Discuss MOBAs as a learning experience. What is there to be learned by playing these games? There are many elements one must take into consideration in a MOBA game, especially concerning teammates and teamwork. On top of strategy and planning, MOBA players who expect to be successful must be very effective at cooperating with others – especially when it comes to regularly playing with strangers. While there tends to be a stigma of the "toxic" player in popular MOBAs such as League of Legends or DotA 2, this would be a look in the other direction, seeking out the positive and constructive mindsets that find success in the game. Most importantly, this would consider how the skills learned from playing games in this genre could ultimately benefit individuals outside of the gaming world and particularly within their own careers. Could we learn to be helpful members of a team within a workplace by practicing teamwork in MOBAs? Maybe!
With recent game releases such as "Starwars Battlefront," a lot of gamers are frustrated with the lack of content on the base, $60 game, with most content locked away behind an additional $50 price tag. While some DLC can add a lot to a game, such as extra story missions in the "Borderlands" series or new playable characters in "Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS," other DLC feels like the developers are just showing their inner greed (ex. downloadable content that is almost crucial to understanding the game's full story.) Explore the ethical issues when developers, almost intentionally, leave games unfinished and devoid of content. When does DLC become less of a "reward" for players looking for more content and more of a quick, money-making business scheme?
(Make sure to capitalize the words in the title). I think this is a really interesting and relevant topic. It could also be interesting to talk about what the cause of the trend toward including DLC is, and why its becoming so omnipresent. – Null9 years ago
I don't view this as an ethical issue, as both parties are using their free exercise to create video game content, and to purchase that content (or not in either case). I see this more as a question of motives for creating content. – JDJankowski9 years ago
'Hardcore' gamers often separate themselves from other gamers because they play for more than just completion, or the standard definition of 'fun'. Dark Souls may be a tough-as-nails RPG, but some players have completed it never levelling up, or naked (the character, not the player), or with only shields as weapons. The most popular levels on Super Mario Maker are usually the hardest, with players like PangaeaPanga making diabolical levels like Skyzo and Bomb Voyage (youtube them!). Pretty much any single-player game can become highly competitive once you decide to play it 'hardcore', especially if you want to speedrun it.
The charity speedrunning event Awesome Games Done Quick for instance, in progress at the time of writing, is a showcase of the hardest of hardcore gamers. The entertainment those runners provide, also including races between runners and gimmicky events like '2 Players 1 Controller' for Dark Souls II and blindfolded runs of Super Punch Out!!, is a powerful force for fundraising. The last event of this kind, Summer Games Done Quick in 2015, raised $1,215,601.49 for Doctors Without Borders.
This article would explore the benefits of playing 'hardcore' in consideration of the above and other aspects such as, potentially, the impacts of challenging yourself with video games using research on the psychology/sociology of the issue. Why is hardcore gaming popular, to watch and to do yourself? What does it take to be a speedrunner, to spend weeks or months playing the same game daily before you beat your last Personal Best? How can this relate to the science and psychology behind competitive sports in general, and are hardcore gamers really playing with or against each other?
For balance, however, some drawbacks should also be considered. The general focus of the article could be on how the risk/reward system of game design extends into how one chooses to play games in the first place. If research however outweigh the positives of such gaming, the article could suggest that hardcore gaming, while 'hard-nosed', may be harmful to the gamer when pushed too far. The subject can be taken in many, many more ways.
When I read this I thought of the Nuzlocke challenge in the Pokemon games where people impose upon themselves restrictions of number of pokemon to be caught, where they may be caught and that they are considered dead and to be released should they faint etc. Pokemon is not a hard game and is highly forgiving so it's interesting that people adhering to the challenge want to heighten the difficulty. – Slaidey9 years ago
Perhaps completionists could be talked about here? For the record, completionsists aren't just people who beat the whole game, but who get all of the Achievements (Xbox) or Trophies (PlayStation). There could be some interesting psychology behind the idea of Achievements too, and how your worth as a gamer can be measured by your Gamerscore. – ericg9 years ago
Competitive game communities could be talked about as well. In the smash bros (particularly melee) community, there is often drama and legitimate hate between the players, but also many of the top players have found their best friends through it. Also, there's the idea of what part of a game is lost when you play it 'hardcore,' as well as what parts you discover. It seems like it often changes the way we play them. – Null9 years ago
I instantly thought of Super Smash Bros. Melee as well, and its growing competitive scene. Personally, it's the only game I've learned to play on a competitive level. What I like about it is the range of options for the player. You don't have to play competitively if you don't want to. The game is still just as fun for a casual, party style multiplayer experience. If anything, in addition to joining a community, competitive play opens up entirely new ways to play the game that even the developers may not have considered (ex. wave-dashing in Melee as a major aspect of the competitive scene). – Filippo9 years ago
I suggest reading Alasdair MacIntyre and his thoughts on intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. – Rael649 years ago
With the recent rise in popularity in ''choices matter'' based video games, such as Mass Effect, Life is strange, Heavy rain, It's given players a new sense of immersion with each play through and outcome shaped by the flexibility of the one's choices. But does that it essentially It may teaches morality?
You could even expand this to ask if these games SHOULD teach morality. You could also discuss games that make the player think they are doing something morally right, when their actions are actually a lot more subjective (I point to season 2 of Telltale's The Walking Dead as a good example of this). – JMPetrequin9 years ago
This is a great topic for exploration. I would consider changing the title, though. Perhaps something like "Choices and Sense of Morality in Video Games"? It could be useful to look at the history of morality systems and how the function of them changes in particular games. For example, I found in Knights of the Old Republic I felt horrible whenever I did a 'dark side' option because when the writing comes up its in red and plays this HORRIBLE music. – Jordan9 years ago
Undertale would also be a good mention, given that the entire game's premise and commentary is based around the "Choices Matter" mechanic. I agree with JMPetrequin in that expanding it to asking if they should teach morality could be really cool, especially since it seems difficult to analyze whether a game can actually "teach" morality per se, only that they could inform it. – Null9 years ago
I'd debate that Mass Effect, as a whole, is a game in which 'choices matter'. From my experience of playing it, one half of the game is such a game where you explore relationships, while the other half is shooting. I never found one to affect the other. Undertale is a good addition; a reference to Dark Souls, where killing an NPC (and you can kill almost all of them) can have many unforseen consequences, may also add an interesting dimension to the discussion. One of the most vital things to consider, I think, is how games label 'morality' or karma alongside how the choices that are labelled as such affect the narrative. KOTOR has the light and dark side of the force and a different play-style for each. Fallout 3 had 'karma' that didn't really change anything aside from what noise was played after what you did. The Fable games are also useful to think about - note the change over time in the series. Being bad in the early games made you look ugly, but in Fable 3 you could look be an absolute [expletive] and still look dashing (but the kingdom you ruled might not). Does this reflect how the morality of the settings of the Fable games degraded over time? – JekoJeko9 years ago
I don't think these games actually teach morality, but they allow us to use our own morality to make decisions in game. I think a question you could ask is what these games teach us about ourselves? – Jiraiyan9 years ago
Drawing a conclusion in this regard depends on the definition of morality. Some, including me, would argue that morality is subjective. From that point of view these games force moral choices on us that have different meaning to the makers than to themselves. Furthermore, the choices are very often a simple black/white, yes/no affair. Such clear cut morality is unrealistic. I believe this idea is coming to fruiting, but has a long way to go. – fleish319 years ago
I think it's important to realise what games are actually giving a choice that effects the total outcome of the game - a kind of immersive theatre event where each person will undergo a different experience based on their character decisions- or an illusion of choice where the player is meant to feel that their actions make a difference, but in the end they will still have a similar experience to every other player. What also makes this interesting is that whichever path a game designer chooses there will always be a differing opinion upon the game as a whole. – CurtisCarlyle9 years ago
It has been over a year since the Gamergate controversy, where women video game developers and critics were harrassed online by misogynists and a wider discussion opened up about women in video games and the associated industry.
With this in mind, how have video games been for women in 2015? Can look at characters and themes in PC/console games from big hits (e.g. Star Wars: Battlefront, Witcher III, GTA 5, Mortal Kombat X, Fallout 4, Call of Duty: Black Ops III, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain) to indie gems.
An article could also look at how the year has been for women in the industry, as creators and developers and critics etc.
In essence, is the video gaming scene becoming better and more accessible for women gamers and professionals, especially given all the awareness that Gamergate brought to misogynism in the industry? Or is it merely more of the same as far as the last year has been concerned?
This is an excellent topic idea! I think there is lots of content for such a subject and it would make an interesting article. Your title is a bit long, however. Perhaps boil it down to something such as: "Considering Women Characters in Video Games; Feminism's Role". Otherwise, great idea! – Megan Finsel9 years ago
good point, thanks for the helpful suggestion! =D – Camille Brouard9 years ago
Great idea. A couple of vantage points you might consider: 1) there has been an interesting discussion of how marketing created this disparity back in the 1980s. Looking at how marketing has changed may be worth looking at (it may warrant an entirely new article though!). 2) Forbes released its "30 under 30" list recently http://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2016/games/. Females comprise less than one-third (9 by my count) of the list. Two are self-employed. Is it easier for women to freelance in the industry? – Kristopher Purzycki9 years ago
Recently there has been a rise in gaming of series that are either a part of the Dynasty Warriors series or spin-offs of it. Most recently there has been Pirate Warriors 3 (One Piece), Hyrule Warriors (Legend of Zelda), and Dragon Quest Heroes: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below (Dragon Quest.) There is even news of an Attack on Titan and Arslan spin-off games.
The unique style of Dynasty Warrior gaming has become immensely popular. For those who don't know, let me give you a short background on the game mechanics in Dynasty Warriors. Dynasty Warriors offers a unique form of combat in which the player fights as one of the main forces of a large army against another army's forces. This also means fighting countless hordes of enemies, capture enemy bases and territories, while also protecting your own territories against enemy forces all along with you army of allies. With these features, it truly makes it feel like there are multiple event going on at once and gives the player an immense feeling of freedom.
What stick out the most in the spin-offs are not the mechanics however, but the simplicity and play through of the game. While a lot may be going on at any moment n the game, the game manages to stay simple for people to play and get the most of the story as they have seemed to find a medium between it being too difficult where a person would give up or too easy where t would become boring.
Spin-offs of these games tends to have massive amounts of story and characters each with their own diverse style of weaponry and combat. There are even some relationships between certain characters that is more illustrated in these games then even in their own respective series.
I would note that most players (at least in the West) interested in the game generally care little about the plot. However. With spin offs like Hyrule Warriors, the plot becomes significantly more interesting. – Jemarc Axinto9 years ago
I would say the main appeal is that Dynasty Warriors series are "easy". It might not be that easy compared to other action games nowadays, but when the series first came out, the action game scene was dominated by stylish action games like Devil May Cry which required some skills to kill enemies with ease. But Dynasty Warriors' main concept was to emulate the feel of being "the warrior who could match ten thousands men"(epitome given to Guan Yu and Zhang Fei in real history) with easy control. No need to have back-forward-attack then press attack after neutral lever to unleash combos in DW; all you need to do is to press few buttons and enemies fall down like dead leaves. Also, Dynasty Warriors series tend to emphasize characters and dramas more than other action games. If you look at DW or Samurai Warriors, there are literally more than 30~40 playable characters, with distinctive designs or weapons of their own. This allows the gamers to play as their favorite NPC or minor characters, or even villains. The constant conversation between characters during the battle makes each very dramatic, which appeals to the gamers who want to see more character interactions or what if scenarios. This is very interesting topic. I will write on this topic. – idleric9 years ago
My Son is big fan of this Dynasty Warriors series. – WilliamRiley9 years ago
The title says it all. Look at how kickstarter is bringing back some old titles via fan support. Whether its directly like Shenmue or spiritual sequals like Yooka Layle kickstarter is allowing more games that fans really want to come back. The author should look at some of the fail stories as well to show its not all perfect.
In terms of video games, Kickstarter has also bolstered the indie scene and dramatically changed the market; Jotun and Broken Age are notable examples of successful crowdfunded video games, both now very successful on Steam and award-winners. A number of *new* games in addition to old ones wouldn't have existed sans the website, and a larger share of the market now includes indie titles thanks to crowdfunding - it's a new source of competition for long-standing companies like Nintendo and Sega.
Board games are another topic to consider as well, although probably not within the same article. – Apdenoatis9 years ago
I'm specifically thinking of companies like Ubisoft and their Assassin's Creed franchise (although whoever chooses this topic doesn't have to focus on either of these). Don't get me wrong: I don't mind the AC series. But there has come a point where just about everyone rolls their eyes at a new AC release (even if they end up purchasing it anyway).
Besides the obvious answer (i.e. easy money), why do publishers continue to milk their popular series to death? When should they call it quits, and how? Is there a "right" way to do it? Do they continue to milk these series simply because it is a safe move? If all stories must eventually come to an end, why do some companies stretch out these series until it becomes unbearable?
This can also comment on the alternative side of this issue. What about franchises that could have kept going strong and, clearly, have fan support but stopped? I.e. Chrono Trigger, Suikoden, etc. – Jemarc Axinto9 years ago
I do agree franchise fatigue is a concerning issue in the gaming industry, but ultimately the cause of such is none other than money in my opinion. I don't think any gaming company like the idea of ruining their established franchises especially the ones that turn out to be extremely lucrative, but as long as the sales statistics prove profitable on the consumer market, they will just keep pumping out game after game, and as you said, many people end up buying them anyways. As the gaming market grows larger and larger, so is its production cost. It's understandable that many publishers are not willing to risk investing in new IPs, that just mean more money in the pocket. Plus the fact we as consumers are basically condoning their actions by buying their games time after time, so we are partly to blame too. Same exactly situation exist in Hollywood blockbuster movie franchises as well.
The upside is the gaining popularity of campaigns like Kickstarters where many indie developers can turn to and addresses ideas directly to consumer demands. In regards to the "franchise milking", there is no signs of stopping and I think it sadly will continue to persist for a long time. – Tofuboy9 years ago
To answer the title question, explicitly excluding monetary considerations, and only addressing artistic merit, the general rule to me would be that it is best for a franchise to stop at one game, as if there is more than one created in a franchise, there is a risk for a creativity drain. – JDJankowski9 years ago
A good angle would be the crossover. At what point does a creative idea with strong fan support become a corporate cash cow? And how many ways can you dress a franchise up before it becomes completely predictable eliciting a yawn response? There is as much to be said for the ending of such a run as there is for the beginning. – Celticmist9 years ago
