Academic

Although the Massively staff often has difficulty reading books, what with their "walls of text" and poor graphics engine, we'd be remiss to ignore this terrific news. Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, better known as "That Zero Punctuation Guy," is looking to increase his considerable fame and fortune by heading into the literary world with his debut novel Mogworld. The profanely amusing game critic has become well-known for his verbal barrages against titles like EVE Online and Age of Conan, as well as being an amateur game designer in his spare time.

As a comedic fantasy, Yahtzee claims to draw from his MMO experience for Mogworld: In a world full to bursting with would-be heroes, Jim couldn't be less interested in saving the day. His fireballs fizzle. He's awfully grumpy. Plus, he's been dead for about sixty years. When a renegade necromancer wrenches him from eternal slumber and into a world gone terribly, bizarrely wrong, all Jim wants is to find a way to die properly, once and for all. On his side, he's got a few shambling corpses, an inept thief, and a powerful death wish. But he's up against tough odds: angry mobs of adventurers, a body falling apart at the seams and a team of programmers racing a deadline to hammer out the last few bugs in their AI.

You can pre-order Mogworld on Amazon.com or by staking out a nice, comfy spot at your local book retailer.

Jane McGonigal (a 10-year game designer of projects such as the I Love Bees ARG for Halo 2) has a self-professed "crazy idea" -- that gamers have the potential to change the world for the better by doing what they're already doing. At her speech, people chuckle when she first says this, but twenty minutes later they're giving her a standing ovation.

She begins by stating the obvious: we are a gaming culture that flees the "broken" world to a virtual one that offers a better and more rewarding collaborative environment. "When we're in game worlds I believe that many of us become the best versions of ourselves," she said. "The most likely to help at a moment's notice, most likely to stick with a problem as long as it takes, to get up after failure and try again."

Continue Reading

For the third year in a row, applications are being accepted for Sony Online Entertainment's G.I.R.L. Scholarship Program, a program created to help educate and recruit more women into the field of video game production and design. The G.I.R.L. scholarship awards the recipient $10,000 toward tuition at the school where she is currently enrolled, as well as an optional 10-week internship at a Sony Online Entertainment studio.

Laura Naviaux of SOE says "Our goal is to continue to encourage and reward women who share our commitment and passion for developing cutting edge online games for all demographic groups." Any student who is currently enrolled in an undergraduate program related to video games may apply by the deadline of February 15th, and SOE will choose a winner on or around May 20th.

Information on how to apply can be found here, and more information on the G.I.R.L. program can be found here. Best of luck to all who apply!

Research into the social sciences suggests that people interact with each other in two separate modes. One mode is governed by primarily social influences and the other by basic market forces. Which one we choose in any given interaction has a profound impact on the way we interact with each other. Perhaps nowhere in the gaming world are these forces played out as strongly as in EVE Online, with its lack of economic regulation and tight-knit social structures. EVE players routinely form social relationships with other pilots, their corporation leaders and corpmates. On the flip-side, we interact with hundreds of players we don't know using more selfish market-driven rules as we trade, haggle over prices or even just buy something from the market. But how do these two types of player-to-player interaction coexist in the same universe and what problems can arise when they collide?

In this complex and in-depth article, I examine the relationships we form with other players, why they're important and what can happen when we inadvertently cross the line from an implied social contract to a market-based business one.

Continue Reading

There's no doubt in our minds that virtual environments are here to stay, for a significant fraction of the foreseeable forever. Love them or loathe them they're in their third decade now, and like the Web, it's now more a matter of how they fit in to the rest of the world, rather than if they do.

In education, virtual environments are now a part of an educator's toolbox and as education continues to combine, refine, and recombine tools, virtual environments will find increasingly better, more effective uses in education. There's no doubt about that among educators, even if the technologies aren't ready for widespread educational uses today.

Continue Reading

We can't, sadly, warp time to go back a full year. Once we do something, for better or for worse, we're stuck with it. But we can try and learn from things that happened the last time around, and there have certainly been things to learn from 2009, which we touched on yesterday. That's where the whole tradition of resolutions for the new year comes from. And as we all know, the second-best way to force yourself to do something is to make it public. (The first is to have someone following you around with a shotgun.)

So, today we ask you just before the clock ticks over: what are you going to do differently in the coming year? Was there a single event that you learned from, or were there multiple events that contributed to you wanting to make a change? It could be anything from trying to avoid getting too invested in the pre-launch hype of a game to just trying not to die quite so often when playing a melee character, but we're sure you have at least one thing you'd like to try differently in the new year. (And if you do find a way to rewind time, please, let us know.)

The look back has already started here and there, and we've got only two days left -- assuming you count today. And we've seen a lot of things happen over the last year, which everyone on-staff has their own opinion about. To some, it was the year of free-to-play. To others, it was the year of dying games. But there's no way to encapsulate everything about 2009 into just one statement, with the industry still changing and evolving. Sometimes even seemingly small changes are what we remember (fondly or otherwise) when viewed in hindsight.

Out of all of the things that happened this year, what struck you as the most defining moment? Was it something major, such as the end of Tabula Rasa or The Matrix Online? Or was it something minor that other players might not even notice? Did it make the whole year better, worse, or was it simply a turning point? What seems like it's going to stick in your memory when you think back on the year as a whole? And as a connected topic, what seems like a big deal at the moment that you're pretty certain isn't as important as people say?

There are certain changes, usually big ones, that don't exactly produce... positive reactions. In fact, they generally produce screaming rants and huge doses of rage at how they were handled and implemented. You know the sorts we're talking about. Star Wars Galaxies and the Combat Upgrade. Ultima Online and Trammel. Final Fantasy XI and the nerfs to Beastmaster "catch and release" tactics. All loathed changes, many of which led to an exodus of players.

Really, leaving a game can be the best way to express displeasure with a change. It's the surest way to send a company the message that they've done something that will no longer justify your monthly subscription. On the flip side, your individual impact is small, you once loved the game... a lot of players will choose to rough it out, in hopes that things will improve or with the knowledge that the changes can't be all that bad. And for games where you have a lifetime subscription or are experiencing it free-to-play, your absence isn't really a deterrent at all.

So, do you vote with your wallet? When you're fed up with what's been done, do you head off for greener pastures? Or are you of the mind that it's not even worth the bother, that they might well not even tie your departure to the change, even if you say so?

Games are rather viral in the way that their ideas spread around. You start off with perfectly self-contained genres, perhaps, but before long your characters are leveling up in a sports game and going through jumping puzzles in an action game (or a first-person shooter if you're unlucky). Next thing you know, you're shooting hoops before racing a car and shooting people and then solving a riddle... you get the idea. MMOs seem like they'd be largely immune to this -- after all, many of their conventions not ported from elsewhere, such as persistent online play, are fairly unique to them. However, Spinks has a fascinating essay regarding the way that, for better or for worse, MMOs are becoming closely entwined with other games.

In short, while she notes that the mechanics haven't always made the jump from, for instance, World of Warcraft to Dragon Age, the design of the game's structure and the tactics available have. She notes the increasing prevalence of the "holy trinity" in non-MMO games (Final Fantasy XII being another excellent example), the ways in which our ideas about discussing both the game itself and the tactics it requires have expanded, and the ways that our attitudes toward our characters in a game have changed as MMOs have diversified, expanded, and improved. Insightful and astute, fans of gaming should find more than a little food for thought within the full article.

Square-Enix can get very touchy about certain things with Final Fantasy XI. Revealing the precise numbers and mechanics behind many of the game's elements seems to be one of them that none of the game's fans are terribly pleased with, but they're just as touchy about people cheating in the game, which fans can't help but be happy about. The game's terms of use clearly state that the use of third-party applications interacting with the game is expressly forbidden, and the game has recently dropped the hammer for good on one of the distributors of third-party hacks.

The announcement, which can be found on the official site or mirrored on Allakhazam.com, states that the game's team had been monitoring the sale and distribution of certain undisclosed third-party applications, and they had subsequently shut down both the servers for the programs as well as the sellers. The specific applications are not named, as is normal for Final Fantasy XI -- they don't want to encourage anyone to seek out the cheats, after all. The announcement also includes the usual warnings about bannings and account security when connected with third-party cheats. It's always good news when the less scrupled side of a game's community gets shut down -- now if only we could pass some of this along to NCsoft for their recent woes.

We're finishing up our 2009 Reader's Choice Awards, but that doesn't mean we can't take note of the fact that the last year of the decade hasn't exactly been a stellar years. We've watched a recession hit hard, several games turn the lights off for good, several others lose staff, and generally not had the best of years. And it's something that's even more obvious if you're in the thick of game development. Scott Jennings has taken a few moments to look back at what he sees as the three major developments of 2009: layoffs, Facebook, and microtransactions.

Of course, as someone who had an unpleasant brush with the recession, it's understandable that Jennings wouldn't be predisposed to mention things such as the free-to-play model making large inroads via high-profile titles such as Free Realms and Dungeons and Dragons Online. But the article is interesting as a retrospective of the many south turns the industry took this year, as are his guesses from a year ago regarding what things would look like. Here's hoping that 2010 provides us with slightly better news -- believe it or not, we don't like announcing shutdowns or layoffs any more than you like reading them.

Free trials can be... stressful. We recently even had a piece about trying to make the most of the limited time in them, if the point must be stressed. That's no doubt the reason why several companies have begun moving away from unlimited access for a brief time, and started to spread their trials out for as long as the player wishes. Warhammer Online, Champions Online, Free Realms, and Alganon all allow players a chance to try a limited portion of the game for as long as they want. And for someone without a lot of time, it's a perfect way to expand your window of playtime.

Of course, if you've got plenty of time to devote to the trial, it's a bit obnoxious to hit a hard limit before having really gotten to explore the meat of the game at all. For some players, the fact that they're giving away the starting area or first few levels tends to imply they're not good enough to pay for in the first place. Do you find unlimited free trials more tempting or less than the traditional model? Or do you see it as a sign that the game is in trouble or otherwise undesirable?

If you've played MMOs for any length of time, you've probably grown very familiar with the trinity. You can't help but be acquainted with it in any sort of group content, where in more games than not there's that split between the tank, the healer, and the DPS. Certainly there are subdivisions and extra roles, but for the most part those extra roles are slight twists on one of the existing roles. (Controllers in City of Heroes are DPS with a debuffing/controlling aspect and slightly less damage, for instance). Brian "Psychochild" Green has an article on Gamasutra examining the issues with the holy trinity in game design: what purposes it serves, what its drawbacks are, and how useful it might be to get rid of it entirely.

Examining the roots of the trinity design in Dungeons & Dragons and common gameplay types it offered, Green goes on to take a look at how the structure has become codified, what other potential systems could be put in place, and if there's even an advantage to doing so. He discusses the issues of hybrid classes, group versus solo design, and proposes a potential alternative that remains rooted in the core elements of the design. Anyone with an interest in design should take a look at the full article, as it contains some interesting insights and analysis of one of the core underpinnings of our genre.

The whole point of a free trial is to get you to buy the game. This is a fact of the genre, and we all know it. Correspondingly, we don't usually sign up for the free trial unless we're relatively certain we'd like to try the game in the first place. But all too often, we try the game for one session, and then we miss the rest of the free trial period and never really form a cohesive opinion about the game. So the company doesn't get your money, you don't get to try the game, and your characters languish forever in the waiting room.

Needless to say, this isn't ideal for anyone. You want to make the absolute most out of your free time in the game, whether you signed up for a free 12-hour trial or you've got a game with an endless free trial a la Warhammer Online. Doing so is something that takes a little extra work, before and after playing, but the upshot is that you get to more completely enjoy the game you're playing and decide if you really want to spend money on it every month. Read on for how to keep yourself in the game, engaged, and aware of whether or not the game deserves your subscription.

Continue Reading

The trouble with PvP is... well, there are several problems with PvP. The problems of balance are always there, of course, as they are in every aspect of the game. There are the problems of making PvP both accessible to new players and rewarding for veterans, their are issues with keeping people engaged in the game without being gimmicky, there are issues with even such little things as how players get equipment. But as Scott Jennings notes in his most recent column, a lot of the problems with PvP-centric games center around perceptions -- both those of the players, and those of the developers.

Developers who make PvP-centric games frequently are players of games themselves, of course, and so when they strike off to make a game with "PvP done right" they can sometimes fall victim to tunnel vision regarding their game. (Jennings cites Shadowbane, Darkfall, and Fury as examples here.) But there's also a problem of perception from the player end, as whether or not a class is overpowered often pales in comparison to whether or not the players believe it's overpowered. From Guild Wars to EVE Online, every PvP game has had to contend with these issues, so it would be well-advised to take a look at the full column if you're at all interested in the design of games.