Jodian's Blog

Entries from August 2021

Coming from a border community, that being a community that borders the United States, we end up getting a lot of cross-border news content. In fact, stations like CNN and Fox are a regular part of our TV lineups and most of our radio stations are US based. That said, there's one thing I've always found interesting about the news media coming out of the US. It's heavily biased. This isn't news, ironically, but it does show an interesting side to US politics. But I digress...

What brought me to this topic today is that I was innocently browsing YouTube yesterday, somewhat bored, when I came across a news title that caught my eye. I wasn't expecting much because I already know the reputation of Fox News, but I clicked it anyway. The article was about the growing number of Covid cases in Southern states like Texas. Honestly, within about 5 minutes I was sick to my stomach.

The reporters were broadly attacking Mexican immigrants for the increase in Covid cases and within that first 5 minutes I had heard more racist comments than I honestly have heard over the past year by this so-called "panel of experts". Frankly there was no proof put forth, nor did they take into account that states like Texas have flat-out refused to take preventative measures to stop the spread of Covid by their own American population. It was a flat-out racist attack, by a NEWS AGENCY, and couldn't have been explained as anything else.

I did what any conscious-mined citizen would have done and reported the video for hate speak and racism. But with this kind of open-racism in mainstream media it makes me wonder how the conscious of your average American is twisted by this kind of behavior. How much of today's civil unrest and hate crimes can be directly blamed on media influence, and why aren't these media groups held to higher standards? There's a big difference between suppression of the media and defending human rights against racism.

Now, in no way am I giving the other half of the spectrum (that being CNN) a free pass here, but I've honestly NEVER heard the blatant racism and hatred that I saw promoted by that "news" broadcast on Fox News. They should be ashamed of themselves, and Americans should demand better.

Being an online gamer, specifically one that thrives off the co-op experience with family, it often boggles my mind when I see some games that scream for multiplayer co-op and find them single player only. Somewhere along the development cycle either a single individual or a team got together and said that multiplayer would take too long, or be too difficult, or wouldn't fit the game and us co-operative players are just left holding empty bowls going "Please sir..." A few games that fall into this category, and some brief input on how multiplayer fits their style, are listed here. If you don't care to read the list, skip down;

Subnautica - The whole premise of this game is that you escaped from a doomed ship and ended up on a water planet. While there you get messages from other crash pods indicating there are other survivors, and even some of them mention that multiple people were in their pods. This already sets the lore for multiple people to be in YOUR pod, or found elsewhere around the world (maybe they have their own starting pods). There is really nothing stopping this game from being a shared experience, even the in-depth story would support it. In fact, there's a fairly buggy multiplayer mod that shows the game benefits from a co-op experience.

The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim - This is another game that's setup from the get-go for you to have a cooperative experience. You start in a cart with other characters, on a path to a shared future. Why not allow players to escape the city together, choose their side, and then enter the world? Even if the host is the "Dragonborn" while the others remain support characters, it would still be a major improvement to the game experience. Again, there's a buggy multiplayer mod to show this game benefits from the experience.

Fallout 4 - For this entry, see Skyrim. It's virtually the same thing. Intro that's ripe for sharing with other players, and an open world. One player, likely the host, is the "son" while the other player(s) are support characters. Easy.

The Sims 4 - This goes without saying. For a game that's basically a life simulator to offer only a single-player option, where you control everyone, really doesn't meet with the whole "life simulator" aspect. Again, there is a mod for doing this, but it's fairly buggy and very in-depth to setup.

Now I hear some of you reading this spouting the same old argument I always hear whenever I talk about adding Co-Op to a game that's been developed for single player. It would cost too much. It's too late in development. It would be too much work. To that I say, "bullshit".

First of all, the developers already know their software and have full access to the source code. Thus they can implement multiplayer co-op easier and quicker than all of these hacked multiplayer mods, which work (sorta). Secondly, the fact these co-op mods exist at all is testament to the fact that players want it. Third, developers put out patches all the time so why can't one of those patches include multiplayer content?

Personally I think developers are afraid to admit they made a mistake. They don't consider adding multiplayer co-op because they don't want to admit that they were wrong. Plain and simple. Has nothing to do with the work or an actual business-related decision, because if anything sales would increase and grab those who didn't buy BECAUSE it didn't have multiplayer. So that's the only thing I can come up with. These games, which scream a desire for co-op multiplayer, have none simply because the developers are too prideful to admit their mistake in leaving it out in the first place. Or the developer just doesn't know how, in which case they're simply too proud to admit they need help doing it.

In any case, the argument can be put to bed. We're going to use trial (court of law) logic here and point to one little fact. Let's see John Q Public vs SCS. That's right! The developers of the hit games Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator. For years there had been development on a multiplayer system for Euro Truck Simulator and, while it wasn't perfect, it was very well received. It had it's issues, like not everyone in your convoy could grab the same load so you'd have to plan loads properly to get everyone driving to the same place. But it could be done. There were a few downsides though. There was no way to run your own server, players could easily "troll" other players by crashing into them, and there was no other traffic in the world other than your fellow truck drivers (which made for some boring driving).

Then SCS came in with a bombshell announcement that they would be adding actual co-operative multiplayer to the game itself! As of version 1.14, of both games, you can now have up to 8 players running convoys! Co-operative multiplayer is fully supported including the ability to host your own games, invite only those you want, pick the SAME jobs, and even leave traffic active so you lose nothing from the solo experience! Each driver has their own trucks, own garages, own money, and can hire their own company drivers as well. What an amazing thing!

So, to those companies out there who say "It's too late in development" or "It would be too difficult to go back and add it", I point you to SCS and simply say... "They did it. Why can't you?"

(Page 1 of 1, totaling 2 entries)