NoG BloG: Spoil Me, Baby

Normally when I write these posts I try to maintain a neutral tone. My intent is that the readers will submit their opinions, and I'd rather not sway them with mine before hand. I can always espouse my opinion, and I always do, on the show. This article is a little different, as I'm all but certain that I'm in the minority with this one. Also, guess what? This is an article about spoilers, so if you're allergic to those kinds of things you may want to look away.

Still with me? Good. I am done with spoilers. I don't mean that I no longer want people to spoil things for me, I mean that I'm done with spoilers as a concept. I'm increasingly convinced that fear of spoilers is a roadblock to meaningful discussion, especially when we're talking about games and gaming. It's also my firm belief that fear of spoilers has increasingly given writers permission to tell the same hackneyed stories again and again.

On a recent episode of Nation of Gamers, a promising discussion about Heavy Rain started, and then was immediately put down due to the fact that it might cause a spoiler. The idea was then floated that we'd do something similar to what they do on the Gamers With Jobs Conference Call, and have a discussion later that would be released under a spoiler alert headline. This is frustrating for me as a commentator on a number of levels; primarily, I don't see it as my job to prevent spoilers from reaching your ears. Rather, it's my job to do the best I can in providing entertaining discussion about games. If you don't want to have a game spoiled and we start talking about said game, the burden is with you to overcome your morbid curiosity and stop listening, not with me to stop talking about it. Maybe you should come back after you've finished the game? The show will still be there.

Excessive spoiler awareness isn't fair to the people that have finished a game and want to have that discussion, and self censoring to prevent spoilers makes our show less interesting. Will we ever go back and talk about Heavy Rain? Maybe, maybe not. Even if we do, it won't be as fresh in our minds as it would had we talked about it shortly after we completed it. There will be points forgotten, and the entire conversation will take on the tone of, "Oh yeah! I remember that!" I'm all for pleasant reminiscing, but it is no substitute for substantive discussion.

Quick! Which was better, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, or Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2? The vast majority of you would say the that the first game was superior, and not only because of the public relations missteps of publisher Activision. One of the major problems with the second game was that it relied on the same plot devices as the first. Like, exactly the same devices. The shock of dying as one of the main characters in MW was substantially greater than when the same occurred in MW2, and all the spoiler police in the world wouldn't have made it any better. If instead of cheap shocks Infinity Ward had developed a compelling plot that made any logical sense, our collective reaction would have been much different.

However, it's the current zeitgeist among entertainment makers to rely heavily on the, "You won't believe what happens next!" model of storytelling, and we're letting them get away with it. The nanny culture surrounding media only reinforces the notion that we don't care about engaging stories, interesting characters, or good gameplay. It tells writers and producers everywhere that we'll accept bland storytelling if only they string us along at the right pace.

I'm not against surprising twists, far from it. I am against mysterious circumstances and shocking developments being a sideshow used to distract from lame storytelling. If something is great, truly great, then knowing how it ends won't "spoil" anything. I can still play Final Fantasy IV and thoroughly enjoy it, even knowing as I do that Golbez is Cecil's brother. I know that Joker is going to turn himself into a monster at the end of Batman: Arkham Asylum and the game is still a ton of fun. And for my money, knowing from the beginning of Heavy Rain that Scott is the Origami Killer would have made for a more interesting game. Conversely, knowing that Alistair was going to die wouldn't have made Tomb Raider: Underworld's story any less dumb.

This doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to ruin things for people. However, the next time someone freaks out when I start talking about something that they haven't experienced, I'm going to ask them to remove themselves from the conversation rather than censor myself.

So, what do you think? Would you rather we leave your ears pristine, clean of any spoilers? Or would you prefer a more substantive discussion, even knowing that some surprises may be lost?

Spencer Williams

NoG BloG: Bottom 5

Let's get snarky.

Oh, people do go on about their favorite games, but how many talk about their least favorite? How many talk about the games that they couldn't stand, but for some reason kept playing anyhow? That's what we're going to talk about this week.

It's not enough just to give a list of your least favorite games, though. A reason would be nice. What made the experience so revolting? Did the games pixels stab you in the eye? Did you finally reach the end boss, only to have him be completely unkillable? Did you spend $40 dollars in one sitting at the arcade only to discover that at the end, the game started out? Remember, the list isn't worth much unless there's a story to go along with it.

Don't feel contained to five, though. If you only can think of three, hit us with what you've got. Do you hat twelve games? We want to hear about them. Probably twelve is too many and we'll ignore your post on the air due to a lack of energy to thumb through your novel-length complain-a-thon, but go ahead and write it up anyhow!

And yes, that's a picture of Link on top a post called "Bottom 5." I leave deciding why it's there to you.

Spencer Williams

NOG 12: Dead Workers Premium

We here at NoG are excited to announce our new premiere community service, Dead Workers Premium. This exciting new service will allow you to get involved with NoG like never before! Get access to exclusive show notes and hear podcasts like you've never heard them before!

"Now hold on," I hear you say, "I love Eric, Brent, Spencer, and Wes, but how much is this going to cost me?" I'm glad you asked! Downloading the show will remain free, as always, and you're free to listen to the first ten minutes on our dime. That's right! We're so confident about the quality of our product that we're willing to pay for you to listen! After the first ten minutes it's just ninety-nine cents a minute to continue! Not happy with the show? We're sorry to see you go, but you're free to cancel at any time.*

This week, take advantage of our special introductory offer and get Episode 12 of NoG absolutely free! Wes isn't here, so we decided to cut everyone a break. The other three hosts reminisce about micropayments and DLC. Is it good? Bad? Ugly? I sure hope it's good, because we've got a distribution line to support from here on out.

*You cannot actually cancel at any time. By downloading NoG, you agree to pay for shows for two years. Every time you download another show, your contract is renewed. NoG does not guarantee the availability of episodes in your language of choice. NoG may not be downloaded in Europe, the United States, Australia, or anywhere that racketeering is illegal, but we won't tell on you as long as you keep paying us. Remember, we know where you live.

NoG BloG: Microtransactions and DLC

This week on NoG we'll have a special guest, and to celebrate we want to tackle a special topic. Can anyone think of anything more special than micropayments?

There's not a lot to be said about micropayments that hasn't been said before, both loudly and in an irate tone of voice. For some, micropayments are the herald of a new way to nickel and dime gamers. For others, they give gamers the opportunity to get more game than they otherwise might. Both of these can be true; it's a matter of an individual gamer's perspective as to which he or she focuses.

For the purposes of our argument, let's break games with micropayments into three categories:

• Full priced games that sell small bits of content to expand the existing product


• Low priced games that sell a small initial bit of content and expand upon it with additional content for a price


• Free games that are supported by selling content or in game advantages

Each of these three types make the case for microtransactions in a different way, and each presents different value to different gamers. Some that would spend $10 on a new character for Mass Effect 2 wouldn't even download a free copy of Dungeons and Dragons Online, let alone buy a potion that would increase experience gain.

It's still a very new concept, so the questions of value versus price haven't yet been answered. Companies are struggle to answer why $2.50 is too much for horse armor, but $2.00 is reasonable for a Red-Riding Hood Costume. Meanwhile, gamers are forced to look at each piece of DLC individually and ask themselves, "Is this worth it?"

So what do you think? Do you regularly (or irregularly) make micro-purchases? Do you feel that they're positive or negative? Are there some circumstances in which you'd make a microtransaction, but another when you wouldn't? Why or why not?

Spencer Williams

NoG BloG: Is This Some Kind of Joke?

Today is April 1st, the day we gleefully ignore the common courtesy of not telling outlandish lies to one another. We here at the Dead Workers Party have been known to tell our own fantastic mistruths, such as the well loved ballad of Oober Servers.

It's not just people telling each other lies, however. Corporations get in on the act as well, making the first of April the absolute worst day to try to find gaming news. Add in the impending release of the iPad, and the only stories to be found are either Apple related or dirty, dirty lies. Occasionally the two even overlap. As an example, I present to you the iCade. Kotaku has a pretty good list of today's tomfoolery here.

So what's your opinion of game companies trying to be cute on April 1? Do you appreciate the effort, or are you annoyed beyond all reason? What are some of your favorite or least favorite April Fool's related pranks?

NoG Blog: The Little Games

Big games get all the chicks. Well, maybe not chicks, but they get all the press, all the accolades, and the lion's share of profit. Little games rarely stand a chance. To be clear, for our purposes a big game is one with a major publisher and an enormous budget. The little games are everything else; shoe-string budget indies, free flash games, ad-supported web time sinks, ninety-nine cent iPhone titles.

Little games are largely ignored by the gaming press. Sure, there are sites that cover them; Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a particularly good record of covering little games, and even Kotaku throws an indie title a bone now and again, but by and large the press is focused on the big games. Partly that's because of access. Big publishers have established relationships with media outlets, making it far easier for them to get exposure. Partly it's resources. Small developers don't have the time and money that the big guys do, let alone dedicated PR teams. Whatever the reason, the end result is that on a site like Kotaku we get an article saying that there's a countdown clock on the Mass Effect 2 website - essentially an announcement that there will be an announcement - but the existence of a truly fun little dungeon crawler, Desktop Dungeon (pictured above) gets no mention at all. I'm not really trying to rag on Kotaku here; they are what they are. Rather, what I'm trying to say is that these games deserve more exposure, and that's something we can do at NoG.

The great thing about little games is that they can try new things. They can evolve unpopular formulas. They can push the envelope in ways that the big games can't. That's not to say that all little games are good, far from it. The ratio of good games to crap is probably about the same for little games as for big games, but since there are so many little games, that still adds up to a lot of good gaming to be explored.

So let's have it; what are your favorite little games? What do you play on the sly while at work or school? What's the one little game that you want to share with the world, that simply not enough people have heard about? This week, the hosts will share our favorite little games, and we hope to have a lot of yours to share as well!

Spencer Williams

NoG Blog: The Respect that Games Deserve

This article was inspired by Video Games and Facing Controversy, a YouTube video made by Daniel Floyd. Daniel Floyd is a twenty-five year old video game animator that “lectures” on topics such as this in a funny and insightful manner while providing some nice animation in the background (similar to Zero Punctuation in style, if not in substance). I strongly recommend you check them out! Here is a link to his YouTube channel where you can browse his videos.

Video games are rarely viewed in the best light by society. They've had more than their share of controversy thrown at them over the years; one example was the recent Mass Effect “SEXBOX" controversy over a brief sex scene in a thirty-plus hour game. People assumed the worst, even going as far as to say it was a "virtual orgasmic rape" simulator. The media often portrays video games as devices designed to corrupt children, and whenever the topics of childhood violence, social ineptitude, or addiction are brought up, fingers point to video games as the cause. As Daniel Floyd says in his video, “When controversy arises, our opposers don’t look at a game studio and see a team of artists, they see a team of toy makers that have gone too far.”

During Daniel’s video he spoke at length about a game that recently came under fire called “Six Days in Fallujah,” a third person shooter from Atomic Games about the second battle of Fallujah. The game was originally to be published by Konami, but when it was revealed, many decried the game as disrespectful to those who died in that battle; the height of bad taste. Konami quickly bailed and Atomic was left without a publisher. However, if Konami thought that this game was in poor taste, why did they give it the green light? They had to know it would stir some controversy, so why did they back off at the first sign of criticism? Daniel's take; “By caving in, you validate all of the accusations. You have legitimized slander founded and ignorance, and you guarantee a larger outcry the next time you consider a project like this."

“These games are not being judged by their content,” Floyd says, “they are judged because they are games.” He points out that other forms of media, such as books and movies, have explored difficult subjects such as war, genocide, sexuality and hatred with great success; these artists dare to show humanity’s dark side. “They venture into uncomfortable territories and find the truth hidden within. This is the stuff art is made of. What is it about games that disqualify them from exploring this harsh territory?” Until games are taken seriously, we will never be able to see their true potential as a respected form of media and art. To achieve this we must stand up for our medium, be open to criticism, and embrace what games have become and what they will be.

So what do you think? Do video games have the potential to be something more than what they are now? Do you think that they should be able to touch on dark subject matter that many other forms of media have touched upon? Do you believe that video games can ever be respected on the same level as movies, plays, or literature?

Charles (CoRn)