Consistently Inconsistent – Under the "You know it’s going to a bad game if…" category

Remember that Blizzcon clip of the red shirt guy pointing out a flaw in the World Of Warcraft lore? Ever since I’ve known it, I always wanted to find out the small things that really change up the roleplay in games. Stuff from nonsensical information, inaccurate lore and storyline issues. Though now some may say it’s getting harder and hard to find them. But if you just squint and know where to look, you can really find them in almost all games. Well, the except being if the game has a wiki about it and the developers and writers are really looking on there. In which case, I do applaud the effort put forth by them to make it canonical as possible.

Here’s how I really break down what I consider to be flops in knowledge. I usually consider it as two main archetypes of “you’re doing it wrong”. First off is an obvious one; story. Usually anything involving character development or time period should be as accurate as the photos and descriptions will allow. Of course some people may want to build something a bit non-realistic but has undertones of that time period; in which case, there are some liberties to be taken. These are usually the arguments starting or containing phrasing like “cannot happen if”, “however”, “in reality” and “if this happened, why [insert flaw]”. I’ve had many of these discussions over the years with fellow players. Most of the time, it’s about on story and actions that I’m pretty familiar with, like Star Trek and historical war games or tactical shooters. Though I’m really most of the time refuting the inaccuracy, I don’t usually try and blame it on the game. You never know it could be a game limitation they couldn’t overcome, I respect that they left it out then making something odd. But ever since I got interested into it, Star Trek’s been one of those things I could really argue for unless I’m up against a hardcore Trek fan who knows each episode out of the franchise by heart. Since it’s coming out as free-to-play soon, lets take Star Trek Online as an example. Of course to put down to the simplest terms, it’s about 30 years since Voyager (recent according to the lore) returned home bring a wealth of knowledge from Delta Quadrant. From there, it’s mostly pure extrapolation of story pieces that never really resolved. One big thing that really catches my eye (though I’m not too sure CBS allowed it to be canonical) is the whole politic discussion of holographic sentience. Whether granted all rights and freedoms like a person or subject to the will of it’s creator. It very much reflects on old values and traditions that we all face and question. However, Cryptic Studios does make a point on the whole pointy designs of the new starships. I for one didn’t really notice until they pointed that out.

Second of all would be the financial aspects. Like what really defines “free” or “paid”. I’ve noticed some games offer free method of transaction, meaning you don’t need real money to receive the item in question. Usually they do keep it on the straight and narrow. However I do find it odd though, how “free” isn’t free. If you combine all the expenditures that took you from getting your computer, internet and the game as well as the monthly installment of internet and electricity; it starts to add up. Not just that alone that really haunts this argue, but how games advertise themselves as “free”. Recently on Youtube, I’ve seen the new ads for the new World of Warcraft with the free to play model. One thing, level 20 cap; that’s not the game, that’s just a level restricted demo. Of course they advertise that you can do anything they have in the game. Not sure if this is true or not, but high level dungeons would lag with level 20 player armies trying to take down something 3-4 times their level. That’s just false advertisement Blizzard, good thing you have that asterisks. Then there are those game which allow you to buy stuff with in-game currency, then backing out and begin supplementing it with cash based currency. I’ve managed to only encounter one game that does that where you need real money and in-game money to purchase the item. Doesn’t really make sense if they dedicated themselves to offering a free alternative to only supplement you with stuff you have to buy to get. Of course I don’t mean the micro-transaction deal, that’s where two economies exist where one you buy items for real money and (maybe) a secondary market where players purchase the item with in-game currency at a much higher price. To games considering that cash supplement idea, don’t do that; just sell two of the same item, one for the in-game cash and one for the real. You’re good at begging for money, but would begging really help?

How does this really effect us all? Well to the die hard fans, it splits it between a good game and a no-so good game. For your average player, doesn’t really mean much unless they’re getting boned in the process. The only way to really understand the game is to know the background story. Of course if you break it down, it doesn’t really matter since you would likely jump in and play because you like it or comment it because it’s similar to another popular game. And those who really do like it and there’s nothing else like it, just moderate the game. Tell them what they’re doing wrong according to the story or even how they’ve laid out the payment model. Let them know it’s good but here’s what wrong with it.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s