The Current Direction of Gaming

So, I haven't blogged in a while, and I wanted to finish my thoughts on the "Smarter Grids" topic, especially since Bryan brought up scooters and that got my mind working. But I will wait and finish that later I guess. What I want to talk about today is the current direction of the gaming industry, specifically the focus of turning gaming into a "group" activity.

I would classify myself as a "light hardcore" gamer - I play very frequently but not usually obsessively, and I tend to play several games very thoroughly, rather than many games more casually. I play games to blow off steam for the most part. They are there for my enjoyment, and I don't particularly care about being good at them, as long as I am good enough to finish them I don't really care if I don't excel at them. I also play games virtually exclusively by myself. I have played some Little Big Planet with Leesa, and I was very involved with the MMO scene with Final Fantasy XI for a time, but since quitting FFXI roughly a year ago, I have been a very independent gamer.

What bothers me about more and more games these days is that they seem to be aimed exclusively at group gaming, either through a cooperative mode, or a competitive or team-based multiplayer mode. I don't mind that these games offer such options, I know a lot of people really prefer to play the games in those modes, and I know it might be a good idea to give gamers some opportunity for a bit more ... "social interaction". The problem is that many games focus ONLY only these aspects, and show little attention to the single-player (call it campaign, or story mode) of the game. So this means that there are many games out there that just don't offer enough on the story/campaign front because they figure they can make up for it on the multiplayer. Which is great if you like multiplayer, but leaves people who typically do not use the mutliplayer features in the dark.

The main problem I have with multiplayer experiences is that it makes my experience dependent on other people. And most of those other people are absolute and complete morons. I played a total of about 8 hours or so on the Far Cry 2 multiplayer, which amounts to probably 30-40 total rounds. I'd say that in 90% of the rounds where other players had microphones, one or more of the following was present...

• "Dude, I'm so high right now. I've smoked so much pot today. Is anybody else high? I'm so high."
• Player not actually speaking into their mic, but instead blasting their crappy music (typically Linkin Park or some form of gangster rap) for everyone to hear, only because it's coming through their crappy microphone, it sounds 10x worse than it already was.
• Baby screaming in the background - yeah man, forget about changing that diaper, or feeding your kid, you really need to help protect the Captain while he captures that control point.
• Player aged 10-14 talking about what their teacher did at school today that totally pissed them off, and explaining how they're not going to take it because they're hardcore.
• Player aged 10-14 reeling off as many curse words in their squeaky voice as they can think of, because obviously cursing makes you hardcore.

On rare occasion, I'd somehow land on a team full of people who actually use their mics to communicate to their teammates, offering constructive criticism or insight on a level. When that happened, it was actually really fun. The problem is, most people that play that way are already part of a "clan" or similar organization, and they all play very frequently and demand fellow members do the same. I just don't have that kind of time or desire. There IS a multiplayer experience out there that I want, I just can't dedicate myself to a game enough to actually get it.

As such, I tend to steer clear of mutliplayer games and focus solely on campaigns, but again, this is actually drastically cutting down on my options in terms of games that offer me my full $60 worth of enjoyment. Thankfully, there are some games on the way, specifically Assassin's Creed 2 and Uncharted 2, that should offer me a very strong campaign. Of course, even Uncharted 2 is going to offer multiplayer - here's hoping they don't make sacrifices in the story mode in order to work on the multiplayer.

Another problem with having so many multiplayer games is that they all wind up with smaller communities as a result. Instead of having maybe 3 or 4 games that have the bulk of the players, everyone is spread out amonst 20 different titles. So at a given time, even if you WANT to play some multiplayer, you might not be able to because there's just not enough people around to play a match. Perhaps this effect was exaggerated in my eyes as I was on Far Cry 2, which was not exactly a heavy hitter in terms of players - it might be very different if I was on CoD4, but either way, there is no doubt that having more multiplayer offerings dilutes the pool of players.

Am I the only one who has noticed this trend and doesn't particularly care for it?

Smarter Grids

Hey sports fans, I know it's been a while since I've blogged, but I've had a lot of good blog ideas lately, and it's time I cowboy up. You'll be relieved to know that this isn't going to be about sports, but instead, about smarter energy and traffic grids.

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of tech commercials on the radio about using "smarter grids" to improve the world. Let me put it out there right now that I am not an expert on any kind of grid, but I do like technology, and I am all for improving the world. I think that developing smarter energy is of critical importance and that quite frankly, we completely overvalue reducing automotive emissions and completely undervalue alternative energy sources. Hybrid cars are not the only possible answer to the energy crisis. Renewable clean energy sources, such as wind energy, provide much more value in my opinion. They would make an electric car so much more viable - currently it's just swapping burning petroleum for burning coal. Lesser of two evils perhaps, but we can do better!

Anyways, what bothers me about this commercial is that they brag about how the city of Stockholm recently introduced a "Congestion pricing" system, which you can read about here on Wikipedia. Essentially, this means you have to pay to drive in Stockholm during certain time periods. They have a similar system in many places, like London. What bothers me is that this commercial boasts it has reduced congestion by 20% (good) and carbon emissions by 12% (also good), but they declare this is a smarter grid produced using all this wonderful technology. I have to disagree. It seems to me like they've simply made it a financial burden on people to drive during these times and declared they've built a smarter grid.

I think all they've really done is made a more expensive grid and declared themselves brilliant. Pricing people out of the market doesn't make it any smarter. There's no great leap forward with technology there. You've accomplished two goals, reducing congestion and carbon emissions, but you've created other problems, namely that it is now too expensive for some people to be able to get to where they need to go. Because you now have to pay to drive, rich people are rewarded with less traffic, while people who may have to stretch their money further are greatly inconvenienced. Reducing congestion and emissions by forcing people of less means to find other methods of transportation hardly seem like a genius idea to me.

I mean, let's say the US government decides to start charging an extra $4 tax on a pack of cigarettes, so less people die of lung disease and the government then declares they've developed a smarter cigarette. It would be ludicrous. So why is making driving more expensive some super smart concept? To me, a smarter grid would be one that manages to move just as many people, but in a more efficient and environmentally friendly way.

Thoughts?