Morality in games is a joke

The inclusion of a morality system is becoming increasingly more common in games today, especially in Role-Playing Games. It is designed to alter the game to increase replay value. Some examples of this are the recent Fallout games, Mass Effect, and Infamous. This is great in concept but, aside from Fallout New Vegas, it is implemented poorly in most games.

It all boils down to the fact that the game urges you to blindly follow one path throughout the entire game. Part of this is that the choices are clearly laid out as [Goood decision] [Neutral decision] [Evil decision]. In Mass Effect, this is represented through the conversation wheel. The upper choice is good, the lower choice is always bad, etc. Even the Paragon/Renegade interrupts are color coded as red or blue. In Infamous, the decisons are always childishly simple. (Do I blow up the entire settlement, killing everyone? Or do I go through and fight each enemy on my own?) When the pivotal decisions throughout the game that severely affect the experience such as the *SPOILER ALERT* power swap *END OF SPOILER* and the final decision are brought to the player with one side of the screen colored red, and the other side blue. The fact that the decisions are so easy to make wouldn't be such a bummer if the game rewarded the player for being neutral, slightly evil, or slightly good. In Infamous and Mass Effect, the rewards for being good or evil get progressively better as the morality choices made by the player become more extreme. Cole unlocks more powers in Infamous, and Shepard unlocks more dialogue options. If I want to make my character only a little mean, I am locked out of getting certain benefits.

In Fallout, the morality system is better because it has less of an effect on the game and most major choices are not a clear good or evil choice.

What do you think? What ways could morality be better implemented in games to make it more interesting? Let me know in the comments section below.

Follow me on MyIGN, 1UP, and Twitter!

MyIGN- bradrocks777

1UP- bradmurphy

Twitter- bradericmurphy

Why JRPGs have not expanded in recent years

"The Golden age of JRPGs is over."

This is a common statement made by those who long for the bygone days where fantastic JRPG after fantastic JRPG were released. The most common platforms that people say were "the golden age" are the SNES and the PSX. Games like Wild Arms, FF IV - IX, and Chrono Trigger were some of the marquee games of that era. Not to say that JRPGs today are bad, but the time when they dominated much of videogames is over.

I'm going to cut to the chase: the reason JRPGs are less prominent today is that they cannot take advantage of new hardware as well as other genres can. Old SNES JRPGs functioned fine as they were, with the limitations of 16 bit power not hindering the games very much. This is a completely different case with other genres such as FPS, Racing, and Western RPGs. There is a huge jump in quality from Wolfenstein to Killzone, just as there is a huge jump in quality from Mario Kart to Forza Motorsport. The first and third- person RPGs from Bioware and Bethesda could not have had a true equivalent on the SNES.

Basically, the only improvements JRPGs have made so far are just graphical and audible. Other genres can actually enhance gameplay with new hardware.

Where will they go from here? Will we ever see the return of a time where JRPGs are popular again? Let me know in the comments section below.

My posts are availible on both MyIGN and 1UP.

MyIGN- bradrocks777

1up- bradmurphy

Similar Sequels

Sequels are great in that they can take the aspects that people loved from one game into another while still improving the problems with an original game. They can also continue the story from a previous game. But sometimes, problems arise when a game is too similar to the original game and can, in some cases, be indestinguishable from the original game.

Some recent games to have this issue are Fallout: New Vegas, Annual sports titles such as Madden NFL, and each and every Call of Duty from CoD4 onward.

Let's start with Call of Duty. I think these games are overrated, overhyped, and not worth $60 each year. They are not bad games by any means, they are just uninventive. The last two CoD games have had extremely short single player campaigns, obviously because the focus has shifted to the multiplayer mode. This would be acceptable if they didn't feel like copy/paste experiences from the previous years. Everything about the way the games play, right down to the HUD, is the same.

Moving on, Fallout: New Vegas feels like a large expansion to Fallout 3. The HUD, combat, dialouge system, and even in game textures feel the same as Fallout 3. This comes from aHUGE fan of Fallout 3. Not only that, but New Vegas somehow managed to be more glitchy/buggy than Fallout 3. If one were to take screenshots of Falllout 3 and New Vegas and convert them to black/white images, they would appear to be from the same game.

We've arrived at the biggest culprit of them all: Madden NFL. These games are just graphical improvments from year to year. The large changes to gameplay quickly tapered off since Madden 05 (released in '04). This is because EA has an exclusivity deal with the NFL. Basically, EA is the only publisher that can publish games with the NFL liscence, including teams and players. This gives them no competition in the NFL game market, which is why these games have become stagnant.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments section below!

MyIGN-bradrocks777

1UP- bradmurphy

The future of single-player games

Recently, I have been playing a game called Demon's Souls. In case you don't know what it is, it is a fantasy Action RPG. It has no cooperative or competitive online functionality with matchmaking. But, It has an interesting online functionality called "World Tendancy." Simply put, it alters the difficulty and rewards for killing an enemy based on the performance of other players around the world. Demon's souls allows players to leave messages on the ground as advice for other players to read. Another feature of Demon's Souls is the Bloodstain feature. This allows one player to see the last few seconds of another player's life. Players can also see the white ghostly figures of other players' characters exploring the world at the same time as you. Later on in the game, players are able to invade other player's games as a red, shadowy figure. When in another player's world, your goal is to kill them to take all of their souls (Demon's Souls currency). If you are killed by the defending player, your stats degrade a little bit.

The point of all of this is that single player games in the future can learn a bit from Demon's Souls. A player in a single player game can still be interacting with other players in unique ways. For example, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim could have a market where players can deposit items in a place within the game. Another player could check the listings for items, purchase an item, and when the seller comes back, he can pick up his money (Similar to the auction house from WoW).

The tricky part of all of this when developing a game is that the online features need to be compelling, while not necessary to the game (so as to not screw over offline players). If my internet cuts out, I do not want to be stopped from playing a single-player game.

What do you think? Do you want features like these in single-player games? What other features do you want included? Let me know in the comments section below.

My posts are availible on both MyIGN and 1UP.

MyIGN- bradrocks777

1UP- bradmurphy

Game Re-Hashes - The Good and the Bad

As a follow-up to my last post, where I discussed the practice of re-releasing games with a few new additions, I would just like to give a few examples of which games are good examples of how to do this, and also give some examples of re-releases that shouldn't exist.

The Good Ones

Super Street Fighter IV - added new modes, tweaked fighting system, and a bunch of new characters

MvC3 Ultimate - New characters, modes, tweaked fighting system, and finally SPECTATOR MODE! (that shoud have been included in a free update, but its better than not including it.

The Bad Ones

Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition - Adds a few bells and whistles along with a few characters. The problem with this is that it doesn't add enough content to be worth $40. One could argue that it is okay because it can be purchased as DLC for $15, but it is only DLC for Super Street Fighter IV. At that point, you have spent $55 to upgrade from the original game to SSFIV Arcade Edition. Thats almost the price of another game.

Dead Rising 2: Off the record - DR2, only with a new character. Photography has been added back into the game. This is highway robbery, people. $40? Really? This is the game DR2 should have been.

What do you think? What are your favorite/least favorite re-hashes? Let me know in the comments section below!

My blog posts are availible on both MyIGN and 1UP!

Follow me on MyIGN- bradrocks777

1UP- bradmurphy

[Fighting Game] Super Ultra Extreme Turbo Ultimate Edition

Whenever a fighting game comes out these days, you can pretty much assume that an updated version of the game will have another retail release 9-ish months later. This new version will have new characters, a slightly tweaked fighting system, and maybe a few new modes thrown in. Recently, some games that aren't even fighting games have been given this treatment. Luckily, they are commonly priced at $40, as opposed to the normal $60 price tag.

Are these re-releases good or bad? Some argue that the features could have been included in the original game, while others say it is a good way to continue supporting a game. I understand the nay-sayers' point of view in that they feel robbed. They feel that features were held out of a game intentionally so that the new version could be sold. On the other side of this argument are the people who support the re-release of games. They are happy to have new content and they do not mind shelling out another $40 for a new game. Personally, I am glad that they are made, but I would like to see the added content to be more substantial. I'm fine if it includes new modes, characters, and gameplay tweaks, but any of these things are their own just simply isn't enough.

What do you think? Do you like the re-release of games? Do you hate 'em? Let me know in the comments section below.

My blog posts are availible on both MyIGN and 1UP!

MyIGN-bradrocks777

1UP- bradmurphy

How discounts create a Win-Win situation

In case you didn't know, Burnout Paradise and all of it's DLC were on sale last week on the Playstation Store. (I purchased the game and all content for $19.) I love the game, and I'm glad I purchased it, especially for such a low price. The standalone game was availible for $7.99. Since then, I have been thoroughly addicted to this game, and definately recommend it to anyone.

An important detail though, is that the game was not "on my radar" until it was offered at such a low price. EA would have never seen any money from that purchase. Even if I did want the game, I would have bought it used for a discount. If this is a lesson to any publisher, it is that once a retail game becomes availible to download on PSN or XBL, It needs to periodically go on sale aat a cheaper price than a used copy at Gamestop or Best Buy. This will not only allow gamers to play more games, it will also allow publishers to make money that would normally go to a used game sale. Also, it builds awareness for a possible sequel for a game.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments section!

This was my first blog post, I hope you enjoyed it! My posts will be availible on both 1UP and MyIGN.

MyIGN - bradrocks777

1up - bradmurphy