ESRB Ratings

     Notice the little black and white box on the corner of every game you see? That is the ESRB Rating. These guys look over the content of a game, then assign it a random letter of the alphabet to show which audiences the game is appropriate for. The lowest is the EC rating which means “Early Childhood” and is suitable for kids 3 and up. The highest is the AO “Adults Only” rating. There are only a handful of games that have been launched with an AO rating as most retailers will absolutely refuse to stock such titles. The most common ratings are E for “Everyone,” E10 for “Everyone 10 and up,” T for “Teen,” and M for “Mature.”

      They haven't always been around though. The idea of rating games for their content never occurred to anyone until Night Trap for the Sega CD released in 1992. There was a bit of controversy over the game that was bad enough to warrant a court hearing about it. That, and other games such as Mortal Kombat were responsible for the creation of the ESRB.

      I noticed the ESRB is becoming a bit more lenient on their ratings nowadays. Metro: Last Light, for example, has an M rating. Yet, if you look through the Metro: Last Light Community on Steam, you will see one tenth of the screenshots are of the strippers doing their dance with their breasts completely exposed. Something like that would have been an AO, but it seemed fine enough to warrant an M. Let's just think of the implications of this for a moment.

      The rules of the ratings goes like this: if someone wants to buy an M rated game, they must show proof they are at least 17 years of age. The exception to this rule is if a parent purchases the game for their underage child. I'm all for this, but sometimes the parents don't know what the ratings mean. Yes, the descriptions are clear, however, parents should do some research on the game itself and see if it is truly appropriate. A term like “Sexual Themes” could be something as little as an exposed leg or as blatant as full frontal nudity. 

 

      I am not expressing disappointment with the ESRB. I'm sure they know what they are doing. All I am saying is that a letter in a black and white box is one thing. Knowing what is appropriate for your kids is your responsibility. If you dislike them seeing blood and gore, research the game and see how much violence is in it. If it is so much that it discomforts you, then don't buy it. The ESRB only tells you so much. It is up to you to make the final verdict.

   

What is an underrated title that you think is good?

     When you hear about the hype of a new game, you get stoked about it. Shortly after its release, the game is given critical acclaim and some critics even state that it is “the game of the year” before you even get to buy it. A game might can have potential to be the best game of the year, but it only gets attention because of the publicity behind it. The game was advertised, trailers were made, news surrounding it appeared on popular sites, and the finished product was satisfactory for its intended audiences.

      Yet, some of these games seem “overrated.” The idea that something is overrated is that it has gotten so much attention that you don't want to hear about it anymore. Either that, or you don't think it is quite as good as the majority says it is. There are also “underrated” games out there. The games that are really good, but are unpopular and never seem to reach the eyes and ears of people who might just like it. So I ask you: what is an underrated title that you think is good?

      For me, it would be Radiata Stories. I found out about this reading Game Informer a long time ago. It appeared as a magazine ad and nothing else. It looked like a fun RPG, but I didn't give it much though. Then I saw it sitting on shelves in Wal-mart. Out of spontaneity I bought it. I am glad I decided to play it because it was one of the best games I have ever experienced on the PS2. I let a friend borrow it after I finished and he thought it was the best game ever! I even wrote a review for it. You can find it here:  http://multiplayerfanatics.com/index.php/topic/434-radiata-stories/

CREDD, PLEX, Bonds: Are these a good idea?

     For those of you not familiar with these terms, CREDD, PLEX, and Bonds are a special method of paying for subscription based games. This is how they work: say you want to play Wildstar when it launches, but only feel comfortable paying the retail price. Wildstar plans to use a subscription, but the developers (Carbine Studios) will be implementing CREDD. CREDD is something you can buy with money equal to the subscription fee, but can be traded in game for currency. CREDD is a usable item that grants a month's worth of a subscription. Players who do not want to pay for a subscription can grind in game currency to trade for this CREDD. Other players can pay for their subscription and buy CREDD, then sell it in game for a tidy profit. 

 

      One way to look at it is “Legally trading for gold.” Most games do not allow players to buy in game currency from third party dealers as those are a bit shady. No guarantees you will be getting your money's worth. This way, players can pay money for gold traded between other players. No extra gold is generated by this CREDD. Some argue this is pay to win. I see that only in one game so far. That game is Runescape.

      Runescape use something similar to CREDD called Bonds. Players pay in game coins for one Bond that grants them 30 days of membership. I played Runescape for years and if I know anything, it's that money is quite literally power. I have made my fair share of gold and am sitting comfortably on a stack of 36M in coins. That is pocket change compared to the rest of the economy! I met players running around with hundreds of millions of gold. Gold gets you the best gear and items.

If a player grinds long enough, they can use their gold to buy Bonds from other players and extend their membership. At the same time, if a player buys lots of Bonds, they can trade those for in game gold. Bonds are well over 20M at the moment (last I checked), so if Player 1 buys 5 Bonds and trades them to Player 2, they will have earned 100M. That is $40.00 USD! It makes sense that Runescape's Bonds are arguably pay to win.

      Not only that, players who purchase CREDD or PLEX have a bit more leverage than the guy who doesn't buy those items. Player 1 has 1 CREDD up for sale. They offer, say, 5000 gold (assuming that might be high around Wildstar's launch), Player 2 has only one day to renew their subscription after their first month of freedom from debt. Player 2 can either fork over $15, grind that last bit of gold before the day is up, or cancel their subscription. Player 1 could lower the price, but if Player 2 wants to play bad enough, they will do anything to get that CREDD.

      On the plus side, CREDD, PLEX, and Bonds offer alternative means to people who want to play a subscription based game and have lots of free time to grind, but do not want to pay additional money. On the minus side, players with these items have the power. They can effectively manipulate the economy to their advantage and this could potentially turn into a pay to win scenario. I kind of like the idea, but it does need a lot of work to make it fair to both the seller and the buyer. Any thoughts on this method of payment?

 

What Sim Games Do You Recommend?

     I like the idea of sim games. Simulating an experience that may or may not be readily available to you in reality. Thing is, I have only played the most obvious sim game: The Sims. Not any of the expansions, nor the sequels. Just the originals Sims game. My question is what kind of sim games have you all played that you absolutely enjoyed? It can be any kind of sim. Seeing this week is Valentine's Day, I'm sure someone has a good dating sim game on their mind. Be sure to list what platform it is for and if it is a PC game not on Steam, list the website or retail store to obtain it.

Game Review Ratings: The Trouble with Numbers

     A brand new title has just been launched. It's something you haven't heard of, so you have virtually no expectations for it. However, you have bought and played an unsatisfactory game in the past, so you look at a review online. You take a glance at Metacritic and they have reviews in the 9 to 10 range. Seems like an awesome game! You buy it and play it, yet somehow feel like it wasn't as amazing as Metacritic said it was. Why is this?

      Because first of all, numbers in the review sense are highly subjective. I am not a fan of racing games, so naturally, I would rate them lower. Meanwhile, another person can love racing games and think they are all outstanding. In other words, there is some bias on certain games. Trouble is, these games don't deserve these numbers or star ratings slapped on them based solely on genre or hype.

 

      Numbers are not objective, yet we see them as just that. As soon as we see that number 8, 9, or even 9.5, we immediately think “That is a good rating. Must be worth my time and money.” If you actually bother to read through the entire review, you will see the positive and negative points written by the author of the article. It's especially suspicious when the game has a rating of a 9, yet not a single negative point is mentioned. If it's so perfect, why give a less than perfect rating?

      The second reason to be careful with what you read about games is that some websites are paid to write fake reviews that praise the game and ignore all of the downsides. Most sites will even post the rating at the top of the page so it is the first thing you see. Don't just look at the review and be satisfied that the game you wanted turned out good. Actually read through it and see what the game has to offer. It also helps to look at more than one source. I have written reviews myself for over a year and have described the games as an experience. If the experience was good, then I end it on a good note. Otherwise, I advise readers to avoid the game entirely. No ratings involved.

      Have reviews helped any of you make a good decision for buying a game? Have any of them let you down? Do you know of any sites with trustworthy reviewers? Say something in the comments below.

Free Trials in Games

     Alright, imagine this scenario: a new MMORPG has just been launched. It is not F2P. There is a retail price and a monthly subscription fee. Yet, you love the ideas and opportunities offered by this game. So you either buy it based on what you think you will experience or you don't buy it and never find out if it was the kind of game you would have truly enjoyed for years to come. Fortunately, some of these games have free trials (also known as “demos”).

      I really love the idea of demos. I don't know a lot of games that offer free trials, however. World of Warcraft has a free trial that lets people play until level 20. That seems like enough time to see if the player might enjoy the game. The Stanley Parable has its own demo that almost feels like an entirely different game. I am aware demos and free trials usually cost additional funds to set up, but it would be great if more developers offered players chances to see if their game is really worth their time.

The closest we can get to finding out if a game is worth playing is by looking at reviews. Usually, we might just stop at one view with a number higher than 8. That is just one person's opinion. You have to look at multiple reviews to really know if a game is worth your time and money. 

 

      Free trials are typically set up with two types of modes of expiration: the first being time. Most games will give you thirty minutes to play a level and then that's it. Some MMOs let players go for a full week before locking them out. Usually the first part of a game is the most enjoyable. Everything else seems diminished and less engaging. It makes sense to let the player see only what the developers want them to see until they buy a full retail copy of the game.

      The second mode of expiration is capping. Capping could apply to time, but this most specifically refers to level caps or experience caps. As I mentioned before, WoW lets players level up to level 20. They are also not permitted to chat with players, trading, or using the auction house. When Diablo 3 was in open beta, players were allowed to make it to King Leoric and once he went down, they beta ended for that character. Open betas can be a nice way to try out a game to see if it's good, but it is usually limited to just the first few areas. You may have all the time in the world, but once that section is done, you will have to make the choice to either buy the game or try to play the trial again.

      My question is should developers make free trials for all of their games? Should they be extended? Should the idea of demos be eliminated entirely?

Supercon2K

Here is the link to supercon2k They seem mostly legit to me, but some of the links to their sponsors did not work. I think there worth looking into, but I think we should wait until January.
Let me know what you think in the comments.