Just in time for the GDC, at least.

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

Back online!

In the mean time, I was a guest on a Podcast View from the Top. Someone blathered on and made their podcast extra long, so they created two different shows for the podcast:

http://vagary.tv/viewfromthetop/archives/68
http://vagary.tv/viewfromthetop/archives/83

We talk about a lot of topics, read the notes for each show if you're interested.

One of the annoying things about being an introvert is that you often want more time to consider something. In a discussion, that usually means adding bits of verbal fluff that indicates, "I'm still talking, don't interrupt." The classic example is "um...." Listening to the show, I can't help but cringe every time I say, "y'know". Fun way to get alcohol poisoning: take a shot every time I say "y'know". If I'm doing a much more scripted talk, like a conference presentation, I tend to have a lot less filler.

I also don't listen to many podcasts, despite the fact that I know there are some really great ones out there. I can block out talking too easily when I get focused on something else, so if I listen to a podcast while doing something else I tend to block out the voices. Usually I'll catch myself when people laugh and realize I have to rewind 10 minutes or so to pay attention again. I just have to focus too much on just the podcast, and I can read much faster than most people talk.

But, it was still fun. Adam and Karen were great hosts and it was a real pleasure to do the show. Give a listen if you're into podcasts, you probably won't be disappointed. Unless you play the, y'know, drinking game I suggested above, y'know.

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

Hear my lovely voice

I also have a new bit of contract work going on next month, so exciting times in store!

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

GDC next month?

But, this fact does seem to take some people by surprise. They go along and then suddenly they realize that this isn't the game game the were playing years ago. They wonder what happened to the elements that made them fall in love.

The demographic shifts

Wolfshead has a really insightful post about WoW's Growing Immersion Deficit. In this post he points out how an immersive world sucked people like him into the world. The attention to detail like how critters interact or how the ample decorations around the world that serve no purpose but to look pretty show a lot of care went into building the world to feel like a world. Yet, times have changed and the development has focused more on gameplay elements. One example discussed is the lack of weather effects in the new expansion areas compared to the original zones. There seems to be more of a focus on playing the game and less on exploring a world.

I posted a comment about how I feel this is a reflection of the changing audience for WoW:

Initially the game was a deep world full of mystery for gamers to explore. As WoW has penetrated into more of the mainstream, they have to appeal to a different type of person. The geeks who want to live in a fantasy world are being displaced by people who see WoW as something a lot more social to do with others. It’s like playing golf or shooting pool: you play the game and bullshit with your friends. Getting immersed into the world isn’t important to WoW’s current audience.

People don't realize that WoW is five years old now. This not only means that the once "ageless" graphics are now starting to show age, it also means that a different group may now be playing the game who weren't playing at launch. As the game as gotten more widespread appeal, the audience has shifted. It's not the same RPG geeks like us who initially took to the game.

Of course, one could also argue that immersion has never been a big part of these games. There are a lot of little inconsistencies in how a game presents the world, and it's required a lot of active willing suspension of disbelief to see a game world as a real world. After all, how long have the Defias been terrorizing Westfall now? Couldn't some level 80 Death Knight just go suck their souls already?

This is not the same game you were playing a month ago...

It's also interesting how the gameplay can change so often in games. Taking WoW as an example again, the end game was originally a very abrupt change; you could solo much of the game and could go from first level to max level without needing the help from anyone else. Yet, once you were at the level cap most of the content was not intended for solo characters. My group of friends who often tackled 5-man content hit a brick wall when our only option forward was to join a large guild and be only 12.5% of the force required. That wasn't a leap we wanted to make, so we quit the game for a while. During this time, a person decked out in epic purple equipment was either really lucky, really persistent, or a really hard-core raider.

When the first expansion came out, we went back and had a lot of fun again. We fell in with a bad crowd, though, and started raiding. Blizzard made the transition a bit smoother: the introductory raid was intended for 10 characters rather than 40. The biggest raids only required 20 people. I had a lot of fun with the raids at the time. Getting decked out in epics wasn't quite so uncommon, but it was achievable with a persistent group of people.

But, then the second expansion came out and things changed again. The general feeling was that much of the game turned more "casual". The final raid of the Burning Crusade era was a punishing instance that even the elite guilds had troubles with. As a result, few people ever saw much of the Magister's Terrace raid instance. Northrend was different, and soon raiding became a lot more accessible to people. Older players who wanted to feel special for raiding were called elitist for calling the new raids too easy. But, then again, people started referring to "item level" (ilvl) in order to distinguish between different potencies for epic equipment that a player could have.

It may be interesting to consider how the changing demographics of the game has changed the raiding aspect of WoW. Now, consider that this is the trajectory of one aspect of one game as its changed over the years. Just as raiding in WoW has changed, so do a lot of other features in other games change.

The business changes

I've talked about MMOs moving away from subscriptions for a while now, usually pointing out that the other business models might work better for smaller games. It's one thing to advocate it, but another to see it up close and personal. The gradual acceptance of microtransactions has had an undeniable impact on games. From the launch of Blizzard's new pet store (a harbinger of things to come, undoubtedly) to Turbine charging for a download-only "mini-expansion" (allowing half a dozen ways to get the expansion for free... this time) and charging for conveniences like shared storage and more character slots, subscription-based games are starting to look for new ways to make more money.

It's interesting, because this is pretty much what people seemed to fear would happen. Yet, there has been surprisingly little outrage so far. Maybe some people quit, maybe some people steadfastly refuse to be tempted by the goodies, maybe people really don't care. But, the business models are changing, even if its slow at first. Or, I guess you can argue that SOE already paved the way by making millions on name and server changes.

Never get a second chance to make a first impression

Of course, some people refuse to acknowledge that games can change. My favorite example is, of course, EQ2. Upon launch, it was seen as a weak game that was quickly overwhelmed by the impending launch of WoW. Even my hard-core EQ fanatic friends who bought EQ2 at launch couldn't resist the siren's song of the shiny new game. In the eyes of the MMO audience, EQ2 had "failed" and WoW had "won".

But, EQ2 didn't just roll over and die. The dedicated developers on the team worked hard to improve the game. Yes, some of what they did was to copy the better parts of WoW, but the game improved tremendously. The game a few years after launch was vastly improved from when the game launched. My friends who had bought the game when it was released went back when we took a break from WoW and got some of the rest of us into the game as well. It was a fun game, one I enjoyed a lot more than the original WoW to be honest.

The frustrating part is that a lot of EQ2's innovations go unnoticed because it's still perceived as an "inferior" game. While the active crafting system has some flaws, no developer has been keen to copy the system and try to improve upon it. Other features like guilds that level up have been completely ignored.

Old games never die, they just develop new cheats

I've been lucky to have been involved with a long standing game, Meridian 59. While I wasn't with M59 from the start, I was involved with it for over a decade. The game had changed radically before I worked on it, and changed radically as I continued to work on it over the years.

One example I've used before talks about how the game changed when a fix to a cheat make ranged weapons more powerful in M59. This was a necessary step to protect the game from cheaters, but this doesn't stop people from waxing nostalgic about the "good old days" when using a ranged weapon "took skill".

Another problem is an aging system becomes a bigger hassle to maintain. By the time I started working on M59, over a year after launch, the developers were doing things with the system that was never intended to be done. Although some of the "hacks" worked, it could have caused other problems with the game. Sometimes fixing one problem lead to the introduction (or reintroduction) of a few other bugs. Working with the system was cranky, so a supposedly "easy" fix took a surprising amount of work.

The more things change...

It's funny how there's a simultaneous expectation that games will change to stay fresh but that they won't change because the game is fine as it currently is. When I was at 3DO, one of my co-workers joked that the cry of the player was, "Make things better, but don't change anything!" A seemingly impossible task if you think about it, but understandable given the mixed messages a community will often give.

So, what do you think? Do you embrace change and generally enjoy it? Or, are you tired of your favorite MMO becoming the game you merely tolerate because your friends are still there? Do you think your favorite MMO has lost that spark that made you love it to deal originally?

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

MMOs change over time

I'm going to be asking more questions than giving answers, but let's look a bit at how cultural issues come into play in games.

In this post, I'm going to focus on comparisons to the U.S. market. This isn't some form of cultural imperialism, it's more about the fact that I live and design games in the U.S. and am therefore most familiar with this market.

This topic relates a bit to the Worldplay Project I mentioned at the end of last year. Sometimes there's a bit of a culture clash when you play on other servers. As I mentioned in that post, it was interesting to see how the German fans of Meridian 59 were different than the U.S. fans. I didn't play a lot on the German server since my German wasn't very good, but attending the get-togethers in Germany and chatting with German administrators provided a lot of insight to the differences.

Board games are also an interesting example to consider. European board games have a different design aesthetic, even compared to modern American board games. German board games in particular spurred a lot of renewed interest in board games in the U.S. in some traditional gamer demographics. For many of these players, traditional American board games hold little interest. Board gaming is much bigger in the European markets; most board game designers get published first in Europe then have successful games "ported" to the U.S. market.

So, let's hear your experiences: what are the differences between servers in different countries? What cultural issues did you run into? What generalities can you make about European (or German, etc.) players vs. U.S. players? I'm particularly interested to hear from some of the European players like We Fly Spitfires or Spinks who have played on U.S. servers, or U.S. players who have played on European servers. What cultural differences have you observed? Any experiences are welcomed, though.

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

Cultural differences in gaming

But, there are also dark sides to the feedback loop when it doesn't start properly or if it becomes self-reinforcing. In this case, the feedback accelerates the loop. The RTS example can turn into a self-reinforcing loop if there is no way to overcome superior numbers in the game through game features like defensive structures. In this case, the player who builds the most powerful side first and plays at least as well as his or her opponent will win.

So, let's take a look at some of the feedback loops in games in more detail.

Feedback is fundamental

All games provide some form of feedback. Graphics or board layouts change, sounds play, items are shifted around, numbers are increased or decreased, etc. Feedback gives the player the information necessary to make decisions on how to play.

Expert designers use feedback to help the player progress. The recent Mario games are usually listed as a prime example how to use feedback to guide the player; give the player a block to hit to get a new ability, and give them a shiny goal to reach using that new ability. Player gets rewarded and learns the basics of a new ability. The player will be expected to master the ability as the game progresses.

Feedback loops come in a lot of other forms as well. In an FPS, the player could be rewarded for more precise aiming at vulnerable locations (HEADSHOT!) In an RPG, the player might be required to gain more levels in order to tackle a higher level enemy. In an RTS, a player who built a stronger economy will most likely be able to build a stronger army (assuming the player who build a small army faster doesn't attack when the economic player is defenseless!) Note that feedback loops happen at different scopes. At a very fine level of detail, a small action such as aiming more precisely in an FPS can help you in a small way. At a larger level of detail, gaining more levels in an RPG can make content easier, even though "gaining levels" requires a lot of individual player actions and decisions.

Feedback loopy

"Feedback loop" is somewhat of a tautology because feedback is always part of a loop. In communication, I say something and you respond to that with your feedback (verbal and non-verbal). In a game, you make a decision and preform a game action, and the game changes based on what you did. Feedback requires interactivity, and games are all about interactivity, which is why feedback is important for a game designer to understand.

The loop part is important to emphasize, however, because it can help a designer think about how feedback works. If the player understands the feedback as it relates to his or her actions, then the game is much more enjoyable. However, if the player does not understand the feedback, this can lead to frustration as an effect seems to have no cause. For example, if the feedback happens a long time after an action is taken (or not taken), this can be really frustrating to the player. A prominent example of this was in some older adventure games, if you did (or did not do) something early in the game it could result in a problem much later in the game, potentially making the game unwinable. If the player has to rely on external sources to avoid such problems, this can diminish the game.

The stalled loop

One problem with a feedback loop is if it has a hard time getting started. For example, if you need a power-up to preform an action but you need to do that action to get a power-up, this can stall a feedback loop. For example in RPG games, if the initial monsters are too hard for a player just starting and thus the player cannot earn experience from defeating monsters, it is hard to gain the levels necessary.

An example of this is found in Lord of the Rings Online's latest addition: Skirmishes. The soldier you get to help you starts off very weak. Tackling content that seems appropriate will actually be much harder because your soldier will not be powerful enough. In order to get more power, you need to earn skirmish marks. To get the marks, you have to succeed in skirmishes. Once you get a powerful enough soldier, collecting the marks becomes easier and completes the feedback loop. However, it can be hard to start the loop in the first place.

The self-reinforcing loop

The opposite of the stalled loop is the self-reinforcing loop. This is when the results of a player action make subsequent actions easier (or sometimes harder) to accomplish. Going back to our RPG example, we might find that getting into a few more random fights increases your level faster and makes it easier and faster to fight other enemies. You advance faster from killing more enemies, giving you a higher level, making it easier to kill, etc. This type of loop is usually called a positive feedback loop.

Sometimes the loop makes things harder. For example, dying in a game where you lose all your possessions can be a negative feedback loop. You might grab a spare set of equipment to go try to reclaim your lost items, but with less powerful equipment the same situation that caused you problems in the first place may be even more difficult to overcome. Eventually you might run out of options and be completely unable to get back to your original level of power without abandoning the situation.

The terms "positive" and "negative" shouldn't be used as a judgment of the desirability of the loop. A positive feedback loop where someone winning will most likely keep on winning can lead to a really frustrating game. Alternatively, a game where a negative feedback loop makes it harder for a winner to keep the lead can lead to more dynamic and interesting game, even if the player in the lead gets frustrated from being dethroned at the wrong time.

Loop with care!

So, what feedback loops have you noticed in games? Which ones do you think are good uses of feedback, and which are poor?

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

Feedback loops in gameplay

Unfortunately, the same people asking for innovation are the same people who hinder it. There are a lot of reasons why we don't see innovation in game development. Let's take a look at some of them.

A standard caveat: I link to some people as examples that may not be entirely flattering to them. I mean no disrespect, just using public statements to demonstrate my points.

Why a lack of innovation is a problem

So, why is this worth discussing? The simple answer is that players say they want innovation. Game players tend to be attracted to the new; for most, they want something they aren't already bored with.

A deeper answer is that we need innovation to help improve game development and design. To see the problems in the industry related to a lack of innovation, I recommend evizaer's blog entry on The Imitation Rut. In brief, unless we try new things we won't advance. Often new writers are given the advance that they need to "write a million words" in order to truly learn the craft. As they write more and more, they start to reflect on their work and look for ways to improve. Of course, reading others and learning from past mistakes is important, but someone who merely copies existing stories (or just rewords them) isn't going to learn how to become a better writer, and certainly isn't going to write a groundbreaking novel.

This is similar to other fields, including MMOs, where we need to test things out to see how they work. Getting into endless intellectual discussions about possible feature X vs. Y will often prove nothing until you actually try something out. In order to advance the state of the art, we need people willing to innovate.

Defining innovation

Let me explain what I mean when I talk about the slippery topic of innovation. I'm primarily concerned with design innovation here; doing a bog standard game in a cutting-edge rendering engine may be technically innovative, but that's not what I'm concerned with here. As usual, there are no hard and fast rules here.

At the core, innovation is doing something new. How new something has to be before it's innovative is the question. If you study game development history, you quickly learn that it's hard to have something that has never been done before. So, a game doesn't have to be completely unique to be innovative. Sometimes combining familiar elements or taking a common element and presenting it in a new way can be innovative.

Let's look at a big game that many people consider to be innovative: The Sims. This game certainly wasn't the first simulation game. It wasn't the first game about constructing buildings or controlling people. But, the gameplay of micromanaging the daily life of individual characters was unique. The A.I. elements that affected the individual characters was also not common in previous games. The ability to use the characters like actors and present stories was not found in another games. Putting all these elements together into a single game presented an innovative game the likes of which had not been seen before. Interestingly enough, this is one of the few highly successful games that has not been readily cloned, unlike a lot of other innovative games.

Innovation vs. evolution

How does innovation differ from ievolution? I think most thinking people agree that MMOs have evolved over time. But, look at what Cuppy talks about when it comes to FPSes; half of her evolutionary improvements focus on the technical side with better graphics and machines. There's an assumption that elements like improved graphics have to improve the game or make it more fun. This is not always the case.

Also take a look at Cuppy's list of EQ2's evolutionary elements. Of her list, many can be found in other games in other forms. Appearance slots are fairly original, however, but they don't directly impact the primary form of gameplay. Mini-expansions and adventure packs were more of a business model decision, intended to get more money out of players for less overhead cost (putting a box in the retain channel). Only heroic opportunities and guild leveling are innovative systems to my knowledge. The other eight points she mentions existed in previous games. This is also ignoring the fact that EQ2 is a sequel to an original game, even though it has changed over time and become more independent from the previous game as time goes on.

She goes on to try to defend other evolutionary changes, but most of her defenses fall flat. One in particular I enjoy pointing out is "soloability" in games; Cuppy claims that WoW pioneered this when that is demonstratively false. EQ1 had a strong focus on grouping, but many early MMOs (and text MUDs before them) focused almost entirely on the solo player. Meridian 59 still doesn't have the concept of adventuring groups/parties, with the vast majority of the game able to be played solo.

But, I will agree with one of Cuppy's points: often players do not know what they want, and they often want completely contradictory things.

The conflict in what a player wants

Noted blogger Keen wrote a recent post about how MMOs are going backwards. His argument is that newer games aren't living up to the promises of the notable older games: EQ, DAoC, and SWG. Keen argues that newer games seem to not really be improvements, using the example of Warhammer Online's two-sided war being an inferior duplicate of DAoC's three-sided conflict.

Keen asks, "To correct this problem, why not make games that push the boundaries of what we knew?" One might think that he is asking for innovation, new elements added to existing games that made them more amazing. However, the article advocates simple systems such as a graphically updated DAoC. I agree with Cuppy in that Keen is ignoring a lot of improvements MMOs have made (although not necessarily the ones she points out), and asking for an old game with shiny new graphics isn't really an advancement.

At the end of his article, Keen asks several questions, trying to figure out why modern games don't live up to their potential. The truth is that we need innovation to push the boundaries. Developers need to come up with new systems, new design elements, and new ways to bring new improvements to games. So, why don't we see more progress from innovation?

To find this answer, we just need to read the Keen of five months prior. In this earlier post Keen says that games need to achieve "perfection" before they innovate and that "change for the sake of change" isn't always necessary In an addition to his post he states, "Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Don’t remake what already works." Unfortunately, this sets an impossibly high bar for innovation and advancing game design.

Innovation is Risk

The problem with innovation from a business point of view is that it is risk. A large game project with millions of dollars invested into it is going to shun risk, because a lot of money is on the line. Making an MMO is risky in the first place, so taking on more risk is not a sound decision unless that risk is going to result in more money commensurate to the risk. When you're spending someone else's money, taking on more risk can cause harm to your career.

For MMO fans, this means that if you want a "perfect" game it's going to require a large budget. If it has a large budget, it's not going to innovate. This is the reason why Keen's earlier post about how developers need to focus on perfection before innovation is, in reality, the same as saying, "do not innovate at all" and therefore be unable to advance the state of the art.

Let's take a look at innovation outside of MMOs for a moment. One of the most innovative changes in games in the last few years is probably the Nintendo Wii; love it or hate it, you had to admit that the Wii controllers are very different than previous console controllers. Even now, a lot of people are dismissive of the Wii since it does not have the graphical capabilities of competing consoles. But, Nintendo took a huge risk that went against the grain and it paid off spectacularly. I'm certain that if Nintendo had been trying to compete directly with the graphical prowess of the XBox 360 or the Playstation 3, they would not have had the ability to try an innovative controller design. Note that the other console companies only started to invest more in motion-control for games now that the Wii has proven it to be popular to the public.

Polish is the opposite of Innovation

The intense focus on "polish", which usually means that an element has been refined and improved. "Polish" often requires a lot of time, though, whereas a feature that has been around long enough to be polished usually no longer innovative.

Let's take a look at the master of polish, Blizzard and some of their biggest games over the last 15 years:

• Warcraft - A variation of RTS games pioneered by titles like Dune and several earlier games.
• Warcraft II - A sequel to Warcraft with a few new features.
• Diablo - An random dungeon game with a focus on action gameplay; earlier examples are Nethack and Dungeon Hack among other games.
• Starcraft - A successor to Warcraft in a Sci-Fi setting.
• Diablo II - A sequel to Diablo.
• Warcraft III - A sequel to Warcraft II. What's interesting is that this game was supposed to include more RPG elements, but this was cut and the resulting game played more like a traditional RTS.
• World of Warcraft - A fantasy MMO with core mechanics heavily inspired by EverQuest, which was itself heavily inspired by DIKU MUDs.

If you look at that list, there isn't much innovation. Now, some of these games can have elements that are considered innovative: Starcraft had three very different but still fairly balanced sides to the conflict. WoW, of course, introduced a lot of usability improvements not found in other MMOs. But, for the most part the most notable Blizzard games have been variations of exiting games and that is why they can afford to focus on polish: they do not have to worry too much about if the core mechanics are fun. In every case above there are earlier games that took the big risks by attempting an innovative change, then Blizzard adopted the basic gameplay and made incremental improvements to the game.

Now, this isn't to insult Blizzard. Part of their strength is to know how to improve a game so that it is often easier to get into. Their game designers are knowledgeable enough to know what areas need to be polished. These are very impressive design abilities that few others developers can match. If you look at the biggest game developers you'll see that their work is mostly based off of existing types of games. Bioware's games are largely D&D-based, and variations of D&D have been around for most of the history of computer games. A more modern example is Zynga, whose social games are often variations on old BBS door games, or clones of other games but with better production values.

Innovation is a paradox

Unfortunately, innovation does not mesh well with polish, perfection, or other indicators of high production values. As I've said many times before, true innovation will most likely come from independent developers. They will often develop a game with less resources, but that means the will be taking less initial risks. This allows them to take more risks in development, but it also means that they may not have the deep pockets for great artwork, or to license expensive middleware, etc. The alternative is to wait around for a company to fall from grace like Nintendo to turn around and decide to buck the trend to offer something different. And, yes, larger games will evolve slowly, adding incremental changes as they go. You'll have to be patient if you want innovation and to expect some rough edges.

What do you think? Do you really want innovation or has it become a meaningless buzzword? Are you willing to sacrifice other elements like polish, graphical presentation, and other expensive elements in order to enjoy innovation? What games have you tried out that have been innovative?

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

The Innovation Paradox

Unfortunately, this lack of professionalism hurts the game industry. We need more real game journalists who do a good job covering the industry and showing what is really going on. Sadly, this is all too rare and most game "journalism" fails spectacularly.

Why journalism matters

Why get all worked up over game journalism? It's my old friend legitimacy again. Without real journalists and critics, we don't move forward as fast as we might otherwise to gain more acceptance as an expressive medium. If we have too many "journalists" that just read press releases and give unfaltering praise to big games (reserving scorn for smaller games with little advertising budget), then we reinforce the same patterns that already dominate the industry.

This is also the reason why it's not entirely hypocritical for a crass game developer to point at a journalist and ask them to be professional. ;) What I sometimes lack in decorum I make up for by trying to move the industry forward in other ways.

And, I don't believe journalism can be completely replaced by blogging. As much as I love bloggers (being one myself), we just don't have the impetus to do the real work needed. Blogs are often good at lightly covering topics, or being quick to pick up on an interesting story. Real journalism digs deeper into the story and verifies facts.

I think that everyone, especially game developers, need to start appreciating good journalists more in order to move the industry forward. Real journalism takes time and effort, and has a potentially lower return on investment if we don't give them support. It might be nice to have a popular site willing to regurgitate press releases, but it's better to have critical insight. While I don't appreciate Roger Ebert's perspectives on video games, it's not hard to see that critics like him have had a tremendously positive influence on movies.

The culprit

So, let's look at an example of "game journalism" over at Joystiq about NDS closing down. Here are some of the inaccuracies in a two-paragraph blurb:

"We don't blame you if you can't remember Near Death Studios..."
Except that the company is newsworthy enough to get coverage on the front page of a major news site.

"...which today announced..."
Actually, the blog post referenced was dated the 31st of December, while this article was posted on the 5th of January.

"...nine years spent trying (and failing) to make money..."
Actually, we made a fair amount of money. Enough to pay five full-time employees at once time. Not luxurious wages, but about what my blue-collar father made when I was growing up. The problem is that we stopped making money just this last year and I didn't want to put the game in financial risk.

"The now-ironically named developer..."
That's not what "ironic" means. Unless you're talking about dramatic irony, in which case we got the joke because we picked the name in the first place.

"We can't help but wonder if changing the company name might have helped "Near Death" earn more confidence from prospective financial partners."
Let me end your wondering: No. Just like nobody turns away from Blizzard because they're afraid of being buried in snow. Coming from the Midwest, "blizzard" is most definitely a negative term for me.

And this is an article posted on the front page of one of the largest game sites. What's really unfortunate here is that this reflects typical attitude for large sites toward small developers: smaller developers get thinly veiled contempt. A topic that some other sites have handled with some delicacy becomes the target of mockery. It doesn't matter because I'm not likely to make a huge ad buy from a site like Joystiq. (Compare the tone of a story the previous day about EA shutting down multiplayer servers for old sports games. Less mocking there probably because EA will buy a large amount of ads when a new game they want to hype is coming up.)

A bitterly funny interlude

It sure is interesting that NDS is getting all sorts of attention these days now that it's ending. Few people took so much interest when it was still running. Props to the people out there who did pay attention and give it coverage before this announcement.

All is not hopeless

Let me give a counterexample about why we shouldn't give up on game journalists entirely. One journalist from GamePro actually contacted me by email to clarify some of the information for a story being written. Although the email got most of the information right, it was nice to see a journalist actually trying to do a good job. the article posted is pretty accurate and even includes a nice quote at the end from me. I appreciate the extra time it took to send an email before rushing to get a story out. Again, we should take time to appreciate people who do actual work to investigate a story.

A call to action

So, let's start putting this into action. Post in the comments if you've seen any particularly great or poor examples of game journalism out there. Let's start recognizing and rewarding the good people and sites with positive attention and shunning the poor ones. We may not be able to do much individually, but together we might have an influence, and that influence can spread.

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

Game Journalism Fail

But, today is the official last day of the company. We started it early in 2001 to make games and got the opportunity to buy the rights from Meridian 59 from 3DO; that game dominated NDS's life.

If you're interested in some details, read after the jump.

As I've wrote before, the company has had an interesting past. We started the company with three co-founders, two in California and one across the country. Early in the company's history the other Californian founder dropped out right before we got the opportunity to buy M59.

We had hoped that M59 would be the springboard to other successes. We focused a lot of effort in getting M59 launched. Most people were amazed we were able to launch an MMO with just a handful of people. Other said that "of course!" we could relaunch M59, since online games never really die; I still find that humorous given how many online games have slipped into oblivion.

Unfortunately, M59 never really grew. We were lucky that we got a lot of attention for keeping an old game alive from the press. We also had a small and dedicated group of fans willing to keep the game alive. But, the press didn't really care about our attempts to improve the game, and the fans weren't interested in trying to attract new players. So, we were in a purgatory where we had enough money to keep moving forward, even spend some on things like advertising, but not enough to really grow like we needed.

The death knell was probably when we tried to do a massive upgrade to the client, getting an actual 3D hardware accelerated renderer instead of the DOOM-era software renderer. We finished this project a few months before WoW launched, and any fanfare we tried to generate was drowned in the flood of WoW excitement. On top of that, WoW cannibalized our subscribers (like it did for many other games), so we had even less income to deal with.

Honestly, the last five years the company has just been on life support. I haven't taken a regular salary from the company in many years now. There's enough money to keep the server running and someone to do the minimum maintenance required. But, little work has been done on the game, and believe me the fans have noticed. :)

The killing blow was losing our billing provider. We no longer had a credit card processor for subscriptions. We talked to another company, but after several months of false starts they told me they were dropping the project since they had sunk so much money into it without result. Which is sad, because they didn't tell me that anything was wrong until they just dropped it. While deciding how to handle the situation, it was decided that closing down the company was the best option.

On the bright side, it's kind of cool to have kept a business running for almost 9 years despite all the ups and downs. I've gained a lot of business, game design, and game administration experience. I've met a lot of great people over the years.

So, this has been bittersweet for me. It's been a long time coming. I kind of wish things had gone differently; there were a few opportunities in the past that the company failed to act on. Nothing that would have let us become the next Blizzard, but things that could have give the company (and me) a different trajectory. Little sense fixating on the past at this point, though.

In my personal life, I've been seeing a lot of stories about life passing people by. I feel like I've been pretty passive in my life the past few years. I think I'm going to use this opportunity to make a break from the past and focus more on the future. Make it's time to step my plans up a notch and make a new game.

At any rate, happy new year all. Let's hope it brings better times for all.

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

End of an era: shutting down Near Death Studios, Inc.

Notice any problems? Post about them here, please. Read on for some details for the curious.

The strange bit is the problem was intermittent. I didn't experience the problem myself. Someone who was testing out the problem for me had it happen only once out of a few attempts. One commenter on Hardcore Casual said that he got it to work several times.

I went through and deleted a lot of older accounts that were not legitimate. I apologize if your legitimate account got deleted in the sweep; not that it matters, since I've disabled account creation and you don't need an account to post on here, anyway. I also deleted some obviously malicious accounts and deleted some likely malicious uploaded files. Hopefully that has cleared up the problems.

If you see any problems, let me know as soon as you can. As I said, I didn't see the problem myself.

Post copyright Brian 'Psychochild' Green. Visit the post to participate in the comments:

Blog maintenance