E3: Sony Media Briefing Live Blog

What is in store for the Playstation 3? Will the Vita prove it's significance? All those and more will be answered during the Sony E3 Media Briefing.

Variety Piece: 5 Things That Could Make Mass Effect 3 an Amazing Game

To anyone who follows my Variety Friday articles, they're changing a bit.  They are no longer scheduled to be posted every Friday, but instead every week or two, adding more "Variety" to the articles.

---

While Mass Effect1 and 2 were pretty great games, there were a few things that just felt...missing. Couple that with Bioware's tendency to screw sequels up (I'm looking at you Dragon Age 2!) and then you have a nice amount of things that could improve Mass Effect 3, as well as hinder it. This article is to focus on the main features that I feel, if added and done right in Mass Effect 3, could make it one of the best games ever.

Number 1: Meaningful Combat

In Mass Effect 2, if you really sit back and take a look at it, the combat seems more of a filler between story than an actual needed game mechanic. The majority of the time combat is simply allowing Bioware to call the game “A 3^rd Person Shooter/RPG combo” instead of an “Interactive Narrative” and half the time combat is just used as a means to get from point A to point B. Now I'm definitely not saying that they should have taken out all the combat in Mass Effect, god no, but what I am saying, is that combat should have more meaning with story.

What we've seen: With the addition of many more large enemies, Reapers, and a more “apocalyptic” feel in the world, the fights seem to be a lot more dynamic, epic, and useful for the story.

What could be added: Choices from within combat, Bioware has really made an effort to separate story choices from gameplay, but what if some choices were embedded within the gameplay? One example being how in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, *minor spoilers* when your pilot crashed, her survival depended on how fast you could kill all the enemies around her, and the majority of the time she would die. What if Bioware had moments similar to this in Mass Effect, where your combat skills affect the story, or how you can choose what path to take and who to kill.

Number 2: Bringing Back The Scale of The Universe

In Mass Effect 1, actually being able to drive around land on planets gave the game a sense of scale, showing that the game universe is actually large and expansive. I would really like to see them add some sort of “feeling of scale” into Mass Effect 3, beyond simply looking at a map.

What we've seen: Bioware has talked about their “search and rescue” missions which change as The Reapers conquer more of the galaxy, depending on how this is executed, it really could show not only a sense of scale, but a better sense of progression.

What could be added: If beyond “search and rescue” missions, you could explore planets that actually had secrets which could help, or hurt you later on in the story, that would definitely help make the galaxy feel alive. I would also like to see the addition of world exploration/travel again, whether it be with a better controlling Mako, the hover-tank from Mass Effect 2, or a whole new vehicle.

Number 3: Combat Options

One thing many shooters do to help make gameplay more interesting and engaging, is giving the player a choice of how to tackle problems in game (gameplay wise, not story wise) each with their own benefits. For example, with the original Deus Ex, you could choose to go head-on, hack hidden security systems, or be stealthy. A similar idea could be applied to Mass Effect gameplay to make it more diverse, although I'm not sure how you would be rewarded by taking a Stealthy vs. Head-On approach. Perhaps you could use the lives of a boss's employees as a bargaining chip if you sneak by them, and on the hardest difficulty, sneaking by would definitely make life easier.

What we've seen: In The Arrival DLC, you could go through a whole section of a mission without killing anyone, and you would get an achievement for it. The Mass Effect 3 Demo's Multiplayer also shows how level design is more based on levels, and verticality, which can allow for multiple paths to choose from.

What could be added: If they took the stealth aspect of The Arrival DLC and added it to certain sections of Mass Effect 3, it would definitely improve the game experience, and it wouldn't hinder anything since it would be completely optional. Hacking could also play a larger role in the game, such as opening up sniper perches, and alternate routes, or possibly turning a turret against the enemy.

Number 4: A Real Possibility of Failure

In Mass Effect 2, while the developers did say Shepard could actually end up dying at the end of the game, in reality, the only way for that to actually happen, was if you specifically wanted it to. You had to piss off your teammates, do absolutely no upgrading to The Normandy (which, even if you didn't do any mining, you could get ore in other ways), and then some. In Mass Effect 3, there really needs to be a possibility of failure, not only depending on how well you upgrade or make people happy, but also by the choices you make through out the game, and not the obvious ones either. There needs to be choices that, over the course of the game, would evolve and could, quite possibly, screw you over.

What we've seen: The developers have come out and said that in Mass Effect 3, The Reapers can win.

What could be added: As I mentioned earlier, I want all of my choices, from Mass Effect 1 and onwards, to fully contribute to whether or not The Reapers win, not just the straight forward actions in Mass Effect 3.

Number 5: Bioware, Don't Suck Money out of Us Twice.

Bioware is a game company, which means they like making money, and that has been seen with the DLC they produced for Mass Effect 2, most of which was quality and well worth the money. Now, the only thing I hope is that they don't over-do it, and force us to buy an additional pack of DLC for Mass Effect 3, to continue a story or see the effects of our choices from Mass Effect 2 DLC we played. I would ultimately feel like I would be getting ripped off, and that Bioware didn't make a full game and took content out of it, if to have Kasumi as a team mate in Mass Effect 3, I had to buy a whole new DLC pack.

A Personal Number 6: Bring Kasumi Back

Out of all of the characters in Mass Effect 2, the one who I liked the best has to go to Kasumi Goto, she is the only character who I actually felt fully interested in with their back story, as well as she had some unique skills. Besides Thane, she was the only other one with an enigmatic personality which made having her on your team, always “interesting”. If Bioware brings anyone back, I would love to see Kasumi return as an actual squad mate.

What we've seen: Bioware said they would bring major characters back, and according to the Mass Effect 3 wiki, that includes Kasumi.

What could be added: Bring her back as a full fledged squad member, not only with more full voice acting, but also playing a larger role in the game.

GamerZitch Game of the Year Awards

Well, it's the first day of the new year. You know what that means, the GamerZitch Game of the Year awards. This one was "interesting". A lot of close calls and some that were no brainers. Now, sit forward and check out the GotY awards from GamerZitch.

Best Action/Adventure Game

Winner: Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Runner Up: Batman: Arkham City

Best Multiplayer Game

Winner: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Runner Up: Battlefield 3

Best Handheld Game

Winner: Infinity Blade II

Runner Up: Pokemon: Black and White

Best Fighter

Winner: Mortal Kombat

Runner Up: Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3

Best Sports Game

Winner: NBA 2k12

Runner Up: NHL 12

Biggest Disappointment

Winner: Homefront

Runner Up: Dragon Age II

Biggest Surprise

Winner: Dead Island

Runner Up: Warhammer 40k: Space Marine

Best RPG

Winner: Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Runner Up: Witcher II

Best Downloadable Game

Winner: Bastion

Runner Up: Minecraft

Best Shooter

Winner: Crysis 2

Runner Up: Resistance 3

Best Visuals

Winner: Uncharted 3

Runner Up: TES V: Skyrim

Best Writing

Winner: Portal 2

Runner Up: Batman: Arkham City

Best New Character

Winner: Wheatley (Portal 2)

Runner Up: Narrator (Bastion)

Best Original Game

Winner: Catherine

Runner Up: Dead Island

Best Sequel

Winner: Portal 2

Runner Up: Batman: Arkham City

Worst Game

Winner: Thor: God of Thunder

Runner Up: X-Men: Destiny

Best Platformer

Winner: LittleBigPlanet 2

Runner Up: Sonic Generations

Best Racer

Winner: Forza Motorsport 4

Runner Up: Mario Kart 7

Best Sound Design

Winner: Batman: Arkham City

Runner Up: Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Best Soundtrack

Winner: Bastion

Runner Up: Batman: Arkham City

Most Fun

Winner: Portal 2

The John Callahan Award

Winner: Murder She Wrote (PC)

Most Anticipated Game for Next Year

Winner: BioShock Infinite

Runner Up: Mass Effect 3

Best Meme

Winner: Space (Portal 2)

Runner Up: Fus Ro Dah! (Skyrim)

Game of the Year

Winner: Batman: Arkham City

Runner Up: TES V: Skyrim

Honorable Mention: Portal 2

There you have it folks the 2011 Game of the Year awards have come to a close. Due to scheduling conflicts the ZitchCast couldn't be recorded this week so we'll be back next weekend. If you were surprised, startled or angry sound off in the comments section below.

Now here's a picture of Mob Cat!

Variety Friday: Why Skyrim Tries to Make Me a Dick

Skyrim is said to be the “Masterpiece” of modern day RPGs, but I don’t see how it can truly be a masterpiece when they don’t focus on morality.  Morality is one of the best features a modern day RPG can have, and by morality, I mean giving the player choices, and letting them choose their character’s versions of right and wrong.  It allows a player to choose between being an intelligent character who values the lives of others, or a berserker who kills all in his path.  But in Skyrim, I found there to be a severe lack of moral choices, it’s almost like Skyrim is trying to make my character into a big dick!

First, I’m going to touch the basis for moral choices, which are choices within dialog.  In most major RPGs you see the majority of moral choices within the game’s dialog; this is how essentially all choices are giving within the Mass Effect series.  But within Skyrim, in main and major quests, the game does tend to give you choices, but not enough differentiating ones.  And within side quests, you usually don’t have any moral choice at all and they are usually forced onto you with no other choices present.  I found that usually moral choices aren’t even present in the main dialog and that it’s just different ways to say the same thing, and that you essentially will do what anyone asks of you like a bitch, without question.  There are also no big choices that would affect a large span of opinions, say I just led the resistance to victory across Skyrim, and at the end, there are no big choices such as “I was wrong about you, and I don’t think you’re fit to lead *STAB*” and I don’t mean in this certain instance, I mean there are no choices like this within the whole game.

But, that example does bring me to another problem, which is unkillable NPCs; throughout all Elder Scrolls games I found this to be one of the biggest downfalls.  If I thought the leader was unfit to lead, I don’t have the option of killing him myself, since he can’t be killed!  So what if it doesn’t allow access to a quest or two, what matters is that it would have repercussions across the whole land, which would just expand the feeling of a living world, but instead you do the one biggest mistake a developer can do, which is straight up tell the players “no.”

Now telling the player “no” is acceptable in certain games, such as games like Dragon Age where it doesn’t allow you to kill any NPCs unless it’s part of a specific quest, but that’s less telling the player “no” than it is simply saying “it’s not within the mechanics of the game” which is fine.  But since Skyrim allows you to randomly murder almost any NPC you want, having certain NPCs that you can’t kill isn’t excusable.  I understand not allowing the player to kill core, main quest NPCs, but anyone outside of that should be killable by the player, though I never said they had to be easily killable.  The difficulty of killing them would probably have something to do with the character’s level, which I would assume would be in a “tier” such as in DnD, only characters at the highest tier of level could kill a very important a well guarded person, but now I’m rambling on into RPG leveling and that’s a topic for a whole other Variety Friday, so moving on.  Non-Killable NPCs may not have anything to do with morality upfront, but if you wanted to kill a crime leader or town mayor, those choices would be governed by what the player chooses as being right or wrong for their character.

Continuing on with moral choices within gameplay I find that random people tend to run up or try to kill me way too much.  Now this wouldn’t be a problem on its own if the game would give you ways of knocking out or restraining NPCs other than a shout and about two spells, that really isn’t enough ways to give the player a choice of killing or not, more than half the time I find myself running away since I don’t actually have a reason to kill whoever’s attacking me, and I don’t want to be a dick.  Also, the world of Skyrim isn’t as alive as the developers may have lead on to; I took the time to save a stranger I didn’t even know from execution and I saw him safely run away while I held off guards, then went and talked to him to have him simply say “hello”, and to find next time I came back to town that according to the citizens I didn’t save him at all!

If the game is going to let me stop an execution, at least allow the game to support the fact that I did stop an execution, instead of simply saying “What?  No you didn’t…..”  This is worse than a lack of moral choices, in that it is actually the false sense of choices.  If you are going to try and build a living world, or at least a believable illusion of one, there’s no point in giving the player a false sense of morality because it ultimately takes away the “living” feel of the game, and makes the player less engaged.  A game like Skyrim needs to focus on moral choices, or it will ultimately feel less engaging and not as good of a game.  Because not having moral choices takes the depth and connection to the character away, makes the world feel less alive, and can ultimately force the player into acting like a dick.

Variety Friday: Online Passes

More and more games are including codes in new copies that are required to access certain in game content.  Now, is doing this actually good? I say no.  Specifically when these codes are required to access content that is part of the main game is when this is really bad.  Because from a development standpoint, it ultimately means that content that a lot of developers put tons of hard work into will end up being seen and played by less people.  It’s never good to purposely limit the amount of people who experience a game, because if they are limited to what they can do they’re probably less likely to buy DLC or any sequels.

The reason I’m bringing this up, is that I recently got Saints Row 3 from Gamefly, and when I went to try some co-op with Allan Muir, I got a message saying I needed to activate a multiplayer code.  First off I didn’t even know I needed a code, but it’s also limiting me from experiencing the full game because Saints Row is based a lot around fucking around alone, as well as with a friend.  Now because I couldn’t experience a rather large part of the game, my opinion of it dropped and now I don’t even what to buy it anymore, or recommend it because it limited me from experiencing the full game and thus limits my opinion and understanding of it.

Now while some may argue that it’s your fault for not buying the game, I don’t think that’s a valid argument.  Because while I may not have given the developers my money, that doesn’t mean I won’t later, but making me possibly not like the game because I can’t experience a part of it, doesn’t make me want to buy it.  Also, games are an art form, and while this doesn’t really apply to AAA titles because usually they just want to make money, the more people who experience it, the better.  Finally, not buying the game doesn’t mean I’ll never give the developers money because I may buy DLC or future games, but making someone dislike one game by limiting their overall experience makes them less likely to buy any future titles.

Now if developers do feel like they need a way to get more people to buy the full game; instead of limiting those that don’t buy it, reward those who do.  Instead of taking away part of the game, provide those who buy the game with free DLC or additional content which isn’t part of the overall game experience.  Take Dragon Age: Origins for example; instead of limiting the game, they gave the players around $20 of free DLC which included an additional companion which could be used and talk to throughout the whole campaign with his own missions, just like any other companion, but without him the game isn’t limited in any way and you don’t miss out on all that much.  The players who didn’t buy it still get the option of buying the DLC, but they still get to experience the whole game the way it was meant to be.

Also this is a good time for me to say: Thanks Gamefly for including any original codes that came with the game whenever someone buys a used game from you.  This is why this article was more directed towards people who rent games for long periods of time, rather than used purchases.