I love politics, though with all the talk about Obama and McCain these days, the dozens of Senators scrambling to keep their once comfortable seats in Congress, and the non-stop chatter from the liberal and conservative media, one thing has become clear. Politics is a game. My question is, and it’s probably a pretty silly one but worth considering nontheless, where is the political massive multiplayer online game? I’ve never been a huge fan of MMOGs, but I completely respect what they attempt to achieve in the robust gaming community. Imagine this: you start the game (let’s keep the title simple, Politics.) as a state senator or assembly person, U.S. Representative or Senator, a mayor, governor, or even members of the media and interest groups.

The format would be very similar to what I laid out in my previous Harry Potter MMOG blog and as such there would have to be several “arenas” so that there are real life equivalents for various branches of government (2 Senators/State, 1 President, etc). Let’s say that the game starts with a new session of Congress, with a generic (possibly developer controlled) president that is in place until the next presidential cycle, at which point any user to place a bid for the Executive spot. Unlike today’s politically backwards environment, if you want to be president or vice president you’ll have to have a certain amount of experience or legislation.

As is probably clear, Politics would be geared towards the political savvy. Congress people will have a generic bill/resolution format in which they write in their proposals and submit it to the collective assembly. The users that choose to be part of the media or interest groups will be there to keep the government from overreaching their bounds, and the judiciary will be there to judge legitimacy. Imagine it: you’re at work and receive an email alerting you that the President (the lucky user to surpassed the obstacles and became elected) has signed a bill into law. As a member of the Supreme Court, your job will now be to congregate with the other Justices and determine the constitutionality of the new law (possibly in a password protected chat room?). It would be a complete political experience, requiring wit, cunning, and a degree of responsibility on the part of each user.

Why do I think this would work? Well, last year I took a college course called SIMCONG ("Simulation Congress"). Each student was assigned a Representative from the House, and we were charged with submitting bills, debating, and voting. Some students were the Executive, some were the media, and others were interest groups representing everything from the Environment to Big Oil. I saw that, even if some students weren’t totally into the experience, they took stock in what they were doing and how they were affecting the rest of the House. This game, if it were ever to be created, would probably be a web based title, but I don’t think that would hinder it’s potential success.

Ya never know, a digital republic could become a grand republic. 

Posted by Daniel on 09/02 at 09:54 PM
(1) Comments   

If you watched CBS News’ Early Show the other day, you no doubt saw Maggie Rodriguez interview the United States’ Olympic golden boy, Michael Phelps. At the end of the interview Maggie hands Phelps a copy of Call of Duty: World at War, the latest installation of the franchise, being developed by TreyArch and published by Activision. So, is this move by Activision saying that if you win 8 gold medals you will also be rewarded with an awesome video game a couple months before it’s even released? Well, not quite. TreyArch has released the following on Phelp’s superiority to video game development and release schedules:

Now what you didn’t see is the “I O U” card that was contained within =D… Yes, unfortunately the game isn’t quite finished yet, but it’s close. We’ll be sending Michael the first disc off the production line though later this year, we promise!

Aha! Okay, I can deal with that. Making him nothing short of a national hero, fine. Praising him upon his return home from Beijing, go right ahead. Give him an advanced copy of CoD: World at War, not cool at all.

Call of Duty: World at War will be available to everyone, yes, even Phelps, in November. At which point you’ll get to wage war as a Marine in the Pacific Theatre (Being ordered around none other than Kiefer Sutherland, hell yeah), or as a Russian pushing through to Berlin.

Hat tip: Joystiq
Video courtesy of TreyArch

Posted by Daniel on 09/02 at 08:36 AM
(2) Comments   

EA DICE’s (of Battlefield fame) Mirror’s Edge is looking to be something truly special. The game employs some really unique gameplay aspects, such as “true” first person shooter aspects, which basically means you can see your legs and arms as you move, while most other FPS titles only show the hands holding a gun. You play as Faith, a messenger living in a police state in which all communication is monitored and the crime world coordinates via runners. Faith is a traceuses who uses her environment to escape from hordes of armed guards. The ultimate goal is to escape, but doing so will prove to be a challenge. There is an optional hint system that will light up routes in red, but as the game progresses the hints will be more and more rare, ultimately just showing you the final point to get to.

What is so cool to me about this game is that it requires you to be clever and to think on your feet. When you attack guards, you can steal their guns and knock them out, disposing of the gun after. A completely non-lethal run through the game will result in some sort of trophy/achievement, and with big guns slowing Faith down, it seems like non-lethal is the way to go. Then again, when trying to get by a hostile helicopter, you may be pushed to extremes and have to pop some caps in order to survive and deliver your package.

Keep your eyes open for more about this game, and check out a very cool gameplay video here. Mirror’s Edge will be hitting shelves on the PS3, Xbox 360, and PC before year’s end. 

Posted by Daniel on 09/01 at 01:39 PM
(0) Comments   

Of the many names people may label Corporate America with, one of them is not “stupid.” Over the years, major U.S. companies and institutions have put their label in video games, fashioning their product for the target video gaming base, the youth. Whether or not such efforts pay off for these companies, I’m sure they can’t even fully gauge. Regardless, they try, nowadays much more subtly than in the 1990s, to push their product. Without further ado, here is are the top 5 most blatant examples of corporate advertisements in a video game:

5) America’s Army: In the aftermath of September 11th came a surge in patriotism, the U.S. Army standing behind it’s “Army of One” slogan, and, a video game. In 2002 the U.S. Army released this free title to, as you can imagine, boost enlistment levels. Personally, I really liked this game and loved the idea of a free and solid first person shooter that provided a lot of training. I didn’t, however, rush to my nearest recruitment station. It was a clever move by the Army, so much so that my mother often told me to stop playing, as I’d want to lie about my age and join the Army, something a mother typically doesn’t want for her 16 year old son. America’s Army comes in fifth place because, while it was selling itself, it did so subtly, appealing to every young American gamer who loved first person shooters. 

4) Metal Gear Solid 4: Codec? Check. Customized M4 Carbine? Check. Solid Eye? Check. Apple iPod? CHECK. It was well known before the release of MGS4 that Hideo Kojima cashed in on corporate product placement. The Apple iPod was probably the most blatant example of corporate presence, with Snake being able to take a break from killing baddies and listening to some Metal Gear franchise tunes (I never did). Don’t feel like listening to music? You can distract enemy soldiers or have quality time alone with a Playboy magazine. War has its perks, right? Also, you can see Naomi Hunter flashing her Sony Ericsson cell phone around (Sony makes the PS3, MGS4 was made exclusively for the PS3, get it?) So, we have here a case of pretty blatant in-game advertisements, but in the case of the iPod and Playboy, at least it was optional.

3) Sneak King: Burger King has currently released three titles for the Xbox at $4 each. Two of the titles, PocketBike Racer and Big Bumpin’, weren’t completely blatant “advergames,” but there’s really no point in defending Sneak King. The point of the game is to sneak around and give Burger King meals to hungry people around town. Why the King has to sneak around, though, is beyond me. Maybe people truly don’t want to eat Burger King, so he has to surprise them? I really don’t know. I think the Burger King mascot is pretty hilarious, I mean come on, look at that face. So, sneaking around and giving food to people as the King may not have been too horrible of a game, even if it is a shameless corporate stunt.

2) Cool Spot: In 1993 Virgin Games (later Virgin Interactive) made a gaming venture on behalf of 7up. You played as Spot, who was automatically “Cool” because he wore Ray Ban New Wayfarers, apparently. The point of the game was to jump around and throw soda bottles at enemies in an attempt to save other helpless Spots. The game did surprisingly well for an advergame, but then again, many games with the linear game model Cool Spot had in the early 90s did well too. Disney’s Aladdin and The Lion King (both also by Virgin Interactive) come to mind. I played all three of these games as a kid, and I can now see why Cool Spot was so popular with me and others, it fit the model. Having a fairly new, but strong, company like Virgin developing the game certainly helped, too. Cool Spot showed us that you can take a spot on a soda can, give it arms, legs, and sunglasses, and it’ll sell as a video game.

1) Pepsiman: The most blatant example of corporate product placement in a video game is actually found in a Japanese only game. In the 1990s a popular mascot was created for Pepsi. The Pepsiman would run around in television commercials and deliver cans of Pepsi to thirsty people. The game was on-rails, so it was very linear, and involved avoided obstacles, riding a skateboard at times, collecting pepsi bottles, and above all quenching thirst. If you ask me, though, Pepsiman is pretty intimidating. The game’s box art displays the featureless Pepsiman pointing at you, with the words “DRINK!” above him. It’s almost like Pepsi was forcing their product down the throats of the terrified Japanese and had a tough guy around to make sure they were drinking it regularly. A giant blue and silver vigilante running around town causing havoc, if you ask me. So, Pepsiman takes the cake for the most blatant, and overall strangest, example of corporate influence in video game culture over the years.

What do you think?

Posted by Daniel on 08/28 at 12:36 PM
(0) Comments   

Video games are my second love, I must admit. Politics is my first. So, you can only imagine how happy I get when the two somehow cross paths. Congressional legislation has popped up in state and national forums for many years, even back in the early 1990’s when Sen. Joe Lieberman stood up against games like Mortal Kombat. Soon, after many independent/company owned rating systems agreed to give up their ratings power to a higher authority, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was born. Today, the ESRB ratings on video games determine who are allowed to purchase the game and provides information to parents about the games their children play.

Dialogue concerning video games is often placed in the backdrop of the larger censorship issue. However, some high profile candidates for president this year have spoken on the issue. While Mitt Romney saw crude video games as part of a larger “Ocean of Filth” for our children, Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has taken a much more moderate approach:

“I would call upon the video game industry to give parents better information about programs and video games by improving the voluntary rating system we currently have. Broadcasters and video game producers should take it upon themselves to improve this system to include easier to find and easier to understand descriptions of exactly what kind of content is included. But if the industry fails to act, then my administration would. And even if the industry does do some responsible self-policing, there’s still a role for the federal government to play. We need to understand the impact of these new media better. That’s why I supported federal funding to study the impact of video games on children’s cognitive development.” (Thanks to: Kotaku)

Republicans and their nominee John McCain typically subscribe to a much stricter view of the gaming industry, much like Mitt Romney and his “Ocean.” In politics, it’s all about framing the issue. The Republicans have done a much better job at doing this, making the issue of video game violence part of a larger “Family Values” narrative. Democrats, unfortunately, haven’t been able to do something similar, making it a “let’s leave the moral future of America in the hands of industry” rather than attacking it head on. And, of course, while video game controversy isn’t likely to ever swing a major national election one way or the other, it’s helpful to see what each side is saying about the larger themes of censorship, digital rights, and net neutrality.

Now, to get away from the seriousness of politics, lets look at how silly it can be! Remember Space Invaders? Who doesn’t right? Well, if his website is any measure (and it is), then it’s clear John McCain still thinks those types of games are popular enough to make him look “cool.” If you check out his website, you can play this Space Invaders variation (perversion?), Pork Invaders. The game touts McCain’s supposed anti-pork barrel spending in the Senate, and if you suffer through the first level you get a nice little political punch at Obama and his spending problem when it comes to home state pet projects. Witness, my friends, the “art” of politics. What I find funniest about this game is that it’s not fun at all. I mean, come on John, the last thing you want potential voters doing is associating you with a slow paced, old school game like Space Invaders. Here’s an idea: get your team on making a GTAIV mod, make Nico Bellic look instead like Barack Obama, and then have him run around the city shooting the elderly and the police! Frame the issue McCain, and you own the issue. Joking aside, this is actually how things are done these days in politics, and it’s quite sad. 

Posted by Daniel on 08/26 at 10:33 AM
(1) Comments   

If you’ve been following Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe like I have, you really get pumped up when Midway announces new characters for the game. At the Leipzig Games Convention in Germany last week, developers did not disappoint. For the first time it became known that Wonder Woman, Deathstroke the Terminator, Raiden, and Kano would be gracing the bloody battlefield between the two universes. While it was pretty much assumed Wonder Woman would be joining the DC team, Deathstroke is a pretty interesting and not-so-obvious pick. With his sword and guns, though, he’s sure to fit in just right, especially considering he looks a lot like a Mortal Kombat character himself. Then, of course, we have Raiden and Kano, two MK veterans.

While there was no gameplay footage of the newcomers, I ran across a video of the Joker (announced not too long ago) fighting against Katana. Based on this video alone, I think the Joker will be by far my favorite character to play as. I was worried the one major flaw in this game would be a detachment from the DC Universe feel in favor of a darker and more traditional Mortal Kombat style. After all, this is a Mortal Kombat game, above all. What the Joker does, in my view, is balances out the serious with the insane in a way that will give this game a huge level of replay value. I mean, come on, watch that video and tell me that the Joker’s fatality isn’t ridiculously crazy and very, very awesome. 

Posted by Daniel on 08/26 at 09:40 AM
(2) Comments   

As you know, I’ve been really looking forward to LucasArts’ The Force Unleashed. Playing the much anticipated demo tonight, though, I’ve realized my high hopes for this game may have to be downsized, or I’ll be disappointed. Overall, the game still looks great, I think it’ll be a wonderful addition and a new flavor to the Star Wars franchise. My beef with the game, at least that which was seen in the demo, can be broken down into 3 areas: the weakness of the lightsaber, the protagonist, and the AI.

The Lightsaber and It’s Shortcomings: This is probably where I’m most disappointed with The Force Unleashed. The lightsaber is supposed to be the all powerful weapon of choice for self-defined, and battle approved, bad asses. This is not so in the Force Unleashed. The Apprentice’s lightsaber takes several slashings to an opponent before putting them out of commission, which is ridiculous. In one swing some extremedy is going to removed from its original place, it only makes sense. Part of playing as a secret Apprentice to Dark Jedi Numero Uno is to feel bad ass, but you just don’t in this game, or at least not like you should. Throw dozens more enemies at me, but let me slash through them.

The Protagonist: The Apprentice, a.k.a. Star Killer, is simply not very cool. You can tell the developers wanted to go for the Altair in Assassin’s Creed look. A lot of raggedy clothing, bundled up, some loose ends falling down and accentuating and jumps of flips you may do. I get it. What I don’t get, though, is why the Apprentice isn’t “dark” looking. Let’s look at some examples. The Emperor, by far the darkest and most manipulated by the power of the Dark Side, chose Darth Maul (supreme bad dude, albeit a little too devilish looking) and later Darth Vader. I think it’s okay that Vader picked a human, that’s cool, but that this dude is so plain looking is not. I just don’t get a sense that he has any evil in him, and while the game is about redemption and whatnot, I still want to have the perception of a Dark Side student.

Artificial Intelligence: One thing you’ll find in any Star Wars game is a massive amount of enemy soldiers. This is doubly true in the Force Unleashed, as Starkiller is ordered to kill any rebels or Imperials standing in the way of his mission. That being said, the hordes of enemies are not the brightest. Utilizing some pretty cool physics engines, enemies still act quite silly in the presence of someone who so easily hacks through their buddies. For example: if one of the AI soldiers should happen to see me Force Grab their buddy and throw them into space, one would imagine they’d be scared and would maybe run and start pounding on the locked door I’m about to Force Push open, screaming for help from the other side. If I had the chance to Jedi “Own” those guys, or maybe just politely push them out of my way, I think it’d add a great level of realism to an otherwise completely unrealistic game. Instead, silly Rebels will continuously shoot at you regardless of your apparent skills and their unavoidable and imminent deaths. Also, I found it kinda stupid how much enemies will hold on to objects when their being Force Grabbed by you. Hold them in the air next to one of their friends, and thanks to the games “Euphoria” physics, they’ll grab on and won’t let go. What I would like to see is some more dialogue in that respect, maybe a couple “Please! Put me down! I won’t shoot!”

What it comes down to is that I wish this game would 1) Make the player feel like he is really running the show, without so much emphasis on Force powers, and 2) Wise up the non-Jedi AI so that hacking through the masses of enemies doesn’t turn into a “Let’s see how many times I can flip this Imperial Stormtrooper before he dies!”

Despite the rant, I am still really looking forward to this title. I think that with a strong storyline and some hardcore online play (1-on-1 lightsaber duels are pretty much the tops in my book) we’ll really have a treat with Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.

Posted by Daniel on 08/22 at 08:06 PM
(0) Comments   

While there are many exceptions, most next-gen video game titles these days are pushing the envelope on realistic gameplay. Of course, games like Mario or Ratchet & Clank shy away from this, which is only natural. But look at games like Call of Duty 4, or Metal Gear Solid, games that at times look nearly completely photo-realistic. For gaming developers, it seems that the fringes of realistic development is reserved as a hobby, a sandbox where innovative ideas are welcomed and pursued. In 2006, Lionhead Studios demoed “The Room,” a hyper realistic rendering of a room with various portals and object manipulations. Every splinter of wood accounted for, every page in a book fully detailed, and even perishable objects like a bowl of oranges aging before your eyes. I myself just finished watching it and was amazed, though even the presenter knew where such a project was destined to go. Nowhere. And it’s precisely because developers and publishers, and even gamers, don’t quite know how to deal with reality in gaming. For a hobby that aims to take us out of reality, if for only a few hours, we are moving stunningly close towards it.

Here’s another example of where gaming may indeed be heading. “Emily” is Image Metric’s rendering of an actual employee who was filmed and then was digitally rendered, each muscle in her face receiving it’s own “control system.” It’s simply amazing to watch, as everything but her eyes completely convinced me she was a real person. Wait until 1:30 into the video and you’ll briefly see the “real” Emily. Is realism going to go to extremes like this in gaming? If so, I have my reservations. Do we want to kill each other in video games when that person looks completely real, and maybe even dies realistically? Is there something strange in approaching another “Sim” that looks completely like a real man or woman, with real relationships? It’s actually rather frightening, if you ask me. Human interaction has a monopoly on realism, if computers are able to reproduce something, or create something completely genuine and real, then, in the end what is real? I’ll end this before the discussion slides too deep into metaphysics, but it’s certainly something to think about.

What are your thoughts?

Also, on a side note, if you’re a Radiohead fan, check out their latest music video, which has Thom Yorke completely rendered through computer data code, using absolutely no cameras or lighting. It’s not as realistic as “Emily,” but it’s pretty cool regardless.

Posted by Daniel on 08/20 at 09:50 AM
(1) Comments   

It was a night like any other. My buddy and I had arranged to meet up on Xbox Live and duke it out on Halo 3. Then it happened. “There is a payment problem with your account, please adjust your settings.” Dammit. Okay, I’ll just need to add some cash to my account and then hop in. Wrong. What I got stuck in was essentially a loop of nonsensical errors that did nothing to help me fix “payment problem,” and in the end I was forced to create a completely new Xbox Live account. I called my friend up explaining why I hadn’t joined the game, and he told me of the same exact problem and the fact he had to create a new account as well. Which got me to thinking two things: 1) This is obviously not an isolated issue, and 2) Microsoft, because of this issue as well as others, cannot truly justify charging what it does for it’s Xbox Live service. For the 12 month Premium Gold Pack, I pay $60 and naturally expect to get fairly exceptional service for what I pay. When I ran into my “payment problem” the other night though, I really altered my view of Xbox Live and compiled this list of the Top 5 Reasons we should not be paying for Xbox Live service:

1) The Competition is Comparable and Free: PlayStation Network and Nintendo Wi-Fi are FREE! Microsoft charges for services that are only slightly, if at all, superior to what Sony and Nintendo provide for users. Is Microsoft using it’s stature in the technological world to pull a fast one on us and charge for services that are free on other comparable systems?

2) Aren’t Games Expensive Enough?: Newly released games for consoles like Xbox 360 and PS3 market for about $60. At that price, you’d expect the full package, any downloadable content updates for free (Burnout: Paradise is keen to this idea, as is clear with their upcoming massive content updates) and, what is almost most important these days, free online service. Say you buy Halo 3 for your 360, at around the cheapest you can find it for around $37. Okay, now take the fact that 1 million people played Halo 3 on Xbox Live in the first 24 hours of the game’s release. Most of the gamers were admittedly hardcore, given by the fact they bought the game the day it was released and immediately hopped online. And that was merely a fraction of Halo 3’s sales, no doubt. So, let’s take a look at the math: At release, the game was $60, multiply that by 1 million gamers, and then multiply that by $60 for the Xbox Live year long service (we can assume most of those 1 million users had the yearlong subscription since they probably planned on playing their eagerly awaited new game into the indefinite future). So, that’s 60x1,000,000x60 = ....well, you get the idea. Microsoft is doing just fine, I’m sure. 

3) Outages, Glitches & Refunds: Xbox Live is by no means a perfect product. This past holiday season several ticked-off Texan gamers sued Microsoft for $5 million, claiming that the influx of new holiday games put much stress on Xbox Live servers and caused prolonged issues for users. The gamers “claim[ed] Microsoft’s outages represent[ed] a breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation for which the software maker is liable.” (Hat tip: Gamespot) Aren’t we gamers due what we pay for? It’d be the same as if the HBO we sign up for on our television cut out every other time we watched it, simply because a lot of other people were viewing the same channel. We have cause to be angry about it, because we’re paying good money for a service that other, equally profitable, companies have deemed expendable in the name of good business. 

Glitches: My introductory story is a case in point. These things are bound to happen, yes, but we should pay significantly less, or nothing, for a service in which such glitches are present. If a user owns a year long membership on Xbox Live, comes back from a gaming hiatus to find his Xbox Live account in need of updating and money, that’s fine. However, when that same user faces glitches that get in the way of a smooth gaming experience that they paid well for, there’s a major problem that needs to be compensated for. Which brings me to my next point…

Refunds: According to Microsoft’s Xbox Live FAQ, “If you have an annual Xbox Live Gold Membership that was purchased with a credit card and you cancel it within 60 days of creating it (based on settlement date when funds were assessed to your credit card), you will receive a full refund. This refund policy applies to Xbox Live Gold Memberships only.” This sounds reasonable for the Gold 3-month membership, with 2/3 of the time available for cancellation with a full refund. However, when it comes to the much more common and cost-beneficial 12-month plan, users must cancel their service due to dissatisfaction 2 months into a year-long commitment! So, if you run across intolerable glitches or whatnot 5 months into your yearlong plan, you’re screwed!

4) PSN & Nintendo Provide Free Wireless Hardware, Xbox Live Doesn’t: While the Wii and PS3 have built-in wireless internet receivers, you must buy a specific adapter for your Xbox 360. Typically, these run for $100 and is but a continuing trend with Microsoft: provide a console with the bare essentials, then immediately provide “add-ons” that should have been in the initial setup for ridiculous prices. Take the Xbox 360 HD-DVD player add-on, priced for $50 nowadays; by anyone’s call, it was a component that should have been bundled with the system, just like the PS3’s built in Blu-ray player. I mean, come on, Microsoft.

5) Free Service = More, and Happier Users, Which Result in Higher Profits for Microsoft in the End: This is the crux of my point. Just because Microsoft is a technological and software Goliath does not mean that it can side-step the goodwill of it’s loyal base. Retail game prices aren’t gonna change for the next-gen console titles any time soon, but Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft should have the common sense to offset the unavoidable costs by providing free services where possible. As far as I can tell, Sony and Nintendo have been reasonable. The Xbox Live issue, though, exposes the cleavages of Microsoft’s greed and lack of old school business-client relationship building. Make Xbox Live FREE, the status quo is changing. Online gaming services, sponsored dedicated servers, and free downloadable and substantive content are the New Order. If Microsoft doesn’t shape up its sense of what good business is, then I feel Xbox users should mutiny and move on to a company that pays them mind.

Posted by Daniel on 08/17 at 09:52 PM
(5) Comments   

Some movie-turned-game franchises should simply throw in the towel. Others, despite only warm response from reviews, have a chance to redeem themselves and, possibly, become a budding sector of the gaming industry. As I see it, the Harry Potter behemoth can really expand on their moderately successful gaming contributions. With the only few game releases it has, the Harry Potter franchise has strictly focused it’s attention on movie plot lines. Take the upcoming Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, for example. The film was just yesterday delayed until a July 17, 2009 release. The corresponding title will be released the same day, no surprises there. The plot of the Electronic Arts developed/published game, as I imagine, will be identical to the movie, making the gaming experience more or less déjà vu if you’ve seen the film. Electronic Arts, it’s time to get innovative or throw in the towel (not that they would, Harry Potter is a cash cow and it’s still full of milk).

Imagine this. In 2011 the last Harry Potter film, The Deathly Hollows: Part 2 will hit theaters. Soon after, EA or whoever is in control of the franchise at that time, should release a massive multiplayer online game (MMO) titled simply Hogwarts. Initially, EA should release a few hundred editions (to market, name each one as a different spell name), each one tuned to accommodate a few thousand “students” at Hogwarts in a specific online world. Essentially, this would mean that a person with one edition would be cut off from the goings on of the other version. So, if your friend wanted to join you at your Hogwarts, some sort of friend invite and EA user moderation system could be put in place. Also, since other magic schools do in fact exist in Potter world, they could be assimilated into the game somehow.

The point of the game would be to make it through your years at Hogwarts and become the greatest wizard of all. You will have classes, and however much time you spend online and at school will reflect in your studies and understanding of magic. EA could have permanent members be teachers at the school and would also have the ability to trigger events in their respective “world” such as an attack by Voldemort or something of that nature. They would probably have to be EA employees if it were to work efficiently and responsibly. You would read up, learn spells, interact with other players, and go through various events that occurred in the movies, though the game would have to steer clear from following the Harry Potter plot lines specifically. Since you would be your own unique character in this world, you’d be viewing the actions of Potter and friends from the outside, or, possibly, challenge him for dominance as the pre-eminent wizard of his time. You could visit Diagon Alley, or maybe even stray into muggle-ridden London (though, if you perform magic, you would be punished somehow by the Ministry of Magic).

And how to decide which house each player/student is sorted into? The only way I see this being done fairly and quickly, for lack of the Sorting Hat is through placing a card in each copy of the game specifying which house you are placed in. After all, its all up to fate in the book anyway, only makes sense.

If it comes in 2011 we’ll have graphics that are far superior to what we experience now, as well as better online systems to support such an ambitious idea. So, what do you all think of this idea?

Posted by Daniel on 08/15 at 02:10 PM
(2) Comments