I've written in the past about the responsibility of the narrator to use the details provided by player characters, and to set up challenges for the player characters chosen for the game. Today, I'd like to delve into that same general idea, but from a slightly different angle.
As narrator, you're responsible for setting up the story. You're responsible for figuring out possibilities for the game arc - the way the game will start, how it will progress, what variations could come up along the way, how open things are to being altered by the player characters and by how much, and where the story is likely to go. I've written about these concepts quite a bit, as the responsibility the narrator holds for defining the game as a whole is pretty huge.
But don't forget that as narrator, your job is also to help the stories of the player characters - the main characters, the stars - emerge.
I wrote about this in brief a while back, when I discussed game arcs vs. character arcs - a story, ultimately, is not about what happens to the world at large, but what happens to the characters we are following. Therefore, the narrator's job is not just to define the world's plot, the game arc. The narrator's job is also - in fact, arguably more importantly - to help draw out character arcs and issues.
It is all well and good to have a grand, epic game plot, or events that will affect the fate of the world, or other things that will affect a great many people beyond the main characters. That's fine. In many genres, in fact, it's pretty darn essential.
And it's fine to have a structured story, plotted out to some degree in advance, with some events set reasonably in stone. Some narrators use looser setups with greater player influence, others use more defined ones with less player influence, and those are just a matter of the narrator's particular style. As I said in my discussion of said styles, they're all pretty much fine - it's just a matter of narrators and players who like similar styles finding each other.
So that's all fine.
But what's essential, no matter how you're running the game, is that the story needs to relate to the main characters. It needs to tie in with them. Not just involve them. Any story involves its main characters. What I'm encouraging you to do is more: Go beyond involving them. Go beyond just having them affect events in the story and be affected by them.
The story needs to be about them. It needs to relate to them. Even if there are events in the tale that would have happened without them, there need to be major, major elements of the tale that directly relate to the main characters.
Elements of the main characters' pasts should impact how the story develops. Who the main characters are should matter to the tale. Who they are should be tied intricately in.
Don't just set up events that would work with any group of characters. Look at the characters you have and design events, or at least twist events, to work specifically with them. The tale should never, ever feel like it would happen precisely the same way with another group of player characters. Sure, there can be certain broad strokes that could potentially come out regardless, but the intricate details of the story, the motivations and drama? That should all emerge from who these particular characters are.
And while the responsibility for that falls in part on the players - these are their characters, after all - it can't rest entirely on their shoulders. You, the narrator, must help them. You, the narrator, must make efforts to connect your tale to their tales.
I don't think I'm always successful at this, myself, but when I narrate a Storium game, I want the players to feel like it ended up tied in very strongly with their characters. I want them to feel like their characters' personal problems, issues, subplots, nemeses, and more all got involved. Even when the events start out not directly tied to them, I want them to end up tied in. I want the story to be the story of these characters, not the story of the situation.
That's the sort of mindset I encourage you to have.
Characters have their own subplots (they even have cards for those), their own issues, their own relationships, their own details. And these are not side elements to the story. These are the heart of the tale. These are what gives a tale meaning and drama and emotion.
Do not look at the individual character elements as the things to let players do when the main plot takes a break. Do not look at them as the things players can pull in if they want, so long as they don't get in the way of your primary tale. Do not look at them as "side" elements. Do not look at them as things to be covered "between" major threats.
These are not side elements. These are not less important. These are the very center of your story.
Some narrators plot out a lot in advance. Others take things as they come. Either is fine. But in either case, let the characters guide your story. You can plan events. But plan events around the issues raised by the main characters. Maybe you have things plotted out in advance. That's absolutely fine. But plot them out around the main characters.
There should never be a point in your tale where you say to yourself, "Well, this would be a good point to let the players go explore their personal plots, because I need a break between things for the main plot." That's because the personal plots and the overall plot should be interwoven sufficiently that pursuing the personal plots is pursuing the main plot, or vice versa.
If a player character has a villain in their background who kidnapped their brother, finding that person shouldn't be a side story. That person should be intricately tied to the main story, so that by pursuing the overall plot, the character plot is also explored, and by pursuing the kidnapper, the overall plot elements are revealed.
If a player character was accused of a crime they didn't commit, witnessed a foul deed, murdered a rival, sought approval from a parent, idolized a mentor...those are not things to leave on the sidelines or just explore when you have time. Those are things to tie into the tale. Those are things, in fact, to build the tale around as much as you can. The actual culprit is involved. The murdered rival had information that could've helped. The idolized mentor tried and failed to solve the problem...or maybe is involved in it.
Again, that doesn't mean you can't have an outline to start - having an outline to start is a great narration style. But the outline should be modified by the player characters. The story should fit their stories, and call to their themes.
Remember, you aren't just telling a story - you are telling the story of the characters. Don't build a generic story and then slot them in, or fit their tales into the breaks. Interweave the characters with the tale, and the tale with the characters, as much as you can manage.
viernes, 24 de mayo de 2019
jueves, 23 de mayo de 2019
7 Best URL Shortener to Earn Money 2019
- Adf.ly: Adf.ly is the oldest and one of the most trusted URL Shortener Service for making money by shrinking your links. Adf.ly provides you an opportunity to earn up to $5 per 1000 views. However, the earnings depend upon the demographics of users who go on to click the shortened link by Adf.ly.
It offers a very comprehensive reporting system for tracking the performance of your each shortened URL. The minimum payout is kept low, and it is $5. It pays on 10th of every month. You can receive your earnings via PayPal, Payza, or AlertPay. Adf.ly also runs a referral program wherein you can earn a flat 20% commission for each referral for a lifetime. - Ouo.io: Ouo.io is one of the fastest growing URL Shortener Service. Its pretty domain name is helpful in generating more clicks than other URL Shortener Services, and so you get a good opportunity for earning more money out of your shortened link. Ouo.io comes with several advanced features as well as customization options.
With Ouo.io you can earn up to $8 per 1000 views. It also counts multiple views from same IP or person. With Ouo.io is becomes easy to earn money using its URL Shortener Service. The minimum payout is $5. Your earnings are automatically credited to your PayPal or Payoneer account on 1st or 15th of the month.- Payout for every 1000 views-$5
- Minimum payout-$5
- Referral commission-20%
- Payout time-1st and 15th date of the month
- Payout options-PayPal and Payza
- Short.am: Short.am provides a big opportunity for earning money by shortening links. It is a rapidly growing URL Shortening Service. You simply need to sign up and start shrinking links. You can share the shortened links across the web, on your webpage, Twitter, Facebook, and more. Short.am provides detailed statistics and easy-to-use API.
It even provides add-ons and plugins so that you can monetize your WordPress site. The minimum payout is $5 before you will be paid. It pays users via PayPal or Payoneer. It has the best market payout rates, offering unparalleled revenue. Short.am also run a referral program wherein you can earn 20% extra commission for life. - LINK.TL: LINK.TL is one of the best and highest URL shortener website.It pays up to $16 for every 1000 views.You just have to sign up for free.You can earn by shortening your long URL into short and you can paste that URL into your website, blogs or social media networking sites, like facebook, twitter, and google plus etc.
One of the best thing about this site is its referral system.They offer 10% referral commission.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.- Payout for 1000 views-$16
- Minimum payout-$5
- Referral commission-10%
- Payout methods-Paypal, Payza, and Skrill
- Payment time-daily basis
- Clk.sh: Clk.sh is a newly launched trusted link shortener network, it is a sister site of shrinkearn.com. I like ClkSh because it accepts multiple views from same visitors. If any one searching for Top and best url shortener service then i recommend this url shortener to our users. Clk.sh accepts advertisers and publishers from all over the world. It offers an opportunity to all its publishers to earn money and advertisers will get their targeted audience for cheapest rate. While writing ClkSh was offering up to $8 per 1000 visits and its minimum cpm rate is $1.4. Like Shrinkearn, Shorte.st url shorteners Clk.sh also offers some best features to all its users, including Good customer support, multiple views counting, decent cpm rates, good referral rate, multiple tools, quick payments etc. ClkSh offers 30% referral commission to its publishers. It uses 6 payment methods to all its users.
- Payout for 1000 Views: Upto $8
- Minimum Withdrawal: $5
- Referral Commission: 30%
- Payment Methods: PayPal, Payza, Skrill etc.
- Payment Time: Daily
- Linkbucks: Linkbucks is another best and one of the most popular sites for shortening URLs and earning money. It boasts of high Google Page Rank as well as very high Alexa rankings. Linkbucks is paying $0.5 to $7 per 1000 views, and it depends on country to country.
The minimum payout is $10, and payment method is PayPal. It also provides the opportunity of referral earnings wherein you can earn 20% commission for a lifetime. Linkbucks runs advertising programs as well.- The payout for 1000 views-$3-9
- Minimum payout-$10
- Referral commission-20%
- Payment options-PayPal,Payza,and Payoneer
- Payment-on the daily basis
- CPMlink: CPMlink is one of the most legit URL shortener sites.You can sign up for free.It works like other shortener sites.You just have to shorten your link and paste that link into the internet.When someone will click on your link.
You will get some amount of that click.It pays around $5 for every 1000 views.They offer 10% commission as the referral program.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.The payment is then sent to your PayPal, Payza or Skrill account daily after requesting it.- The payout for 1000 views-$5
- Minimum payout-$5
- Referral commission-10%
- Payment methods-Paypal, Payza, and Skrill
- Payment time-daily
Pledge Update - I Need A 12 Step Program...
Well, it's about a third of the way through the year and I am not doing too badly on the Pledge for this year.
What the heck is "The Pledge" you ask? It's a promise to do my best to paint more minis than I actually receive in a year. I usually don't do very well at it. This year has been pretty good so far, especially in the matter of terrain pieces.
But that is about to take a MAJOR hit. You see, about 18 months ago I backed this little Kickstarter for Reaper Bones. And, um, well... I have a couple of hundred or so minis that are going to arrive any time now. Those pieces are not yet figured into the Pledge Count - I only count things that I actually receive in to my hands in a year.
This will be arriving:
CORE SET
- Infantry: 113
- Monsters: 15
- Vehicles: 1
- Terrain: 34
LOST VALLEY EXPANSION
- Infantry: 24
- Monsters: 10
- Vehicles: 0
- Terrain: 2
EXTRAS:
- Snake Cultists (Infantry): 6
- Ape Attack (Infantry?): 3
- Hill Giants (Monsters): 2
- King of the Jungle (Monster): 1
- Frost Giant Raiders (Monsters): 3
That's a total haul of 146 "Infantry," 31 Monsters, 36 pieces of Terrain, and one Vehicle (a pig-drawn pumpkin cart). Some I will probably try to resell, as I am not interested in all of it. But even so, that's a LOT of minis. And they really don't work much for most of my wargaming needs. THey do help with a lot of RPG needs though.
And I really wish I had bought more, honestly. The Fire Giant Huntsman, Hill Giant Hunter and Dire Lion, Blacktooth Terror, Mossbeard Treeman, and the Darkreach Expansion...
I may have a problem. Is there a 12 Step Program for this?
Star Control II: Summary And Rating
Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters
United States
Toys for Bob (developer); Accolade (publisher)
Released in 1992 for DOS, 1994 for the 3DO console; later fan ports to other platforms
Date Started: 23 March 2019
Date Finished: 14 May 2019
Total Hours: 47
Difficulty: Moderate (3/5)
Final Rating: (to come later)
Ranking at time of posting: (to come later)
Difficulty: Moderate (3/5)
Final Rating: (to come later)
Ranking at time of posting: (to come later)
Summary:
Star Control II takes the ship-by-ship action combat of the original Star Control and places it solidly within an adventure game of epic proportions. In a galaxy of more than 500 stars and 3,000 planets, a captain must build alliances, find artifacts, mine minerals, and coerce information from alien races so that he can ultimately throw off the yoke of the Ur-Quan Hierarchy and free Earth and its allies from slavery. Gameplay comes with a lot of lore and plot-twists, but every so often it reveals its origins and requires the player to defeat enemy ships with selections from his own armada, each with their own strengths, weaknesses, and special abilities. Although the sense of an open world and a nonlinear plot both end up being somewhat illusory, the game is still fun and memorable.
****
In the comments for my winning entry, several readers have offered descriptions and text that occurs when you try some of the game's alternate strategies, such as surrendering to the Ur-Quan, provoking the Orz, or selling your own crewmembers to the Druuge. Most of them are either dead-ends or offer such harsh consequences that you'd best not do them in the first place.
One thing I was curious to check out is what happens if you wait out the game's time limit. The Melnorme originally told me that the Earth would be destroyed in January or February of 2159, but my actions in the game managed to delay the apocalypse by almost two years. As I sat in hyperspace and watched, nothing much happened until November 2159, when the Supox and Utwig returned to their original systems, much diminished.
 |
| No one remains but the Ur-Quan. |
Around the end of 2159, the Kohr-Ah won the civil war and started to circle the galaxy, destroying each sentient race in turn. Some of their ships reached Earth in April, but they weren't here to destroy Earth just yet. I fought a few dreadnoughts and the horde moved on. The Arilou, Umgah, and Zoq-Fot-Pik were all gone by June 2160, the Supox and Utwig a month later. By October 2160, the Ur-Quan fleet had reached the "southern" end of the galaxy and destroyed the Yehat. Finally, in November, I received a broadcast from the Ur-Quan notifying me of Earth's destruction, and the game was over. My ship was parked right next to Earth at the time, and I was hoping I'd see a bunch of dreadnoughts approaching it, but alas, it wasn't quite that detailed.
 |
| The "bad" ending, unless you're a big Ur-Quan fan. |
If I hadn't cheated a bit during the game by reloading when an expedition proved a waste of time, I probably would have run into issues with the time limit. Watching the slow destruction of every race, along with the intelligence that they possessed, would have been mildly horrifying. But apparently you can still win the game at any time during this process, with nothing altered in the endgame sequence.
I confess that the last bit bothers me a little because it's indicative of the approach taken by the game as a whole. When I started playing Star Control II, it gave the impression of an open-world game with multiple narrative possibilities. But it turns out you have to follow a few paths in a relatively specific order, and most of the choices turn out to be illusory. Oh, it certainly does better than the typical RPG of the period, I hasten to add. It was just a bit disappointing to find that open exploration isn't really rewarded. If you're lucky enough to stumble upon a key location amidst all the planets in the vast galaxy, you probably won't be able to do anything because you haven't bought an important piece of information from the Melnorme first.
I have similarly mixed feelings about the game's approach to the alien races and racial characterizations. On the one hand, I enjoyed the variety. When you're making a game (as opposed to shooting a film or television show), you have the freedom to make some interesting races without worrying about the CGI budget. I appreciated that there were no "bumpy forehead" aliens except perhaps for the Syreen.
 |
| I could have done with less of this. |
I also don't fault the game for broad characterizations. It's a longstanding trope of science fiction and fantasy to paint races with a broad brush: the wise elves, the logical Vulcans, the proud Klingons, the evil orcs, and so forth. You rarely have time to explore the detailed characteristics of an entire culture. It's perfectly acceptable that Star Control II decided to highlight one major attribute of each race, such as cowardice, depression, loneliness, and greed. When it did go into more detail, such as in the case of the Ur-Quan and the Syreen, the detail was generally good, and it was rewarding to unlock those stories. I also appreciated the consistency of characterization. The Spathi locking themselves under their own slave shield amused me to no end because it was perfectly in keeping with the Spathi personality--and, in hindsight, 100% foreseeable.
But I also felt there were too many moments of outright goofiness and parody among the racial interactions. The Orz, the Pkunk, the VUX, the Umgah, and the Utwig mostly just exhausted my patience. I couldn't help but think how the same races with similar characteristics might be handled with less silliness. We don't have to look very far to find an example. Starflight and Starflight II had some of the same broad racial characterizations, but rarely crossed the line into outright slapstick. I felt the stories and plot twists of those games were much better, too.
Nonetheless, I understand why Star Control II is regarded as the better game: it's all about the combat. I wasn't any good at it, but I can see why people like it. Until I played it, I wouldn't have thought that a single choice--what ship to pilot--could have so many tactical implications. There are 14 ships that can join the New Alliance and 13 potential enemy ships, resulting in 182 potential battle combinations, and each has completely different tactical considerations. (With the Super Melee application, you can fight any of the ships against any of the others, for 625 possible combinations.) Slowly mastering the strengths of your ships and learning the weaknesses of the enemy ships is a huge and rewarding part of gameplay. Later in the game, when you have to fight multiple ships in a row, there are strategic implications for what ships you send into combat first and which you reserve for later in the battle.
 |
| The typical outcome of my combats. |
Still, the nature of combat, plus the lack of "character development," really makes this a non-RPG, which means it might not do so well on the GIMLET as an RPG. I played it as an exception. I don't want to hear any future comments along the lines of, "Well, you played Star Control II, so to be consistent, you should also play This Game." The point of exceptions is that I don't have to be consistent with them.
As to the GIMLET:
1. Game World. Star Control II manages to check most of the boxes in this category. It has a rich, detailed backstory, an open world, a clear place for the character and his quest, and an evolving game state that responds to the player's actions. (I particularly like how the starmap continually updates to show the dispositions of the various races.) The plot and its twists are original and interesting. The only fault I can find is that there isn't much to see or do in the open universe. I wish the creators had seeded more planets with optional encounters and finds, perhaps replacing the system by which you purchase all your technology upgrades from the Melnorme. Score: 8.
2. Character Creation and Development. Alas, there is none of either except for the ability to name your own captain. Even if you regard the ship as a "character," it doesn't get innately better so much as it gains better equipment. Score: 0.
3. NPC Interaction. Another strong point. I've given my thoughts about the NPC personalities, but I should add that even goofy personalities are better than we get from the typical RPG of the period, which is no personality (or even NPCs) at all. I wish there had been more honest variety in dialogue options instead of one that's obvious, two that are stupid, and one that's evil. The Starflight games did a better job giving the player real "options" when talking to different alien races even though they came in the form of "stances" rather than specific dialogue choices.
I should also note that most NPCs aren't individuals but rather representatives of their races who somehow know the previous conversations the player has had with other representatives. But the game otherwise hits most of the criteria for a high score here, including a plot that advances based on NPC interaction. Score: 7.
 |
| My thoughts exactly. |
4. Encounters and Foes. The game has an original slate of foes (ships) that require you to learn their individual strengths and weaknesses. There are otherwise no real "encounters" in the game that aren't also NPC dialogues. Score: 6.
5. Magic and Combat. I can't give a high score here because my scale is about RPG-style combat and the various tactics and strategies that draw from attributes, skills, and the player's intelligence rather than his dexterity. Still, as I discussed above, the choice of ship and the way you plot long combats create some important tactical and strategic decisions. I just wish combat had only been about ship versus ship. The planets, which show up suddenly as you switch screens, were unwelcome guests. Score: 3.
 |
| The asteroids, on the other hand, I didn't mind so much. |
6. Equipment. All of the "equipment" in the game is ship-related rather than character-related, and it all applies to the flagship, which a good player arguably does not rely on. I wish there had been opportunities to upgrade the other ships in the fleet. It would have been tough to offer meaningful options with so many of them, but even just generic attack or defense improvements would have been nice. Beyond that, it's fun to figure out how to best make use of the limited modular space on the flagship, particularly as new options come along regularly. Score: 3.
7. Economy. There are really two economies in the game: the "resource unit" economy that lets you build a fleet and equip your flagship, and the Melnorme "information" economy that depends on bio data and Rainbow World identifications. I found both rewarding enough for about two-thirds of the game. Score: 7.
8. Quests. The game has one main quest with a few options (though, as I mentioned before, a lot of the options are illusory) and side-quests. There's only one ending. Score: 4.
9. Graphics, Sound, and Inputs. I don't have many complaints in this category. The graphics are perfectly fine for the scope and nature of the game; the sound effects are fun and evocative throughout; and it's hard to complain about the interface of a game that supports both joystick and keyboard inputs and lets you customize the keyboard. I had problems in combat despite these advantages, but I don't think I can blame the game.
I do have one major issue, or several related issues, that fits into this category. The dialogue is delivered one line at a time in a huge font. You can hit the SPACE bar after each bit of dialogue to see a transcription in a smaller font that you can barely read. Either way, if you don't make your own transcriptions or screen shots (which must have been tough for an era player), the dialogue is lost once you leave the screen. In most cases, you can't prompt the NPC to speak the same lines again, and there's no databank in which to retrieve it as there was in Starflight II. Thankfully, I took copious screenshots, but they're a cumbersome way to review previous dialogue and I think the game should have offered a better system. Score: 6.
 |
| This text is better than nothing, but it's still not very easy to read. |
10. Gameplay. I give half-credit for non-linearity. The game is more linear than it seems when you start, but you still have a lot of choices about the order of your activities. I also give half-credit for replayability. As I mentioned earlier, many of the "options" seem illusory, and a replaying player might find himself swiftly on familiar paths, but there is at least some variety for a replay. The hourly total is just about right for this content, and while I had difficulty in combat, I still managed to win with an acceptable number of reloads, so I can't fault the difficulty. Score: 7.
That gives us a final score of 51, surprisingly close to the 53 I gave both Starflight and Starflight II, which had actual characters and character development. But reviewing those games, I'm reminded how awful combat was, and how many issues I had with the interface. I'm thus comfortable with the rating.
 |
| The ad makes it seem like the game's enemies are the Umgah. |
There are plenty of players, however, who would consider a 51 an insult. Star Control II still continues to make "best games ever" lists compiled by various publications. In a March 1993 preview in Computer Gaming World, Stanley Trevena liked the game enough to put it on his "top ten list of all time." "It is not often," he says, "that such a perfect balance is struck between role-playing, adventure, and action/arcade." In the November 1993 issue, they gave it "Game of the Year" in the adventure category (or, at least, it tied with Eric the Unready). Dragon gave it 5 out of 5 stars. It's rare to find an English review out of the 90s, though for some reason European reviews tended to put it lower, in the 70s.
The 3DO version from 1994 has some significant differences from the DOS version. It has an animated, narrated introduction and cut scenes plus voiced dialogue for the conversations. (My understanding is that the open-source Ur-Quan Masters would use some of this voiced dialogue but re-record others.) Some readers encouraged me to play this version specifically because of the voices. I'm not sure I would have liked it better. There's really just too much dialogue overall. Some of the voices are good: I appreciate the Vaderesque bass of the Ur-Quan, the lispy enthusiasm of the Pik, and the weird Scottish accent the creators gave to the Yehat. For some reason, they decided the Shofixti was a bad English translator of a 1970s Japanese kung-fu movie; the Orz, Spathi, and Utwig are just annoying; and the Umgah is the stuff of nightmares. The Talking Pet is the worst, with some ridiculous southern "Joe Sixpack" accent. I was also disappointed by the Syreen, who sounds like Doris Day rather than . . . well, honestly, I'm not sure what would have done justice to the Syreen. How do you blend a fierce Amazonian and a seductive vixen in a single voice?
Star Control II left a satisfying number of mysteries, such as the fate of the Precursors and why they seemed (to the Slylandro) to be nervously searching for something. We never learned about the Rainbow Worlds or why they (apparently) form an arrow pointing to the "northeast" of the galaxy. We never learned what the Orz did to the Androsynth, what the Orz really are, and how they relate to the Arilou. I was disappointed that we never found out why the Ur-Quan destroyed historical structures of humanity, including some places we weren't even aware of. I was disappointed to find that most of these questions are unanswered in Star Control 3 (1996), although we do apparently learn that the Precursors genetically modified themselves so they would have the intelligence of cows, thus protecting themselves from a race that periodically harvests the energies of sentient races. I think the creators missed an opportunity by not making the Precursors actual cows. There could have been a Gary Larson tie-in and everything.
 |
| The creepy cover to the game's sequel. |
The direction of Star Control 3 reveals some of the background drama between developer Toys for Bob (authors Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford) and publisher Accolade. According to Reiche and Ford, Accolade gave the developer such a limited budget that they had to essentially work for free for half a year to create a quality game. Accolade would not increase the budget for the sequel, so the original creators refused to develop it, and the job went to Legend Entertainment instead.
In 2002, authors Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford made the source code available for free, and some fans used it to create The Ur-Quan Masters for Windows, with multiple releases starting in 2005. It has since been ported to multiple additional platforms. The effort also led to the creation of the Ultronomicon, a Star Control II wiki.
The Star Control trademark passed to Infogrames when it purchased Accolade in 1999; Infogrames soon rebranded itself as Atari. When Atari filed for bankruptcy in 2013, its assets were sold. Stardock Corporation managed to acquire the Star Control license and produce Star Control: Origins (2018). Set 26 years before the original Star Control, the game would seem to retcon when Earth first encountered alien life. During development, Stardock claimed to be in contact with Reiche and Ford, and were developing the game along their vision, although they couldn't technically participate because of their Activision contract. If this relationship was ever friendly and cooperative, it soon became otherwise when Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating Ghosts of the Precursors and Stardock started selling the first three Star Control games on Steam. Both parties counter-sued each other for copyright and intellectual property violations, and Steam removed the Star Control titles (including Origins, at least temporarily) after receiving DCMA takedown notices from Reiche and Ford. As far as I can tell, the litigation is still ongoing.
 |
| Combat in Origins has improved graphics but seems to adhere to original principles. |
Toys for Bob still lives as a subsidiary of Activision, and Reiche and Ford still continue to direct the development of its games. I don't think we'll see them again, however, as none of their titles are RPGs. (For more on Reiche and Ford, see Jimmy Maher's excellent coverage of Star Control II from this past December. My favorite part is when Reiche gets fired from TSR for questioning the purchase of a Porsche as an executive's company car.)
I am often dismissive of calls for remakes, usually considering them to be the products of dull, dilettante gamers who can't handle any graphics more than 5 years old. But I would like to see, if not a remake, a modern game that has the basic approach of Star Control II (and, for that matter, Starflight)--perhaps even one that realizes it better by offering truly alternate plot paths. We have plenty of games (although, in my opinion, not enough) that allow us to explore open worlds; have any so far allowed us to explore an open universe? Perhaps that's what we'll get from Bethesda's forthcoming Starfield.
Why Is Everyone Talking About Esports? What Is It All About? Is This A Passing Fad?
To keep it short and simple, Esports (electronic sports) is competitive video gaming at a professional level with organized competitions.
Video-game competitions have been around for quite some time, to find the first official video-game competition on record we need to go back to 1972 (take that Millennials!); it happened at Stanford University, where players were invited to compete in a space combat game called Spacewar, to win a prize of a one year's subscription of Rolling Stone magazine.
In 1980, video game competitions became known to a wide audience when Atari organized the Space Invaders Championship and Walter Day created Twin Galaxies.
Competitive gaming had worked its way into popular culture in the 1980's, but it's growth really accelerated in the 1990's when the internet opened up a whole new world of possibilities.
Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) took the controls, graphics, gameplay and accessibility of video games to a new level and also boosted the growth of competitive gaming. They ran the Nintendo World Championships in 1990 and in 1994.
Some of the first esports leagues were founded in the late 1990's including the Quakecon , the Cyberathlete Professional League and the Professional Gamers League. Games like Counter-Strike, and Warcraft were already featured in those days.
But we could say that the flourishing of this industry happened in the 2000s when we saw the launch of the World Cyber Games and the Electronic Sports World Cup. These major international tournaments helped to set the tone for the kind of big competitions that would later come to define the esports world.
Many things happened in those years, but I want to underline the importance of the release of xBox live in 2002, bringing online play to consoles. Halo 2 was the first game to be broadcasted on a national TV and sponsors made competitive gaming a lucrative career choice. This was a game changer. From then, esports really took off.
The majority of the esports revenue comes from brand investments, which can be categorized as sponsorships, advertising and media rights.
The esports industry has grown at a tremendous pace, I feel it's safe to say that over the last decade it has become one of the fastest growing industries worldwide, benefiting from traction from new video game social media content, products and gaming events around the world.
Taking a look at the past few years, it is clear that esports has become a multi-billion dollar industry spanning every corner of the globe.Recently Newzooestimated esports revenue will eclipse $1 billion in 2019. There is a growth rate of 22.3% year over year; the prediction is that revenue will reach $1.79 billion by 2022.
Can we consider this a passing trend? Absolutely not. The esports industry has passed the status of a fad and has become a serious industry with investors betting their money on this business, given the potential it holds. Hedge fund managers point to the rising popularity of esports events as an indicator of the market opportunity.
You may ask yourself "but why?", "why is this activity moving so much money?"
The answer is simple: because of the number of people watching.
This multi-billion dollar industry attracts not only passionate spectators (we are talking about millions of fans) but also major media outlets and even celebrities. Esports are here to stay.
Esports audiences can watch events by either visiting the arena live or online through gaming broadcasters. According to the World Economic Forum, the global esports audience reached 380 million last year, made up of 165 million dedicated esports fans and 215 million occasional viewers.
Millennials and Generation Z are the force driving this industry unlike any other.
To better illustrate this, just take a look at the top of the following table: 46 million people watched the IEM Katowice in 2017. Yes, this is not a typo: 46 million people.
There are many type of games and a variety of eSports franchises, but certain titles dominate this market (below are just some examples, please do not bombard my private inbox with complaints that your favourite game is not on the list)
League of Legends
LoL remains one of the most popular eSports games today in which teams battle to destroy the enemy's nexus. It is a multiplayer online battle arena video game developed and published by Riot Games for Microsoft Windows and macOS. The Prize Pool of LoL in 2018 was $14.12M (Source: esports observer)
Fortnite
With more than 200m players worldwide, the chances are either you, your friends or your children or your children's friends are already playing or watching it. This online video game was developed by Epic Games and released in 2017. The Prize Pool of Fortnite in 2018 was $19.96M(Source: esports observer).
The Fortnite World Cup in 2019 will have a prize pool of $100 million.
Defense of the Ancients 2 (DOTA 2)
This is a multiplayer online battle arena video game developed and published by Valve Corporation in 2013.
Valve hosts an annual tournament called The International where the world's best DOTA players compete for prizes. The Prize Pool of Dota 2 in 2018 was $41.26M (Source: esports observer).
The International 2017 broke the record for the largest prize pool in eSports history at $24,787,916.
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
CS:GOis a tactical multiplayer first-person shooter video game (part of the Counter-Strike series) developed by Hidden Path Entertainment and Valve Corporation released in 2012 for Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, and OS X and later Linux as a downloadable title.
The Prize Pool of CS:GO in 2018 was $22.47M (Source: esports observer)
Other top esports games are Call of Duty, Overwatch, Hearthstone, Starcraft or Rainbow Six.
I do not want to forget Mobile eSports games like: Clash Royale, Honor of Kings, Arena of Valor, VainGlory, Summoners War, Mobile Legends or the new comer: Brawl Stars.
If you are not already a fan, you are probably starting to be curious and wondering: where can I watch esports?
They can be seen online via Twitch, Mixer, Youtube or even Facebook (all for free) and as we just said, you can also attend live competitions in dedicated esports venues. 
Esports has yet to achieve popularity in the conventional entertainment industry but the phenomenon is fast approaching an inflection point where it will certainly happen. Esports tournaments continue to grow in audience and economic impact, and each year brings these competitions closer to the level of popularity and acceptance enjoyed by traditional sports.
Observing the trends as described above, I am inclined to assume that esports is definetly not a passing fad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almudena Berzosa is a member of the Executive Team at the Swiss eSports Federation.
For more content like this, follow her on LinkedIn, Twitter @A_berzosa and on Facebook at Facebook/BuildingYourBackbone
This article was also published in the Website of the Swiss Esports Federation
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
