- I didn't even know about Darwyn Cooke's version of The Hunter until I saw Don MacPherson's preview of the book. Even then, as much as I was interested in reading it, I lost track of the book until it showed up in my local comic shop a couple weeks ago. It's a good thing I did not accidently overlook it because this really is a good book.
- The Hunter is the story of Parker, an amoral criminal, who is on the path of vengeance after he is shot and left for dead after one of this enterprises went wrong. Parker is a strange character for a protagonist because he is a bad guy. He's not one of those sympathetic thieves with a heart of gold like Jean Valjean. If this was a western, he'd wear a black hat. The ingenious thing, as was Westlake's goal with the book, is that you end up rooting for the character, even if he's a jerk. It helps that even though he's bad, his opponents are worse and deserve what's coming.
- The story is told in graphic form by Cooke, based on the first Parker novel published in 1963, though the words are all Donald Westlake (writing under the psuedonym Richard Stark). I have enjoyed Cooke's work since I first saw his DC: The New Frontier as well as his work on The Spirit. This novel is a perfect match for his artistic talents.
- IDW did something ingenious with this book that I hope other publishers copy. It's actually bound like a standard hardcover book. The beautiful design of the dustjacket would make this a perfect fit with my other mystery novels. True, the interior art is scaled more like manga than an American comic book, but I think that is my preferred format for long form graphic fiction.
- If you like crime fiction, this is great graphic novel for you to try. It's the best of Darwyn Cooke and Donald Westlake all in one. Heck, writing this now makes me want to go back and read it again. Maybe I will.
© 2009 Marty Runyon. All rights reserved.
If you're reading this on a site other than Bullet Points, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.
- I wrote a post a few days ago that I was particularly proud of about offline versions of MMO-style games that I felt were better products than the original. In it, I reached a rhetorical conclusion that more MMOs should give this a try. There was something else I should have considered. However I did not realize I missed it until the post was already out.
- I don't really mean that MMOs like World of Warcraft should go single-player, though I would play such a game. What I really want is for developers to be aware of how their revenue models effect the game they are making. Everyone who plays a game like this knows (or should know) what it is costing them. We don't want to be manipulated to pay more for less game.
- There are two ways developers can break MMOs to produce revenue:
- Subscription Games - Subscription MMOs treat players like subjects of a study on operant conditioning. At first players are given small, but consistent rewards as they learn the game. Over time, rewards become randomized and occur at unknown intervals. This partial reinforcement leads players to work just as hard or harder for rewards because they are uncertain about how they are rewarded. Some players even develop superstitions and rituals in the belief that they can effect random outcomes.
Does this sound familiar to you? It should if you've ever been in a casino.
- Microtransaction Games - While subscription games work on positive reinforcement of behaviors, microtransaction games try negative reinforcement on its willing fan base. This is actually easier to spot and more insidious. At it's core, the game is made just good enough to get you started. But as the player progresses, they run into greater and greater roadblocks that prevent their advancement. While some players can persevere against such difficulties, the game allows players the option to purchase items to overcome these obstacles from the cash shop. A cash shop where you spend a virtual currency you bought outside the game. And since you already spent the money, you might as well spend the points. Even if it doesn't come out even.
- These are worst case scenarios, so I'm not condemning every game out there. But we are mindful of what depths you might descend to. If you are honest that in your desire to serve your customers, you will design your games in an honest and fair way.
- If you don't believe me, peruse this article (by way of Raph Koster) called Game design as marketing: How game mechanics create demand for virtual goods. Vote with your wallets, folks. That's the only language these people understand.
- While I was thumbing through Orion's My LotRO blog, I ran across this post where he completely misses the point about why we use the term endgame. Before I take him to task, I should explain where he's coming from.
- Orion professes a preference for the term "elder game." He sees the MMO experience as a learning curve where the player starts as a noob, grows through a learning phase, then reaches the elder game where a player is challenged to use the knowledge they have accumulated. Content is developed to match these phases and everyone is happy, assuming player capability improves at the correct intervals. The elder game, then, is the part where you assume the player has learned everything they need to play the game. Challenges can then be created to test the player's skill instead of the character's.
- What's wrong with that? Nothing! That is the gold standard for game development as far as I can tell. If you think of all the best games you've ever played, you will see this learning curve. The problem arises because level-based MMOs aren't really designed like this.
- Here are the three stages of MMO content:
- The starter zone - The first act of any MMO is the starter zone. This is where players are taught how to play the game. At least, it teaches you how to play the leveling game. The first levels generally come quickly, new abilities are granted, and quests are relatively easy to overcome. For many games, the starter zones are the most polished portion of the game experience specifically because this is the one place that every player is guaranteed to pass through. The decision whether or not a player is going to stick with a game is usually made based on this experience.
- The leveling game - The second act in MMOs is the leveling game. This is were the bulk of content is directed. Players complete new quests, find new gear, and gain character levels to they can move on to greater challenges. Assuming a infinite amount of content, the leveling game could go on forever. However since developers only have so many resources, the leveling game comes to its eventual conclusion. At that point, we shift to...
- The endgame - For current level-based MMOs the endgame is the point where leveling content expires. There is usually a shift from exhaustable content used for leveling to repeatable content, like group instances and raid or high-end PvP games.
- Does that last description line up with Orion's elder game? I don't believe so, although there is an overlap. What he describes is a design goal. Instead what we have is the reality of limited resources for content creation and the need to keep subscription players paying by repetition of content. I know that sounds bad, but a great many people view the leveling game as the grind they have to endure to reach that endgame. So, who is right? Not sure.
- I've spent some time hammering on the current MMO endgame for a reason. Most media follows a three act structure. There is an introduction, a building action, and a climax. MMOs subvert that structure by never reaching a conclusion. The endgame, as I'm describing it here, is a perpetual build toward a resolution that never comes. The closest equivalent I can think of are soap operas. There is rising action, setbacks, some character growth, but no resolution. The story never ends. And it can't end as long as the companies involved need it make money.
- The word itself betrays a desire to see some sort of conclusion to their personal stories. But until MMO developers can design a game that is a unified experience clear through with a definite endpoint, we are never going to see Orion's elder game. It will always be an endgame.
© 2009 Marty Runyon. All rights reserved.
If you're reading this on a site other than Bullet Points, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.
- By way of Syp from Bio Break, we get news that Champions Online is now offering a lifetime subscription to their game. The catch?
- Come on, you knew there would be a catch.
- The catch is you have to purchase the lifetime subscription by September 1. How is that a catch, you might ask, unaware that I'm going to type all of this whether you do or not? The game is scheduled for release on September 1, so only people in the beta will know whether or not they want to pay for the game at all, much less two hundred dollars for the lifetime deal. (Okay, yes, there is the $60 for six months deal but that's boring!)
- I'm in a dilemma about this. Time to break out the numbered list:
- I know so little about this game that I made a huge blogging faux pas recently. I want to make an informed decision and I don't know enough to do so.
- I've been waiting for a Champions game since April 1992. I'm not kidding about this.
- Two hundred dollars is a lot of money. A lot of money. Can I afford to pay that much in this economy? Would my wife let me pay that much in this economy?
- If I'd have known back then what I know now, I would have signed up for the Lord of the Rings Online lifetime subscription. I don't know if I've paid $200 in subscription fees for that game, but I would have played a lot more if I took the lifetime option.
- The NDA still hasn't been lifted on the beta and we are less than a month away from release. That is never a good sign.
- Even worse, the NDA is keeping the good stuff from coming out as much as hiding the bad. No one can get enthusiastic online if they can't talk about the game.
- Still, it's Champions, man. Champions!
- For now, my credit card is firmly stuck in my wallet which I don't keep in my computer room for a reason. I just don't know enough to make that kind of commitment to one game. My taste in games has been so flighty lately, I'm not sure I'd make it past thirty days. Oh well, I still have a few weeks to decide, right?
- Good thing I haven't memorized my credit card number.
- For more insight, make sure you read Green Armadillo's thoughts over at Player Versus Developer where he ponders the why and wherefores of lifetime subscriptions in general and for Champions in particular.
© 2009 Marty Runyon. All rights reserved.
If you're reading this on a site other than Bullet Points, be aware that this post has been stolen and is used without permission.
- And just like that, I'm done playing World of Warcraft. At least for now. My three month subscription does not run out until September, but it would take a lot to get me back before the next expansion.
- It's a decision I've been edging toward by inches over the last couple months. First I jumped into Age of Conan and had a lot of fun there. More recently I restarted Everquest 2 to try something different. As well, I've been playing a lot more single player games like Fallout 3 on PC and Pangya on the PSP. What I haven't done is play WoW for any appreciable length of time.
- Green Armadillo from Player Vs. Developer calls it endgame fatigue. That is exactly what I have been feeling. I've been through it one time before with Guild Wars. Soon after Nightfall was released, I got burned out and stopped wanting to log in. As a matter of fact, where I took five characters to the end of Prophecies and six characters through Factions, only one character finished Nightfall. Then when Eye of the North came out, I only played long enough to take one character through that as well. Now I rarely even think to play Guild Wars instead of another game.
- I'm at that point with World of Warcraft.
- I logged in a couple days ago and found my main character, Ashlynh, at the Argent Tournament. I immediately sighed because I knew a bunch of daily quests were coming. Because I was only a couple tokens away from completing the valiant's quest, I decided not to log back out again. I did the jousting, which I hate. I flew out to kill some undead in Icecrown. Then I turned those in and turned in my valiant tokens. My reward was to open up a bunch more daily quests. That was when I logged out.
- Looking forward to the next patch, there is nothing for me to get excited about. I'm never going to get into the new raid since I haven't even completed the lowest tier of level 80 raids, much less Ulduar. I'm not excited about another group instance. There are instances from the expansion's launch I haven't completed. And I haven't grinded out enough reputation to do the new daily quests. Literally there will be nothing in patch 3.2 for me to do, so why should I keep playing now.
- I still need to finish the Icecrown quests sometime. I'm not very eager about this since I know I'll still run up against the group/raid wall in the story. Why should I care about helping the Argent Crusade advance against Arthas if I'm never going to fight him myself?
- I know. MMOs are not single-player games. They've hit me over the head with that time and again. But that doesn't mean I have to keep paying for Blizzard's continuous second act.
