Etiquette When Posting your Opinions

There’s been a lot of controversy over Mass Effect 3’s ending, and in turn the staff is receiving a lot of harsh remarks on the internet. While people should certainly be allowed to their opinions, it damages their message when they are unreasonably brutal and rude. Here’s some unofficial reminders if you choose to critique Bioware:

Be polite. This is the most important. These people made Mass Effect in the first place, they work hard making an experience that, up until the last few minutes, was pretty darn great. The deserve some respect.

Be reasonable. If they work to make a different ending, expect to pay for it. This content does cost money to produce, and if we demand it their sure as hell gonna charge for it.

State, don’t hate. If you dislike something that’s fine, but don’t go over the top in your message. Make your point known in a reasonable fashion and don’t condemn other opinions.

Give it time. Write out what you want, then let it sit for some time. Come back to it after a day, and see if that’s really what you want to say and not just a message of passion.

Proof read. It’s just good righting…er, you know what I mean.

If you want to join the movement to get a DLC ending for Mass Effect 3, here’s the  Facebook group. If you decide not to join facebook but still want to voice your opinion, here’s how to contact Bioware:

Email at:

contact@bioware.com

Mailing Address:

BioWare Edmonton
200-4445 Calgary Trail NW
Edmonton AB
Canada T6H 5R7

Do Fans Have Creative Rights?

Fans are usually cast in the roles of villains, despite being those most interested in a creative body. If they're devoted they must be obsessive, if they're critical they must be nit-picking, and if they're upset they must be unreasonable. Somewhere along the line the most faithful consumers of movies, comics, books, and video games  became the the enemies to the producers.

We see this time and again across different mediums. Fans of Star Wars are constantly disappointed, for instance, in George Lucas's apathy to their complaints about the prequels and revisions (I personally found his recent revisions completely unnecessary and a violation of the original product). Not every fan of the Harry Potter series appreciated the 'epilogue' chapter. Now most recently fans are upset about Mass Effect 3's ending.

Without going too deeply into the issue, the ending of Mass Effect 3 violates certain logistics of the series and uses a deus ex machina to end the series. Fans are demanding that they provide an alternate ending via DLC, a movement that has gained nearly 27,000 supporters on Bioware's forums. Though it has been criticized for being the "vocal minority", the movement brings up the question whether the fans have the right to make an creative body change their work.

The question draws parallels as to whether video games are art. Mass Effect wasn't made to make an artistic statement, it was made to make money. Up until the last 15 minutes of the series, the games were of high quality and consistent in presenting the universe. The abrupt change left a sour taste in the fans mouths. But does that even matter? If Bioware wanted to end the story the way they did, then they have every right to do so. It's their creative property after all. But do their fans, the ones who have stuck around since the beginning (as they were intended to, the game was billed as a trilogy) have the right to ask for catharsis? Some have devoted hundreds of hours to this series, not to mention nearly $200 if they purchased the games new...more if they invested in DLC. Should Bioware be listening to their needs?

When Arthur Miller published "The Crucible" he swore up and down that it wasn't intended to be a metaphor for McCarthyism and the Cold War, yet the critics and audiences saw it differently. The audience's opinion can have an effect on the artistic work. That doesn't mean the creator of a work should kowtow to the fans, but it shouldn't violate the universe they've become devoted to.

Blog Prompt #3: Making a Profile, Facebook or Otherwise

For the purposes of expediency, here's the prompt I was given:

Does it bother you that there are so many 10 and 12 year olds with Facebook accounts? Does it bother you that they had to lie to set up those accounts? Does it bother you that there are completely fictional profiles for dogs and fictional characters, etc.? Do you think Facebook should do more to verify and confirm the information -- especially information about age, location, etc.-- that people use when opening accounts?

I have no problem with profiles for fake characters or pets. People know the characters aren't really voicing their opinions. How seriously people take them is entirely dependent on them.

When it comes to 10-12 year olds making profiles however, I take issue. I don't mean to insult the intelligence of today's youth, but frankly they had no concept of internet etiquette. They have no idea how the internet can affect they're futures and image. The problem comes with the idea that Facebook should do more to verify their users. Facebook already stores massive quantities of information on their users. Requiring more would be excessive and unreasonable. 

The solution lies, as it usually does, with proper parenting. If a child is going to make an online profile, the parents should know about it. They need to make certain that their child understands the implications and consequences of interaction on the internet. If they can't understand this, then it might be prudent to make them wait a few years before they enter the internet fray. 

The Extra Mile vs. the Extra Dollar

Downloadable content is the bane of value in the video game world. Since this current generation of consoles began there's been a slow but consistent shift in game development, one that is driving items that were once considered to be in-game unlockables to now be for purchase perks. Downloadable content is an add-on for a purchased video game and has grown to include game maps, costumes, props, skins, weapons, missions, and extra characters. More and more these items are being left out of the 'completed' product that hits retail shelves to be repackaged as an extra purchase later.

It didn't always used to be this way. Before Sony's and Microsoft's online infrastructures were in place, downloadable content (DLC) was packaged in game. It was a mark of a good developer if they included extra game modes and content on the disc or cartridge that was sold to consumers. If they did any less, it could have been considered laziness on their part. Now it is par for the course for DLC to be sold after a game's release date. This may be to combat used game sales or simply to get the developer an extra dollar. Occasionally companies will package DLC codes in new copies of the game, adding incentive to buy new. Now, DLC isn't necessarily a bad thing. But one can tell a lot about the game developer if you look at how they market their game compared to their downloadable content.

Players got their money's worth if they bought Red Dead
Redemption's "Undead Nightmare" DLC.

An example of good DLC handled correctly is Rockstar's "Undead Nightmare", which was an add on for the Red Dead Redemption video game. Undead Nightmare adds a significant amount of content to an already massive game, creating new missions, appearances, and enemies. It was almost an entirely different, but still enjoyable, experience that took the developer extra time and resources to create. It was an extra product, therefore it makes sense that it might cost extra.

A company that is milking the DLC cow for all it's worth is Activison, who own the Call of Duty series. Their most recent iteration of the hit series is Modern Warfare 3 (MW3), which encourages subscription to the multiplayer stat-tracking service ELITE. ELITE subscriptions cost the same price of the game and include automatic access to certain features, DLC maps, and new game types. Multiplayer is a significant portion of the game's experience, so ELITE has become a popular service. But when one compares the content provided in MW3's ELITE to another popular shooter, in this instance Bungie's Halo: Reach, it becomes clear that ELITE is an example of the developer choosing profit over value. Many of the services ELITE provides Bungie already gives to their players, such as stat-tracking and new game types. Reach also provides a map editor on the disc, allowing for infinite maps to be created. So while yes, Reach does have maps as DLC, they aren't the sole way players can obtain new content. Bungie granted players the tools to entertain themselves endlessly, whereas Activison wants players to pay them for such content.

DLC isn't going anywhere. So long as the internet exists, DLC will remain. Like it was in the days before the consoles were all connected, it will be up to the developers to show what they value more, the players or the profits. Good game developers will include more on disc, make their games more easy to purchase, and worry less about gouging the online communities for all their worth. It's the consumer's responsibility to make smart purchases and support the right game makers, lest nothing halt the course games are on.

What Piracy and Used Media Have in Common

In short, companies hate them.

I recently read a brief opinion article over at IGN which was written in response to a recent rumor about the next Xbox game console. If the buzz rings true, then the next Xbox will be locked from playing used games in their entirety, a concept that is not only brash and bold but also potentially dangerous to consumers.

If the next Xbox doesn't let people play used games,
can Microsoft expect it to be successful?

The concept is in response to Gamestop and other companies making their money off of the sale of used games. All the people who worked on the game (developers, artists, writers, programmers, etc.) make ZERO dollars when a used game is sold. Often times people cry foul at Gamestop for their used games policy; they rarely mark them down and make an enormous profit off of each used game sold, hence their penchant for touting used game deals. More game companies have taken to charging an 'online pass fee' in order to compensate. Essentially this pass forces people who buy the game used to pay to play online if it has any functionality, thereby returning some money to the developer. What Microsoft may be proposing is something entirely different.

Imagine if, when you bought a DVD, you had to register what device you were using to watch it, and could only watch it on that device. That's essentially what is being proposed, tying a single disc to a single system. This flies in the face of the entire history of video games, which has been a media that consumers have traditionally share with their friends, swap, or buy used. The used game market is nothing new. But now companies have a means to resist it.

So, why ask what piracy and used media have in common? Let's compare Gamestop to MegaUpload. For a payment that doesn't return to the media's parent companies, both allow you to purchase 'used' media. Both are dependent on consumers contributing to their business model (gamers sell and buy used games, downloaders download and upload files). Without these consumers, both would be out of business. And finally, both of these companies deny other companies control and potential sales.

GameStop frequently offers deals and discounts on used
games because it does little to deter their profits.

That's what's really at the crux of this whole piracy/used items debate. Potential money. Not real money. Not money earned. Potential money. Every time a person buys a used game or pirates a movie, the makers of that media say "That's wrong. We should be the ones making money off of that game, even though we already did when someone bought it new in the first place. You're stealing from us." And they have a point. Anytime you purchase something used or pirate it in place of buying it new, you aren't paying the makers of the item. You're paying a glorified pawn shop.

I'd be willing to postulate that if Gamestop were an online service that didn't sell new games and MegaUpload was a store that sold new media in addition to user material, Gamestop would've been shut down last week. Of course, I doubt even Gamestop's executives lead such a disgustingly "1%" lifestyle as Kim Dotcom did before his arrest. 

This news represents the companies latest in the war against the consumer. More and more companies have been trying to exert themselves, claiming innocence as they've lobbied, placed fees, and corrupted the consumerist society we live in. This move makes their message clear: when you buy something from us, we will decide how it is used, not you. It's an atrocious occurrence, one that would ultimately undermine the game industry itself, as the industry is so dependent on used game sales. Hopefully, this rumor will turn out to be nothing more than hearsay. 

Are Fan Fictions Catharsis or Indulgences?

I think the first fan fiction I ever attempted was Star Wars related. I did so when I was in elementary school, so the quality of writing wasn't quite as terrible as the script of Episode II. But close. I wrote as simple short story about a fictional Jedi for my entertainment and nothing more. This was long before the now teeming communities existed on the internet, but serves as proof that fan fiction existed before the information superhighway.

Rarely are people satisfied with an ending of a story. Fans always want more, they want it consistently, and they want it to be a quality work. By creating fan fiction they are feeding a need to remain connected to stories that have played a significant part in their lives. Authors who elaborate on side stories, make their own sequels, or even create new characters altogether do so for multiple reasons. One is that they feel as though they are contributing to the fiction themselves. Their work expands the official universe in an unofficial capacity, but isn't necessarily wrong unless they contradict the established canon. When a fanfic writer alters the canon in their work they're likely doing so because they weren't satisfied with something.

But what does fan fiction give fans, other than an excuse to delve into their beloved universes? Catharsis is one likely motivation. Fanfics allow writers to create their own, emotionally satisfying ends to plots. Characters are able to interact however they want in a work of fan fiction, and events are able to be manipulated to a fan's preference.

George Lucas inadvertently created a culture based around a single
moment in 'A New Hope' by making a change fans didn't like. 

Far more likely is that fan fictions are indulgences, sweet-stuff for the imagination. Nothing in fan fiction is canon, no matter how well written or how appealing. Unless the author, director, writer, or developer decrees it, it's not official. This is an inescapable truth. Knowing this, fans still write. They write because fanfics provide the same escape that the media they're based off. These allow their writers to escape into characters and let their creative abilities be dictated by their desires. For instance, Han might've shot first. Master Chief might've died fighting the Covenant. Edward Cullen, perhaps, got mowed down by the same SWAT team that shot Osama Bin Laden. None of these things happened, but people can make them real in their own minds and writing.

I have only one fan fiction I regularly return to nowadays. I never plan to publish it or let others read it online; in reality, it isn't for them. No fan fiction is. A fan fiction is only for the person who writes it, whether they share it or not. It has its uses of course. Writing within a constrained, established universe can force people to be creative in their storytelling so that everything lines up logically. It also serves as a means to relax the mind. It's undeniably enjoyable to write something that makes you happy. For whatever reason, fan fictions will likely always exist, and are usually a sign of a dedicated fan base for whatever media they're adopting.

New Tools in New Media

I just recently discovered Camtasia Studio, which apparently is a program that let's people create tutorials by recording what happens on their screens. Basically a screencapture program. It seems incredibly useful, so of course my computer doesn't already have it installed.

I also found out that there's a less quality-filled but free program called Camstudio that accomplishes the same ends with a slightly less streamlined means. Might be worth checking out.