backward compatibility: is it really that important?

Back when the specs of the Playstation 3, the "Revolution" and the XBox360 were originally unveiled, the idea of backward compatibility was latched on to by many as a deciding factor between the three platforms. In the reactions that followed each company's announcement, it seemed that whichever platform would be stupid enough not to include the feature would immediately forfeit their position in the console war. Because the Playstation 2 has already set the precedent (with the GBA one year later allowing the use of both original Game Boy and Game Boy colour cartridges), there is now a demand for old games to work with new consoles. The cycle between generations has roughly stayed the same, but consumers want to be given more than an incremental graphics update for their dedication to a platform. In my haste to dismiss the next generation as merely imitating computers, I missed a crucial point: is backward compatibility even necessary for a console to succeed?

E3 2006: in which I try to hate the games industry

The gaming mob is fickle.

The novelty of E3 continues to wear thin, for me at least. I'd rather selectively watch coverage on the internet than be stuck in line with a bunch of people who are probably not even supposed to be there. It's become an amusement park. A giant, throbbing, noisy commercial for games that might not even see release, but we're going to get super happy excited about anyway. How much can you really glean from a game's trailer or 5 minute playtest that's been built up after waiting for two hours? The software isn't even complete. Is it to say you've played it first? I'm having a hard time figuring out my former longstanding desire to attend an E3. The gaming mob is fickle.

exploring Coupland's views on gaming

I recently finished re-reading Douglas Coupland's Microserfs, a well-written tale about a group of Microsoft employees that leave the company to start up their own. I first read it back in 1999, partway through University. Though published in 1993, I had avoided the book due to the overwhelming praise heaped upon it by media that had become newly obsessed with the growing subculture of the tech savvy "geeks" that would be storming the business world with big ideas and half-baked business plans for the next seven years. I felt that it captured the sentiment of this period very well, despite having been written before this subculture went mainstream. I give Coupland credit for that. The first project for the start-up company in the book is a free-form "game", and through that he tackled the concept of "multimedia": the software industry's favorite buzzword at the time, and something most gamers were exposed to through games like Myst and the infamous Sewer Shark.

Besides the nuances of geek culture described within the book, what remains startlingly relevant is the main character's list of "The 8 Models of Interactivity", which were summarized after he attended a multimedia industry conference (see pages 139-143 for some very thoughtful remarks). I think these observations are entirely applicable today, and provide an effective touchstone in witnessing the evolution of the game industry.

xbox 360 quick hits, Part 2: Full Auto

At its best, Full Auto is a tease. For a game that calls itself "the world's most destructible racing game", I guess it's pretty accurate. You can destroy lots of things in this game. Buildings, street-side cafés, fences - well, as long as it's accessible from the race track. You aren't offered much flexibility to drift off of it. And if you were to compare it to Rock N' Roll Racing as I noted in Part 1, it might be a more accurate representation of the style of gameplay that is being offered.

However, while we were playing I couldn't help but reminisce about Carmageddon 2, which was a lot more open in its design. I'd even call it ahead of its time. Free form "races" with multiple conditions for winning (like killing a certain number of pedestrians, or destroying all of your opponents), and all of it doused with a thick red coating of ultra violence. As long as you could suspend your disbelief when you ran over the pedestrians with cubic heads. Full Auto doesn't allow you to simply go after your adversaries and destroy them, because you're in a race. Unless the objectives at the beginning of a mission stated otherwise, crossing the finish line was the only necessary goal to complete.

To be fair, you can do a lot of damage to the environment in Full Auto, but it has no real effect on the way you drive. You can plow through three fuel tankers causing massive explosions and keep going as if nothing happened. This apparent lack of repercussions is even stranger in the face of the detailed damage modelling of the vehicles.

I found that my car was exploding without any real warning beyond the damage indicator on the bottom of the screen, which I rarely checked due to the fast-paced nature of the action. My vehicle may have looked like a scrap heap on wheels, but it didn't drive any differently. It didn't cause me to rethink my strategy to conserve energy or shields - I simply kept driving until I was ultimately destroyed by gunfire, colliding with another car, or simply diving headlong off of the top level of a parking garage.

Though all this can be avoided: the "Unwreck" feature is a Prince of Persia-styled reversing of time to make a jump, avoid a rollover, or even being targeted by an adversary's machine gun. I wondered if a feature like this was even necessary. Is the ultimate point of Full Auto total destruction or winning a race? Carmageddon had an auto-repair feature you could use while driving (depending on how much money you had available). It was equally unrealistic, but was at least suited to the overall theme.

What bothered me was the lack of originality and variation in the weapons available to upgrade vehicles. They're often made up of one forward weapon and one rear, and categorized into "packages" like Assault and Melee. Individual components of the sets can't be interchanged. What's worse, like the other cars in the game, the weapon sets must be unlocked.

The available game modes are pretty straightforward, and actually kind of dull after the initial novelty of driving clear through a brick building with a hot rod wears off. The most glaring omission was the lack of a free for all or arena mode included in the likes of Carmageddon or Twisted Metal. In a game that's bent on providing wholesale destruction, why is it so focused on racing? Perhaps I was simply attributing features to the game it was never intended to have.

Nevertheless, there was something about Full Auto that just felt rushed, as if Pseudo Interactive started with a sound concept that got stripped down to meet the "arcade racing" requirement for the 360's library. I'd call it "Semi-Auto", but that's too obvious. It isn't a bad game. Just an unremarkable one.

xbox 360 quick hits, Part 1

A couple of weekends ago I spent the afternoon with fellow über-gamers Tony and Chris, where we gathered for some quality time with Chris' new XBox 360. I've since had the time to record some of the following impressions. Unrelated: Chris is an excellent cook.

forging relationships in console gaming

Lost Garden brought attention to a very thought provoking aspect of console gaming and online play. Does online console gaming cultivate the same type of relationships as PC gaming?

Technically speaking, multiplayer originated on the console with two player games like the venerable Pong. Some of the best memories I have of the NES involved going over to my friend's house around the corner and playing Contra after school. Years later Mortal Kombat and Super Mario Kart on the SNES further strengthened this notion: multiplayer gaming was to be enjoyed with people you know. They were right there to mock, strangle and laugh with as the situation applied.

During this time, the PC was playing host to a little multiplayer of its own - and not of the hot-seat turn-based variety, but through the phone line. With the advent of the Internet, this model would be adopted by PCs and consoles alike.

We are now at a point where a successful, PC-like multiplayer model has established itself in the console marketplace: Xbox Live. It has a ton of useful features, including "Friends lists" to manage friends that are universally implemented across all games. Even games that don't support online play can still be monitored through your profile, allowing friends to see exactly what you're playing. It allows easy coordination between players outside of the game, as it is clearly modelled after Microsoft's own Instant Messenger. Live also supports random encounters: if none of your friends are online you can just as easily join any game that supports online play. Voice chat further deepens this contact between players. However having this ability at hand does not guarantee meaningful communication.

Sony's strategy is a little more directionless, and is applied on a game-by-game basis. Final Fantasy XI and SOCOM, for example, are games that allow anonymous interaction, but only FFXI has managed to assist in maintaining these relationships as this is intrinsic to the game's design. I've never played SOCOM, but I would like to think that there is some kind of Favorites list on the server browser so as to provide an indication of who you're playing with. Though where this information is stored is another situation entirely.

Similarly, Nintendo's WiFi service launched last year on the Nintendo DS, which now has a few titles that are supported that are dependent on "Friend Codes". Speaking from my experience with Mario Kart DS, it's extremely difficult to set up matches with Nintendo's WiFi network. The reliance on Friend Codes that must be reciprocated to even be useful followed with the coordination of a play session through other means (e.g. phone, email, IM) implies you should already know the person you're trying to play with. There are of course options to play random opponents through Rivals, Regional and Worldwide groups, but there's no way to keep track of these people. These random battles are passively obtained by the user - you can't set criteria, and it's not like you can add their friend code after a race, because everything is hidden except the user's nickname, wins and losses. They become single serving opponents, if you will, because the probability is extremely low you will ever face them again once you quit the race. There is no interaction in or out of the game; they might as well be AI-controlled bots.

However, a service like Nintendo's Wi-Fi network significantly broadens the accessibility of multiplayer gaming to the casual gamer. There's no need to purchase additional hardware (such as an ethernet adapter for the Gamecube or PS2) or sign up for an account (such as with Live). All you need is a wireless access point to the internet, which most internet-using households are equipped with these days. Continuing with the Mario Kart example, the the game itself is extremely basic so as not to be intimidating to the newcomer, which makes the overall experience a little more palatable. This is something that Tetris DS will be taking advantage of as well.

Animal Crossing: Wild World allows in-game chat, and the upcoming Metroid Prime: Hunters will apparently include voice chat. As new features like these get added to the online experience on the DS, I'm wondering if it will be as viable as a relationship-strengthening platform. My guess is it is simply acting as a testing ground for features to be implemented with the Revolution. Most importantly, though, I'm still left wondering where Sony's strategy is at. There hasn't been much talk about unified online play service, and while I hardly think they need it to survive (unfortunately a stranglehold on market mindshare and better hardware is still enough to sell the platform to their target audience), I think they owe it to themselves to show they are willing to advance with the rest of the industry. Though I still think it's important to ask: do console gamers even want online play? Or are they satisfied with the companionship that an additional controller or two will provide?

Further to this discussion, Raph Koster declared the single-player experience abnormal - unnatural, even. This is clearly a sensationalist statement - similar to Greg Costikyan's rant last year about the state of the games industry - but they both end up making some good points that are worth discussing. Obviously Raph is interested in online-only gameplay, being a part of MMORPG development himself. I'll submit that online-only play has its place in certain genres, but should in no way be the norm. Speaking for myself, I hate having to depend on others just so I can enjoy a game. That's why the solo experience in MMORPGs should still be rewarding; there's nothing like feeling forced to be "friends" with people just to complete a quest or experience the game the way it was "meant" to be played. It's frustrating in the way it limits the control of the player, and is dependent on so many other factors: connectivity, bandwidth limitations, etc.

I always thought that online play was for the gamer elite; traditionally only the hardcore would be able to set it up in the first place, not to mention submit themselves to the twitch gameplay offered by FPS or RTS and the strange satisfaction in playing with complete strangers. And while MMORPGs changed the face of the online gamer, their increase in accessibility expands the user base to the point where the casual gamer may not want to play with strangers, and the idea of guilds and other such social networks are more appealing. Whether we want to admit it or not, this is how the future of the industry is being directed: those that typically pushed the technology forward are disregarded in place of making this frontier more comfortable for new recruits. Gaming has no need to make new headway with existing players; this market has been captured for some time.

gaming in 2005: the year's best

The list is shorter this year, because frankly I felt 2005 was a weak year for gaming. There were a lot of very good releases, but there was no game that stood above the rest, immediately recognized for its strengths or unique contribution to the medium. World of Warcraft made great strides in capturing audiences worldwide in 2005 - what is it, five million concurrent subscribers now? The XBox 360 launched with one of the worst lineups since the Saturn, with an engineered product shortage that somehow convinced people they actually needed one. But in terms of a singular victory on any platform, I am hard pressed to name one. I also could have easily padded a list with the other games that I played last year that left me satisfied, but to do that would lessen the meaning of the other selections. These are, after all, the best games I played from last year, and as such should come across as titles actually worth playing, not just looking into.

platform agnosticism: in defense of PC gaming

I picked up the May issue of Computer Games magazine last week. I switched to this publication after dumping PC Gamer last year. Having been through five issues the content feels more refined, and there was a hell of a reduction in ads - but there's something missing. It's still focused on previews and reviews. I love Tom Chick's column, and the in-depth study of games and game culture that usually takes place in the last few pages of the magazine. But why aren't these cover stories instead of the trumpeting of typical exclusives? These exploratory articles are reserved for the back, which in most game magazines is where the cheat codes or letters pages go. Is it so unfashionable to take gaming seriously? Computer Games' recent turn to fumbling, awkward attempts at humour seems to point in this direction.

Computer Games have also changed their format in the last couple of issues. The addition of the "Online" section last month was created to address the growing community of online-only gamers trying to juggle multiple subscriptions. In May's issue I flipped through this section and came across something entirely shocking: console game reviews. In a computer gaming magazine! What in the fuck was going on here?

the spice must flow

It was a hard task to pull myself away from the development of my dwarven paladin, but I managed to do it long enough for a viewing of the Director's Cut of the Dune TV miniseries this past weekend. The special effects are probably the only faults I have with this adapation of Frank Herbert's science fiction epic, because there are way too many times where it was clear the cast was running around a closed studio piled with sand. The computer generated ships and planet locations were passable, but also looked as if they were created under a tight budget. The acting was generally good, and unlike the Lynch version that required a working knowledge of the entire Dune universe before viewing it, the story was carefully assembled into three highly watchable episodes. This isn't to say that Lynch's film is completely terrible, because I think it suffered from being released at the wrong time - audiences weren't ready for such a complicated plot in a movie that was expected to be a typical big-budget popcorn movie.

All of this got me thinking about how ripe the Dune universe is for video gaming. Yet it remains ignored, except for the occasional lackluster release. Looking back, it's not like the subject was completely overlooked; there's a prototype for the Atari 2600 floating around for a game inspired by the 1984 film. However, the first official Dune game was released for the PC in 1992, and was a kind of action/adventure hybrid that doesn't make a whole lot of sense based on the screens. Though what most of us would remember is Westwood's Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty that came out the same year, considered to be the inspiration for every RTS game you've ever played. There were three separate campaigns based on three major royal houses: Atreides (good), Harkonnen (evil), and Ordos (more or less neutral) all vying for control of Arrakis. The base and troop building that most of us learned playing Command and Conquer had already been established in this game.

It wasn't until 1998 that I actually got my hands on a Dune game, and this was Dune 2000, a desperate Command and Conquer clone also published by Westwood. It was a little ironic when considering the game's pedigree; after all, this was just an update of the game that inspired the genre in the first place. The graphics and strategies were uncomfortably familiar, and as such resulted in a forgettable experience. Then again, John Rhys-Davies did appear as the Atreides mentat in one of the game's many live-action cutscenes.

The release of the TV miniseries in 2001 renewed interest in the setting, and spawned two games: Frank Herbert's Dune and Emperor: The Battle for Dune. Frank Herbert's Dune was intended as a direct tie-in with the miniseries, but resulted in a dismal failure both in its disregard for the source material and lack of attention to actual gameplay. Emperor was apparently a pretty good RTS game, and probably marked EA's entrance into 3D strategy before the release of C&C Generals the following year. After these games, development on anything Dune related basically stopped.

The sequel to the TV miniseries, Children of Dune, originally aired in 2003 but I never watched it, because frankly I had no idea it was even being made. The first miniseries I considered only a moderate success, because interest in Dune seemed to wane rather quickly and I figured that would be the end of this renaissance. I haven't read the recently started series of books co-authored by Brian Herbert (Frank Herbert's son) and Kevin J. Anderson (who has also penned his share of Star Wars novels). They don't seem well received, and feel more like novels written to simply pacify fans eager to see the series continue. In other words, very much like the Star Wars novels. I have even seen the likes of a limited run tabletop RPG, Chronicles of the Imperium, and another one rumored to have been in development by Wizards of the Coast that was later cancelled. The Dune series is largely regarded as one of the pillars of modern science fiction writing, and yet it's consistently pushed into the background as if to disregard its influence on the genre.

The Dune universe is one full of political intrigue and a more spiritual view of a possible future when compared with conventional science fiction that obsesses over technology. Though Dune may lend itself well to strategy titles, what's stopping the creation of a roleplaying game? Ascending through the ranks of a royal house, plotting and scheming; a smuggler in the quest for spice; or a Fremen footsoldier simply braving the unforgiving desert could all be adapted to this type of gameplay. The world of Dune is more complex than previous games have given it credit for. I'd like to see a developer take advantage of this, and not simply use the Dune name to sell an action or strategy game in an established formula. It obviously comes down to a financial return, but I think fans would appreciate more dignified treatment of the material, and would be more than happy to answer with their wallets. Most importantly, it would open up the market for science fiction games without the prefix of Star Wars or Star Trek.

gaming in 2004: the year's best

The year 2004 will be remembered for being extremely favourable to gamers, PC gamers in particular. I don't think anyone could have expected the quality of the titles that were released during the dreaded Christmas rush. It's a pretty ridiculous custom that I'm never going to get used to, because the clout of the big publishers will almost always drive some unknown gem to the bottom of the pile beneath their ad-driven counterparts. Off the top of my head I regret not being able to play Baten Kaitos, or the Battle for Middle Earth, though most tell me I'm not missing much on the latter. I'm glad I got a chance to play GTA: San Andreas, one of 2004's many blockbuster releases. And even if it is basically more of the same, I'm much more comfortable with the deeper feel of this game, and most importantly, the soundtrack. I don't know if it's just early 90s nostalgia at work here, but it really is top notch. I look forward to its release on the PC this summer.

My excitement over PC gaming's numerous quality releases is reflected in the following list, once again not intended to be comprehensive. It's a welcome change from last year's many console ports.

2004: another year in review

Consider this a prelude to the list of my favorite games released last year. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to consolidate the games I've played into a list of only ten; clearly 2004 was an absolutely incredible year for gaming. Although my exposure to other media was minimal, the following are selections that were firmly lodged in my craw for one reason or another. I also made a conscious decision to note some games that were worthy of recognition, but not necessarily the best of the year.

Album of the Year: n. lannon - chemical friends.

This record has all but moved me to tears. n. lannon triumphantly carries the torch lit by Elliott Smith's entire catalogue; each song is either brimming with melancholy or the apathy of a musician that just wants to share his experiences with us. A perfect blend of electronic and acoustic sounds. Put simply, I cannot get enough of this album, and its melodies will be forevermore etched upon my soul.

Most over-rated band/release of the year: The Arcade Fire - Funeral

It's pretty good...but not that good. I'm really tired of the indie scene convulsing upon the first hipster critic to declare their Greatest Album of the Year. It seems to me it's been more like a search for the most off the wall, tangential sound conceivable. This happened with Broken Social Scene last year, interpol the year before it...you get the picture. Also, someone should tell The Arcade Fire to stop wearing their David Byrne/Talking Heads influences on their sleeve. It's extremely telling when this "unknown" band gets praised by the indie music press for what mainstream bands get slagged for doing every fucking day.

A CD that should be destroyed should you see it in the wild: Keane - Hopes and Fears

The first time this record reached my ears, I was overcome by such a strong feeling of nausea mixed with deja-vu I could have sworn I was listening to Franz Ferdinand or whatever else those fucktards are playing on the radio. Make no mistake: these guys are ripoff artists plain and simple, mixing influences like Jet and making no effort to hide it. Compared to Keane, Coldplay would seem revolutionary. Any friend caught with this album in their possession should be flogged with their own arms. There's no need for it. American Eagle already has it on their in-store playlist.

Best Movie of the Year

Spider Man 2 was terrific, and Hellboy was a fairly well recieved take on a cult favorite, but I'm not so sure it will stand the test of time. The Aviator was certainly the most interesting movie I've seen all year, and will be picking up the requisite Oscars for DiCaprio's quirky performance. Maybe this is just a sign of my focal point for the year, but there wasn't a particular film that stood out in my memory as being "the best". And knowing the commercials and head splitting previews that await the start of any film, actually going to the movies is becoming less and less lucrative, when the DVD can be purchased months later for roughly the same amount as two tickets.

Worst Movie of the Year: Van Helsing

I don't remember ever watching a movie that made me want to hurt myself while watching it. Van Helsing was embarassing. I saw this on Halloween weekend with Dawn of the Dead, a fucking masterpiece in comparison, and infinitely more fun than having to solve the riddle of why so much bad makeup, acting and story made their way into one movie.

Best Movie tie-in: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

However many told me that Spider Man 2 didn't suck, I remain completely unimpressed by what it had to offer, and maybe one day I'll reveal my scathing review. I only had a short time with the XBox version of Butcher Bay, but there was enough in my play session that easily deemed it worthy of some kind of award. Though the game's design does it's fair share of walking you through the action, it's hard to believe that a game that was supposed to promote a movie turned into such a high quality title. I couldn't stop talking about the engine while playing; it was simply amazing considering that it's completely original. In some respects the environments are comparable to Doom 3 - the textures are similarly brown and lived-in, and all of the characters have decently animated, plastic bodies. I would have preferred a third person option for the stealth-based components of play - Deadly Shadows and Splinter Cell handled a lot better in this regard.

Gaming Event of the Year: World of Warcraft's launch (with the arrival of Half Life 2 a very close second)

I don't think anyone anticipated the reaction to this game. It should most definitely be recognized for smashing PC game sales records and letting people know that MMORPGs can be for everyone. I haven't heard from some friends since the game's release at the end of November. The unparalleled efficiency in which this game absorbs lives is absolutely incredible, even if the game's principles aren't that different from MMORPGs to come before it. I've been putting off getting a copy for this reason exactly, though the lag and overcrowded new character quests are a bit disconcerting as well. Perhaps this is something for the slow summer months.

Most actual fun I've ever had playing a game: Sid Meier's Pirates!

It's really hard to explain what makes this game so great, because as soon as you start describing the courtship of a governor's daughter with an evening of ballroom dancing, or the frustrating search for your lost relatives based on a few landmarks and your entire fleet of pirate vessels in tow, things kind of get lost in the shuffle. Pirates! takes elements of every genre, and blends them into a sweeping adventure. This is a game that you can comfortably occupy your time with, not having to worry about "levelling" or arbitrary mission objectives. Avast!

Worst Game of the Year: Advance Guardian Heroes

Forget the subjectivity of the word "Worst"; this game made me want to destroy my Gameboy Advance. I can't even write a review, as it would be completely worthless to you for all of the profanity and variations of how despicable the game is. Just stay away from it. My suggestion is to find a nice Sega Saturn on eBay and get Guardian Heroes. You're better off.

Most Disappointing Game of the Year: Doom 3

An easy target, but it needed to be said. John Carmack and id software broke our hearts again. But just think of the wonderful games that will arise from the engine's wake!

Game I wished I got to play: Katamari Damacy

It's pretty hard to ignore the buzz around this title, and so I will put in on my "To Play" list for 2005, assuming I can get my hands on a PS2 again. But how, exactly, do you pronounce it? Like, if I wanted to rent a console and a copy of this game. Katta-mahr-ee Dam-ace-ee? Kattamary Dammasee? Maybe when I ask I'll just act like the guy that's renting NFL Street 2 so my ignorance doesn't look out of place.

I never knew what I would find

PC Gamer: the end of an affair

Ever since I got my own PC for gaming, PC Gamer has been on my monthly magazine buying list. I even had a subscription at one point, thinking that it would somehow position my brain in a stream of PC gaming news. As with all magazines, though, you quickly learn that newsstands get it first anyway, with even that superceded the month previous by a glut of gaming news sites that love to harvest exclusive information. This effectively makes magazines almost useless unless you were bedridden on some asteroid in a vacuum sealed stasis pod.

Game magazines in the age of modern gaming is a topic that I have been struggling with for some time, and I've convinced myself they are a necessary evil when internet access is not easily at hand. Though I've come to an impasse where PC Gamer is concerned - I've basically had enough of their antics, and buying a magazine for Greg Vederman's RPG reviews and amusing hardware section cannot in good conscience be defensible any longer.

Half Life 2: The Enemy is Instinct

With PC gaming in its current state, I didn't think a game like Half Life 2 was possible. The FPS genre had become stagnated, and aside from my occasionally burdensome fascination with war-themed shooters, I didn't see the genre on the PC heading in a very healthy direction. As much as I enjoyed Far Cry, easily the underdog release of the year, it was fairly conventional in its execution. And Doom 3, another game touting a technically superior engine, produced a truly disappointing experience. But over the past week, I have seen the future.

Forget everything you ever thought was a convention of first person shooters. Then purchase and install Half Life 2. And then prepare to have your expectations of what an interactive gaming experience should be permanently raised.

Note: As this review is essentially a diary of my adventures in the world of Half Life 2, it is rife with spoilers. Anyone who hasn't finished the game and wants to keep the magic alive should stop reading at once.

the triumphant return of RTS

The last RTS game that really engaged me to the point of massive time loss was Rise of Nations. In the past few weeks, two exceptional games have been released: Rome: Total War and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. At this point in the season it's easy to get lost in a crowded schedule of releases. I must admit of the two the only one I was really anticipating to any degree was Rome: Total War, based solely on my experiences with Medieval: Total War and the first 15 minutes of Gladiator. I also recently got my hands on Age of Mythology Gold, and lazily grouped it in to avoid multiple posts. Luckily, all three titles have provided solid gameplay and a clear direction to where the RTS genre is going.

Starcraft was an excellent game. It was extremely well designed and balanced, and until now is the standard by which subsequent RTS games were judged. Still, I found that resource collection and management has always been the weak point of most RTS games. With the exception of the Myth and Total War series (and more recently Blitzkrieg and Soldiers: Heroes of WWII), there has always been some form of finding the raw resource and collecting it to build bases and produce units. But there was always so much more to RTS than sending paeons to mine for materials and racing through technology trees. You can only develop so many variations on the theme: like the World War II shooter genre, at some point the concept has to buckle under the weight of mediocrity.

Both Rome: Total War and Dawn of War show us that you can invigorate a tired genre. Granted, the Total War series has been more about epic strategy, but when you can't be bothered with micromanagement and are more interested in large-scale manuevering, Rome: Total War delivers an outstanding experience.

The units and battlefield are detailed and smoothly animated, using a brand new engine - right down to the mighty cheers your army lets loose when entering battle. The clash of swords can be heard over a pleasant panoramic view over the battlefield, or you can zoom in to unit on unit action, hearing the warriors scream as each are cut down mercilessly. Keeping track of your own routed regiments is annoying, as they will have to be explicitly commanded to re-enter the battle, so it is important to watch their energy level (fresh, winded, exhausted) and their opposition - if your men are getting slaughtered they are more prone to retreat. Routed enemy soldiers are equally time-consuming, because they will generally flee to all corners of the map to try and escape. You can attempt to run them down, but at this point they are usually outnumbered and you will get the option to end the battle. The game's speed controls also make this easier - you can slow or hasten the battle as much as needed.

Ironically, I've only played the demo for Rome: Total War, and it was Dawn of War that ended up on my playlist. As a fan of Medieval, I'm aware that there are many more options for political maneuverings, territory acquisition and army managment behind the scenes, but the demo does nothing to address them. This might lose prospective players that think it's nothing more than a large-scale version of Myth. Rome has been getting great reviews that claim it's the best in the series and a landmark in epic real time strategy, which may help to counter these impressions. The fact that it was used in an episode of the History Channel's "Decisive Battles" series lends some historical credibility as well, but to be honest I think these games have always aimed for that and succeeded.

As for Dawn of War, I certainly have had a lot of fun with this game, but whether it has any lasting value will be included in my final review. Probably the most inventive feature of Dawn of War are control points - strategic locations throughout a map that become your currency for fortifying a base and creating new units. Securing these points requires the use of an entire squad - who can defend themselves while they're at it - but it still ties up possible reinforcements, creating some tense front-line battles for these points on the map. In an equally innovative move, all Space Marine units and structures are launched from space, hitting your base like meteorites - buildings are simply landing pads to accept these pods.

I think I'm hooked on the simplicity of Dawn of War's battle mechanics themselves, because the single-player campaign feels too easy and straightforward to be of any significant value. Zooming in on the battlefield is not as exhilarating as RTW, but still provides some extremely visceral images. Watching your squad open up on an unsuspecting orc patrol is quite satisfying indeed. In fact, I think Relic may have captured what it would be like if Game Workshop's tabletop models came to life. All voiceovers and command confirmations sound like they belong in this universe. The graphics do the job, but upon close inspection washed out, strechy textures and blocky models can be seen. Still, it does nothing to lessen the experience.

For most players, tactics in RTS have typically revolved around the "Tank Rush": a race to obtain the most powerful unit, build gobs of them, and swarm your opponent's base. I blame Command & Conquer, Warcraft II, and by extension Starcraft, for making this extremely easy. The single player campaigns for each game had missions that almost demanded this approach, as there was really no other way to overpower the enemy. From this perspective, both Dawn of War and Age of Mythology don't offer anything beyond this precept.

The Total War series, known for their epic battlefields, actually requires you to apply simple strategic concepts to each conflict. Unsurprisingly, it will do you no good to send a squad of archers to take on a cavalry, or to send a cavalry into a phalanx of spearmen. Using your troops to this advantage, you can create visible choke points on the map, or draw the opponent closer to the heart of your army. Though this doesn't mean that you can't send squads of calvary to take out the general of the opposing force, breaking the will of their troops.

Both Rome: Total War and Dawn of War use morale very effectively, which is an addition badly needed. Speaking realistically, is there really a chance your sole Marine will stand his ground after seeing his entire squad demolished right in front of him? Although only troop effectiveness is depleted in Dawn of War, RTW causes your regiments to actually break up and flee, opening up front lines and destabilizing your entire strategy. It's marvelous to watch, especially when it happens to your opponent because at that point there's a pretty good chance you're winning.

Easily the most conventional of these three games is Age of Mythology, but that doesn't mean it isn't a well-polished strategy title. Indeed, resource collection is the central method of creating units, but the most entertaining aspect of advancing your civilization is the worship of Gods. Your race will start off worshipping one Greater Deity: for example, Poseidon is the chosen god of the Atlanteans. As you further develop your civilization, Lesser Deities will become available that you can choose to give your civilization bonuses. These include mythical creatures like cyclops and centaurs, special weapon upgrades for your units, or area effect spells that can be used to wreak havok on your opponent's base. In this respect Mythology gives the genre something unique, because opening up these abilities will depend on the number of "God points" you collect (which are earned by worhipping townsfolk). The closest game I could compare this feature to is Rise of Nations, except in that game scholars are kept inside Universities. You have the option in Mythology to take villagers away from a temple and reallocate them.

The game plays very similar overall to Rise of Nations, so I felt right at home. Advancing your civilization into different ages is essential, and the primary method of unlocking new units and Lesser Deities. Fans of Age of Empires II were entertained by this title, but it mostly only served as a way to incite their desire for a true sequel, and I can see why. Where AOE II was more focused on historical engagements in a traditional RTS setting, so far AOM is taking a more story-based approach, centralized on each civilization's main playable heroes.

After a binge of first person shooters, gameboy advance and being swallowed back up into Star Wars Galaxies, these games were a welcome change. As gaming time becomes even harder to obtain, it's difficult for me to sit down and truly enjoy what this genre has to offer. Though outstanding titles like these definitely make the time well spent.

up goes the ceiling of routine

the brief life of a World of Warcraft stress tester

Next to the mass hysteria surrounding the release of Star Wars Galaxies, the MMORPG scene could never have anticipated the reaction to Blizzard's first foray into this growing marketplace. The difference being that most of the people waiting to play a space faring smuggler or bounty hunter were Star Wars fans that just happened to be gamers; this time around, existing MMORPG gamers and neophytes alike are eagerly awaiting the chance to try out what could potentially become the Everquest slayer.

Standard game commentary hyperbole aside, after spending five days and just shy of 20 hours with World of Warcraft I can say that this description is more than adequate. The easiest comparison I can make is to Blizzard's own Diablo II, which transplanted the simple "kill-reward" system into a decent looking game where the goal is not just to complete quests, but to get better equipment and level up as many times as possible. Along with a free online component, all of these things created a theoretically endless game. And deftly executing this simple design concept is where World of Warcraft succeeds. The level grind in MMORPGs is a design contrivance that will never go away, unfortunately. But in World of Warcraft, it doesn't have to feel that way.

getting crafty in Star Wars Galaxies

I must confess that every gaming related thought lately has been infiltrated by Star Wars Galaxies. With each session comes a new revelation, as if the game knows to expose itself slowly to keep players enveloped in its perpetual warmth. In my character's present state I can't imagine anything else except gettting those last few thousand Unarmed Combat experience points so that I can finally attain the status of Novice Smuggler. And yet, on the other hand, my skills as a builder of armour and weapons is being nurtured in parallel. The extent of the Wife's preoccupation with the game has materialized as well, albeit in a different format. I won't make the presumptuous claim that this game is for everyone, but if you find yourself interested from what you've read so far then there's no valid reason why you shouldn't be downloading the free trial right now.

secrets of the Force

Moving up through the ranks of Jabba's crime syndicate, it becomes increasingly hazy as to what my original intentions were in my character's development, because this is no way for a future Jedi to behave. Still, there was something appealing about addressing his corpulentness personally, while relaxing with the palace's many denizens. I've reluctantly accepted my lot as a future smuggler in the ranks of Jabba's cronies.

It's hard for me to determine what exactly drew me into Star Wars Galaxies, but I will freely admit to it rejuvenating my love for the Star Wars Universe. Much like the feelings that erupted during my playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic, it has made me appreciate the uniqueness of the setting and diversity of the planets I am free to explore. I'm sure it also has something to do with the need to achieve in most MMORPGs, which usually translates to grinding: a process that many players learn to despise after being forced to endure it to wield better weapons, wear more powerful armour, or craft more complex items.

As an alternative, I saw City of Heroes as being kind of an epidemic, using the utmost caution when encountering anything related to the game. The more I read about it, the more it seemed like a game that's filling a temporary need - and had more in common with the gameplay of Guild Wars than something like Everquest. I suppose there was something more inviting about adventuring across the planets and locations shown in the films that were so much a part of my growing up. Even The Wife, during her usual over-my-shoulder game watching, was enthralled by the prospect of creating her own avatar in the Star Wars universe. After spending roughly an hour creating her Rodian medic, I soon had a partner to hunt womp rats and run away from haggard looking bandits in the harsh deserts of Tatooine. I've basically found my niche until Blizzard decides World of Warcraft is ready for human consumption.

Once you've been inside the player ecosystem, it quickly becomes something you learn to depend on. You can only obtain weapons and armour if an Artisan has built some; you won't ever get that kind of stuff from most NPC/monster drops. Raw materials such as hides and minerals must be traded amongst Artisans and Scouts, so that they can create armour and clothing. If you are seriously injured in battle and lose a portion of your Health, Action, or Mind pool, you must be healed by a medic. Entertainers may encroach on new standards of geekery, but they do have a purpose - they cure battle fatigue, something that affects your ability to recover Health and Action pool points after combat. They can also add buffs to your character if you watch or listen to them for an extended period of time. As I said in my original post, there are ways of surviving in solo play by carefully selecting your professions. But there is still an underlying need to interact with other players, although not to the point that it hinders day-to-day gameplay.

I may have been a bit misleading about last week's official game publish, Secrets of the Force. It was mainly intended to convert existing Jedi characters to the new system that was put in place for the next publish - The Jedi Trials - and the Jump to Lightspeed expansion.

With Secrets of the Force, all existing Jedi players enter a Force Ranking System, which is essentially a ladder for PvP characters, allowing competition for prestige within the player's respective Jedi Order (whether they adhere to the Light or Dark side of the Force). Lightsaber crafting has become more of a prescision science as well - you will require a specialized Lightsaber Crafting Tool, where you can tune your Force crystals before constructing it. And this isn't just for blade color like creating your lightsaber in KotOR - you will be creating a finely adjusted instrument of retribution.

In a brilliant move, there is a possibility that bounty hunter quests are generated with each player's use of the Force or wielding of lightsabers, which increase the player's visibility as a Jedi. The cynical believed that bounties were a way of keeping Jedi players completely under wraps because of an incomplete implementation in the game; this concept has now fully developed into something entirely at home in the Star Wars continuum. Given the time Galaxies takes place, Jedi aren't exactly Guardians of the Galaxy anymore, and The Emperor wants to keep it that way. This also serves as a way to prevent the game from becoming massively multiplayer Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, and preserves the uniqueness and mystery of the Jedi. Unfortunately, if you're looking to power grind your way to a Jedi character you're going to have to wait until the next publish, where specific Force-sensitive quests will become available to all players. This will allow you to unlock your character's Force-sensitivity without having to master any professions.

This is the type of stuff more MMORPGs should be doing. Instead of putting the money into new servers or administration, they are providing new, valuable content for players, and actually creating more opportunities to attract new users. Personally, I'm completely happy with my experiences in SWG thus far, and consider the time I joined to be ideal, almost tailored to my current gaming needs. There is a thriving game world that is constantly being balanced and shaped into a genuine Star Wars experience. I may not have been that forthcoming in my review, because my opinion of the game fluctuated dramatically in short periods of time. I even put off writing more about it since I've jumped in full time, as I was afraid that I might say something I regretted later. But I have no problems saying it now: Star Wars Galaxies is amazing.

the sun was always shining

a journey into Star Wars Galaxies

After playing Guild Wars I have to admit my interest in MMORPGs was made tangible. In order to drum up interest in the Jump to Lightspeed expansion for Star Wars Galaxies, Fileplanet offered up a free 14-day trial of the game a couple of weeks ago. Despite my previous inclinations to avoid this game altogether, curiosity got the better of me and I jumped into a queue. At 1.9 GB, I figure there was about 3 CDs worth of data to be downloaded. I would never have guessed that at the end of it all I would be trying to convince myself of reasons not to buy the game, or its expansion due in October.

the unseen guest: E3 2004

E3 2004 turned out pretty good, but I'm not completely depressed for not being able to attend for reasons stated earlier. There is a certain sweetness to Guild Wars' gameplay, something that made me forget about not being able to witness the spectacle of the Nintendo Press conference, or playtest many of my anticipated games of this year. There was something for everyone it seemed: the hardware everyone wanted to see, the hardware everyone wanted to hate, games making yet another appearance and a pretty big surprise (but not really if you think about it). And then there was the big announcement from Sega that left everyone scratching their heads. (isn't everyone tired of The Matrix yet?)

I hate always having to make this disclaimer, but remember that this shit you're reading is just yours truly making a record of their gaming travels. I don't ever make the mistake that what I say is important, insightful, comprehensive, fair, balanced - you get the picture. The following, then, is a list of games and technology that stuck out in my mind as being particularly interesting - don't confuse this list for being some sort of "best of show", because not all of it was that great. Even though I wasn't there, a small part of my soul was thanks to the magic of the Internet.

impressions: Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles

Crystal Chronicles is a game that most gamers were watching with great interest, whether they wanted to play it or not. Since jumping ship to create Final Fantasy games for the Playstation, Square has been reluctant to develop for Nintendo's home console. And Crystal Chronicles was to be a very large undertaking, with its departure from the traditional turn-based combat system, asking players to make a significant investment for the controls, and all the while promising an engaging multiplayer adventure. And with many reviewers crying foul after seeing their own hype backfiring in their face, is the game actually worth playing?

I'm going to delay delivering my assessment to recount a bit of an anecdote surrounding recent Valentimes [sic] Day. That's when we picked up our reserved copy of Crystal Chronicles, you see. Ever since The Wife gained access to my GBA after I moved in, she occasionally played Metroid Fusion or WarioWare. She became interested in the idea of actually owning her own, and with Crystal Chronicles on the way I happily obliged knowing the multiplayer requirements. What better way to celebrate Valentimes [sic] Day, than with a Fire Red GBA-SP and Crystal Chronicles?

After connecting our respective Gameboys and starting a multiplayer adventure, I figured it would all be fairly straightforward, because seriously, who reads the instruction manual any more? Console games are usually self-revealing. After a solid half-hour getting used to the GBA/GC interface controls, we were on our way. Crystal Chronicles features some of the most beautiful visuals I've ever seen in a game. Leave it to the Gamecube, though, because that's exactly what I said about Metroid Prime. The Game Designers Studio has managed to convince me once again why I own this console. The music, put simply, is moving. I was emotionally stirred after viewing the opening movie, which served as ample introduction to the adventure to come.

During the first half hour of actual play I was absolutely livid, because I was almost certain that I had a terrible game on my hands. The controls felt awkward, the action lists were too complicated to modify while under attack, and the Crystal Chalice did not make me feel like we were in control of the action. But after our first boss battle I realized the truth. Wielding devastating spell combo attacks, coordinating our healing efforts and eventually killing the first boss monster brought me back to the days of Diablo, where only a coordinated assault guarantees victory. The Multiplayer adventure is where this game's design really shines, and should be the only reason you purchase this game.

I know exactly why reviewers had such a hard time with Crystal Chronicles. It forces you to stick together, share inventory items and spells and explicitly binds you by teamwork. What these people failed to understand – and Tycho nailed on the head – is that the game isn't meant to be convenient. Teamwork is an essential – nay, mandatory - component of gameplay. If you're expecting to breeze through it on single player and enjoy the same experience, you're absolutely wrong. You need to play this with other people; to fully understand the concepts behind the game it is essential. The single player option was thrown in so that players wouldn't feel obligated to buy a GBA, and is completely devoid of excitement. So you get a moogle companion to carry the Chalice - big deal. The game becomes little more than a more polished version of something like Dark Alliance.

Inventory management is completely discrete – it's all contained on the many pages of information accessed on the GBA. There's no need to pause the whole game just so someone can put on their Ruby Earrings. Randomized map, treasure, and enemy radars forces communication between players, as does the mandatory carrying of the Crystal Chalice. The game took a lot of flak for the Chalice concept, but I didn't find it annoying at all. In fact I found that whoever had the map was the best person to carry it, and even if you're attacked you automatically drop it.

The game may not share the turn-based combat of previous Final Fantasy games, but the environment and characters are saturated with it. The real-time combat is one of the main things that turned players away from this game; it didn't "feel" like a Final Fantasy adventure. I would love for more Final Fantasy games to share this visual style, though. I am more at home with the soft looking, child-like characters of FFTA and FFCC than the androgynized brooding male leads of recent Final Fantasy games. It's getting ridiculous, and I think having these characters present in Crystal Chronicles helps evoke the atmosphere of innocence and wonder, instead of making you feel uncomfortable playing a male who spends as much time in front of the mirror as his female counterpart.

I found the GBA-GCN connector cable was a little flaky at times, as we had to restart our GBAs more than once during play because they would freeze up. Luckily this wouldn't affect the game, though – Crystal Chronicles just waits to reconnect with the GBA. Unfortunately if you're in the middle of a boss battle and all players are resetting their GBAs you'll probably die before the link is restored.

After every dungeon you return to the world map and have the option to save your progress. There aren't many spots where it autosaves, so rather than making dangerous assumptions that it might save after a pivotal cutscene you're better off saving right off the main map. As many of the critics have noted, you lose your spells and magical abilities every time you leave a dungeon, only having to re-collect spell spheres when you enter a new one. You also must go right through to the end – there's no clearing an area, exiting and saving like we tried. Once you beat the area's boss then it's safe to save your progress and move on. There are multiple slots that will store different characters, so theoretically you could jump into an existing multiplayer adventure with newly created characters. As an added bonus, you can bring your memory card and GBA over to a friend's place and load up your existing character for an adventure.

Crystal Chronicles is not a conventional console game. It marks Square's triumphant return to Nintendo's home console lineup, and reminds us that going online is not necessarily the solution for a truly captivating multiplayer experience. I wouldn't call the game's execution perfect; the story is a loosely bound explanation for leaving your home village, and the mysterious miasma enveloping the land is not beyond reproach as the sole reason for the party to stay together (why not because they like each other?). You may still be thinking to yourself that this is a clever marketing strategy to get people to spend more money on Nintendo products, and in some respects you might be right. But I honestly can't see this game working in any other fashion. The combination of beautiful visuals, a superb soundtrack, and completely practical control scheme make me think that it was worth the wait. Maybe it's not a spectacular RPG, but it will at least be remembered for its willingness to see past the perceived boundaries of multiplayer console gaming.

Coming in 2002! 2003! 2004!

The number of slipped release dates seem to increase every year. In fact, I'd like to point out that World of Warcraft, having been previewed after its Fall 2001 announcement will finally be released this summer. I love the PC games industry: a truly magical place where they take the phrase "When it's done," and fucking run with it.

World of Warcraft

I'm happy that it will at least come out this year. I've said before that this would be the one that would get me into MMORPGs finally. A pre-alpha build of the game was leaked late last year, but the Beta test (which I signed up for) continued on as scheduled. So as far as I'm concerned the June 2004 launch date is a done deal. And the rumoured $10 US per month would be entirely reasonable, when you look at what Blizzard can do for the online gaming community for free.

Thief: Deadly Shadows

The game has taken a lot of flak from fans regarding the third person view, and have all but resigned to the fact that it will be another console port. The new engine looks fantastic, and I don't doubt the gameplay we have come to love in the series will be present. But I am also fairly certain there will be provisions made in the game to accomodate XBox players, and this may prove fatal to the game's reception on the PC. I'm still looking forward to it though. Garrett leaps from the shadows in May.

Unreal Tournament 2004

Remember this one? I was pretty sure back then that it would be out by the end of the year. You might have tried the Beta Demo by now, which was fairly impressive. The graphics are as sweet as ever, but being a seasoned UT2003 player there were no improvments made to the engine. Instead Epic was too busy creating some fantastic maps, and a brand-new mode of play called Onslaught. Onslaught will be the reason people buy this game. The construction and control of power nodes, vehicles and multiple spawn points draw more than one comparison to Battlefield 1942, but the controls are even more arcade-like. Those looking for a tank-on-tank deathmatch will be disappointed. The demo's included Assault map where you're defending a moving convoy displays real creativity in level design for this game. UT2004 will ship in March in two flavours: a six-CD regular version, and a special two DVD set that includes a short "making of" documentary.

DOOM III

After massive hype, delays, and some curious monster design decisions, the game seems to be shaping up quite well. A lot of people will tell you DOOM pioneered multiplayer gaming, and first-person shooters as a genre. It's possible that this version of the revered classic will be genre-defining as well, but somehow I doubt it. id Software has always been about coding a spectacular engine first, and building a story second. Expect to see some great games based on the engine in the next couple of years. The game is expected to ship by June, but it will probably be closer to mid-summer.

Half Life 2

The code theft, the constantly shifting release dates, and the promises of the developers with respect to the Source engine all seem to be changing daily. Gabe Newell and the folks at Valve break down some details about the engine here and here, but they divulge no actual release date. It could be anywhere from Spring to late Fall. After hearing that the game would be available as a paid download through Steam, it struck me as a bit weird that the author of Bit Torrent was recently hired by Valve. Perhaps Steam won't be up to handling the loads upon the game's release? In any case, as a fan of the original, I expect nothing less than a spellbinding single-player campaign and a flexible engine for modders to work on.

stay on target: gaming hit list for 2004

For the most part, making lists about games that are supposed to come out shouldn't be common practice. Especially when the industry is so unpredictable with the ever increasing number of slipped deadlines. I've read too many magazines and web sites over the years where the same game appears on these lists two, even three years in a row. But I think the majority of game commentators have given up on Duke Nukem Forever by now, as it's hard to take a developer seriously when they haven't doled out so much as a screenshot in three years. I'm mostly putting together this list out of necessity, because it seems a lot of great games coming out this year are being overshadowed by 2003's most anticipated titles: Doom III and Half Life 2. And don't worry, I'll get to those after. The standard caveat also applies - this list is not meant to be platform-complete, just a reflection of my personal picks for this year.

more or less, a year in popular media reviewed

A little late on the retrospective bandwagon, I know. But I've been compiling this list since early November, in the hopes that I might form it into a coherent post. As noted in my 2003 gaming wrap-up, there weren't too many major occurances on the PC gaming front beyond the brazen theft of the Half Life 2 source code, which effectively delayed it for another six months, and now we're hearing Summer 2004. And then there's the disappointing delay of numerous other big-name releases - but I'll get to those in my picks of 2004.

My primary source of entertainment is gaming, but I do manage to take in the occasional movie when I feel like forking over $26 to sit in the eardrum-popping machine or "movie theatre", behind a bunch of noisy kids or clueless adults. And the few music CDs that I do buy are usually ones I've researched or highly recommended by friends, so I did my fair share of borrowing from people last year. I figure I'll start with the bad stuff, because it can only get better from there, right?

gaming in 2003: the year's best

I wanted so desperately to add Metroid Prime to my personal Game of the Year list, but as it came out late 2002 I've kind of missed the boat on that one. I spent a lot of time trying to work my way through the game's many challenges over my holidays, and it never fails to surprise. And with Metroid: Zero Mission and possibly even Metroid Prime 2 on the way, I will be extremely happy in 2004. With that blatant Metroid-worship out of the way, it's time to get to the obligatory year-end round-up for gaming in 2003.

Since I now possess three gaming platforms, selecting something that is deserving of the "Game of the Year" title is that much more difficult. It used to be that I would casually make up my own lists for the PC by genre and then compare it to each media outlet's results when the time came. This year, though, I must carefully select the top games considering each platform I own to form one mighty list of games. Despite knowing that people may actually read my reviews and actually consider them, the intention of this list is that if you take away one thing from my site it will be these selections. I will then pompously proclaim my chosen overall "Game of the Year 2003". Note that this list is in no way intended to be comprehensive or inclusive, because I haven't played everything and I don't own all the consoles. These are simply one gamer's opinions and the comments section is wide open for anyone else's views. And I just got my Gamecube in October so no bitching about me not including The Wind Waker. I realize that it's quite good and I fully intend on adding it to my collection eventually. So let's get down to it, shall we?

Gamecube Impressions Part V: Mario Kart: Double Dash!!

It's hard to take anything gamespy says seriously anymore, let alone read it at all. Their own arrogance and lazyness have made them irrelevant, and even though they're usually the first to review a new game I can't honestly name anyone who considers them a trusted source. Not like gamespot is any better, with their ads slapping you in the mouth every couple of minutes to make sure you know that what you're reading isn't free. But at least they don't pull any exclusive shit just so that people will visit their site every once in a while. In their latest efforts to shock gamers, a recent "Spy/Counterspy" alleged that Nintendo has lost their knack for originality by releasing slightly different versions of past titles. The case in point was obviously Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, and seeing as how the game is all but placed on the pedestal of best of 2003, I'd hardly think that it's a result of Nintendo being comfortable. Moreover, the award of multiple Golden Joysticks to some of Nintendo's titles released this year shows that they still have the ability to create an engaging experience. In the business of games - especially consoles, where their typical audience has the attention span of a goldfish - you need to put out those types of titles to bring in new gamers that may have otherwise turned an eye away from your console. I would have hardly considered a Gamecube on the sole basis of say, Viewtiful Joe, but show me screens of F-Zero GX or Metroid Prime and I'm right up against the glass. It should also say something that during the Thanksgiving weekend south of the border, Nintendo has reached #1 in console sales. The reasons have been mentioned before, but again I am very happy for them.

As promised, I'm going to try and string together a few sentences to describe my experiences with Mario Kart: Double Dash!!. The day we got it, both of us were grinning and wide eyed. It was a great looking game, it was colorful (a typical characteristic of Mario games), the controls were dead simple, and of course the tried and true Kart racing gameplay was all there. But this time, you get to bring a friend.

The addition of "co-pilots" for each kart was a great gameplay decision, because it opens up a cooperative approach to the Grand Prix. Victory can be shared by both people, even when one isn't that great of a driver, because they'll be the ones lobbing shells and banana peels at your opponents. Of course if you decide to play versus the AI or Human opponents, you'll have control over your accompanying character. You can throw either forward or backward, and although you can't see anything behind you (a rear view would have been nice) it's pretty obivous when someone is trying to overtake you.

The kart designs are fun and clearly represent their intended drivers. As with Mario Golf, character size has the most impact on Kart performance. The small characters will only be able to drive the light karts, which will accelerate faster but have a low top speed. At the opposite end, the big characters like Bowser and Wario will only be able to drive the heavy karts, which tend to go a lot faster but have poor acceleration. The game supplies some highly impressive visuals in this respect. All the characters are smooth looking and well animated, right down to the rear character shifting their weight when you make turns. There are more karts and characters that are unlockable through winning the Grand Prix on each difficulty level.

The power-ups shouldn't be unfamiliar to fans of the SNES original, however Double Dash gives each character their own special power up. My personal favorites, the Koopas, can carry three shells at once, providing extra ammunition to secure first place. The most entertaining is the Chomp Chain, which is Baby Mario/Baby Luigi's special ability. I remember seeing this thing in Link's Awakening. It's a giant, barking, sharp-toothed ball on a chain that spins out all opponents in front of you while giving an added boost by pulling your cart. Another great feature is the ability to "steal" powerups. If you bump into an opponent on the road, your partner will automatically reach out and steal any powerups they are carrying.

One thing I noticed while getting used to the controls is that I couldn't seem to press the “Jump” button that was so handy to get over barriers or take shortcuts in the SNES version. Quickly scanning the game manual I found that there isn't a jump button; you can't jump at all in Double Dash. After playing through all of the Championships numerous times, I can't really say that it's a necessary thing. But when some of the track shortcuts require a Mushroom boost for you to leap a chasm or risk falling to your doom, I begin to miss the ability to jump.

Battle mode is probably the most disappointing part of the game. Being weaned on the excellent SNES version, I was expecting larger, track-style arenas - not cage matches. The areas are too small and it's far too easy to win both the "Shine Thief" and "Balloon Battle" modes. Even the way the balloons are oriented - floating above each kart - are a pale imitation of the 16-bit predecessor, where they rotated around the bumper.

Completing all the main Championships at 100cc unlocks the Special Cup, which in my humble opinion is the best set of tracks in the game. Wario Colliseum, Dino Dino Jungle, Bowser's Castle and Rainbow Road - the names smack of Nintendo's usual sillyness but I assure you their designs are ingenious, and shockingly similar to F-Zero GX's. Maybe it's just me playing too much F-Zero GX, but they definitely had the same feel. No track barriers, and an ample amount of corkscrews, powerslides and gravity-defying turns for your kart.

As I said before, the feeling I get after playing Double Dash can be compared to meeting up with an old friend and not having anything to talk about except the past. Yeah, those were good times, weren't they Mario? This is by no means a bad game; the level of quality and polish upon which Nintendo prides itself is clearly present. However beyond going through each Grand Prix there really isn't much to it. If you own a Gamecube, you can do no harm by purchasing Double Dash; even in comparison to other so called "kart racers" it stands apart.

Lucky for me, a friend that works at EB hooked me up with a copy of Double Dash with the Bonus Disc. I never really expected to get much from the disc; happily I was surprised at what was included. The Star Wars: Rebel Strike demo had a foot mission where you dodge lumbering AT-ATs on the plains of Hoth armed only with a blaster pistol, which was most likely the opening level of the game. I found myself wandering around aimlessly in the third person, asking myself "that's it?" repeatedly. Not exactly the way you get people to buy your game. The minigames included from Mario Party 5 were fun, and it would make a great investment for some fluffy multiplayer action. Sonic Heroes looks great; Sonic Team has successfully recreated the thrilling speeds that were first experienced in Sonic's first adventure on the Genesis. Controlling three characters at once and having to stop to use their special abilities makes the gameplay a bit choppy, though. But I was won over by the smooth camera panning when my three-person team separated at the bottom of a series separate loops to run around them individually. It's one of many slick effects, and aside from the awkward controls I'm pretty much sold on this game. The Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles movie made me want to weep. How could I have underestimated this game? Even The Wife approved. It's pretty obvious from recent posts that this is on my watch list for 2004, and could be next year's Wind Waker - the reason people buy a Gamecube. It's never too late.

straight over a cliff and into the sea

Gamecube Impressions Part IV: Metroid Prime

It's hard to collect my thoughts about this game. On one hand, I'm a devout PC gamer who believes that a FPS should be played with a keyboard and mouse. But as I've noted before I was proven very wrong in the case of Metroid Prime. And when I say wrong, I mean I had the fucking scales lifted from my eyes by Retro Studios.

Gamecube Impressions Part III: Soul Calibur II

According to industry analysts, console sales have peaked and it will all be downhill from here. I'm sure we will see many attempts by Sony, MSFT and Nintendo to get our Holiday dollar, so now is definitely a good time to buy. With announcements for the next generation of consoles to be flying around in 2004 you'll probably have at least a year's worth of play in it. In my opinion it was a very smart move for Nintendo to lower their prices in the Fall as kind of a "last gasp" attempt to move units before heading into the holiday season. I'm also willing to bet that the people that bought a 'cube on the sole basis of it being accessibly priced are quite happy with their purchase, myself included. Nintendo sent out a very glowing press release regarding their successes with the lowered Gamecube price: they managed to sell 254,000 units in October. That's quite a hefty number, but looking at it realistically these are most likely purchases made by people who already own a PS2, Xbox or PC and are just getting a second console. Still, it's good for Nintendo and any developers that were shying away from the platform. Some other figures were released this week regarding console software sales, adding support to my arguments about the success of the GBA. The #1 and 2 spots for the GBA were held by Super Mario Bros. 3 - a remake of a thirteen year old game! - and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I should also note that Soul Calibur II continues to be a big seller for the Gamecube, which I plan on discussing today.

Gamecube Impressions Part II: Mario Golf - Toadstool Tour

Nintendo formally announced the unveiling of a new console next year in an attempt to bolster sales for the company (thanks to evil avatar for the link), but where and when this will be we still don't know. This isn't exactly news, as I noted a similar announcement back in August that was the definition of vague. At least now we know it will definitely be a new console, and most gamers are speculating that it will be a portable to combat Sony's PSP. Although the Gamecube is a fine console, it's pretty obvious that Nintendo is being kept afloat from sales of the GBA-SP regardless of the price drops (see the recent discussion). Until now they've been pretty comfortable in the handheld market so I'm looking forward to see what they have to offer. And much to many a Nintendo fan's disappointment we won't be seeing any unveilings at E3 2004.

Gamecube Impressions Part I: F-Zero GX

Thus begins a mini-series where I recount the two-and-a-half week romance with our new bundle of joy. The Gamecube is the last of its kind: a stand-alone, dedicated gaming console. I mean Nintendo never messed around with DVD movie playback, and why should they have? Any gamer's household will already have a dedicated player. Perhaps their choice to go with proprietary media may have been a hasty one, as it doesn't allow the flexibility for backwards-compatibility like PS2 owners have enjoyed, and Xbox owners will probably see in the future.

In recent months the Gamecube seems to be