I have never understood the acronym “MMORPG”, because it lies.

Role-playing games are what I played as a kid in high school. Combat tables, equipment, and loot only served as structure for the interactions between our player characters and the non-player characters (NPCs) portrayed by the Dungeon Master. The role-playing was the heart of the experience.

Nowadays, we drop the RPG altogether and refer to the genre as MMO. Combat mechanics and loot tables are all that computers are fit to replicate from the tabletop. Role-playing requires human beings, and writing and performing your own dialogue is a challenge for most people. MMO players often establish unofficial “roleplay servers” to make it easier to find one another, as they are so few in number.

When Bioware announced their focus on story in The Old Republic it sounded like a step in the right direction, but I couldn’t figure out how a focus on individual plot lines was going to support the group play that is so essential to a successful MMO. If all the players have their own, individual stories to pursue, what’s to keep them gaming together over time? When I sat down with Daniel Erickson after my hands-on demo of TOR at E3, this was the first question I asked him.

“The demo you played takes place on the origin worlds,” Erickson said. “Most of that is class specific content, but you can still work together to accomplish those goals.”

Why, I asked, would we stay together after that point?

“The great majority of our content is not class-specific,” Erickson said. “Each planet in the game has a world arc. They are giant, multi-quest stories that are designed for party play. Also, you get different dialogue options from NPCs for being in a party,” he added as an aside.

I raised an eyebrow.

“If I talk to an NPC by myself, I get a different set of dialogue options than if I was in a group?” I asked.

“Yes,” he said.

“If I have different types of character classes in my group during different conversations with the same NPC, do I get different dialogue choices each time?” I asked. No MMO has ever given me a reason to repeat a quest other than loot runs.

“We had to prototype the multiplayer dialogue system before we even had an engine,” Erickson laughed. “Brad Prince, our lead world designer, only plays MMOs. He’s a strictly multiplayer gamer, so he always asks how groups work. What we wanted to do was recreate the pen-and-paper tabletop roleplaying experience that people have always wanted.”

In other words, Bioware wants to create the first MMORPG that lives up to the name.

Here’s roughly how it works: you and your party of three players are on a quest together and encounter an NPC. Someone from your party starts the dialogue from the familiar Bioware radial menu. The NPC speaks, and then each member of your party gets to select a response from their personal radial menu, and you all issue your “lines” to the NPC. Think the party dialogue in Dragon Age, where party members opine about the potential choices you might make while dealing with an NPC, but now that party dialogue is being generated by human beings.

“In pen-and-paper roleplaying games, groups tend to move toward the extremes,” Erickson said. “You have a small group of dominant personalities all trying to control the direction of the party.” He gave me an example of how The Old Republic replicates this. Let’s say that your group is composed of three Light Side characters and you’re a Dark Side character. Your party begins the interaction with the NPC, and your three compatriots select Light Side dialogue choices.

You decide to screw with your party and choose a Dark Side dialogue choice.  That gets the NPC riled up, and now your other party members have to try calming him down as the dialogue continues, while you continue messing with them.

NPCs in modern-day MMOs serve as little more than quest bookends. Bioware is not only turning these interactions into substantive content through full voice support, but where groups of players are concerned has turned them into roleplaying exercises.

Bioware has taken the onus off players to learn how to successfully roleplay. The Old Republic may not even require roleplay servers because the game turns everyone into a roleplayer. Groups will no longer be solely about 40-man raids into instances, but about playing characters creating a story.

This may not make roleplaying the heart of the experience, but even introducing it as part of the default experience returns the RPG to the genre’s acronym and may forever change what players expect from an MMO well beyond expecting their NPCs to speak to them.

With Christmas all wrapped up, and as we burst forth into a shiny new decade all shrouded in optimism, it is perhaps the perfect time to take a trip with the ghost of gaming past, pausing for a peep at some of the most historic, amazing, and downright bonkers achievements from the world of video games.

As an ever-evolving media with boundaries and extremes that are always being challenged, it can be difficult to keep up with developments in gaming. Thankfully, though, the diligent folks at Guinness have been keeping their beady Irish eyes on things, allowing Gamer Limit to bring you some of the more remarkable world records in video game history.

Does size matter? Codemasters seems to think so. Last year, it proudly brandished a game boasting record-breaking length and girth, as Fuel claimed the world record for the largest playable environment in a console game with a mammoth 5,560 square miles (14,400km) of open world to explore. And you thought Grand Theft Auto IV’s map was big!

Speaking of which, Rockstar’s sandbox masterpiece holds a rather surprising record of its own, considering the number of music-based titles saturating the market; with a very impressive 214 licensed tracks played over its 18 in-game radio stations, GTAIV boasts the record for largest in-game soundtrack. The title’s monumental release, on 29 April 2008, is also the most successful entertainment product launch ever, having generated a whopping 210 million US dollars (£159 million) in worldwide first-day sales; it proved just how big the video game industry has become.

Whilst the GTA franchise is big, it’s not the biggest; having sold a staggering 200 million copies in his lifetime, the Mario franchise is by far the most successful franchise in gaming history. An interesting fact about the vertically challenged plumber is that his trademark moustache was actually a “forced design decision.” As his character sprite in Donkey Kong was so small, it was near impossible to fit believable lips onto his tiny face, and the blocky, black facial hair was an “elegant solution to a tricky problem.”

However, despite Mario’s unrivaled success, the midget Italian stereotype is merely the second most recognizable video game character. He is currently recognized by 93% of American consumers, according to a May 2008 poll by the Davie-Brown Index (DBI). With 94% of Americans able to spot Pac-Man (Namco, 1980), the veteran sprite’s fame exceeds all others. Other notable additions to the index include Lara Croft, Donkey Kong, Sonic the Hedgehog and Link from The Legend of Zelda.

Pac-Man’s superstar fame is not surprising when you learn that he plays the lead role in the most successful coin-op game of all time, with sticky-fingered gamers having collectively amassed a stupendous 10 billion plays of Pac-Man over the decades. It wasn’t until 1999, however, that gaming guru Billy Mitchell (often described as the “greatest arcade-video-game player of all time”) achieved the first perfect Pac-Man score, meaning he ate every dot, bonus fruit and blue ghost possible over the 256 levels before the game runs out of memory and the screen glitches and splits in two.

Since their conception, arcades have been a hive of score-hungry gamers flexing their finger muscles in attempts to get the highest scores. What better accolade for all this dexterous, frantic finger-work than to become the first gamer to score 1 billion points? This honour was given to Tim McVey (USA) at Twin Galaxies in Iowa when, at the end of a 44-hour 45-minute marathon game of Nibbler in 1984, he had amassed an incredible 1,000,042,270 points. What’s even more remarkable about his feat is that McVey used just one quarter to achieve his record-breaking number!

McVey’s score pales in comparison to the highest video game score ever, though. In 2004, J.C. Padilla (USA) obtained a mind-boggling 2,181,619,994,299,256,480 points playing GigaWings2 on a Sega Dreamcast (Score Attack Mode – Stage 2). In contrast, the world record for Cinematronic’s Space Wars – released in 1977 – was just 19 points; it’s a record that still stands!

It’s not only point-based records that can be achieved on arcade machines. In 1985, James Vollandt (USA) played Joust for an incredible 67 hours 30 minutes, which earned himself the world record for the longest continuous play on an arcade machine. In the process, he also set a high-score record of 107,216,700 points on the title.

You have to admire the dedication of some gamers, not least Richard Lecce (USA). As of August 2008, Lecce had amassed 483 unique video gaming systems, including a variety of hand-held games, home consoles and LCD mini-systems, meaning he has the largest collection of playable gaming systems in the world. Equally as dedicated is flight-sim aficionado Matthew Sheil (Australia), who spent eight years and $300,000 constructing the most expensive home flight simulator cockpit. Based on the 747-400, Sheil’s construction features 12 computers controlling motion, audio and the flight simulation game itself, but most impressive is the hydraulic motion system fitted to the cockpit.

Does “UP, UP, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT, RIGHT, B, A” sound familiar to you? That’s probably because, having featured in 151 games to date, this cheat code (the Konami Code) is the most popular cheat code in gaming. Debuting in the 1986 NES version of Gradius, the code’s effect varies from game to game, but in most cases, entering the code when the game is paused grants the player the majority of the title’s power-ups.

One of the most prestigious records in gaming has to be best-selling video game, a title recently claimed by Wii Sports, which has sold more than 43 million copies since its 2006 launch. This eclipses the previous record held for over 20 years by another Nintendo favourite, Super Mario Bros., which accumulated worldwide sales of 40 million copies. Clearly Nintendo is doing something right when it comes to marketing!

Another of the Japanese veteran’s titles, Donkey Kong (1981), is certainly one of the greatest arcade classics and home to one of the fiercest ongoing battles for supremacy. Billy Mitchell (yes, the very same Billy Mitchell who achieved the first perfect Pac-Man score!) set the highest score for an original Donkey Kong arcade game in 2007 (2hrs 39 min) with 1,050,200 points, beating Steve Wiebe’s score by a mere 1,100 pts. The high-score leapfrogging by the pair of gaming titans is also the basis for the highest grossing video game documentary, The King of Kong.

If I were to meet Victor De Leon III (aka Lil Poison), I don’t know whether I’d prefer to shake his hand or give him a jealous clip round the ear. Born on May 6th, 1998, Lil Poison became the youngest professional video gamer at the tender age of 6, having been signed up by a gaming league. Now signed by Gameology, who represents him as his agent/manager, he has participated in over 200 major gaming events.

The gaming grandfather Tetris currently holds nine world records, including the very impressive, but nonetheless unsurprising, accolades of most ported game (ported 70X as of 2007) and game with the most official and unofficial variants. Interestingly, it also features in the world record for longest prison sentence for playing a video game, after Faiz Chopdat, on a flight to Manchester, England, refused to stop playing the game on his cell phone, despite repeated warnings by cabin staff. He was jailed for four months for the offence.

What better way to round things up than with an oversized novelty joypad? Yes, even my shortsighted grandmother could just about see the buttons on David Randolph and David Ledger’s colossal NES pad, which weighs in at a whopping 68kg. (Marginally larger than the original Xbox pad, then!) The 2.43m x 1.01m x 0.22m fully working contraption is the largest joypad and is accurately scaled up, requiring two people to operate it – one on the d-pad and one on the buttons – bringing a whole new meaning to the term “co-op play”. Right, I’m off for the longest gaming session in underwear – it’s not for a record, it’s just how I spend my afternoons. Toodles.

Source: Guinness World Records

With Mass Effect 2 in its final stages of production, BioWare is hard at work applying the finishing touches that we’ve come to love and expect. Gamer Limit was fortunate enough to sit in on a roundtable interview with Project Director Casey Hudson, where many details pertaining to the combat system, dialogue options, and many other important aspects were revealed.

In addition to serving as Project Director to both installments of Mass Effect and the original Knights of the Old Republic, Casey has also worked on BioWare hits such as MDK2, Baldur’s Gate II: Shadow of Amn, and Neverwinter Nights. Come join us as we sit down with Casey Hudson and delve deeper into the inner workings of Mass Effect 2.

In what ways has combat substantially changed since Mass Effect?

We probably improved every single aspect of combat. To go through some of them, it really starts with the feel of combat, the way weapons feel in your hand and the way aiming feels. We really did a lot of work in the area, and fundamental to that is frame rate. On the first game we were trying to create a really ambitious universe and a non linear play style, which made it very difficult for us to find a final texture and memory budget and everything, but now that we have the first game that served as to what our final budget was, we were able to be a lot more strict about performance so that we could make sure we were always running at a smooth, fast frame rate, and that probably is one of the biggest things you will feel as a difference in combat.

Now it’s so much smoother, it’s easier to control the characters, it’s easier to aim: it just feels really good because the frame rate is a lot faster. But we’ve also done a lot of work to the camera and the aiming system. It’s a lot easier, it feels a lot better as you’re zooming in and targeting enemies.

Related to that is the weapons, we still have a very much RPG style approach to weapons and items. You’re buying things, you’re selling them at the stores, you’re upgrading and modding. The thing that I think people will find, you choose your weapons by feel because they each feel very different. We have more weapon classess in this game, and you start to choose your weapons just by how good they feel and what your preference is.

With the pistol category, we have a hand canon, a heavier pistol, we have a sub machine gun, and you might really like the feel of a Desert Eagle-style heavy caliber pistol if you like one shot weapons. You might also like the feel of the sub machine gun where you can do a spray of many rounds and but less accuracy, with more area damage. You feel these things, and that’s one of the big things that people find when they’re playing, they’ll switch to a weapon, and they’ll fire it, and they’ll love the weapon. It’s nothing we can put on a bullet point, but I think it’s probably the biggest thing people will notice, it feels really good.

In Mass Effect 1, part of the problem with it, because the weapon was a skill, your character might have a low skill in a given weapon, and that means you as a player might be able to get the reticule on an enemy, but your character would be unable to hit them because a character has a low skill or the weapon is a poor weapon. We’ve moved those things onto different kinds of powers, and so now the character is able to fire as well as you can, and just really adds to the precision of the combat. But at the same time, all the same depth is there in terms of your character progression. We put those things more into powers that really get to the fantasy fulfillment of each class, so each class feels deeper and more varied.

One of the favorites is Vanguard. As a Vanguard, you are good at shotguns and you have some biotic powers. One of them is “Charge,” it’s a new power where you can launch yourself across the level, you launch yourself using Biotic powers at a tremendous speed so you can physically hit another enemy, and when you do that, the higher end version of the power actually slows down time when you hit them, so they get launched into the air and then, in slow motion, you’re right there with your shotgun. It creates this really high risk, high reward type of combat. Its a unique type of play style.

But then you have other kinds of classes like the Adept, which can essentially remotely command the battle field. You’re looking around at all the different enemies, and you’re able to do Pull and Throw and all these amazing abilities, but, beyond that, we’ve advanced those powers so that when you do a power like Pull, it’s not just some that pulls the enemies towards you. It’s an actual projectile that you throw into the world, and it guides towards the enemy. Depending on which angle you throw it, it’ll yank that enemy in that direction. So, if you’re on a bridge, you won’t just pull the enemy towards you, you can yank them left or right on either side of the bridge. You can really control what you’re doing and where people are going.

Soldiers, for example, you’re able to have skill in all the weapons and unlike other characters, you’ve got the heavy weapons system, which basically replaces grenades from the first game, for some extra firepower. The Soldier can also do all the different weapon mods too, so you’re feezing people solid, you’re incinerating them, it’s very much about the weapon experience.

So that’s one thing we’ve done, in terms of just really deepening the classes and making them different from one another. We’ve made a lot of improvements to the AI. There’s mounting objects and if you command your squad up ahead, and there’s an object in the way, they’ll leap over it on their way to the enemy. There’s a lot better use of cover between your squad, and the enemy, as well.

There’s been some talk about whether or not we’ve added ammo to Mass Effect 2. Because we had essentially unlimited ammo in Mass Effect 1, it kind of took away some of the tension that there is in combat, that makes you consider your weapon use a little bit more. Without abandoning the idea of ammo, or of overheat, we had to create the concept of overheat into an ammo-style system. Your weapons overheat like they do in Mass Effect 1, but they overheat into cells that are part of an overall clip, and you can find these universal clips of thermal heat sinks. It’s similar to an ammo system; it kind of limits the number of shots you an do before you rund out of thermal heat sinks. There difference is, it’s something that can add tension to combat without you actually having bullets that can be expended.

As you run around the environment, you’re picking up these thermal clips. It kind of ties into the location system of damage that we’ve added. Now, headshots matter, you can shoot the limbs off of androids and mechs. Because these things really matter and weapons are much better, like the sniper rifle is a lot better, it’s very smooth and very precise. So, now, if you draw your sniper rifle, you’ve got a limited number of rounds before you’re gonna need to reload or get a new clip. Now you’re starting to really think, because headshots matter and ammo is relatively limited, I’m really think about getting this headshot. It just makes you consider combat a bit more, and get a bit more of the overall feel of it.

There’s a lot of change, there’s a lot of improvements, and each one of them is relatively minor. Much of the way you play combat in Mass Effect 2 is the same way you played in Mass Effect 1, but it just adds up to a revolution in the way that it feels and how much better it plays.

The inclusion of characters from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2 was done as previously mentioned both to continue the story and because of the fans liking some of these characters. Which of these characters were your favorite and least favorite?

The great thing about the way we do our cast of characters is that we try to make sure that they’re all different from one another, and, to us, a success is if a character is loved and hated. Then, it presents a choice. If there are people that love a certain character, and other people hate that character, then we know that have a pretty unique character and it’s kind of inspiring some controversy, or at least decision making as a player you decide whether you like a certain character.

I think the ones that were more universally liked were characters like Wrex, Garrus was kind of a surprise. He’s a fairly laid back and cool, by the book guy. He wasn’t necessarily someone we expected to be a standout, but he’s pretty universally liked. Liara was well liked. Probably the most debated character, as to whether people like him or not, was Kaiden. I think a lot of people left Kaiden to die on the nuke decision on Virmire. I think that was an easy decision for a lot of people, between Kaiden and Ashley. As a character, there are a lot of people who loved Kaiden, andnas a love interest, I know there are a lot of people who have expressed a real interest in having Kaiden back, they really want to see Kaiden come back and be a part of the story.

The other one that was interesting was Tali. Tali is kind of an alternative character, she’s an alien, she’s mysterious, you can’t really see what she looks like. At one point I think we were considering whether she should be a love interest in Mass Effect 1, and I remember people saying, “no, people aren’t gonna wanna have a romance with a girl with chicken feet.” But, chicken feet didn’t really bother anyone.

Does Mass Effect 2 allow you to pick which play through you want as a reference point, or does it just default to the most recent playthrough data?

Every time you finish Mass Effect 1, it makes a special save game that is the end-state for that playthrough. Then, when you have Mass Effect 2 and you run the import utility, it will look at all your ending save games from Mass Effect 2. Then, it lists them out and it lists some of the relevant data, so you can remember which one was which, like when you made the save game and some of the key decisions, and when you import that save game, it gives you a full rundown of what happened in that, so that you can do a final double check, like a paragon playthrough, Ashley survived, and Wrex died, and all these things. Then you can make that final confirmation that is the save game that you remember and that you want to continue from into Mass Effect 2.

Also, you can import that game and play Mass Effect 2, but you could also import that same game and then play Mass Effect 2 a different way. So, you could have multiple playsthroughs of Mass Effect 2 coming off of one import from an end-game of Mass Effect 1.

What sort of improvements have been made to the planets? Will there be more variation in the terrain and the layout this time?

In regards to the vehicle, the Mako, we’re doing some cool things with the vehicle, though we’re not ready to announce them just yet. In another month or so we’ll probably be talking about the vehicle.

In terms of the overall exploration, one of the things that we had feedback on, people really loved the idea of a larger galaxy and being able to go out and explore stuff. What they really wanted us to improve was the variety and the different things that you got to do when you were out on these missions. So we did two things. First of all, we improved the galaxy map experience. It’s very much the same kind of galaxy map, but this time there are a few differences. You’re actually moving the position of the Normandy versus a target crosshair. And when you arrive at a planet, you have an actual minigame for scanning the planet. It’s really cool, you actually see the planet spinning below you, you turn it around, and you can scan for resources and the controller will rumble, and hear different sounds. You can kind of close in on resources. This part basically replaces the less interesting aspects of resource gather from Mass Effect 1 and puts it into a minigame thats really cool and a lot more interactive. This is how you pull up a lot of the resources that then tie into the economy of the game for getting upgrades and stuff like that.

The other thing that happens is, when you’re scanning planets, in addition to finding resources than you can pull out of using space probes, you can also find signals and radio anomalies that you can close in on, and through the minigames, actually find the location on the planet where something is going on. We call these N7 Missions. You can send a probe down to come back and do basic stuff like getting resources, but sometimes you find something that only Commander Shepard can do in person, and that’s an N7 Mission. For those, you find these locations on a planet and then you drop down to the surface. Those missions are kind of designed to be the opposite approach to the missions from Mass Effect 1, where you’re in the uncharted worlds. The only reason why they exist is because each one of them offers something unique and different than you’ve done before. Every level, either the gameplay or the story, or something about it is really unique and special

Each one that you do is different. You’ll want to go back out and find the next one and the next one, because you know that each one is going to offer you something weird and wonderful, just like you’d expect out in space. Those are some of the improvements we’ve made to exploration, it suits the game a lot better and it’s a lot more interesting. Because, again, all of the rewards that you find out there tie back into the main story; either they’re part of the key storyline, or the resources that you find out there tie back into the goal of equipping your team, building up your ship, and getting ready for a suicide mission.

With Mass Effect, I was constantly impressed with the depth of the fiction. For example, while the Elcor received considerable exposition, the Keepers seemed to be left intentionally ambiguous. How or where do you all decide what’s going to be explained, and what’s left up to the mind of the player?

I think its fun for players and it’s certainly fun for us too, because now that we have a universe established, we can think about which parts we want to develop. I don’t know if there’s any method to it, necessarily, but we work from the top down. We know the basic idea of where we want to go with the story, and what we want to make sure the players have the opportunity to do, as far as the story. Then we work down from there; if it’s a Dirty Dozen-style suicide mission, then you need missions where you’re going out the recruit characters, and you need to do things where you’re making them loyal to you, finding what’s important to them and what’s going to be meaningful enough that they’ll become loyal, and those become missions.

Once we get into the missions themselves and the locations we want to go to, then we can start bringing in things like characters from the first game, or different creatures and storylines. If you’re talking to a character, maybe this character knows something about the Rachni decision that you made. Or, if somebody is causing trouble in a bar, maybe that character who’s causing trouble is that Commander Verner, your super fan from Mass Effect 1, and will remember you when you interrupt him. It’s kind of a fun process. Once we get down to the details of the story, figuring out how we want to develop things in a way that’s going to be interesting to the players.

What contemporary games has the team looked to for inspiration?

I think, with the first game, we were looking at what some of the top shooters were doing, what some of the Xbox RPG’s were doing. Mass Effect ended up being unlike any game in particular, but it did combine elements of the better third person shooters and RPGs of the time. I guess our inspiration mostly came from games that came well before us, the main one being Star Wars Knights of the old Republic. A lot of us worked on Knights of the old Republic, and a lot of the core team worked on that game as well. To some degree, that really became the basis for what we were going to do with Mass Effect. The main idea being that we knew that we wanted to work on our own science fiction property, and trying to build something new there.

We also wanted to be able to incorporate more different kinds of players into the experience. A lot of people still have trouble with pause and play style gameplay like we had in KOTOR, but we wanted to have a more accessible gameplay interface, being that of a third person shooter. Otherwise, the overall experience was meant to capture that same sense of huge story and non-linear decisions making where you can go where you want in the universe, but with a little bit more freedom for exploration. The same kind of really intimate character stories, but then a story on a really high level of scope. That was probably the game most responsible for what Mass Effect became.

The other one is from even further back, which is a game called Star Flight for the PC. It was an incredible game in the sense that it offered space combat, and you’re driving a vehicle on distant planets, and you’re getting resources. At the same time, there’s an epic story brewing under the surface that evolves over time, and as you explore deeper into spact, it kind of magically evolves on its own. That was really fascinating to me, and I’ve always wondered how far can you go with present day techonology to try and achieve that kind of experience. That was kind of one of the more spiritual inspirations; what would that look like, that kind of non-linear and very open ended experience.

Are there any changes or improvements lined up for the inventory system as well as the character upgrade system?

We’ve made a bunch of improvements there, all in the spirit of preserving the original depth that we had, but just making it more intuitive in what you’re actually doing. The main thing, in the first game, the inventory system was all in one screen, so you were trying to equip your team with weapons and armor and whatever other gear you had. You’re also trying to then mod each of those types of equipment, and then you’re also kind of going through lists of inventory and trying to juggle your inventory. All of that was in one screen, so, even though it had a lot of depth, I think a lot of people weren’t able to access that full potential of what it was offering.

What we’ve done is taken all of the functionality that was there, and we’ve moved it into separate activities. For example, we’ve got an armor locker, and in your armor locker, you can actually create a modular N7 armor out of pieces, so you go and buy these pieces in the store as you’re exploring the galaxy, there are a variety of ways that you can get them, and then you bring them back and, in your armor locker, you actually build them piece by piece and each piece kind of does a different behavior in terms of gameplay or combat. Whether it’s enhancing your shields, armor, health, and accuracy, all of that kind of stuff. You can adjust every aspect of it, like how shiny the material is to all the different colors, your helmets, visors, all that stuff way deeper than we had before. Because it’s in its own location, you actually have much greater control over what’s going on.

Similarly for upgrades and modding your weapons and armor, that’s done through research terminals. The research terminal, because it’s actually about going out and getting research projects, come back and either spending money or different kinds of resources on it, it becomes a whole activity chain, but it also means that potentially anything can be upgraded. There’s a whole variety, whether it’s different kinds of ammo mod or modifications to weapons for accuracy or things that you can do to improve your armor, or even the ship itself has research projects that you can enhance the ship so, when you see it performing in certain key moments in the story, different things will happen as an outcome. It’s a very open ended system.

Likewise, the character progression system is very similar. We’ve added some new powers. You spend points in a very similar way to develop your character, you still have levels, you still have the paragon and renegade system. But there’s been some more subtle changes in there than in the other systems, its more similar to Mass Effect 1. But the changes we’ve made there are to draw out more impact on your gameplay. Most of these things that you have as powers or skills that you’re developing are active powers that you fire, either during combat or as part of interrupts in conversations, persuasion, things like that.

Are there any densely populated locations besides the Citadel, or is every place you visit a neatly established colony or an outpost?

We have a whole bunch of different kind of locations. I think Mass Effect is still very much about this idealistic, futuristic universe where everything is beautiful and sleek and clean, except for this underbelly that exists. It’s a part of the universe; symbolic of that is this larger threat of the Reapers, and the fact that a really idealist civilization would not easily accept the idea of such a threat. That’s kind of the role of humanity and Commander Shepard, to be tough enough and pragmatic enough to be able to see these things and dig into them, and in Mass Effect 2 you end up digging into that darker underbelly of the Mass Effect universe.

Two examples of different populated locations would be the Citadel, which you all have seen before, but you get to new locations there. It’s kind of idealist and beautiful and populated. Then there’s the other side, which is Omega. It’s also densely populated with huge space stations, but it is the opposite. It is completely lawless, it’s run by gangs and there’s a lot of crime. What you find there is just all of that other darker side of the galaxy.

And you also have other places like Illium, which is an Asari home world. It’s just a beautiful location, very sleek and clean like the Citadel, but it’s got its own style. Lots of Asari characters, it’s a very worldly place, it has a stock market, space ports, and that kind of really cool stuff to be able to visit. There’s a bunch of different populated locations. Even places like Tuchanka, which is the Krogan home world you get to visit.

Have enhancements been made to some of the minor, more technical aspects of the game, including long-ish elevator load times?

That’s part of the feedback that we accumulated together. We just set out to make sure we hit every one of these points. One is the elevator, or the way we transition from once place to the other. In Mass Effect 1, I think we missed an opportunity in telling and showing people what’s actually happening when you’re in one of these elevators. You’re actually in this kind of tube that goes throughout a huge location like the Citadel and, even though it seems like you’re going up three or four floors and though it seems like it takes a long time. What’s actually happening there is you’re going from, essentially the equivalent of, you’re going from one end of Manhattan to the other.

In Mass Effect 2, we have a different system for transitioning from one location to another, and it actually shows you a schematic of where you are, where you’re going, and how you’re getting there. Quite often these are spectacular, like the ones on the Citadel you actually see now, for the first time, where you are, and what an amazing location it is in 3D, and how you move from one place to the other. The other side effect is, by doing this way, the actual load times ends up being much faster. It makes a seamless continuity to the narrative because you can see yourself moving from one place to the other, but, at the same time, it’s faster. On the Normandy it’s even better. You get schematics of the Normandy in each deck as you pass through it, but it’s so much faster.

A slow transition time seems like a minor thing, but it’s actually beyond that because it actually became a barrier for people to develop relationships with the characters who are too many floors away. Now, because it’s very fast and interesting to watch, it’s just a ton of fun to move all around the Normandy and go between decks and go up and down from your quarters at the top to engineering at the bottom.

Texture loading and texture resolution, memory, frame rate, all of that stuff is much improved.

The dialogue plays a large role in BioWare games, what other changes are in store for Mass Effect 2? Will we see more conversations, more natural and final closure, forcing a player to choose their words even more wisely than before? Where will the dialogue system fall in relation to the first Mass Effect and Dragon Age?

I think it’s an improvement over the first Mass Effect for a few reasons. One of them is that the technology was improved for how we portray the conversations. You’re able to see characters moving around a lot more. The actual situations are more dramatic, they can walk and talk at the same time, and you’re in quite a variety of different situations when you’re having a conversation.

Another subtle change is that, thinking back to when we were designing the first game, a lot of the dialogue was written before we could really prove to ourselves how good the game would look and how cinematic it would be. Coming from game’s like Knights of the Old Republic or even Baldur’s Gate or Neverwinter Nights, where you’re essentially writing dialogue for sprites, if you don’t write the dialogue, if you didn’t write the words then, to some degree, it didn’t happen. You had to write everything. We were trying to go for a more movie-like or TV-like quality where an actor can give a response that is unspoken, with just a look that can tell you everything about how they feel.

We had that as a goal, but we hadn’t proved to ourselves that we could do it. In Mass Effect 1, there were moments like that; when Ashley apologizes for ruining the first mission, and getting you hurt, you can say, “No it’s okay,” or you can reprimand her. If you reprimand her, her response is just a look, and she looks hurt, like you’ve hurt her feelings, and you feel that as a player. Until we really saw those things in the first game, we didn’t know if we could pull that off. But now that we have, now we can go ahead and write it much more like a it’s a movie with more concise dialogue and with more reliance on the acting performance.

The bigger, functional difference is we’ve added a new kind of dialogue response which we call Interrupts. Basically, it’s a way to seize physical control during a conversation, depending on what’s going on. You’ll either have Paragon Interrupts or Renegade Interrupts at certain times. And you can let them pass, if you’re a Paragon-style player and you see an opportunity to do a Renegade Interrupt, you can let it pass and it’s okay to keep playing. It’s more a part of role playing, as opposed to being a quicktime-event where you have to do something or you died. It’s not that at all, it’s more about, do you want to physically do something special at that moment as part of role playing that character.

If somebody that is hostile to you wanders near a ledge over a steep drop off, you might see a Renegade Interrupt and know whether your character would be able to shove them off at that point. As a Paragon player you might see that and think, “No, I’m not going to push them off the building.” Likewise, you might be talking to a character who’s dying right there in front of you from an illness, and you have the cure with you, and just as they start sputtering their last breathe, you could do a Paragon Interrupt and inject them with the cure right at that moment and save them.

Again, if you don’t like that character you can let that pass, and then that character will die. It’s a way to instantly seize control, versus just a dialogue option that you choose and let it play out. Knowing that the conversations are peppered with these kind of Interrupts, it makes the whole experience just a more active experience. You’re more aware of what’s going on and ready to take action at a certain point.

Look for Mass Effect 2 on January 26th, 2010 and be sure to check back here at Gamer Limit for the full review coming at the end of January.

To make up for the failure that was Gyromancer, the original RPG puzzle game king Puzzle Quest is making its triumphant, time-sucking return.

When?  Someday.  All that was really revealed was an official confirmation and this one screenshot (high-res here).

Puzzle Quest 2 was first teased – or, well, something was teased – a few days ago when GamePro revealed its new January 2010 issue cover, featuring Bioshock 2 and a secret, blurred-out game reveal.  The secret behind the blue box was Puzzle Quest 2.

True, it may not be as anticipated as Bioshock 2, but there is a very good chance that people will invest more of their time into it, when all is said and done.  Curious about the purpose of the iron fists – a defensive move, perhaps?

Enjoy this first image for now, and my apologies for the GamePro watermark.  Such is the right of the media exclusive.

Source: GamePro

The Madden franchise, over 21 years and running, has been the most successful football sim to date. With the recent release of Madden NFL 10, gamers have been sucked in, once again, to the most addicting Madden yet.

Gamer Limit was given the opportunity to interview one of the many reasons behind Madden’s continued success. EA Tiburon’s Creative Director, Ian Cummings, recently took time out of his busy schedule to answer a few questions for us.

Read on for some enlightening information behind Ian and the past, present, and future installments of Madden.

GL: Tell us a little about yourself.  How did you get to the position you are in today?

Ian: I, like many others in the gaming industry today, started at the ground floor as a game tester. I moved from Tennessee to Orlando to test Madden NFL 2001 for the PC. I stayed in Quality Assurance until Madden NFL 2003, and got my first shot in a design role for Madden NFL 2004 for PS2/Xbox/GameCube. I’ve been burning the midnight oil ever since to get myself where I am today.

GL: Does having no competition in the pro football video game genre bring you more or less pressure?

Ian: For me personally, it is actually a lot more pressure. When the main comparison that reviewers or fans use against your game is “real life”, that’s a lot of pressure to live up to.

GL: Was there anything that was planned to be in Madden 10 that didn’t make it?

Ian: Each year, there are always a ton of ideas that don’t make the cut – that is the nature of game development.  Due to the aggressive dev schedule, some things get tabled.  That said, we always revisit the great ideas and consider them for future versions.  We never want to release a feature without it meeting our high quality bar.

GL: What are your thoughts on the micro-transactions in Madden 10? Is this something Madden fans should begin to get used to?

Ian: I feel that if you can add something that’s worth the value, then you’re doing something right, regardless of whether it’s free or if you have to pay for it.  Microtransactions are totally optional – if you don’t want to buy them, you  don’t have to.  I wouldn’t say it’s something Madden fans should begin to get used to, I think every single gamer in the world should expect these offerings to continue across every genre.

GL: On your personal blog, you had noted that you haven’t been “addicted” to Madden for five years. Why do you think that is? Since this year has changed things for you, can you speak to those older Madden fans or even 2K fans as to why this year would be the year to return?

Ian: There are a lot of reasons that I think Madden NFL 10 “hooked” me again, but the main reason has just really been the overall “feel” of gameplay. I am EXTREMELY critical of our gameplay, animations, and AI in general (that’s my job in essence), but this year really was the year that I could play a game and have a really great time. I think, before this year, the game was just too fast, and I wasn’t able to get into a good rhythm.  As a “sim” or old-school Madden gamer, this year really gives me that feeling of the glory days.

GL: You recently tweeted that some people are saying that the core of Madden has remained unchanged. Do you feel this is a misrepresentation or simply a sign that Madden has hit its peak in terms of gameplay where this is something we will hear each year?

Ian: Obviously it’s frustrating when you pour all your effort into the game and make a ton of key changes to the core game itself (game speed, momentum, player control, etc) and see someone say it’s unchanged.  I think we’ve realized that this sentiment probably won’t go away…the game is still football and our goal is still to create a realistic and fun representation of the sport. If our game played exactly like a real life broadcast I think people would still say “the gameplay is largely unchanged” because it’s still 22 players, there are still passing and running plays, there are still tackles and touchdowns, etc.

GL: When you play Madden, do you play smart football or smart Madden football?

Ian: I think it’s a combination of both. Having played Madden over each and every version for the past 20+ years, I’ve learned what plays and styles work better than others, but I definitely center my play around real life strategies – like trying to eat up clock with a balanced offense and mixing up my play calling.  I hate exploits and money plays – even if I knew of one I wouldn’t use it.

GL: If you were given unlimited resources and budget to do one thing to improve Madden what would it be?

Ian: Though it doesn’t really classify as one thing, I would continue to focus on gameplay. Our goal is an authentic and realistic representation of the sport, so we always have room to improve in animation, authenticity, and AI.

GL: Any hints into what we can expect from Madden 11?

Ian: Other than you can expect it being totally awesome? Nope, not really.

Thank you again to Ian for taking the time to answer our questions. Best of luck burning the midnight oil for many successful Madden years to come!

Without a shadow of a doubt, Tekken is one of the biggest fighting franchises out there. With Tekken 6 hitting Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and the PSP this October the advertising is already heating up. Gamer Limit is proud as a parent on graduation day to present an exclusive look at the game’s brand new viral video.

There is more coming, so stay tuned to Gamer Limit for all the latest Tekken 6 content, such as Tekken Twitter. I mean, seriously, Tekken on Twitter? I’m already intrigued.

In countries that don’t have significant gaming industries (read: any country outside the United States and Japan), most budding developers rely on the growing support of the mainstream gamer to help flood existing behemoths with cash, thus fueling the need for regional game studios to pluck the best and brightest of the local graduates.

In recent years, some of the largest game houses in the world, such as Ubisoft, THQ, EA, Sony, and Microsoft have branched out past the traditional strongholds and established unique presences in many other countries – including the UK, Australia, Canada, India and even China.

What entices a company to start a studio in a particular place, and not others? Does local government play a role?

It’s generally unlikely that expanded studios, those that are “arms” of traditional developer houses, will branch out and create titles unique to that team. In some respects, it’s just great business sense. Having a studio in another country holds fantastic advantages when it comes to tight deadlines and budgets. Australia starts its business day when the American day ends. China has lax labour laws that allow for cheaper costs during development.

Sometimes it’s the ability to collaborate across different ideas and flush out stale ones. Staff generally stay with studios for very long lengths of time, and being able to contact another team to discuss concepts can be valuable to a new project. One team, possibly in the case of Bioshock, which was developed across borders, would work on one aspect of the title, such as art or programming, while the other handles textures and level design.

Other companies, like EA or Microsoft, might rather prefer to buy or heavily support existing studios and help fund existing successful projects. Most smaller studios generally have extremely small budgets, making it impossible for them to compete with the behemoths whom may pump hundreds of millions into larger titles (Your Halo 3s). So the possibility of a deep publisher agreement, which provides the ability to continue the same work with larger budgets, may be too much to pass up.

But what about the smaller studios that are key to burgeoning fresh and unique titles outside the umbrellas of the larger studios? What entices them to start companies in places that generally have smaller markets without large amounts of investor capital? Aside from a patriotic sense of duty, generally, it seems to be tax breaks and support from local universities.

Canada and France lead the world in providing tax breaks, governmental support and other initiatives to pull developers to their respective countries. Both countries are #1 and #2 in worldwide game development (outside the US and Japan), providing generous support via income tax reductions, salary payments as well as other crucial resources and tax holidays to developers to make building games in their countries easier (and cheaper) than in the US.

Other countries, though, aren’t waiting to be left behind in the digital landscape. Britain, #3 on the list, has introduced the Digital Britain initiative which allows developers easy access to tap local talent along with visa help to draw overseas grads.  In Australia, the Queensland University of Technology supports local developers via their Creative Industries Pricinct, where graduates and developers can co-ordinate, while the governments of both Queensland and Victoria offer generous state tax reduction incentives in a battle to secure the most studios.

Has it worked? Most definitely. Out of the 100 top performing studios on the Develop 100 list, about half of them are outside the US and Japan, and appropriately, the numbers are based on the support provided by their local industry. Canada and France sit on top, followed by the UK, Australia, South Korea, Germany, China and so on. But unfortunately, there are still preventable and ultimately solvable problems, which prevent these still infant industries from expanding.

Outside of the incredible support from the Canadian and French governments, most federal states still refuse to provide film industry style creative grants to developers. Why? Most tend to site a lack of “cultural significance” when compared to other creative industry stalwarts such as music, art and film. While debatable in its excuses, it hasn’t stopped local development organisations, such as TIGA in the UK, GDAA in Australia or the IGDA worldwide, from pushing for this to happen.

Many say that without more favourable market conditions, it’s impossible for local developers to attract talent. I mean, if you could develop in Canada, where 37% of your staff’s salaries were paid by the feds, wouldn’t you rather set up shop there? As a counter, most local organisations tout the local living conditions, such as beaches or exciting locales to work in, as advantages to setting up shop.

Games that have been developed may surprise you. The UK was responsible for Little Big Planet. Australia gave up Dark Reign and Destroy All Humans. Canada’s given us some of Rockstar and Ubisoft’s best.  The quality of titles is rarely so different since great games don’t necessarily require massive budgets. The case for smaller studios, in the end, are getting access to publishers, or finding ways to project their work across the oceans to the larger markets.

In any case, developers continue to set up shop across the globe. While American and Japanese companies continue to dominate the marketplaces for interactive entertainment, smaller independent houses still continue to make names for themselves, whether #18 Media Molecule (UK), #27 A2M (Canada), or #41 Krome Studios (Australia) and continue to push the game development cycle further into the global stage.

So if you are sitting at home in Europe, Australia or Canada, wondering and wishing if you will ever be able to make game development your career, never fear. You won’t even have to get a Green Card.

In-game advertising is now a large and integral part of our gaming, but, unbeknownst to some, it has some rather humble beginnings, culminating in an epic and interesting journey.

Hit the jump to see how it all happened!

In-game advertising (IGA) is a subject of great controversy and one that often polarizes opinion. Of course, there are morality issues surrounding this form of advertising, such as the appropriateness of using a medium like video games to target young children with product placement advertisements.

However, using in-game advertising allows a developer to offset production costs, giving them the ability to take more risks and be more original, given a much higher budget.  Considering the average production cost of a game is estimated to rise to a massive $20 million for a 7th-generation console, some see IGA as a necessity for ensuring we still see high quality, original titles in the future.

It stands to reason that, considering it is the fastest-growing media on the planet, IGA should be on the rise within video games.  In fact, according to in-game advertising behemoth Massive Incorporated, the annual spend on this form of advertising will be worth $1.8 billion by 2010.

Philosophers have long been arguing that we live in a world increasingly governed by invasive media and advertising.  It’s seeping into every crevice of our lives and, as a means of reaching millions of people, video games have become a prolific medium through which advertising has become commonplace.

IGA often has a somewhat subliminal impact and many people believe that it is far too pervasive and invasive.  Whether you remain impartial or not, the use of video games as a means of advertisement has been around probably a lot longer than you think and is a rather interesting story!

In fact, according to Adverlab, the first example of a brand integrated into game play actually appears in a 1973 version of Lunar Lander:

“If you landed at exactly the right spot, a McDonald’s appeared. The astronaut would come out, walk over to the McDonald’s and order a Big Mac to go, walk back and take off again. If you crashed ON the McDonalds, it would print out “You clod! You’ve destroyed the only McDonald’s on the Moon!””

It is almost certain that this Easter egg was not endorsed by McDonald’s, but was rather a programmer’s idea of a practical joke, but it nonetheless marks the beginning for in-game advertising.  Five years later, Scott Adams programmed, into his text-based game Adventureland (1978), an advert for his forthcoming title Pirate Adventure.  And thus the use of video games as a method of advertising was born.

The term “advergame” refers to a title that exists primarily as a promotional tool – an interactive advert, in a sense.  If you have an Xbox Live subscription, there’s a good chance you have downloaded Doritos Dash of Destruction (2008).  Whilst this is about as blatant as product placement can get, it does provide a few minutes of fun and they do tend to be free.

You would be forgiven for assuming that advergames are a fairly modern method of advertising through video games, but it actually dates back to around 1983, when the boffins at Coca Cola realized that there was marketing potential within the gaming world, which was becoming increasingly popular within youth culture.

After approaching Atari, the computer giants came up with a branded version of Space Invaders, in which the aliens are replaced with the letters P – E – P – S – I and the message “Coke Wins” is displayed upon completion, to be given away to lucky attendees of Coca Cola’s Atlanta Sales Convention of that year.  Only 125 copies of Pepsi Invaders were actually produced, so I imagine it would now be something of a collectible!  A number of advergames followed in the same year, including the titles Kool-Aid Man, Chase the Chuck Wagon and Johnson & Johnson’s Tooth Protector.

PEPSI INVADERS

Product placement became popular during the ’80s, but it was from the ‘90s onwards that it slipped more definitively into the world of gaming.  In the UK, the original version of the hugely popular James Pond Robocod (1991) contains an early example of in-game product placement for McVities Penguin biscuits.  The game features penguins, as well as a level where you stand atop a giant version of the chocolate bar.

According to a PCGamer article printed in 1994, soon after the release of the game Penguin outsold popular rival chocolate bar KitKat for the first time in the product’s history.  This was news that shook the world of marketing, as it became apparent that video games were indeed a potentially very successful means of advertising a product.

The following year saw the release of Zool (1992), another game that was understandably criticized for its blatant, pervasive advertising, as the first three levels (The Sweet Zone) exist as a shameless advert for popular lollipop brand Chupa Chups.  However, it was in 1993 that product placement was taken to a new level, when a hyper cool new character emerged on the scene, in the form of Cool Spot.

This was actually a very good and deservedly popular game, but it received a lot of flak due to the main character being a mascot for 7-UP.  In fact, he was an anthropomorphised take on the red spot found in the 7-UP logo itself!

The implementation of a cool mascot into a platform title is typical of the early nineties, popularised by games like Sonic the Hedgehog, so it fuels the idea that Cool Spot was nothing more than an attempt at cashing in on the times.  After all, it was a pretty generic platformer clone, in which the character had to fire soda bubbles and collect spots to gain lives, not dissimilar to Mario’s coins or Sonic’s rings.

Interestingly, the 7-UP bottle was removed from the intro for the European release of the game, perhaps because the region already had a 7-UP mascot in the form of Fido Dido, the company’s official mascot since the ‘80s.

Crazy Taxi (1999) is synonymous with the field of IGA, and one of the first games that actually springs to mind when discussing the topic.  Passengers in the game request that you take them to real-life destinations such as Pizza Hut, KFC and the Levi’s Store.  Also, vans emblazoned with the WOW! logo roam the virtual streets.

Whilst Crazy Taxi features some of the most notable examples of product placement to date, it was rarely criticized for this element because it makes the game’s city seem a lot less artificial.  With the licenses to use these companies having expired by the time of the PSP’s Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars (2007) release, the game features generic locations and, admittedly, a great deal of realism and enjoyment are lost, bringing into question the value of IGA in terms of the increased realism it brings.

The FIFA series, like a number of other sports series, has featured advertising billboards since its 1994 debut.  This is known as “incidental advertising”, in that it is not incorporated for profitability, but rather to retain realism.  Without them, these titles would arguably run the danger of appearing more artificial.

One of the most prolific examples of incidental advertising is that found in realistic driving titles. The cars you take control of are not examples of product placements, advertising their real-life counterparts, but are rather incorporated to simulate as realistic a driving experience as possible.  However, car manufacturers do not look favorably on heavy car damage, as it is seen as negative to display how easily their cars can be obliterated upon impact.  So, in effect, we sacrifice one form of realism for another.

With the rapid rise of dedicated in-game advertising agencies like IGA and Massive Incorporated, advertising in video games reached a new and highly technical level in 2005, with the release of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.  This is one of the first titles to feature “dynamic in-game advertising”, after Ubisoft signed up a number of agencies, allowing them to promote such companies as AXE, Nokia and AMD throughout the game.  Unlike static adverts, dynamic ones can constantly be updated by advertising agencies via your internet connection.

Dynamic advertising allows for a more tailored form of product promotion.  The latest music and movie releases, for example, can be advertised according to time of day or geographical location in order to achieve optimum advertising efficiency.  According to Ubisoft, this is a “thoughtful and selective way to enhance the realism of a game.”

But, as was the case with Electronic Arts’ Battlefield 2142 (2006), which received live updates via IGA Worldwide, this method of advertising is often labeled “spyware” and slammed due to its seemingly invasive nature.  After all, examples of information sent back from a user’s machine include time spent looking at an advert, the ad’s genre and even the angle at which it was viewed!

According to a study by Massive, the 18 to 34-year-old male demographic has shunned television in favor of video games, which are now played for more than 30 billion hours per year.  With Massive itself signing up such mega corporations as Coca Cola, Honda and Paramount, dynamic advertising appears to be the chosen method of ensuring this demographic is still targeted in the future.

Nine months after its January 2008 release, Barack Obama began to appear on billboards in the 360 version of the immensely popular Burnout Paradise, alongside such marketing giants as Burger King and Gillette.  Publisher EA has since confirmed that the ads were funded by the Obama Campaign, marking a historic moment in gaming history: it is the first example of a US presidential candidate purchasing in-game advertising space.  It seems that IGA has reached a new level, as it is now even deemed an appropriate medium for achieving political gain.

While the game does not feature examples of in-game advertising, I feel that Grand Theft Auto 4 (2008) is certainly worth a mention.  The game contains a world almost as visually fluid and vibrant as our very own, featuring locations such as the digital reincarnation of Times Square – arguably the epitome of invasive advertising.

But, instead of real ads, the streets are emblazoned with adverts for mock versions of real mega corporations, such as Liberty City’s cola company “E-Cola”, the sports store giant “Pro-Laps” and the continental lager “Pisswasser”.  This is a superb example of how a game can remain incredibly realistic, whilst having some fun with digital advertising and nonetheless sending out a satirical message about the intense level of advertising we face in reality and, indeed, in video games.

But what does the future hold for in-game advertising?  Well, one game that certainly sees IGA taken to another level is Second Life (2003 – Present), which features a unique and digital economy, allowing users to buy, sell and advertise items and services within its virtual world.  “Linden dollars”, the game’s currency, can be earned and converted into real-life money, and a number of people actually earn a full-time living playing Second Life.

In fact, as Business Week reported in 2006, Anshe Chung (real-life name Ailin Graef) became the first Second Life millionaire, with her virtual net worth equating to more than 1 million US dollars.  Chung made her fortune by dealing in virtual land, shopping malls, virtual stock market investments and even setting up her own in-game brands.

Not all brands in Second Life are contained solely within the game’s dynamic world, however.  Such companies as Lego, Starwood and Toyota have a presence within the game.  In fact, MMORPGs are becoming a prevalent target for the promotion of real businesses, as they provide constant, evolving worlds.

Virtual fly posting is now commonplace and some businesses allow real-life services to be accessed within games, such as the ability to order a pizza from Pizza Hut to your home through a command line interface within Everquest 2 (2004).  On top of this, we are now regularly faced with lobby adverts and sponsor-funded tournaments, so it is clear that in-game advertising has come a very long way since its humble beginning all those years ago!

As gaming evolves, so does the advertising that goes with it and companies are constantly adapting and finding new and inventive methods of placing adverts in our games.  Of course, a huge number of people are angered by the pervasive nature of IGA, but the game industry undoubtedly benefits from this ever-increasing revenue stream, too.

It is estimated that the incorporation of advertisements into a game can increase publisher profits from $5/6 to $7/8 per unit sold, which is a massive increase.  Some games (particularly in the field of mobile gaming) are actually entirely funded by advertising!  The big question is whether or not it is worth persevering with the pervasive and invasive side of IGA in order to allow for potentially more original and glossy titles.

Have you ever been battling demons in the workplace and found yourself running out of energy?  Well…worry no more because Ijji.com has partnered up with Harcos, inc. to bring everyone that plays Lunia, and any other interested parties, a little boost to their mana bars.

Ijji.com’s Daniel Chang, business development manager was awesome enough to sit down with us here at Gamer Limit, and let us ask them a few questions about their partnership, it’s future, and their upcoming releases.

GL: To start off with, can you tell us a little bit about yourselves and what you do?

Mr. Chang:   ijji.com is the leading portal for hardcore online gaming.  We publish a wide range of free-to-play online games, each with an optional micro-transaction based model.  Our lineup includes Lunia, GUNZ The Duel, Soldier Front, not to mention several highly anticipated upcoming games, such as Huxley: The Dystopia, Alliance of Valiant Arms, KARMA: Operation Barbarossa, and Soul of the Ultimate Nation.

GL: Now, the Harcos Mana Energy Potion, can you tell us more about it?

Mr. Chang: The Harcos Mana Energy Potion is a great product with a compelling concept.  Similar to the mana potions found in many popular online games, Harcos fashioned a line of energy drinks tailored to gamers.  When we first saw the unique look of the bottle we immediately felt that it belonged in our game.  Additionally, Mana Energy Potion is a great product that maintains gamers energy without the dreaded sugar crash.  The packaging and concept really resonated with us, started a dialogue with them.

GL: So, what prompted you guys to partner with Harcos and bring Mana Energy Potion to
both virtual and real inventory slots?

Mr. Chang: We really wanted to do something that would surprise people.  I don’t know of a promotion like it.  Sometimes players can buy a real life item and get a replica as an in-game virtual item. Well, we turned that existing promotion on its head, and are doing the opposite – keeping things fresh.  Now you buy Mana Energy Potion for your character, and you get your own case in the mail.

GL: How has the response been so far?

Mr. Chang: It’s been great!  We’re seeing good adoption from both inside and outside of our community.  It was also a way for us to rewards our users, letting them know their resources spend in the game can amount to something tangible outside of the game.

GL: Do you guys plan on bringing in Mana Health Potions as well, spread out to
other ijji.com titles, or even develop new products solely for ijji.com
games?

Mr. Chang: This is something we are definitely open to.  We are focusing on the successful launch of this promotion, and haven’t sat down to explore expansion, but the initial idea was to see how successful the promotion would be with Lunia & Mana Energy Potion and then considering other games where it makes sense.

GL: Why did you choose Lunia?

Mr. Chang: As mentioned, when we first saw the product we immediately felt there was a natural fit.  The fantasy and whimsical nature of Lunia really lends itself nicely to the quirky, colorful product that the Harcos team put together.

GL: The website says that this is an “event,” is there a time limit for players
to get in on the deal?

Mr. Chang: For now the promotion will be available while supplies last.  Once we reach our quota, we will definitely sit down again and discuss how to improve and perhaps run another similar promotion.

GL: Now that we have a hold of you, can you let us in on any of the new games or
products you have in store for everyone?

Mr. Chang: As mentioned earlier, we announced four upcoming titles to be released this year.  Huxley: The Dystopia, an Unreal Engine 3 based massively multi-player first person shooter (MMOFPS) game,  Alliance of Valiant Arms,  a modern warfare themed first person shooter (FPS),  , KARMA: Operation Barbarossa, a WWII-themed FPS and  Soul of the Ultimate Nation, a fast-paced fantasy massively multi-player role-playing game (MMORPG).

GL: I’m really excited for Huxley: The Dystopia, how is the progress during the
closed beta test coming?

Mr. Chang: The initial closed beta went really well, and we are getting ready to expand our scope in the second closed beta.  The testers provided us with constructive feedback and reported bugs and glitches, which we are working to correct prior to the next stage.  As we move forward, we’re looking to fine tune the game more in preparation for launch later this year.

GL: Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to talk to you guys!

Mr. Chang: Thank you.

Now that you guys have a little more of an inside scoop at what ijji.com and Harcos, inc. are up to, why don’t you click on down to their promotion website and check it out yourself! Also, don’t forget to check out ijji.com for more info on Lunia and their other titles and manapotions.com for more info on their products. Gamer Limit would like to thank everyone down at Ijji.com, Wonacott Communications, and Harcos, inc. for giving us a deeper look at this historic event, and hopefully we will see more like it.

Advertising is important in making sure your game sells well, it may even be a more important factor than producing a semi-decent game. Nothing in the universe will ever persuade a tight fisted consumer into buying your game like seeing a beautiful and happy celebrity saying how much they enjoy playing it.

But the coup de grace for a company, the ultimate product pusher, is if you can get a celebrity to make a cameo in your game, or even better, provide some “magnificent acting talent” for whatever blockbuster it is you are creating. It is however, important to make sure you pick the right celebrity to endorse your product.

So Mr (or Mrs) Games Developer and your marketing team, pay close heed to my advice as I give you the low down on the most talented and sought after A-listers on the video games endorsing circuit at the moment.

Miss Fox is clearly an upstanding citizen

1. Megan Fox

No this was not just an excuse for me to look at pictures of Megan Fox, if you thought I needed to make up an excuse to look at pictures of her, you were wrong. Regardless Megan Fox is something of a hot property at the moment, and she has recently been endorsing the movie tie in game for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

In this clip she calls the visuals “stunning and amazing” and says her favourite autobot is Bumblebee, she even talks about how she wanted multiplayer included from when she played the original game. If she was saying that about your game, you could be sure that copies would fly off the shelves.

Main appeal: Megan Fox is so honest, listen to the honesty in her voice in that clip, she even calls the game “bad-ass” proving she is cool and hip. Seriously I would trust literally anything that she said.

It is also plausible that the mere thought that Megan Fox might be the person you face off against in a deathmatch might sell an extra million or so copies. After all she does dig the geeky guy, perhaps she could could be romanced over Xbox Live…

Potential drawbacks: Jealous women might stop their boyfriends/husbands from purchasing the game, claiming that playing it amounts to infidelity.

Not quite Megan Fox, but you won't get classier than Fry

2. Stephen Fry

Do you want your game to appear more intelligent? Do you want it to appeal to people of culture, who will tout your game like it was a 1920s vintage Pinot Noir? Then get Stephen Fry involved. This man is English class given form, there is something about the way the he speaks that soothes the soul, and whatever he says people will believe, because his vocabulary clearly marks him out as a genius (if you don’t believe me listen to his podcasts).

He has provided narration in Little Big Planet and the Harry Potter games, and voice work in Fable 2, showing he is willing and able to lend his talents to both large franchises and new IPs, with a degree of versatility that is hard to match.

Main appeal: No one will be able to find any faults with your game as long as Stephen’s docile tones continue to lull them into a sense of contentment, they will simply form orderly queues (which we are pretty good at doing here in the UK) to purchase whatever game it is you are selling and if he happens to have provided some voice work, you can rest assured no one will want to return it.

Potential drawbacks: It would be unwise to attempt to use him to endorse a Madden title, or a Nascar racing game, he’s not any good at hollerin’ or whoopin’, and doesn’t exactly possess a sporting physique meaning some fans might not appreciate his style.

Stop thinking about Megan Fox

3. Kiefer Sutherland

If it’s an endorsement for an all guns blazing, stuff exploding, terrorist killing simulator you’re after, you can’t get any better than Kiefer “Jack Bauer” Sutherland. He has already appeared in “Call of Duty: World at War” and the game has now sold over 8 million copies, coincidence? I think not, people know that Sutherland is the man to trust in a foxhole, and thus they know if he is in a game it must be worth a purchase.

Main appeal: Fans of 24 will eat up anything with Kiefer in, he has the right “tough guy image” to fit into a first or third person shooter with ease. If the game has competitive multiplayer you can be sure that frat boys will rack up many hours of deathmatch on Xbox Live, paving the way for Jack Bauer endorsed map packs.

Potential drawbacks: Mr Sutherland doesn’t have the most family friendly image, he spent 48 days in prison for a DUI, head-butted a fashion designer, and allegedly cheated on fiancée Julia Roberts with a stripper. Also be careful if you want to have him appear in a Christmas themed advert, as he has an irrational violent hatred of Christmas trees.

I know you came here to look at Megan Fox, so if you have read this far thank you.

4. Beyoncé Knowles

If you are selling a rhythm or dance game, and you want a diva to publicise it, then you need Beyoncé, but it might cost you quite a lot. The R and B princess did a great job of advertising Nintendo’s “Rhythm Heaven” on DSi.

In this advert Mrs Knowles-Z says virtually nothing as she is obviously too crazy in love with the game, then she flashes that winning smile and laughs showing what a great time she is having. Little girls want to be like her, and thus they will want to play Rhythm Heaven and that is what you pay for when you get Beyoncé to endorse your games.

Main appeal: As Nintendo has shown, the casual market is a veritable treasure chest if you can just hook in some of the unwashed masses. Beyoncé appeals to the hordes of little girls who all dream of being pop superstars, to be honest the game doesn’t even have to be any good as long as you get her mug on the box. She also appeals to all the women independent who want to marry rap stars.

Potential drawbacks: Unless you have been reaping in huge profits from sales of animal care based shovel ware, you might find your pockets don’t run deep enough to hire Mrs Knowles. Also all 37 hardcore gamers might kick up a fuss over the fact that your game isn’t aimed at them; console yourself with the fact that they weren’t your target market anyway.

]]> http://gamerlimit.com/2009/07/sti-celebrity-endorsements/feed/ 1 http://gamerlimit.com/2009/07/from-the-battlefield-to-the-screen/ http://gamerlimit.com/2009/07/from-the-battlefield-to-the-screen/#comments Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:17:25 +0000 James Pinnell http://gamerlimit.com/?p=28754

Nothing has provided more gamers with a intrepid sense of war and bloody carnage then the First Person Shooter. Generations of gamers can, scarily enough, name and identify weapons by model, modification and in some cases, manufacturer. M-16? Assault Rifle of choice for the US Army. AK-47?  Infidel remover for terrorists and freedom fighters the world over.

With the epic evolution of realism that has merged into mainstream gaming, weapons are now more then a mush of pixels in the bottom middle of the screen. Everything from Iron Sights to Silencers are now recreated in minute detail. They jam too, as well as misfire, slam your avatar’s shoulder with immense recoil and ricochet shrapnel across the room you’ve decided to unload a personal arsenal in.

As games merge closer with the battlefields they emulate, I decided to take a look behind the scenes and find out exactly how your RPG-7 gets from the range to your monitor.

It’s arguably known that one of the most popular representations of battle comes from the Americas Army series. First released in 2002, Version 1.0 was nicknamed “Recon“, designed to be the first in a series of PC games to give potential recruits a taste of Army action. Rather then simply dropping players in an arbitrary battle from the get go, hopeful soldiers are forced to complete tutorials that gauge their abilities and introduce them to relatively complex weaponry and tactics.

It’s easy to see the impressive amount of detail that has gone into the latest incarnation of the game, Americas Army 3, which utilises the latest version of the Unreal Engine. A better UI, ranking system that bears similarities to COD4, and the ability to import profiles from the previous games. The training portions are fascinating, being taught the correct way to fire weapons and then being tested on them is a challenging and fun chance to excel.

It’s also a great chance to take a close look at the particular pieces of kit that you’re given to use. All of the equipment, vehicles and weapons in AA are taken directly from the materiel departments of the US Army. The weapons, from the way they fire, the sound they make and the actions your avatar use to reload and prep sights are all exactly the same as any soldier would be trained to use them.

And that’s because the same guys who model, texture and program them hold and fire them on live fire ranges, Chief Engineer of the AA program, Michael Barnett, tells me. “We operate the vehicles and fire the weapons on army ranges.“, he notes, “I have personally fired many small arms weapons and shot the M2 .50 cal machine gun, Mark19 40mm grenade launcher and the TOW ITAS anti-tank missile.” No lab coats and ballistic monitoring programs for these designers it seems.

In addition to providing the nitty gritty on how to make everything as realistic for the player as possible, Michael is the technical lead for all projects relating to the AA platform, which includes government training, simulation applications and other elements of real soldier-VR contact. Impressiveness aside, Michael helps create virtual battlefields that the real fighters learn in before they head over to the dusty battlegrounds of Iraq and Afganistan.

Impressive. But I wanted details. How does a weapon go from your hands on a range at Ft. Benning to an imposing force of power in the hands of your average Gamer?

Michael was more then happy to elaborate. And, being an engineer, he got technical. Very technical.

“The 3D modelling of weapons and other systems for which we build trainers is done using very high resolution CAD models that are decimated for real time use. The internal mechanical workings, textures, materials, and sounds are all produced from data collection of the actual systems to make the most authentic experience possible.

Physical measurements not documented are made with 3D laser scanners, weapon sounds are recorded using high end equipment on the actual ranges, and avatar animations for movement are captured using a Viacom mocap system by actual Special Forces soldiers so every detail is captured.

In creating a simulation of any Army equipment or weapon system, we begin with a TM,(technical manual) and an OMM, (operations and maintenance manual) which describes the basic mechanical workings of the system and details all human interactions with the system from proper operations to maintenance.

Because the documentation lags behind development of the actual state, we next get (our) hands on the actual tactical system or weapon in the field to press every button, turn every switch and put the system in every possible state. From this we create a System specification outlining the states and state transitions. We use this as a master document for our software design giving us a level of detail not possible from any other means of data collection.

As we operate the actual tactical systems, taking them through every probably operational state, we naturally become resident experts on the system going so far as to model even any system software bugs that we may find about the tactical system so that our trainer is exactly what a soldier would experience using the real system.“

So, basically, its a detailed and intense process.  Weapon firing specifics like accuracy, jam rate and recoil are all taken from official Army ballistic tables, which in themselves are taken from both range, lab and battlefield firing. Jam rates in the game are specifically manipulated to occur more often to provide a user with the experience, rather then a directly proportional representation of how often a rifle would actually jam.

The same goes when calculating damage. AA, like most titles, features a class system which involves a medic. But unlike most titles, damage taken in AA is area specific. If you take a shot in the heart, you die. A bullet in the leg, you limp, and possibly bleed out. I asked Michael how he took hitboxes into account.

“For the game, a players avatar is divided into over 16 parts, and injuries are recorded for which part is hit and the physical 3D location on that part. The AA3 game uses a simple calculation for the injured section based on round or striking material.

Other Govt applications will use the physical location per part along with more extensive data on the type of injury in order to train medical personnel. Medical data approved by the Army’s school is used for the more detailed training and simulated effects.“

Some of the more indepth projects that Michael works on involve much more specific problems. A media application might involve realistic wounds and time scenarios, where battlefield medicine needs to be done in real time, utilising a plethora of bandages, equipment and drugs. Wouldn’t that make “pressing “e” to heal” a hell of a lot more redundant?

There are reems of data behind everything you do in a modern FPS. Every bullet you fire, and depending on where you are, where you aim and what weapon you are using, is calculated in real time to the ends of the earth. Does it burn out before hitting its target? Does the wind, barometric pressure or atmospheric temperature affect its trajectory? Does it slice through a wall and into your enemy’s head, or simply impact a wall and stay stuck forever.

Everything from recoil, a players stance and steadyness are important to an accurate shot. Real soldiers are modeled in different positions while firing different weapons, and tables are developed, which include simulated injury, slight movements and breathing, to create the most realistic environment possible. Holding your breath to take a sniper shot isn’t just a gimmick – you’ll find every soldier sucks in a breath after lining up a target between the sights.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, is taken for granted. The US considers America’s Army more of a training, or recruitment tool than a “game”, requiring it to be of the same standard that any other official document or training manual world. As a result, the project has a high priority in regards to funding, thus representing the dedication to the community by the devs and the extraordinary amount of patches and upgrades the title has received since inception.

So the next time you drop into a server, having completed your ranger and advanced marksmanship training, have a think about all of the science that has gone into your virtual experience. Every shot counts.

One of my most beloved games of the past year is the sprawling and, at times, painfully ambitious Far Cry 2. The trouble is, I’m not entirely sure why I loved playing through it so much. At times I felt so immersed that I came close to retrieving my extra strength sun lotion from the back of the bathroom cupboard for fear of actually getting a sunburnt nose. Meanwhile, at others, I could have easily ejected and tossed the disc from my open window into the rainy night.

It is, without doubt, a game of extremes.

My love/hate relationship with this open-world FPS continues to intensify the longer I have been away from its grip. This has brought me to the conclusion that, rather than crying over spilt milk, I should concentrate on what its follow-up – tentatively titled Far Cry 3 – should add to make the series that little bit better. Welcome to the first edition of our new feature: Here’s a thought…

Friends don’t let friends get friend’s heads blown off

He may look like a bloke you once worked with, but he's not. And he hates you.

While I absolutely reveled in the feeling of loneliness and vulnerability FC2provided me with, I was left less impressed to know that I could kill rather indiscriminately. For a title that attempted to forcefully mould the player into a state of blood lust, it was disheartening to know that you would (almost) never come across an ally or, more importantly, a civilian on one of your many long journeys. When you did, they were usually inside a building and your gun would become unavailable.

While you do encounter “buddies” (more on those later) in FC2, they only appear when you’re shot down, or when they can’t take care of themselves and need your help. Therefore, unless they are around, you literally must hate everybody in sight. In this sense, the experience differs very little from the Space Invaders’, Doom’s and Super Mario Bros.’ of yesteryear.

There will be far more weight to the Far Cry 3 experience if there are checkpoints manned by soldiers that aren’t absolutely intent on shooting out your Jeep’s engine from sixty yards away, then running you over while simultaneously riddling your brain with bullets. Surely the “ceasefire zone” AI would be simple enough to manipulate for it to be included throughout sections of the map.

Far Cry 3 needs a more bustling environment, populated by a combination of friendly soldiers, civilians and those pesky psychos with amazing firing accuracy. Your main buddies must appear at less scripted moments, leaving you eager to know whether they’ll be around to save your butt or just passing by when you fancy a little chat.

This would lead to players becoming extra careful while taking aim at enemies and provide a welcome reminder that there is actually some good left in the human race. Meanwhile, the possibility of becoming a deranged murderer who takes out everyone and everything would also loom large for the more “experimental” among us.

Leaving on a jetplane, don’t know if I’ll be back again. Will you come with me?

Needs a little more of this...

“Massive” is the only word I can use to describe Far Cry 2‘s world. But is it big for nothing? It soon became tiresome to be driving across miles of desert and jungle to reach destinations that constantly seemed frustratingly far. Granted, this was part of the challenge – Ubisoft’s way of coaxing the player into ignoring certain paths in favor of the easier and selfish, yet less rewarding, ones – but it was far too confrontational to please the majority of players and, in the grand scheme of things, mattered very little.

Far Cry 3 should differentiate itself from its predecessor by better seducing the player into exploring equally large areas. To do this, there will need to be greater reward, a carrot dangling in front of the donkey, if you will: contrasting environments and buddies that stick with you.

Imagine playing through the first map for ten hours, knowing that eventually you would end up transported to somewhere completely different. The sandy railroads of Far Cry 2 could eventually become urban subway routes; African warlords being replaced by street thugs who’ve never so much as watched a documentary on the huge continent. Thrown from one extreme to the other as the story takes a twist that requires a long haul flight rather than an extension of the initial area, or the reparation of a bridge, would be hugely refreshing for both Far Cry and sandbox gaming as a whole.

What’s more, Far Cry 3 should suggest that players seriously consider their buddies (the guys and girls that would conveniently ask you to go out of your way before a mission in FC2) throughout. If you’re loyal, these people will travel with you to new locales and even accompany you, Rainbow Six-style, on tough missions. Snub them and you’ll be on your own when the proverbial shit hits the fan.

Freedom of choice Rolls Royce

For a game that demanded you to travel around for miles upon miles, FC2 sure was short on varying modes of transport. While I realise that one couldn’t expect a Bentley to roll around in, the 2008 instalment would have provided a far rounder experience with a couple of motorbikes, a helicopter and even a bicycle to get from A to B on.

By throwing in a new urban environment in, Far Cry 3would push Ubisoft’s engine to the limit in terms of on-screen action, but you must wonder how games like GTA IV and Saint’s Row 2 can manage to have so much going on at once.

Therefore, in order to keep up with the times and bring enough to the table to keep players coming back, FC3 must up the ante in terms of vehicles. I’m not calling for an overload of cars and boats, just a few more to keep things a little more interesting.

They are the jungle! But they shouldn’t be!

"...only a couple of seconds until I'm spotted. Again."

My final request – before I lose you all by writing too many words – is the improvement of enemy AI. Having to deal with knowing that everybody in sight is out to get you is one thing, but then realising that they will spot you from a long way away, when it is rather impossible to do so, is another matter entirely.

Far Cry 3 must allow for players to use stealth tactics to sneak around enemies easier. By somehow failing to include this in the last outing, Ubisoft Montreal were again guilty of producing gameplay mechanics that harked back to the early 1990s, including the complete uselessness of silent weaponry. Spoiler: Everybody knows you’ve just sliced his throat.

FC2 did appear to have some kind of system whereby soldiers would have less chance of spotting you at night, but it was implemented in such a watered-down fashion that it was hardly worth the hassle. This time around it must give the player the chance to feel in control of situations via the utilisation of clever movement, use of cover and silenced weapons – whether knives or guns – not to mention an acknowledgement that people don’t have eyes in the back their heads that can see for miles.

So there you have it. Again, I’d like to point out that Far Cry 2 was, for me, a great game… I guess that I just feel Ubisoft would be missing a trick by not pushing for what could well be one of the great FPS games: Far Cry 3. Here’s a thought… Sign up to Gamer Limit here and let us know what you think by writing a blog that could well feature on our front page.