, the big thing in gaming is Star Wars: The Old Republic. Does TOR fall into this trap? In some ways yes, but not entirely. The story in the game is certainly one of the primary attractions. There's some exceptional storytelling involved in the game, and the reveals can be awesome. That said, I'm sure the second time through the game, the content won't have the same measure of hold over you. You've seen it, and so it's importance to you begins to fade.
However, there are at least two things off the top of my head which go against simply saying that TOR is a "one and done game".
First of all, is the rest of the gameplay elements. The rest of the game (combat, crafting and the like) is a strong and robust system. Now, this is one of those elements where I can see different people having different opinions, but I don't think that TOR matches Koster's warning about a game that is all feedback and little "black box" gameplay. (Black Box being the way he describes the gameplay/problemsolving aspect of a game) The feedback is big, even huge part of the game ("the 4th pillar"), but that doesn't mean that the "black box" elements are lacking.
Second though, is that TOR (like other Bioware games) have at least to a certain extent integrated the game into the feedback. You don't simply see the same video every playthrough. You can shape what you see by your actions and choices.
That said, that is still somewhat limited. One of the great breakthroughs in a content-oriented gameplay like TOR would be for players to be able to deeply shape the game experience. Where your choices create ever widening changes in everything around you. If, as a Jedi, you manage to convince some young Sith to turn from the Dark Side, you might see a cascading change where you see that former Sith grow. On the other hand, if you are forced to kill him, you become the object of a vendetta by other Sith. Now, a game like TOR can easily handle that level of branching. However, it becomes difficult to impossible to create content like that with more than a limited few branchpoints. If you had 2-3 "world changing" decisions per level... just imagine the amount of writing it would take to cover all possibilities. What games like TOR or ME or DA do, is they cut the "key" branches down to a more managable level, where you have a very limited number of truly huge choices.
(Also, an MMO like TOR won't let you deeply redefine the universe the way a SP game might. For instance, imagine a ME-type choice in a situation like this.
Evil General: "If you do not tell me where your base is, I will launch an orbital bombardment of the planet, killing 99% of all life"
Hostage: *choose*
1. I'll never tell! (*boomboomboom*)
2. It's at 47.1N 55.3E (*base boomed, nothing else*)
That would not be a viable MMO choice, because that would rewrite the entire universe, not only for the player but for every other player. On the other hand, it could work in a Single Player game.
Now, this is a dilemma that's not faced at all by other genres of game. Take Europa Universalis III. If you aren't familiar with it, you start in the year 1399 as the leader of one nation, and from there you go on, with a variety of economic, military and political options to extend your kingdom.
One of the interesting things about that game is that there are literally no victory conditions. Your goals in the game are ultimately self-set. Do you want to lead Europe in colonizing the New World? Have at it. Do you want to become the Holy Roman Emperor? Good luck! Lead Han China to being a viable rival for the European powers before the game ends in 1821? Go for it!
The second thing is that your actions in that game have the profound ability to shape the game world. The world map by the end of the game generally directly reflects what you've done in the game.
That game works the "blackbox-feedback" loop in a very different way. You have the "black box" the game problem/play, and a variety of tools you can use to reach your goals. On the other hand, the "feedback" is largely self directed and defined. You can look at the map and see how much turf you have, or how you dominate the world economy or the like, but the game doesn't tell you if you are "successful". You have to decide that for yourself.
A game like HPS Midway is a bit different still. There is no "story" in the game, per se. (Unless you want to define the "story" as your own view of the game developments). You start the game and you have a fairly definitive goal. You want to defeat the enemy fleet. The "black box" then is the problem of how to use all of your assets to achieve that goal. At the end, the game then comes up with a score (based on how much damage you did, how much the other guy did to you, and a few other factors) to see how successful you were.
In Midway, you generally get two forms of feedback. The first is the immediate feedback "I attached that enemy ship, and got 2 hits, and it's smoking in the water" The second is the "final" feedback of the game victory conditions ("ok, I sunk a carrier and destroyed 57 planes. I had a carrier damaged and lost 32 planes. That's a win."
This is my usual long and rambly self (not that people actually read it), but the article gives some interesting food for thought.
Assuming I properly understood all of it, and wish to unpack it, his basic thesis is this.
Content like videos, music or the like are not a core part of gameplay. They provide a measure of feedback which can make the game experience better, but they are not the game itself. A game that relies upon such and does not emphasize the play of the game itself will end up lacking.
Of course, right now, the big thing in gaming is Star Wars: The Old Republic. Does TOR fall into this trap? In some ways yes, but not entirely. The story in the game is certainly one of the primary attractions. There's some exceptional storytelling involved in the game, and the reveals can be awesome. That said, I'm sure the second time through the game, the content won't have the same measure of hold over you. You've seen it, and so it's importance to you begins to fade.
However, there are at least two things off the top of my head which go against simply saying that TOR is a "one and done game".
First of all, is the rest of the gameplay elements. The rest of the game (combat, crafting and the like) is a strong and robust system. Now, this is one of those elements where I can see different people having different opinions, but I don't think that TOR matches Koster's warning about a game that is all feedback and little "black box" gameplay. (Black Box being the way he describes the gameplay/problemsolving aspect of a game) The feedback is big, even huge part of the game ("the 4th pillar"), but that doesn't mean that the "black box" elements are lacking.
Second though, is that TOR (like other Bioware games) have at least to a certain extent integrated the game into the feedback. You don't simply see the same video every playthrough. You can shape what you see by your actions and choices.
That said, that is still somewhat limited. One of the great breakthroughs in a content-oriented gameplay like TOR would be for players to be able to deeply shape the game experience. Where your choices create ever widening changes in everything around you. If, as a Jedi, you manage to convince some young Sith to turn from the Dark Side, you might see a cascading change where you see that former Sith grow. On the other hand, if you are forced to kill him, you become the object of a vendetta by other Sith. Now, a game like TOR can easily handle that level of branching. However, it becomes difficult to impossible to create content like that with more than a limited few branchpoints. If you had 2-3 "world changing" decisions per level... just imagine the amount of writing it would take to cover all possibilities. What games like TOR or ME or DA do, is they cut the "key" branches down to a more managable level, where you have a very limited number of truly huge choices.
(Also, an MMO like TOR won't let you deeply redefine the universe the way a SP game might. For instance, imagine a ME-type choice in a situation like this.
Evil General: "If you do not tell me where your base is, I will launch an orbital bombardment of the planet, killing 99% of all life"
Hostage: *choose*
1. I'll never tell! (*boomboomboom*)
2. It's at 47.1N 55.3E (*base boomed, nothing else*)
That would not be a viable MMO choice, because that would rewrite the entire universe, not only for the player but for every other player. On the other hand, it could work in a Single Player game.
Now, this is a dilemma that's not faced at all by other genres of game. Take Europa Universalis III. If you aren't familiar with it, you start in the year 1399 as the leader of one nation, and from there you go on, with a variety of economic, military and political options to extend your kingdom.
One of the interesting things about that game is that there are literally no victory conditions. Your goals in the game are ultimately self-set. Do you want to lead Europe in colonizing the New World? Have at it. Do you want to become the Holy Roman Emperor? Good luck! Lead Han China to being a viable rival for the European powers before the game ends in 1821? Go for it!
The second thing is that your actions in that game have the profound ability to shape the game world. The world map by the end of the game generally directly reflects what you've done in the game.
That game works the "blackbox-feedback" loop in a very different way. You have the "black box" the game problem/play, and a variety of tools you can use to reach your goals. On the other hand, the "feedback" is largely self directed and defined. You can look at the map and see how much turf you have, or how you dominate the world economy or the like, but the game doesn't tell you if you are "successful". You have to decide that for yourself.
A game like HPS Midway is a bit different still. There is no "story" in the game, per se. (Unless you want to define the "story" as your own view of the game developments). You start the game and you have a fairly definitive goal. You want to defeat the enemy fleet. The "black box" then is the problem of how to use all of your assets to achieve that goal. At the end, the game then comes up with a score (based on how much damage you did, how much the other guy did to you, and a few other factors) to see how successful you were.
In Midway, you generally get two forms of feedback. The first is the immediate feedback "I attached that enemy ship, and got 2 hits, and it's smoking in the water" The second is the "final" feedback of the game victory conditions ("ok, I sunk a carrier and destroyed 57 planes. I had a carrier damaged and lost 32 planes. That's a win."
This is my usual long and rambly self (not that people actually read it), but the article gives some interesting food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)