“Hold on,” the candy-colored cues decree, “I’ve got this — just give me a nudge.”

If I obey the cue, I leap, and I dodge. If I disobey the cue, I fall, and I’m crushed. So I obey; I leap, and I dodge. Did I have control? No, I merely had influence. That’s because the Quick Time Event is an anti-player design device; it interrupts, it distracts, and it controls.

XXYABYX

I’ve never heard of anyone who enjoys Quick Time Events, so what’s to blame for their ubiquity? Perhaps developers use the QTE as a compromise, something between a non-interactive cut scene, and a playable contrivance. I see no reason for compromise, though, especially after playing 2008′s Prince of Persia.

There, unprompted and properly timed, I make the Prince and Elika perform an elaborate attack combination with complex animations. To start, the Prince slashes the enemy twice with his scimitar (X, X), and Elika blasts it with magic (Y). The Prince then flips over the enemy’s head (A) and throws it into the air (B) where Elika is waiting: she blasts it up farther (Y). Finally, the Prince leaps up and slashes downward at the enemy, surrendering it to gravity (X).

Such maneuvers are possible in other games, and they require similar button presses, but they come wrapped in QTEs. They require little timing, merely reaction. They’re imposing, rather than gratifying.

John McClane Wannabes

We can also attribute the Quick Time Event’s prevalence to developers chasing the “cinematic experience,” their goal to make us feel as if we’re heroes in an action movie. But I’m typically unimpressed by my character doing something which I don’t have direct control over. I want to leap the chasm, and to dodge the boulder. I want to fail, but not because I responded incorrectly to a prompt.

If your choice as a designer is either to limit control or to deny control, deny it; at least then I can relax and enjoy a cut scene without anticipating orders. Better still would be to keep me playing: do within the medium what’s possible without forgetting or betraying the medium. Even when I’m “in control,” I’m at the mercy of your design — make me think otherwise.

Publishers, when they even make a PC version of their game, don’t treat it as well as they do the console versions. Development of the PC version of multi-platform games is often outsourced to a third party, and the quality of the product suffers as a result. But it isn’t always a problem of outsourcing; sometimes developers are simply told to focus their foremost efforts on the console versions. Marketing of the PC version also takes a hit; it is not uncommon for the PC version of a game to be released weeks to months after the console versions. Rarely will the PC version even be mentioned in magazine and comic book ads, much less television adverts; it will just be tossed out and left up to word of mouth and the virtually non-existent retail spaces to sell it to people.

Microsoft doesn’t help matters, either. You wouldn’t know it by watching their E3 press conferences, but they’re the same company that makes Windows, the largest PC game platform there is. Why don’t they let people know? Splinter Cell: Conviction made a splash this year at E3 2009, but on the big stage it was touted as an “Xbox 360 exclusive” to the press and to retailers; it was not until after the press conference that it was learned the game would be coming to PC as well.

Another effect of publishers’ mistreatment of PC games is apparent in the way the games press covers them. Like it or not, much of what the most popular sources for game news, reviews, previews and other information chooses to cover and care about is largely driven by marketing. Members of the games press have said as much; if a game doesn’t have marketing behind it, they will not bother reviewing it, if they even know about it to begin with. As a result, games press has become increasingly console-focused. Only the most high profile PC games news is reported on, and even then, there’s rarely any editorial input as there is in posts about console games. Follow-ups are scarce. The press just does not care as much. Unless it’s an outlet that precludes console game coverage, of course, but they are few, and they are small. Being virtually unheard, they are not in a position to serve as consumer advocates as bigger sites can be.

Publishers need to be taken to task by the press for things like staggering the PC versions of their games, for not optimizing properly, not marketing them properly and for not making certain features and DLC available that are present in the console versions. Some examples of games that have had these issues in recent years include:

• Saints Row 2 – staggered release, poor optimization, no DLC.
• Grand Theft Auto IV – staggered release, poor optimization, no DLC.
• Ghostbusters – no multiplayer.
• Tomb Raider: Underworld – no DLC, needed for true ending.
• Prince of Persia – no DLC, needed for true ending.
• Mass Effect – staggered release.
• Dead Space – staggered release.
• Mirror’s Edge – staggered release.
• Assassin’s Creed – staggered release.
• Bionic Commando – staggered release.
• Red Faction: Guerilla – staggered release.
• Street Fighter IV – staggered release.
• The Last Remnant – staggered release.
• Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. – no DLC.

Granted, in certain cases, a staggered release for PC games means a more polished game with a few extra features or some extra content; this was the case with games such as Assassin’s Creed and Mass effect, but they are the exception, not the rule. And in the case of Mass Effect, I would expect that a developer create a user interface that is appropriate for the platform the game is on, though I still appreciate it. The point is that there would be a much bigger stink made about the issues surrounding the games listed above if the affected version had been the Xbox 360’s or Playstation 3’s.

I won’t purport to have all the answers to these problems, but I have an idea. Above all else: care. If you’re a gamer, whether you play PC games or not, if you care about video games at all, care about what happens to the PC platform. Care about how the games are treated, how they’re marketed, how they’re supported and how they’re covered. If you’re a publisher, care about your game and make it right, or don’t make it at all. Your poorly optimized, poorly marketed and under-supported game reflects negatively on the platform. If you’re press, care about the state of PC games. You’re opinion leaders; if you care, gamers will care. If gamers care, that will force publishers to care, and we’ll all be better off for it.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is possibly best described as an action adventure platformer. While combat is littered throughout the gameplay, an acrobatic style of platforming is its strength. When the prince is not engaged in agile sword combat or solving one of several grand mechanical puzzles, he’s swinging on poles, jumping to and from high ledges, and nimbly running along walls. Near the beginning of the story he uses this nimbleness in pursuit of the princess Farah who, due to a magical medallion, is the only other one unaffected by the Sands of Time that have turned everyone into monsters. You see, the prince got tricked into releasing the Sands of Time… from the Hourglass of Time… using the Dagger of Time (got that?) and is now being sought by the treacherous Vizier, who would use the dagger to gain more power. The dagger allows the wielder to control time itself, resulting in a game mechanic where you can reverse the last several seconds of gameplay and try not to throw yourself into a pit of spikes this time. In addition, you can slow down time for a short period.

Our Trailer

Here’s a mash-up of some scenes from the first hour of the game. The music featured in the video is from the soundtrack.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Personal Notes

Besides the rewarding acrobatics, the storytelling stands out as one of the most memorable aspects of the game. From the very beginning to the end, you’re engaged in a simple yet captivating tale told by the prince himself. The music, art, and voice acting all contribute wonderfully to this. I enjoyed revisiting the game for this article — that is, once I figured out that I shouldn’t try to control the 3rd person camera with the mouse instead of using the keyboard commands. I enjoyed The Sands of Time quite a bit more than The Warrior Within and The Two Thrones, the latter of which I’m playing right now. While it might be lacking in tech and polish compared to its sequels, the story and gameplay are much more fun.

Where To Get It

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time can be found on several digital distribution platforms, including Steam, GameTap (as a part of their subscription service), and Good Old Games (GOG.com offers DRM-free game downloads).

Screenshots

The Problem With The Maw

With The Maw’s “DLC” (two “bonus” levels), I went from thinking “that’s neat” to realizing the implications. I knew the maps were available and ready by the time the PC version released because they were available for purchase on my Xbox 360 before the game even came out. That means they were held back with the intent to sell them later as “bonus content”. This immediately diminished the value of the product that I had already purchased. I felt like I was not getting the full experience out of The Maw if I didn’t pay $2.50 for these extra levels. But I hadn’t even launched the game yet despite having pre-purchased it, knowing that if it’s good I’d be writing about it here at DoSu as a Cheap Game. But I hadn’t played it yet, so I was not attached to it. I found myself with no desire to play it. So I requested a refund. After jumping through some hoops, I received my refund. I no longer own The Maw — I probably never will again. Since that means I’ll never get to play it, The Maw will not be recommended by me here as a Cheap Game.

The Problem With Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 is a bit of a different beast. It’s a “feature-length” game from a major publisher and developer. Since the Fortunes Pack (3 weapons, 2 vehicles & 5 multiplayer maps) didn’t come to any platform until November 21st, it’s reasonable to believe that it was not ready to go when the game first launched on October 21st. Maybe some of the content was cut out from the final game, but I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt that a team could crank out some weapons and maps within a month. Maybe it was just some assets that could not be finished in time for their deadline.

I’ve owned Far Cry 2 on PC since it released. I’ve been playing it off-and-on for the last couple of months. It’s a very time-consuming open-world game. I absolutely love it. I was disappointed that the Fortunes Pack was not available for PC when it came out in November. I would have very much liked to use that Silent Shotgun; it sounded ridiculous. So I was considerably less offended when it was made available on PC today, but I also felt somewhat obligated to purchase it before I could continue playing. It’s a similar problem as with The Maw, but different because I had already invested so much of myself in the game. I couldn’t quit now, but continuing was a difficult thing to do.

On Perceived Value

I realized that I don’t just have a problem with “DLC” when it’s content that was held back from the game — I have a problem with it when it’s not free. Selfish of me, yes? More than a bit, yes, but I have good intentions. I want games to have value, and I believe that “DLC” that isn’t free diminishes the consumer’s perceived value of the base product. My reaction to the “DLC” for The Maw and Far Cry 2 are my testament to this belief; I no longer own The Maw and I’m having trouble wanting to launch Far Cry 2 today.

Valve has been a pioneer in building value in games via free content. They continually release free maps, game modes and unlocks for games like Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, and soon for Left 4 Dead. Because of this, and of course due to the quality of the content they produce, theirs are the best selling games on the PC today. Valve understands that a consumer’s perceived value of a product can earn you more money than simply having more items with price tags available on a virtual shelf.

DLC: A Step Forward For Consoles; Backward For PC

It’s puzzling to me, then, that Valve would support a thing such as “DLC” on the PC. There’s precedent for it on consoles, but that does not mean that it’s a good idea or that all platforms must follow suit. PC users are used to getting things for free. I wouldn’t say we’re selfish or unappreciative, we’re simply conditioned. Console users are okay with “DLC” because this is the first generation of consoles where it has been possible on a large scale. It’s all that they know. For instance, on my Xbox 360, I own Fable 2. I have not yet played it because I want the full experience, and there’s word that more “DLC” is being released for Fable beyond the Knothole Island content. This has caused me to wait. I’m okay with it because it’s a console… I expect that kind of ridiculousness from it.

But the introduction of “DLC” into the PC ecosystem has managed to impact my perception of Steam itself. I am now “afraid” to purchase new games on Steam because I don’t know if I’m going to be getting the complete package. This was not the case last week. Almost every game that I have recommended in the Cheap Gaming features have been available on Steam. I absolutely love the service; I think it’s the best thing that happened to PC gaming since the SDK. Normally, the first thing I do when I get on my computer every day is check the Steam news, new releases, and coming soon lists. In the days following The Maw’s “DLC”, I was considerably less enthused, and the Far Cry 2 Fortunes Pack today knocked me down a peg further.

It’s Not All Bad

I am willing to concede that this is not entirely a bad thing. “DLC” on PC will probably mean that we will get content packs that we’re normally denied, such as the Fortunes Pack for Far Cry 2 and the extra levels (real ending?) for Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider: Underworld. That’s not to say that “DLC” is the only way we could get it; we’ve had the technology on PC for over 15 years. I would have much preferred that publishers choose an alternate business model for their PC releases — that is, focus on value — but it would appear that the only way we’re going to get some content is if they can slap the “DLC” label on it and charge us. I just hope that others acknowledge that this “capability” can be easily exploited for the evil, as we’ve already seen with The Maw.

But It Mostly Is

Console players should be able to sympathize with this. There has been considerable amounts of outrage about Capcom’s releasing of Resident Evil 5′s “Versus Mode” as $5 “DLC” as well as their Street Fighter IV Costumes. You used to be able to get an alternate costume simply by pressing a different button at character select. Remember Beautiful Katamari? That content was already on the disc, but with revolutionary “DLC” capability, Namco Bandai was able to charge for the end of their game twice. And let us never forget Oblivion’s Horse Armor, the father of value-diminishing “DLC.”