Black Ops II: The Trend to Kill Rental Servers from PC Gaming

So, I need to write this blog post since I wrote previously about my excitement for Call of Duty: Black Ops II. Well it seems that Treyarch decided to "clarify" there previous statement regarding dedicated servers only a month before release -- which was unknown to me before the game's launch. What Treyarch apparently meant by dedicated servers is that they would be running all of them. What they failed to mention before is that there would be no rental servers for gamers. This is the one aspect, besides playing with a mouse and keyboard, that made the PC version standout to its console brethren. Instead, Treyarch went the way of Infinity Ward and now no longer support the love for renting servers for gamers to enjoy.

Now surprisingly, some people prefer this method. As Treyarch argued, controlling servers prevents hacking since the server files are not distributed to rental server companies. Some gamers see this as a way to even the playing field and prevent people from taking advantage of learning the games code. Others see it as a way to prevent "hegemonic" admins in rental servers from harassing gamers. They believed that admins abused their power on their rental servers because they are usually run by a clan who prefers a specific type of game play, and as a result, prevented gamers from playing the game the way the game was "intended."

I wholeheartedly disagree with these arguments. Hacking will never go away in any facet of the imagination -- heck, I use XIM when playing on the 360 which allows me to use a mouse and keyboard. Having to play with random people in the matchup system employed in CoD ensures that you will eventually run into a hacker. That is why admins were a great asset to gaming: they were able to police such annoying gamers from disrupting the online experience. Rather than having to put up with a hacker, you could directly report it to the admin who would in turn boot the offending player off the rented server.

Also, in my experience, admins on these servers rarely abuse their power. It is not to say that aren't a few problematic admins with a Napoleon complex, it is to say that you are more likely to see a hacker through CoD's match-up system than power hungry admins. These admins were for the most part great at staying in the background only coming to light when people become problematic. In my 8+ years of playing FPS online, I rarely ever have seen enough admins abuse his or her authority to ruin the entire online experience in a similar way people can ruin playing on Xbox Live.

One last gripe I like to address regarding rental servers is that admins will control the type of game play preferred on the server. For example, some people like playing on a "crouch" server where the server's owners discourage run and gunning, and instead encourage a more tactical feel to the game. With CoD's match-up system, this style enjoyed by many gamers is taken away. And for this reason, it only ensures a vanilla style of game play for all.

What is therefore being taken away from the gaming experience is choice. Some people like playing the same map over and over again, like the original Nuketown that had 24/7 servers. Some enjoy playing solely on hardcore servers with various game modes. Some enjoy reducing game weapons the server's owner feels negatively affects a game's balance. Some want the choice of playing with more mature gamers who don't spout out the foulest word they know. Because Treyarch and Activision have done all they can to defeat rental servers for the so-called sake of preventing hackers, choice is thus sent away for vanilla, "hacker-free,"  online experience.

Well hopefully this trend ends. Till then I will play BF3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter to get my rental server fix. What are your thoughts?

Off to Present a Paper at the NCA Conference in Orlando

This Friday I will be presenting a paper at the National Communication Association conference in Orlando, FL. This paper examines video games and consumption. Specifically, I argue that avatars in MMOs have become a way for people to display consumption and class. In order to illuminate this idea, I used Thorstein Veblen's idea of conspicuous and emulative consumption.

Ultimately, my research explores how video games are a substitute for the American Dream. To clarify this idea, video games allows us to be successful through hard work in these virtual worlds. In a life in which we work hard yet don't own what we produce, video games gives us that means to control what we produce. Video games becomes our American Dream because hard work ultimately is our own rather than someone else's.

This distinction further pushes ideas of class. In my research, I look at how hardcore gamers feel that, because they are able to consume video games more than others, they should benefit more fully form their hard work than casual gamers in MMOs. For example, when World of Warcraft introduced "Welfare Epics," hardcore gamers were irate  They felt that their hard work deserved them more rewards than others who are not able to put in the time to ascertain such items. The hardcore gamers thus equate the negative connotations associated with welfare with easier access to such rewards for casual gamers.

Furthermore, Star Wars Galaxies saw its destruction based on superseding the hard work of hardcore gamers. When they introduced the New Game Enhancements that allowed anyone to become a Jedi, which before could only be ascertained through investing months gaming, gamers were angered by Sony's decision and as a result left in droves. Gamers here saw their hard work to become a Jedi a waste because now anyone could easily become a Jedi in the game.

Consumption in games is the basis of all games: games are all about obtaining rewards through hard work. As a result, it becomes a means to display class. Don't you want to brag to your friends about your level 90 monk with amazing looking cloak or that you prestiged in Call of Duty for the sixth time?

Anyway, it's fun to take a deeper look at how culture is reflected through video games. And if you happen to be at NCA this year, hopefully you'll be able to take the time to drop by and see my presentation.

Now it's time to finish packing!

I've Got the Call of Duty Fever Again...

It's that time of the year again folks! Here comes another rendition of the Call of Duty franchise, Black Ops part deux. To be honest, I really liked the original Black Ops. For me, I very much enjoyed how the game provided balanced weapons (for the most part), exciting but not n00b crippling unlocks, and unique, fun maps -- who doesn't love Nuketown? All this made it the best iteration of the franchise since CoD:MW, which was the game that reinvented how we see FPSs today.

But if you're like me, you are praying that this rendition will be much better than MW3. As a PC gamer, MW3 was a huge disappointment. First off, Infinity Ward decided not to include ranked, dedicated servers. Dedicated servers are great and really help with the enjoyment of FPS games (which I would love to one day see implemented in console gaming). Why? Well instead of constantly having to play against clan-boys with a team of random players, prepubescent adolescence who have no discretion on their choice of words and how often they say them, or even hackers, dedicated servers lets gamers regulate the server to reduce such problematic gamers. Plus, it is fun to become a regular on a server where gamers are civil but yet bring a fun, competitive environment. However, MW3 decided to shun PC gamers and only humor us with unranked servers.

Furthermore, besides the lack of dedicated servers, the weapons in MW3 were dreadfully unbalanced. For instance, when gamers are able to pick off an opponent from a long distance with a sub-machine gun, yet with an assault rifle a player can't hit the broadside of an aircraft carrier, then there is a problem. This aspect of the game ruined the experience for me. The amount of people using duel weapons also made me wish I had saved my money. After a while, the only avatars you would see ruling the battlefield were ones that were duel wielding  I can't remember how many countless times I witnessed my death via Kill Cam in which a gamer was duel wielding sub-machine guns. If one type of weapon rules them all, then what's the point of having various unlocks?

Finally, the maps were for me unremarkable. There wasn't one map that really stood out. Additionally, most of these maps felt like you were trying to have a knife fight in a phone booth (man this phrase shows my age).  The maps were very small and led to hectic and unorganized firefights.

Luckily for us, MW3 is a thing of the past and just around the corner comes Black Ops II to save the day. Black Ops II will feature dedicated servers (for PC users of course), what looks to be a diverse set of maps, as well as some fun unlocks. Plus the new zombie mode looks like a great way to spend an evening when desiring a break from competitive multiplayer action.

Sorry for my postmortem on MW3. With all the headaches MW3 caused my mind, I really hope that Black Ops II picks up where it left off and becomes a great extension to the CoD name so we can once again have faith in the CoD franchise.

So what are your thoughts on Black Ops II?