Modders never cease to amaze me. Maybe it's a simple thing to use StarCraft II's map editor to make a recreation of thatgamecompany's brilliant game, flOw. I wouldn't know because the very idea of trying to figure out how one would do such a thing intimidates the hell out of me.
Thank goodness that there are people out there to take care of those things for me. The above video shows exactly that: flOw with Zerg. I challenge you to find me a universe in which that is not an awesome thing. You can't because, even in a reality with infinite possibility, this would be irrefutably badass no matter where you were.
The gloves are coming off when it comes to StarCraft II mods. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more interesting stuff like this come out and less tower defense games. What do you think could make a good candidate?
Conrad Zimmerman is Destructoid's News Editor and home to the busiest mustache in the gaming press. An amateur historian and pop culture fanatic, Conrad possesses a nearly limitless wealth of videogame factoids and a passion for the power of games to teach, inspire and entertain. He enjoys reading, writing and turning things which should be fun into work.
Likes
Mega Man 2, Arcade Games, Books about games, Board games, Having cultural interests that aren't games
Meet the rest of the team
@Volomon: I don't think this is at all a statement on the economic value of flOw. It's a great game, one which people spent time and money producing and I see no reason whatsoever to complain about having to spend money on it.
DLC, on the other hand, you could make a case for. There are a lot of instances where player-generated content winds up being superior to the offerings made by developers. If you were to compare the quality of all add-on content produced by fans versus studios (acknowledging that some subjectivity would inherently exist in such an endeavor), I think you would find a vast disparity between the two.
Now, in the modern age of community moderation and social networking, it's much, much easier to find the good stuff than it used to be, which increases its value. When I played PC games regularly, about a decade ago, this simply wasn't the case and the amount of crap you would have to wade through to find the good stuff was intolerable. While the new technology is helpful, I think it colors perception by giving a narrower view of the field and gives the impression that there's a higher percentage of worthwhile material.
Should PC users feel jaded, as you seem to be, towards the concept of paid downloadable content? I can understand it, because there had long been an expectation of such things, but I cannot agree with it. You can question the value of DLC on an individual basis, weighing price against content, but writing off paid DLC as a whole because smaller additions of content that would have just been boxed and sold at retail as an expansion pack for roughly the same price (and forcing you to buy everything instead of cherry-picking what you actually want) strikes me as short-sighted.
I love the word "glorified", because when you use it like so, you don't have to qualify anything and there's still an inherent insult made by the comparison. Especially when you can feasibly say "___ is a glorified ___" about anything.
For instance, "flOw is a glorified screensaver."
Now, "video games are nothing but glorified screensavers."
Furthermore, "moving images are just glorified screensavers."
And lastly, "nothing is impressive when it can be compared to screensavers."
@Conrad Zimmerman: The reason PC users feel jaded towards DLC is not that it exists or that it does not contain value. The reason is that companies like Activision have been trying to take away or block our ability to make our own content for free. The ability to play user generated content has always been part of the value of these games, and taking it away drastically reduces the value and yet the cost keeps going up (I'm looking at you MW2).
Just because a modder recreated a game it dosn't make it worthless. A certain plumber starring game comes to mind that's been single handedly reacreated a thousand times over, but I doubt many question that games worth.
@zod000: I can dig that. The only problem I have is that I've always viewed the release of modding tools as a bonus, an added benefit that the publisher deigned to include. Having the expectation that the ability to use and/or modify code created by someone else is something akin to a right is just silly.
Should you react towards publishers who are clamping down on the ability of people to create and use content? It's your right and I would encourage you to vote with your dollars. But being granted the ability and permission to modify code has always been a privilege. If it's that important to you, reward the game's that offer it and shun the ones that don't.
Putting the blame on the business model, saying that DLC is killing something or other in the industry, is unfair. I'll be the first to admit that there are both positives and negatives to its existence and, for my money, I'm happier that it's here. But it's just a tool, one which can be used for or against the consumer.
@Conrad
I had this huge rant typed out, but then my computer decided to delete it all.
Shorter version:
Epic Games released Unreal Tournament III in 2007 with modding tools, and dedicated servers - people still purchase, and play UT3 avidly, and the costumer/community base is extremely loyal. When the next Unreal comes out, you are still able to enjoy your old game for years to come.
Activision USED to follow this model. If you look at World at War on PC, all the DLC is free, and the included modding tools allow thousands of free maps online, with dedicated servers.
Presently, Activision is using a model that withholds content - specifically due to the advent of DLC. So basically instead of creating a loyal fanbase through community created content (which in turn, spawns rabid community content sites), they string you along for $15 per map pack, and then when the sequel comes out, never support that game again.
EA is actually a better (worse) example of abusing DLC, and online features. EA will literally put out a game, charge ludicrous amounts for DLC, and then pull the plug on online support after LESS than a year, forcing you to buy the new iteration: not because it has more features, but because you HAVE to.
Nowadays, your online capable games have a kill-switch for a major function of the game. Hell, nowadays if you don't buy it new, you have to PAY to have that function, and then it's tough cookies when the kill-switch is toggled (effectively "renting" online play).
As a gamer since the early DOS/PC days, that makes me sad. The face of gaming has changed, and it's not pretty. You can't find a game on almost any platform now without draconian DRM, "freemium" models (don't get me started), a lack of dedicated servers, "premium content 'clubs'", extremely overpriced/bare bones DLC (even Bioware's Dragon Age is guilty), or all of the above.
With these changes to the industry, there are less and less community based websites out there, and in turn, we are more disconnected from each other. I'm just glad WoW is still, for the most part, ran by Blizzard - if Activision had their way, they'd charge for Addons, and annihilate the entire million plus strong Curse.com community.
@Conrad Zimmerman Well allow me to retort. As far as flOw goes yes I realize they made the game with a group of people, at the same time they recreated this game with one person. Complaining compared to pointing out the fact that these kinds of games are common place and not only common place but readily available in HIGHER quality for free, is a point worth making.
Now I would like to point out as a man having come from INTRANET, before internet. That these communities have long lived far before this "modern" area, with MANY independent offerings easily rivaling todays independent studios many of which were ran by one man teams. Compared to today with mutli-man teams and advertising and easy placement on networks like LIVE! or PSN they have it easy and are in general spoiled. You make it in 1980, you join Atari, you get little credit other than having your name mentioned and a near molestation of your ideas. However your knowledge is based on PC gaming 10 years ago, my knowledge is based on 30 years of constant PC gaming. So my view is actually of how it really is, and your view is how you THINK it is.
Your talking about content that existed in the 80s for free via internet as soon as it was the thing with dial-up. Computer clubs around the country made these games as a hobby, most often for free others it was, free as if you payed the dues for that club.
Jaded? If someone was use to the sky being blue, and someone said no lets make this red. Do you instantly get used to it? I don't know if I call 30 years short sighted, but in the long term of things, these scenarios have already played out once before, your either to young to know or didn't get into PC gaming at the time. Although things should be payed for no doubt about it, the value of things need to be placed in check with what the average person can do in a few hours of his time at home given the appropriate tools, as a mere hobby. Otherwise all the corporations are doing is selling their time, and not really the product which could have been done for cheaper.
If you only had one source for a product, and they charged for it because of their time and effort, does that make it ok? I say it makes it a monopoly, and this is why PC gamers don't like DLC, espeically ones who can do the same stuff or better.
Also I want to point something out to you, newgrounds.com. These communities still exist, and they will ALWAYS exist. Yes mod tools are a luxury but they are nothing more than the same tools the developers used, with tweaks to make them more user friendly or so that they don't break the game. I also think your confused thinking that you can ONLY make a game with mod tools. This is not true, and the fact is you should know better as you have had games posted on here many times where someone has built a game from the ground up. The problem with this day and age is the complexity to which games are made via graphics. This is used as a bar to keep "independant" developers out of the arena and flooding the market. Like they use to do back in the 80s, I know you've heard of the internet surge of the I think 90s? Where everyone and their momma had an internet site? It was similar to that except in the form of freeware/shareware/and indians (with a dot) coming by your office selling their product (guess what happen).
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
6:30 AM on 07.22.2010 | 
DLC, on the other hand, you could make a case for. There are a lot of instances where player-generated content winds up being superior to the offerings made by developers. If you were to compare the quality of all add-on content produced by fans versus studios (acknowledging that some subjectivity would inherently exist in such an endeavor), I think you would find a vast disparity between the two.
Now, in the modern age of community moderation and social networking, it's much, much easier to find the good stuff than it used to be, which increases its value. When I played PC games regularly, about a decade ago, this simply wasn't the case and the amount of crap you would have to wade through to find the good stuff was intolerable. While the new technology is helpful, I think it colors perception by giving a narrower view of the field and gives the impression that there's a higher percentage of worthwhile material.
Should PC users feel jaded, as you seem to be, towards the concept of paid downloadable content? I can understand it, because there had long been an expectation of such things, but I cannot agree with it. You can question the value of DLC on an individual basis, weighing price against content, but writing off paid DLC as a whole because smaller additions of content that would have just been boxed and sold at retail as an expansion pack for roughly the same price (and forcing you to buy everything instead of cherry-picking what you actually want) strikes me as short-sighted.
I love the word "glorified", because when you use it like so, you don't have to qualify anything and there's still an inherent insult made by the comparison. Especially when you can feasibly say "___ is a glorified ___" about anything.
For instance, "flOw is a glorified screensaver."
Now, "video games are nothing but glorified screensavers."
Furthermore, "moving images are just glorified screensavers."
And lastly, "nothing is impressive when it can be compared to screensavers."
Get on it.
Should you react towards publishers who are clamping down on the ability of people to create and use content? It's your right and I would encourage you to vote with your dollars. But being granted the ability and permission to modify code has always been a privilege. If it's that important to you, reward the game's that offer it and shun the ones that don't.
Putting the blame on the business model, saying that DLC is killing something or other in the industry, is unfair. I'll be the first to admit that there are both positives and negatives to its existence and, for my money, I'm happier that it's here. But it's just a tool, one which can be used for or against the consumer.
I had this huge rant typed out, but then my computer decided to delete it all.
Shorter version:
Epic Games released Unreal Tournament III in 2007 with modding tools, and dedicated servers - people still purchase, and play UT3 avidly, and the costumer/community base is extremely loyal. When the next Unreal comes out, you are still able to enjoy your old game for years to come.
Activision USED to follow this model. If you look at World at War on PC, all the DLC is free, and the included modding tools allow thousands of free maps online, with dedicated servers.
Presently, Activision is using a model that withholds content - specifically due to the advent of DLC. So basically instead of creating a loyal fanbase through community created content (which in turn, spawns rabid community content sites), they string you along for $15 per map pack, and then when the sequel comes out, never support that game again.
EA is actually a better (worse) example of abusing DLC, and online features. EA will literally put out a game, charge ludicrous amounts for DLC, and then pull the plug on online support after LESS than a year, forcing you to buy the new iteration: not because it has more features, but because you HAVE to.
Nowadays, your online capable games have a kill-switch for a major function of the game. Hell, nowadays if you don't buy it new, you have to PAY to have that function, and then it's tough cookies when the kill-switch is toggled (effectively "renting" online play).
As a gamer since the early DOS/PC days, that makes me sad. The face of gaming has changed, and it's not pretty. You can't find a game on almost any platform now without draconian DRM, "freemium" models (don't get me started), a lack of dedicated servers, "premium content 'clubs'", extremely overpriced/bare bones DLC (even Bioware's Dragon Age is guilty), or all of the above.
With these changes to the industry, there are less and less community based websites out there, and in turn, we are more disconnected from each other. I'm just glad WoW is still, for the most part, ran by Blizzard - if Activision had their way, they'd charge for Addons, and annihilate the entire million plus strong Curse.com community.
Now I would like to point out as a man having come from INTRANET, before internet. That these communities have long lived far before this "modern" area, with MANY independent offerings easily rivaling todays independent studios many of which were ran by one man teams. Compared to today with mutli-man teams and advertising and easy placement on networks like LIVE! or PSN they have it easy and are in general spoiled. You make it in 1980, you join Atari, you get little credit other than having your name mentioned and a near molestation of your ideas. However your knowledge is based on PC gaming 10 years ago, my knowledge is based on 30 years of constant PC gaming. So my view is actually of how it really is, and your view is how you THINK it is.
Your talking about content that existed in the 80s for free via internet as soon as it was the thing with dial-up. Computer clubs around the country made these games as a hobby, most often for free others it was, free as if you payed the dues for that club.
Jaded? If someone was use to the sky being blue, and someone said no lets make this red. Do you instantly get used to it? I don't know if I call 30 years short sighted, but in the long term of things, these scenarios have already played out once before, your either to young to know or didn't get into PC gaming at the time. Although things should be payed for no doubt about it, the value of things need to be placed in check with what the average person can do in a few hours of his time at home given the appropriate tools, as a mere hobby. Otherwise all the corporations are doing is selling their time, and not really the product which could have been done for cheaper.
If you only had one source for a product, and they charged for it because of their time and effort, does that make it ok? I say it makes it a monopoly, and this is why PC gamers don't like DLC, espeically ones who can do the same stuff or better.
Also I want to point something out to you, newgrounds.com. These communities still exist, and they will ALWAYS exist. Yes mod tools are a luxury but they are nothing more than the same tools the developers used, with tweaks to make them more user friendly or so that they don't break the game. I also think your confused thinking that you can ONLY make a game with mod tools. This is not true, and the fact is you should know better as you have had games posted on here many times where someone has built a game from the ground up. The problem with this day and age is the complexity to which games are made via graphics. This is used as a bar to keep "independant" developers out of the arena and flooding the market. Like they use to do back in the 80s, I know you've heard of the internet surge of the I think 90s? Where everyone and their momma had an internet site? It was similar to that except in the form of freeware/shareware/and indians (with a dot) coming by your office selling their product (guess what happen).