Everybody Dies

Another extended absence, another post somewhere else. I've done next to no gaming in the last two months, but I made time for Introversion's DEFCON: Everybody Dies for nostalgia's sake. See, WarGames is probably the only movie that got computers right in making them incredibly cumbersome and boring. There are no 3D interfaces or flashy animations when you check your email. Well, unless you're using a Mac and have no attention span. I was suprised by DEFCON, but not because the game was actually good compared to Darwinia. It's a game that asks some important questions of the player, and does a chillingly effective job of simulating modern warfare compared with any low-level first person shooter. My article at The Cultural Gutter explains.

GameSetWatch: Platforming on the PC: A Brief History

After an extended absence, I’m posting at GameSetWatch again. Writing about Abuse had me looking back to the early 1990s and the excessive number of platforming titles released by Apogee and Epic MegaGames, so I decided to put together a brief history of the trend. While I only touched upon Jazz Jackrabbit 2, I expect to be revisiting the game in its own column, as I still believe it is one of the finest 2D platformers ever made.

Keep Playing, It Might Get Better

I often questioned my motivations for making my way through the entirety of Prey. I knew it was awful the moment I stepped through the asshole - so why did I keep playing? Was it to write a complete and fair review? Was it because I had been waiting along with everyone else for the last eleven years? Motivations for playing a game can vary from genuine interest to just wanting to kill some time. But what about playing a bad game? Is that reserved for the masochist, the same person who spends time reading bad weblogs? My latest article at the Cultural Gutter tries to explain.

GameSetWatch: Abuse: The Lost Shooter

Another retro feature at GameSetWatch, this time looking at cult classic Abuse and its place in PC gaming history.

as seen in PC Gamer's review of The DaVinci Code

In the September issue, Kristen Salvatore writes about the adventure game adaptation of the film:

I confess that I'm something of a literature snob, so it isn't easy for me to admit I enjoyed a mainstream book like The Da Vinci Code - I love that it's rooted in factual historical mysteries unlocked with factual historical information.

Except that it isn't. I guess it was wrong to assume that Brown's detractors had actively slagged both the book and the film enough over the past three months to get people to start thinking clearly, pointing out that the basis for most of his novel was either entirely fiction or a pseudo-historical text that had been written simply to support some religious crackpot theory. But factual? Come on, a literature snob would have at least done a little casual research before making a statement like that.

GameSetWatch: Remembering The Fate of Atlantis

Today my first column for "Keyboard Bashing" went live, which is a new regular feature at GameSetWatch. I decided to add to their existing collection of retro features by examining my favorite game of all time.

From this point forward I'll be contributing there every two weeks or so, covering topics related to PC games both old and new.

Prey: don't fear the reaper

But make no mistake, Prey is a long way off. "Sometime in '98" were the exact words of the developers. - from Gamespot's 1997 preview

Prey is late, but the gaming press has been oddly forgiving. Originally announced in 1995 and intended to be 3D Realms' follow-up to Duke Nukem 3D, it has seen a very troubled development cycle. It may not have promised to make us its bitch, but I would have expected a lot more than an overly-simplistic shooter that lets you turn into a ghost to walk through forcefields and takes less than eight hours to complete. The reviews may not be outright favorable, but the game receives a passing grade because it may just be the only big-ticket title released at a time when new games are a rare occurence. It also manages to make the most of the Doom 3 engine, even though the end result bears more than a passing resemblance to the other two games to use the engine. I expected a lot more analysis of a game that's taken over 10 years to materialize.

Note: this review tells you what happens in the game. If that doesn't bother you, go ahead and keep reading.

Click. Kill. Reward.

I love (love?) Titan Quest. I am still playing Titan Quest. While the quests are not randomized and the areas not re-constructed between playthroughs like Diablo II, I still gain enjoyment from the basest desire to collect a coordinated set of gear and a weapon that does massive amounts of damage. This bait to keep playing is also what drives every single MMORPG. It's a predictable, well-worn formula that has remained the same since the days of Rogue and Nethack. Why does it still work? This month's article at The Cultural Gutter assesses this unhealthy fascination with clicking a mouse.

rise of Angmar

EA announced yesterday the upcoming first expansion to The Battle for Middle Earth II, called Rise of the Witch-King. And while I think the Witch-King is undoubtedly the most pointy and fearsome-looking character in the films to be killed by a woman, I am not sure he deserves his own game. In fact, I'd be quite happy if EA simply supplied us with some new skirmish maps for free on the official site like Blizzard does with Starcraft and Warcraft III. But that's not how the games industry usually works.

With access to the entire Lord of the Rings canon, EA has elected to adapt The Witch-King's ascent to power in the North in Angmar as a new "Evil" single player campaign. The subsequent war that is waged against Men, Dwarves and Elves to eradicate the Dunedain presence in the North provides an appropriate bridge with the campaigns in the main game. Though what I'd like to see is an accompanying Good campaign that culminates in the Battle of Fornost, where the forces of Angmar are defeated.

Amongst hyperbolic descriptors like "the ultimate RTS Middle-earth experience" and "innovative new units" in the press release, improvments will purportedly be made to the shortcomings in War of the Ring mode, which I described in my review. Upgraded army persistence, additional siege options and "unified territories that serve as major control points" are some of the additions to this game mode. I'll speculate that "unified territories" implies some kind of Resource point or even free unit bonus to an army, as it follows that a combined frontal assault would be more devastating than attacking from satellite territories. But I'd settle for adding back unit veterancy and persistence between the strategy map and battle map.

I can't say that the new faction is inspiring; anyone could have added spikes to generic looking medieval structures. How about taking advantage of the ominous appearance of Minas Morgul seen in the films? The "new" units are equally unimpressive.

I consider The Battle for Middle Earth II the greatest game of 2006, but I almost wish they would just leave the game alone. It hasn't even been six months since the original game's release! But this is an incredibly unrealistic sentiment, because I know very well that this is just the beginning of another multi-part franchise that will offer the bare minimum to its supporters while exploiting the most esoteric details of Tolkien's beloved mythos.

Valve is the new Blizzard

In a collective wank heard around the world, the new look for Team Fortress 2 and a trailer for Portal were fawned upon by the gaming masses. Never mind the impending release of Half Life 2: Episode Two that they are being packaged with. The visual style of Team Fortress 2 is certainly original - nobody wants another edgy, hardcore war simulator that seems to be all the rage lately. But what continues to astonish me is how selective the memory of the gaming press is when it comes to long promised, often delayed titles. Team Fortress 2 has been in development since 1999. Meanwhile, industry whipping boys like Duke Nukem Forever are dragged out at every possible opportunity.

My initial reaction to Portal was less cynical; in fact, I remember uttering "holy living fuck" at least once during the presentation. But then I realized that Portal is just an elaborate way of telling us that "noclip" is turned on by default. Nevertheless, the "portal gun" is the new gravity gun, which will no doubt bring its own assortment of followers in the years to come.

Alien Shooter 2: an alloy?

Recently, there have been more complaints lodged against the game criticism community by developers. Apparently these so-called "journalists" don't finish games before assessing their quality.

I am about to describe a game after exactly eight minutes of playing it. Because that's all I was allowed in the time-locked demo of Alien Shooter 2. Though I did have some help from the official site:

This is the unique alloy of arcade action and RPG elements which combines well-established world of classical games and unmatched dynamics of the first part.

Have you ever asked someone a simple question, and in response received an answer that goes into so much terrible detail that the question itself becomes irrelevant to the entire conversation? Sometimes a developer has to know when to leave things alone. In the case of Alien Shooter 2, Sigma Team couldn't stop talking.

Titan Quest: it is massive

Apparently I was wrong about Dungeon Siege II; there are still studios out there willing to shamelessly crib from Blizzard's Diablo II design documents. This makes Titan Quest an easy target for criticism. And as much as I enjoy criticizing failed attempts at recapturing Diablo II, I really think Titan Quest has finally done it. There is a suitable storyline that is not overbearing. There are piles of unique looking monsters and a variety of magic weapons to kill them with. There is the unstoppable desire to click on things. Titan Quest appears to get everything right. If only Iron Lore had similarly aspired to attain Blizzard's level of polish, it might have been one of the best games of the year.

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?

Shadowgrounds: another alien shooter

To appreciate Shadowgrounds, you have to ignore the story . Like any other arcade-styled shooter (or your typical run and gun FPS for that matter), the story should be of no consequence next to the action. To its detriment, Shadowgrounds tries to emphasize the story. And like Doom 3, a game that has influenced it in many ways, it has fallen victim to that mistake.

X-Men: The Official Game: The Review

X-Men: The Official Game makes an attempt at tying together the events after X-Men United and The Last Stand where you actually get to find out what happens to Nightcrawler. I was fully prepared to write an overbearing examination of why multiplatform games frustratingly insist on low-res menus and keyboard-only input for their PC counterparts. I was going to complain about how after 10 years of 3D platforming there are still a bunch of assclowns out there who can't get a camera right. I would have been sure to demean the bad art in the still cutscenes that only work in a game like Thief that has style to match. I usually take pleasure in disassembling such disposable entertainment as this, but the inadequate collection of moves spread across three playable characters combined with the infuriating controls serve as an excruciating reminder that it's nothing more than a movie tie-in.

The Battle for Middle Earth II: Return of the Kings of RTS

I'm tempted to call The Battle for Middle Earth II the best game I've played so far this year. I have yet to experience a game that has gripped me past completing the satisfying single-player campaigns to the point where I look forward to settling down into a nice skirmish, if only to build a fortress and assemble a glorious army. Or perhaps it was the incredible War of the Ring mode, which allows players to wage war on the entirety of Middle Earth and change the outcome of the Third Age. The Battle for Middle Earth II captures the spirit of The Lord of the Rings the way the original game did not. As much style as The Battle for Middle Earth had, it felt like you were given the means to engage in a massive campaign, but the world beyond the borders of the film's story were blocked by glass walls. It was frustratingly limited, but in its own way still managed to contribute to the genre. The Battle for Middle Earth II is the game its predecessor should have been. It has built upon the first game's foundations and created classic real time strategy, rendered to compliment Peter Jackson's celebrated films and the literary work that inspired them.

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.

another crusade, but this time it's burning

I'm going to feign surprise at Blizzard's recent announcement of the Draenei as the Alliance race for The Burning Crusade expansion due later this year. Details of the expansion - unofficial, of course - were available almost immediately after the initial announcement last October. I can't say I've gained any more appreciation for the idea.

Let's get the cosmetic stuff out of the way: the new races are boring. The Blood Elves simply look like re-skinned Night Elves. Though I find it interesting that a "pretty" race was added to the ranks of the generally nasty-looking Horde. I'm sure this will cause an influx of new Horde players to try the new Spellbreaker class, which up to this point seems to be only available to the Blood Elves. The Draenei look like a cross between Hellboy and the Twi'leks from the Star Wars universe, sharing their overall soft appearance with the Night Elves. They certainly look friendly enough to be an Alliance race. But no new class for them. Judging from the race's ability to wield Holy Magic I can see Paladin, Preist, Warrior and Mage being available.

A new profession will be offered: Jewelcrafting. It follows, then, that socketed weapons and armour will now be part of loot drops and Blacksmith recipes. I get the feeling that Diablo II really was their model for the simplistic, action-oriented gameplay. This is a good addition for those that want to customize their gear without having to level up any crafting skills to the point where they actually produce useful items. I'm assuming of course that socketed items and gems will be readily available to all players of the expansion. It will be interesting to see how this feature is handled for people without the expansion, because there is no doubt there will be a high demand for these materials at the Auction House.

The expansion also adds a new area: Outland. Formerly the Orcish homeworld of Draenor, it has since been ravaged by the Burning Legion. Being able to explore the floating remains of this planet seems like a cool concept, but it sounds way too much like Everquest II's Kingdom of Sky. Flying mounts are also made available in Outland, but I question the decision to limit them to Outland despite their immediate practicality in this new wasteland. It seems kind of pointless when more content is being added to the core game; why not allow players to explore it on their flying mounts? It's probably just another case of keeping the expansion pack owners separate from the rest of the players, a tactic used in Star Wars Galaxies for their own flying expansion. But at least SWG had an excuse: you can only fly in space. I could buy a ship and go anywhere in the galaxy without having to buy transport tickets. Blizzard is basically telling me that I still have to pay for griffin rides when I own a flying mount.

The Burning Crusade certainly expands the content of the existing game by adding new areas to explore, quests and instances to raid. However, I don't see it addressing the fundamental problem with the endgame that requires so much time and effort to gain any measurable benefit from. The additional 10 levels seem arbitrary when you consider what's involved in getting through them. It essentially propagates the idea that high level players not involved with raids or guilds must start yet another alt or gain the next 10 levels through grinding instances in pick up groups. I know there will be many people that buy this expansion the day it comes out, but are they really that desperate for more of the same? I had hopes that this expansion would be alluring enough to make me want to play the game again, but it seems like Blizzard is continuing its construction of another Everquest.

Rise of Legends: conquering a world of fantasy

Rise of Nations was one of my favorite games to be released in 2003. Taking familiar aspects of the Civilization series and creating a highly playable real-time version was a true accomplishment. It also helped make the overall strategic map more accessible to RTS gamers, a feature that may have been intimidating when presented with the depth and relative complexity of the Total War series. When I heard that Big Huge Games was using a completely new fictional setting for Rise of Legends, I have to admit I was apprehensive. I expected them to capitilize on Rise of Nations' success by fine tuning it and selling it as a sequel, a tactic not uncommon in the industry (see Empire Earth). After playing the demo, I am relieved that Big Huge Games have not lost sight of what made their first game so universally appealing. Though I am also a little disappointed, because the demo is a good indicator of what the final product will be like, exposing the limited extent of their vision for the franchise.

the dark crusade

There were a number of rumours earlier this year about a second expansion for Dawn of War, and some details were confirmed this week by the source. The new playable races introduced in Dark Crusade are the evil Necrons and the honorable Tau - two obvious choices, I suppose, given that they've used up every other race. Except for the Tyranids, who I thought were clearly ripe for exploitation. The game is in need of a truly alien organic race, something that doesn't involve mechanical units and building block-like structures.

The promotional trailer hints at some of the Necron's uniqueness in the way that newly built troops rise from the sands, emulating the ascent from their stasis tombs below the planet's surface. Gamespot's preview also adds some particulars to the ambiguous "meta map" that was referenced in Relic's press release. It's a logical addition to the game, and seems to be the way most RTS titles are going . The ability to play through "Planetary Conquest" mode as any race certainly adds some depth to the single player experience, but in a game as action-focused as Dawn of War is it even necessary?

Waging war on a large scale was made popular in real-time strategy by Shogun: Total War, and has since been adopted by Rise of Nations and The Battle for Middle Earth. However, in the latter the benefits always seem to be the same: get more territory, get more resource, eventually pushing your opponents right off the map. They aren't true Empire Building games when you get past the concept; it becomes a board game. There's no management of colonies, corrupt governors, spies, taxes, unhappy citizens - all things that are well covered by Rome: Total War and Civilization III (since simplified by the latest installment). I'd love to see the Civilization series be taken a step further into resolving real-time battles. The concepts are there, they've just been executed in different forms. Would it be really that hard to implement in a single game?

Regardless, I anticipate the new story campaign in Dark Crusade, and it's good to see the addition of such disparate races from the current five. As enjoyable as Winter Assault was, I felt Relic were simply repeating themselves with the Imperial Guard's campaign - they felt too similar to the Space Marines (the inclusion of an Evil campaign helped offset this, however). My only concern is that by increasing the scope of the game with the new "meta map", they lose sight of what made the original concept so endearing: its focus on up-close-and-personal, fast paced, visceral frontline RTS combat. Comparisons to Starcraft were prevalent in Dawn of War's first days - I'm finally starting to see why.

tribal trouble

Most of my game time lately has been dedicated to real time strategy, in an effort to gather material for what will likely be another article. After playing Darwinia, I tried out another 2005 IGF award nominee: Tribal Trouble. Though to compare the two would be unfair; where Darwinia is too self-conscious about smashing genre conventions, Tribal Trouble is more of a real time strategy game in the traditional sense. As a result, Tribal Trouble comes off as a considerably more playable game. Even if it is a little too straightforward.

Tribal Trouble uses a fully 3D engine, and the game's minimalist interface adopts enough genre standards to keep the learning curve quite low. The principle of the game is simple enough: you are either the Natives or the Vikings fighting for the control of a series of tropical islands. Battles are fought over small expanses of land, and the bases are almost always close together. Missions will involve rescuing fellow Natives/Vikings, killing off the opposing faction's chief or destroying their base. The unit models are exaggerated and cartoon-like, dovetailing with the game's playful theme.

The game itself isn't very revolutionary, but I was drawn to the subtle innovations it introduced to base building and army creation. The first structure that has to be built is the Quarters, which produces more of the standard Peon unit. The cool thing is that once I selected the structure to build, the peons I started the map with dash off to begin cutting down trees and recovering the materials to build it. The Armory is the next structure that is required, which creates weapons and trains warriors. Though you don't create "new" warrior units, you simply train existing peons to become warriors, and equip them with constructed weapons. But there's no explicit resource collection required. The Armory menu allows you to select the amounts of materials you want to collect, the types of weapons you want to build and the types of warrior units you want to train. All materials are collected automatically, as long as you have peons to do the work. The trick early on in the game is to keep building a pool of peons who will be collecting materials, and have an amount left over to create warrior units. As long as the Quarters is still standing and there are a few peons inside, you will continue to receive peon units. It's a very streamlined system, and allows you to focus on the action at hand.

Since the island maps are so small, it's often a fight for resources at the beginning of the game. Once you've built up enough of an assault force, you send them over to the enemy base to attack. Indeed, the strategy is overly simplistic, but it offers enough of a challenge in the way that you're constantly balancing resource collection, warrior training and launching attacks with the same pool of resources.

Tribal trouble may not break any new ground, but there's still something to be said about the unpretentious gameplay that's offered. Especially when compared with big-budget RTS titles that can easily be reduced to the same principles of total annihilation.

"It's hedgerows."

Last weekend we had a LAN party at Colin's place. It's been almost one and a half years since the last gathering I organized and participated in, which is a strong indicator of the time people have on the weekends to dedicate entirely to gaming. Of course there's the whole "make time for your hobby" defense, but tell that to someone who's married and juggling families and/or care of their kids. It's not easy. It's no wonder MMORPGs and other online-only games are so popular - you can play with others at your leisure, and not have to worry about the hassle of moving your computer (only to find out it won't boot).

The original plan was to play Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2, with SWAT 4 available to those who were interested in experiencing the slow, methodical action within. There was an open challenge in Dawn of War to anyone who dared to confront my deadly Eldar strategy, but that never happened. After about two hours of technical problems - including the wholesale replacement of Tony's computer - we were absorbed by the fast and furious action of Unreal Tournament 2004. That only lasted a couple of hours, though. After everyone had installed Call of Duty 2, it became the one game we would play for the rest of the night.

As I noted in my review, I was disappointed at the lack of any real improvements over its predecessor aside from technical ones. Nevertheless, the one thing I hated most about the single-player experience made multiplayer a much more satisfying experience.

The ability to regenerate health by taking cover seemed like such a mistake in a World War II shooter, and cheapened the whole experience for me. However in multiplayer, the lack of a health bar makes you think differently about how you approach the action. You're no longer fighting against script-controlled bots, you're fighting against humans who can follow you into that hiding space and finish the job. Running headlong into a firefight will always result in death. In fact, I don't remember a single time where I was able to regenerate my health due to the constant barrage of gunfire from all directions (and campers on their comfortable perches). The firefights were often chaotic and only separated by the time it took for people to find you. Call of Duty 2 made me dread being the one holding the enemy flag.

Where UT2004 relied on reflexes, often resulting in a frustrating number of deaths for the inexperienced, Call of Duty 2 was a little more flexible in the way it relies just as much on positioning. The weapons in UT2004 are deadly accurate, and a straight line of sight between you and your opponent was usually enough to score a kill with the right weapon. Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, adopts a more "realistic" approach to gunplay, and there is a noticable drop in accuracy in many of the weapons the farther away you got. This meant that spraying down an area with your Thompson or MP40 might only wound your opponent, whereas the slow-loading rifles would guarantee a shot - if you could set it up properly. Running and shooting a rifle rarely worked. I wouldn't call this implementation of WW2 combat as genuine as Day of Defeat's, but it was pretty close. Kneeling would provide more accuracy, as would using the ironsights instead of the aiming reticle. I learned to loathe the trench-clearing gun, essentially a shotgun to be used by the unskilled.

All of these elements combined made the victories in Call of Duty 2 a lot more gratifying; the matches weren't the tornadoes of rockets and translocators of UT2004. But it wasn't a "thinking" FPS experience, either, because the strategies were still mostly about running and shooting. Perhaps it was not knowing when you'd be dealt the killing shot, by sniper or by sidearm in your quest to retrieve the flag. Coupled with the time delay for respawns, it made player deaths actually mean something in a team-based encounter, knowing that you'd be unavailable for precious seconds instead of immediately dropping back into the arena. The gameplay was tense, riveting and prone to inducing bouts of foul language. It was fucking fun.

revisiting: Age of Empires III

I originally set out to review Age of Empires III with regard to its application of history, because quite frankly the mechanics behind the game hadn't changed much and the beautifully detailed graphics were nothing more than a smokescreen to obscure the shortcomings of the game beneath. Taking a period of time ripe with concepts that could be exploited for making an RTS with a deep economic system seemed so obvious. And yet Age of Empires III turned out nothing like that.

My disdain for the storyline in the single-player campaign and selective use of historical elements is covered in my review; there's no need to reopen old wounds. Instead I want to focus on what could have been done to make Age of Empires III better. I don't expect Ensemble to read this, but I wanted to get these thoughts down as a reminder to myself of why it was such a disappointment.

the stetchkov syndicate

The third mission in SWAT 4: The Stetchkov Syndicate is a perfectly clear example what the game is all about: decision making under pressure. The mission puts you in charge of defusing a hostage situation involving a group of armed maniacs that stormed an auditorium intent on ridding the world of devil-worshipping rock stars. I had approached the stage from the rear with Blue Team backing me up, only to see that one of the perpetrators had taken a band member by gunpoint. I had Red Team come through another entrance to gas the backstage area, but this had no effect. On a catwalk above the stage, another gunman who spotted the standoff opened fire on me and my team. Blue Team returned the fire, killing him - this startled the man with the hostage. My team and I urged the man to surrender. Clearly aggravated, he turned to what he felt was his only option: he shot his hostage and ran offstage. An innocent dies, and a mission fails. SWAT 4 puts a lot of power in your hands as the player. The control of two fire teams to assist in neutralizing hostiles and the arsenal of high-powered automatic weapons to do it with; the ability to preserve life and the power to take it.

teaching the value of human life

Once again I'm exploring SWAT 4, a game that is in need of more attention than it ever got in the year since its release. This time it's in the context of one of the most powerful choices the game offers players: do you take the life of a criminal or do you subdue them? Do you run the risk of killing your entire team because you assumed the last gunman would give himself up? It's an essential part of the strategy presented in SWAT 4 and its recent expansion, and this feature is unfortunately drowned out by the game's more marketable contemporaries. This month's article at The Cultural Gutter reveals why some games don't teach killing, but how it can be avoided.

what I'm really playing

That list in the sidebar is kind of a ruse. I mostly pick up Metroid Prime: Hunters for multiplayer battles (which I generally lose). I've finished the first two of a paltry seven new missions in the SWAT 4 expansion. I keep telling myself I'm trying to savor the flavor. I've all but given up on Star Wars: Empire at War, because what I thought was a brilliant design concept has since become unmanageable late in the Rebellion campaign. F.E.A.R. is there like a candle I hold for the day when I can get a better computer, or at the very least a video card that's able to do the heavy lifting. Which happened a lot sooner than I thought, no thanks to the deafening hype surrounding Oblivion.

So I currently divide my game time between Age of Empires III, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War and its Winter Assault expansion.

Firstly: Why Age of Empires III? It's not like I enjoyed myself while playing it. Well, maybe I did once I started ignoring the idiotic story. I've now moved on to fighting the game's unpredictable/stupid/cheating AI in skirmish mode, leveling up my home cities and building shipment card decks. I think the game's disrespect for historical fidelity and eight year old gameplay has instilled in me a brand of indignation that won't be satisfied until I determine exactly what went wrong with the game and how it could have been improved. I fully intend to share these findings.

About halfway through the Rebellion campaign in Empire at War, the initial novelty of the experience wore off and I was able to see more clearly. The engine used for the ground battles was actually pretty ugly when zoomed in. And I only felt confident that I would win a ground battle if I had entire legions of reinforcements waiting in orbit, because the tide of battle tended to turn very quickly once Imperial vehicles became involved. So it didn't really feel like strategy. More like the management of armed forces. This has been done better.

At that point I decided to reinstall Dawn of War, a game I knew radiated the frenetic and visceral nature of frontline combat. I also used it as an excuse to check out the expansion released last year. I didn't bother with the painfully short single player campaign; I went straight to skirmish mode. With the ground-based combat of Empire at War fresh in my mind I immediately noticed a few things: the battles had multiple, logical outcomes like complete annihilation or simply controlling points on the map; the combat was constantly in a fluid state and there were no breaks to reinforce units; and most importantly, the battles were almost always fast. The trouble with RTS is that it's so focused on resource gathering that you end up fighting battles of attrition against your opponent: you attack, lose a few units, your opponent attacks and they lose a few. The armies regroup and the entire process begins again. In Dawn of War, you'd better have a strategy in place before you begin taking those control points, because you can lose ground as quickly as you've gained it. Dawn of War captured the essence of being a field commander. It deals in the currency of territory and strategic points. It has distanced itself from the economics of most RTS games, and revealed what is possible if combat was given precedence over the acquisition of arbitrary materials.

darwinia: perceived brilliance

I wanted to like Darwinia.

I wanted to be able to support independent games that use the incredibly convenient and industry-shattering product distribution model that is Steam. I wanted to immerse myself in a world that was obviously crafted by game designers with their own vision of a well-worn genre. I wanted to fall in love with the abstract shapes and minimalist environments that cleverly integrate an extremely simple, but involving gameplay mechanic. However, as every pessimistic gamer knows, hype is hard to live up to. In fact, when the game is the recipient of the grand prize at the Independent Games Festival, it can be downright antagonizing.

rediscovering Atlantis

In preparation for an article I'm writing, I played through Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis again over the weekend. I make a point of replaying this game at least once a year anyway, because I consider it the best game I've ever played and I want to make sure I'm not just deluding myself with foggy memories and nostalgia. There are a few things I picked up on this time around, because I was looking at it from a more critical perspective as opposed to someone setting out to simply enjoy the game. If you've never played Fate of Atlantis but plan on doing so, stop reading. I consider the following list spoiler-heavy.

choose your fate

When people get excited for a game like Oblivion, it gives me hope. It's a single-player RPG released during a period of RPG development where if it's not massively multiplayer, it's not important. It'd be like a step backwards, right? Last year wasn't a great year for games overall, but it was also pretty poor for RPGs. Even I spent most of 2005 binging on World of Warcraft, dragging myself away from it long enough to play through Dungeon Siege II. Which incidentally, has been named best (only?) RPG of 2005 by many media outlets. What struck me as noteworthy was that Wild Tangent's FATE was named runner-up to PC Gamer's RPG of the Year. The same year where the genre was obliterated by a single MMORPG kept out of the running only because it was released in 2004. Granted it's quite the feat to receive that much attention as an independently published title, but that doesn't mean it's a good game.

After playing the three dungeon level demo last year, I wrote FATE off as a clone of Darkstone rather than lazily comparing it to Diablo. The distinction being that it was a clone of a clone, boiling out everything that made its inspiration interesting. My initial impressions were correct after adventuring through seventeen more levels, though now I have more to say about it.

is it Age of Civilizations, now?

Ensemble Studios announced the first expansion for last year's disappointing Age of Empires III this week, adding three Native American* civilizations to the game that can "expand their empire and fight for control of the Americas." A new single player campaign will also be included, which is probably the only aspect I'm interested in given the hokey storyline that Age of Empires III's single player campaign was based on. I'd like to see some campaigns based on the Revolutionary War, and introduce a little more history into the experience. Though I'd definitely settle for a Native uprising to take back their land from the European invaders.

Given the structure of the original game, the addition of playable Native American civilizations in the expansion is a bit odd. In Age of Empires III, Natives were limited to small villages on each map, where installing a trading post was enough to gain their allegiance and be able to build Native units to aid your civilization's battle for supremacy. So for the sake of game balance, will the new Native civs be befriending other natives? Or will there be a role reversal in the creation of new Native-based maps where the trading posts are actually Eurpeans offering weapons and supplies? The announcement for the expansion lists the Iroquois Confederation as one of the playable civilizations, which eventually became what we now know as the Six Nations in North America. Are they included because they are considered more technologically/socially advanced than the other Native cultures that inhabited the Americas? The Civilization series always had Native civilizations as playable, but in those games we are dealing with possible futures as well as history. We were never dealing in the context of a specific timeline.

Age of Empires II and The Conquerors expansion simply covered a time period in history, and as such Ensemble were able to add different civilizations and associated campaigns with little effort. Age of Empires III is about the conquest of the New World - a fascinating setting - but it is generally limited in its scope. We are dealing with a finite number of European nations that settled in the Americas seeking to conquer those lands. Not to mention the whole Home City game mechanic: how will it work with the Native civilizations? Will it be based on a generally accepted "core area" where each respective Native culture started? It's a bit far fetched when you consider that the majority of Native peoples were nomadic. It seems to me that Age of Empires III had set the constraints quite clearly, and by adding in these new playable civilizations the game drifts farther into the realm of fantasy. Which is fine, if that's where Ensemble intends for the series to go.

Regardless of these criticisms, I still can't deny how beautiful the game is; the exceptionally detailed buildings and units coupled with the game's gorgeous painted artwork make it one of the most visually stunning games I've ever played.

*Note: When I use this term, I mean Native to North and South America. I am fully aware that the United States of America is not the centre of the New World, despite what the game may be trying to say.

massive update to Star Wars Galaxies admits defeat

I still hold fast to my belief that Star Wars Galaxies was the best MMORPG I've ever played. Looking back through past writings, it read like an emotional rollercoaster where my fondness for the game fluctuated drastically over a short period. Through five months of playing, I was exposed to an incredible variety of roleplaying experiences, high-level monster hunts, and taking part in producing average-level goods for the game world's economy. I was quick to dismiss the Jump to Lightspeed expansion as the first nail in the game's coffin, because the mechanics of the land and space-based portions of the game felt so disparate. I didn't want a twitch shooter, I wanted an extension of my adventures planetside. Though in hindsight the "X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter" model is probably the only way it could have been done in such a small timeframe. Three expansions later Star Wars Galaxies has changed dramatically, to the point that players started leaving in droves.

evolving virtual worlds

In hindsight, David Sirlin's seemingly harsh remarks about what World of Warcraft offers the MMORPG scene could be considered flame bait - they certainly caused enough of a stir within the games community. I think the important point he brings to the discussion is the insistence of the current game model to reward players based on time spent in the game. Based on my own experiences in World of Warcraft, it was often infuriating to watch friends who had more time to spend gaming accelerate through the game, participating in high level instances that I could never hope to be a part of. As a result I was forced to play solo - definitely not a bad thing - but still feeling like I was missing out on something. While pure exploration is always a worthy pursuit, the game should be able to be experienced by all participants - not necessarily the ones willing to spend the most time staring blankly into their monitors.

Sirlin's article prompted a thoughtful list from Raph Koster, which in his words was more of a lament of the state of MMORPGs than a bona fide response. I think the most fascinating aspect of this list is that is speaks as much about the gamers than the games themselves (see: "Staring at someone who is talking the politest thing you can do. Because the only other option is to not look at them at all.")

There is an ongoing conversation at Terra Nova about this list. Ignoring the attack and defense of SOE and Koster, I think the antagonist in the discussion brings up an excellent point:

From this point on Talent will be one of the biggest determining factors in the success of any given MMORPG. When you see a screenshot from WoW you know it’s WoW. When you see a screenshot from Eve Online you know it’s Eve Online. When you see a screenshot from Chronicles of Spellborn you know it’s Chronicles of Spellborn. You can’t create the artistic talent reflected in those games with polygons, pixel count, or realism. You can’t replace the musical talent in those games with a movie soundtrack. You can’t substitute the depth and beauty of the lore created for these games with player created events. In order for a MMORPG to be a true success it has to have genuinely talented and inspiring artists working together to bring it to life – just like in any other artistic endeavor.

The first thing I noticed when I joined the beta of World of Warcraft were the incredibly unique environments. I was able to ignore the low poly character models and drawn-on shadows, because this game had style. The limited amount of background established by the Warcraft series had been fleshed out to make you feel like you were living amongst a contintent-spanning conflict. While I enjoyed Star Wars Galaxies immensely (before it was irreversibly changed into another Everquest), I tend to agree that it suffered from a lack of a definable style. To be given such a powerful license and still not manage to convey what made the movies so magical did irreperable damage to the game's reputation. And placing immediately accessible, famous NPCs into the revamped version is no substitute. There's nothing unique about World of Warcraft's gameplay - in fact, before I cancelled the gameplay had become mind-numbingly tedious. But that never stopped me from exploring, because there was no shortage of skillfully constructed atmosphere to take in.

I'm all for changing the current play model for modern MMORPGs; Star Wars Galaxies gave me a taste of what was possible. But first and foremost, I want to be entertained.

return of Alien Shooter

It's been over a year since I first played Sigma Team's Alien Shooter, an excellent arcade shooter that blurred the lines between shoot 'em up, FPS hallway crawlers and isometric clickfest RPGs.

Sigma Team has since released an informal sequel of sorts, Theseus: Return of the Hero. In it you play Theseus, a lone warrior that crash lands onto the surface of Earth only to find that it has been overrun by the same aliens seen in Alien Shooter. What I want to know is, just where is he returning from? Is this indeed the Greek hero of old? The question just begged to be asked.

Immediately noticeable are the game environments. No longer are you limited to the gray corridors of a research facility teeming with nasty aliens; you are instead transported to a Western-styled post-apocolyptic wasteland, complete with dual six-guns and a suitably twangy soundtrack.

Though I knew something was funny when I saw "Powered by Alien Shooter" on the title screen. Apart from the different objectives and open yet strangely corridor-driven outdoor areas, this seems like a repackaging of Alien Shooter. The monsters are the same, and what's worse, there are less weapons available! Was the intent of Theseus to develop the storyline in the Alien Shooter universe from another perspective? Had the alien creatures escaped from the research lab, despite my best efforts to trap them inside the structure with thousands of packets of dynamite? Why am I asking these questions about a simple arcade shooter? It doesn't matter; I want Alien Shooter 2.

the battle for middle earth rages on

I confess that I needlessly short-changed The Battle for Middle Earth last year, as it was simply one more real time strategy title during a period where anything less than an immediately gripping concept wouldn't warrant a second look. After numerous recommendations I decided to give the game a chance, despite its prevalent ties to another diluted movie license. I was surprised to find that in trying hard to shake its movie license stigma, The Battle for Middle Earth managed to emerge as a satisfying entry in the genre.

Call of Duty 2: Scripting the Battlefields of World War II

As someone who did everything short of rubbing myself with the box for Call of Duty, my opinions about about what the war shooter genre should be aiming for were dramatically changed after playing Brothers in Arms: The Road to Hill 30 last year. With sequels to both games hitting stores at around the same time last Fall, I made a point of checking out Call of Duty 2 to see if Infinity Ward was adding anything to their award-winning formula. Regrettably, I got the distinct feeling that it was a step backwards when contrasted against my experiences with Brothers in Arms. Or perhaps more accurately, Call of Duty 2 is simply running on the spot.

A Just War

What is the allure of the World War 2 shooter, exactly? As someone who's unapologetic about supporting this genre, it's a topic I enjoy exploring. You know, instead of just sitting around and complaining about how many were released last week (and by the way, that joke never gets old). Obviously there's something about them that resonates with gamer culture, though I'm sure with casual gamers to a greater degree as they are only exposed to the ones that get the most hype. And developers still manage to come up with new ideas for interactive war experiences, because they keep selling. An article I wrote over at The Cultural Gutter attempts to coalesce some of these thoughts.

Also, from this point on I'll be supplying material once a month for the video games section at the Gutter. Though I don't expect this to affect anything around here.

Day of Defeat

So I finally got to play Day of Defeat after almost 5 years.

I never really got into the mod scene for Half Life when it was out - Counter Strike was as far as I ventured into that territory, and after experiencing that for a while it was almost enough to turn me off of multiplayer FPS forever. You had to keep playing to maintain your skills; it was impossible to keep up.

The long overdue update to the original Day of Defeat mod came out late last year to very little fanfare. I think the launch of Half Life 2 Deathmatch (a free multiplayer add-on) got more attention because of the ability to use the Gravity Gun. This past weekend, Valve opened up Day of Defeat: Source to try for free. I think this pissed off a lot of veteran DoD players.

"Yay, we lost again."
"Fucking freebies…"
"teh awsum!!!1"
"Stop saying that!"
"noob!"
"omg this sucks."
[Disconnected by user]

Colorful community aside, Day of Defeat: Source offers a well planned selection of maps, including noticeably different tactical options in each. Matches are won by the team who is in possession of all the control points on a map, which are represented by flags. The U.S. Army and Wehrmacht have six classes, each fairly well balanced and serving a necessary role on each team. The Machine-Gunner, for example, would never run around firing their weapon, but instead sets up near control points to act as a defense that does greater amounts of damage. One thing I noticed is Valve's attention to realism on this game: you cannot run around a fire a weapon at the same time and expect to maintain any kind of accuracy. You must kneel, go prone, or run the risk of dying when you run into a room with your Thompson or MP40 blazing. In that sense, Day of Defeat imparts a framework for those willing to develop careful strategies for offense and defense. Though in my 8 hours with the game I never once saw this happen; there was more running after frag counts or stepping into an obvious line of fire, undoubtedly a result of the overbearing ratio of new players to experienced ones.

It's only $19.95 US to buy, but for an online-only game that doesn't offer much else than standard deathmatching - well, deathmatching with the capture of control points - I'm hard pressed to think of any reason why I'd keep playing. Both the original Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2 and of course Battlefield 1942 offer the same type of play - albeit in a lighter, fluffier arcade style - and they all have the lonely option of playing with…yourself. It's something that's sorely lacking from a fast paced game such as this, where practice can make all the difference between fun and unbridled frustration.

goodbye to Azeroth

I wasn't kidding; the deed is done before my next billing cycle starts tomorrow. While it's terribly easy to cancel an account, I find it a bit unnerving to be told that by doing so I'm "making the Peon cry".

Truth be told, I probably haven't touched my main (a night elf hunter) for about two months, and haven't been the worse for wear. I simply don't have the time to spend on what is essentially just something to occupy all of my game time, when I'd rather be enjoying something, well, newer. It certainly makes writing about games a lot easier.

Before making the final decision to cancel my account, I was then presented with an animated gif of a robed figure begging for forgiveness, and the following:

The peon is full-on weeping now. We hope you're happy. Are you positive you want to deactivate your subscription?

I never got this kind of guilt trip with Star Wars Galaxies, though navigating SOE's Station Subscription site was a bit of a headache. Everyone knows that MMORPGs have addictive qualities. Some people's lives are so upended by them they seek professional help - or do nothing and lose everything. Why is Blizzard trying to make this process harder for someone who's looking to turn their life around? Though these comments may be intended as a humerous send off, I don't think the guy who lost his wife and kids to a game is laughing.

game of the year 2005: SWAT 4

SWAT 4 is a masterpiece of the tactical first-person shooter genre. It is also the best game that was released in 2005.

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.

auto assault: traversing irradiated highways

In the future, there are cars with guns. Lots of guns. There are vast, unending reaches of post-apocolyptic wasteland to explore, in varying shades of brown and grey. And sometimes it rains, making the polluted atmosphere almost tangible as your headlights attempt to penetrate the gloom. Then the mutants come, the pallor of their tainted skins reflected in your high-beams. You mow them down with machine gun fire, one by one, running over a few for good measure. But they don't die. The machine gun only does 1-2 damage. The mutants rise again after your 2 tonne vehicle just ran headlong into a crowd of them. Something isn't right here.

Welcome to Auto Assault.

there is an end, and I don't like it.

And this is why I'm cancelling before it's too late.

In the context of the article I'm definitely a "casual" player of World of Warcraft - I just don't have the time or the patience to get involved in a guild, only to serve as a single-function entity in some 30 person raid for possible drops of elite gear. Which is really only useful for more raids. Where's the adventure? Forget that, where's the roleplaying?

I like soloing. I only have to worry about myself and I can have fun for as long as I want. I also don't mind grouping with friends for a few quests here and there. There's less of an investment required in these activities. It's this point in the game where high level characters perpetuate the need for high level group raids or PvP combat that turns me away. As Jennings points out, this isn't the game I started playing, and certainly isn't the one I plan on finishing.

and it corrodes my soul

Civilization IV: standing the test of time

I am always drawn to the endless ebb and flow of creation and destruction in grand strategy games. Whether it's on a single battlefield, amongst the spires of a bustling metropolis, or across an entire planet, seeing something grow before my eyes that has been built because I commanded it to be done, is an exhilarating feeling. Civilization IV only serves to fortify my affections for the series, and the genre as a whole.

empire at war: actual galactic conquest!

Real time strategy often conjures up thoughts of base building, resource gathering and general clickery around an arbitrary map while accelerating through a technology tree. The Total War series added a much needed dimension to the experience - a macro view that provided ample support to the ground battles that would ensue in a campaign. While Rise of Nations slanted towards resource-gathering on a larger scale as well with their "Conquer the World" mode, it didn't offer the grand strategy that future titles like Rome: Total War would so skillfully display. Little did I know that a Star Wars license would be next in line to offer something that could almost be considered innovation.

Waging a war on disparate fronts seemed like a lofty design decision for Empire at War- I didn't think it could be done. In a universe where we have been given six movies' worth of evidence that wars take place planetside as well as in the vastness of space, for once a game provides a battlefield that is similarly all-encompassing.

Star Wars: Empire at War presents a battle map at the beginning of the game consisting of planets. Above each planet are orbit "slots", where ships carrying troops or space cruisers can lie in wait before attacking the planet below. Trade routes and flight paths are easily navigated by using an intuitive drag-and-drop interface. Garrisons can be constructed on planets that have been assimilated into the Empire or liberated by the Rebellion. Smugglers can infiltrate enemy planets and siphon credits to your cause. And I haven't even talked about the actual fighting yet.

If the space around a planet is occupied, a battle for control of this area will take place once you've moved your fleet into position. The battles are kind of like Homeworld, but…they're missing something. They felt flat and almost as if it was simply a land map with no real point of reference to give the impression of space. The purity of space combat was gone, but in its place I was nevertheless immediately entranced by re-enactments of the battles I had seen so many times in the films. The visuals serve their purpose, and seeing TIE fighters and X-Wings darting around like insects next to the gargantuan capital gunships gives the proper sense of scale.

Ground battles aren't particularly ground-breaking; the conventions of standard RTS dominate the experience. Though your troops can take cover to improve defence as in Dawn of War, and the addition of reinforcement points on the map allow you to drop in troops at these locations as long as you have them in orbit around the planet. Then there are the bomber squadrons that can be used to eliminate enemy structures. But once again these must be already waiting to be launched. In games past, calling in an airstrike was simply a button click away - but Empire at War clearly requires the preparation for massive-scale assaults. It ties both battlefronts together.

There is always a place for skirmishes and tank rush battles - they are fun in their own right. But I see the approach of Empire at War as the future for strategy games that possess enough scale to warrant the use of meta-strategy, since it only makes sense in a setting where the battle for supremacy is so far-reaching. Indeed, Empire at War feels like a game of galactic proportions. While each field of battle is merely sufficient on its own, as a whole they provide the scope that was needed to truly convey the menacing Imperial assaults of the films, as well as the calculated tactical strikes of the Rebellion. I fully expect to be playing a game mode that offers the entire Galaxy for the taking, one planet at a time.

despite the metal and wires

welcome to Azeroth

I consider myself off the skag that is World of Warcraft; I have had enough of a break from the game that I can view my experiences with it objectively. I've got an article over at The Cultural Gutter that is an attempt to capture the essence of what is arguably the most popular MMORPG in existence right now. With an expansion looming in the distance that tears my heart in two, and holding on hope for the last three patches that something might actually be done to deepen the experience, I consider the article a purging of that other life.

in my new pattern shirt

online gaming addiction: a new disorder?

A great article by Nick Yee explores the foundations of "Internet Addiction Disorder" (IAD) and whether it actually applies to habitual online gaming. His conclusion is that it does not, and in fact attempts to disassemble the criteria established by Kimberly Young in a 1996 study to diagnose "internet addiction" in general. I really like how he compared gaming to what our society deems as acceptable timesinks: watching TV (annoyingly passive for a gamer), playing golf every weekend or working long hours. While he makes his own share of generalizations, the crux of his argument is that this "disorder" is not new, and actually stems from underlying problems the person usually possesses like low self esteem or depression - the same approach taken to address addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling.

By calling it "online gaming addiction", the media encourages us to think that we're dealing with a very new problem…If people can develop behavioral dependencies on any activity, then why are we surprised that some people develop dependencies on online games? Why is it news? I contend it is mostly because we've always used the word "addiction" to mark out deviant social activities in a way that treats them as unique predators, as emergent problems which we've never seen before. But once we shift our framework to one of general behavioral dependencies, then we have to abandon this view. What we're seeing is actually a very old problem.

After enjoying World of Warcraft for just under a year, I contend that I drifted dangerously close to the point of what may be considered "addiction", where I actually questioned my level of involvement with the game. I never played for more than 4 hours at a time, but it was the routine of it all - nothing else seemed to matter. I needed to log in every day to check my mail to see if I won auctions, or to journey to a new area so I can get some quests off of my list. In-game social activity was minimal, which was even more disturbing. On days where there was server maintenance or I couldn't log in, I occasionally felt listless and didn't want to do anything else - not even play other games.

I can appreciate the allure of MMORPGs, because they are dynamic in the sense that there is real-time interaction between actual humans. Whether it's trading goods or joining a pickup group, even if no actual words are exchanged, it's easy to get the feeling that maybe there is more to the game than originally thought. Sadly, there isn't, and it's no replacement for real life. One of my favorite mental checks for any game is to think about what was actually accomplished after each session. What did I really have to show for the past two hours? Though don't be alarmed - this is no different than sitting in front of the TV for hours on end. I would much rather engage in a series of inconsequential quests than passively subject myself to someone else's idea of what is entertaining or exciting.

All of this also makes me wonder about the term "addiction": should we really be using it as a favorable descriptor for games? Many reviewers like to fall back on calling a game "addictive" because there really is no other way to describe an immediately absorbing brand of gameplay. But we have to be reminded that society at large views this term in a wholly negative light, and as Yee points out in his article, is associated with "deviant social activities". With gaming enthusiasts eager to have their passion recognized as an art form, perhaps it's time to start viewing the games on their individual merits instead of wedging interchangeable words into a game's qualities, which only serve to perpetuate the negative reputation of the medium in the long run.

no sinister plague will poison us

of course it's not dead you idiots

Without fail, the question "Is PC gaming dead?" is dredged up by self-proclaimed video game industry pundits every fucking year without fail. This time it's Daniel Morris, the former Editor-in-Chief of PC Gamer. And I'm tired.

I'm tired of reading the articles that ramble on about the successful sales of certain titles for whatever platform, while paying little attention to what's really happening in the industry. At least Morris rightly points out that both Valve and Electronic Arts are pushing their download service. With XBox Live and the XBox 360 moving towards more downloadable content and online play, and more multiports of traditionally PC-only titles, we are beginning to see the convergence of platforms. I have stressed this point before. PC gaming will never disappear because console gaming is destined to become PC gaming.

Of course industry mainstays like Nintendo will continue to advance the concepts of gaming, as September's announcement about the Revolution's controller sparked the most passionate debate about the future of gaming I have ever witnessed. They also unexpectedly made their mark with the Nintendo DS, convincing everyone - even pessimists like myself - that they can still innovate while providing accessible entertainment.

The Playstation 2 failed to provide an equivalent to XBox Live over its lifespan, and there is little promise being shown for the Playstation 3. Even Nintendo plans on offering a download service that would give gamers access to their classic titles of yesteryear. The thrust of this argument is that the console manufacturers are thinking about games online, because they all know that's what the market wants. Nintendo launched their WiFi service for the DS this year, and this is likely how they will provide online functionality with the Revolution. Aside from securing big-name publishers, what is Sony's plan for the Playstation 3? I am convinced that the average gamer is going to wake up any second and realize what is happening. Fancy new graphics can only carry a game so far. After playing Dawn of Sorrow I was enraged to the point of blindness that a third dimension had ever been invented.

Be reminded of the 3D engine wars from the late 90s. It's 2005 and Unreal is all but declared the winner. Then what? Does that mean we will begin to see an increase in creativity or a sudden interest in PC games? It does not. It means that PC gaming will continue to do what it has been doing forever, and that is releasing a variety of genre titles of varying quality. Just like every other platform.

Update: It appears the editing gremlins at Next Gen changed the title from "PC Gaming 2005: Not dead yet" to "PC Gaming: 2005" since the time I was first linked to the article and started writing this. Why, I wonder? Perhaps it was the "yet" that rankled a few PC gamers, or maybe the fact that there was no basis in the entire article for a solid argument against this point. A list of successful releases is not a defense!

ten hammers

Pandemic returns to the fictional country of Zekistan with Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers. Sequel to last year's Full Spectrum Warrior, the game visits the region of Tien Hamir, where rebel soldiers have taken up position around a bridge, a key strategic point for the surrounding city. While I have subjected myself to some poorly written previews, the consensus appears to be that Ten Hammers is shaping up to be an excellent sequel, with every shortcoming of its predecessor ostensibly addressed.

I considered Full Spectrum Warrior an experiment to see how gamers would adjust to a new playing style that implemented real combat tactics in an unconventional format. Though there was something almost clinical about the gameplay that may have been too hands-off for those typically interested in the war-themed shooter that puts the player in the boots of the lone gun-toting hero. Furthermore, the formulaic approach to every encounter - move Alpha team, provide covering fire, move Bravo team, provide covering fire - also contributed to the game's lukewarm reception. I enjoyed my time with the game, but there were too many gaps in the experience that made me reluctant to pay it full tribute. However I think the wargame genre is fortunate that Full Spectrum Warrior was made available at all. Once separated from the inadequate story, it successfully adapted real-world tactics that may not be exciting, but are essential for survival in modern urban warfare. I'd also like to think it established an audience for more games of its type.

In Ten Hammers, you are now able to control up to four squads made up of U.S. and "coalition" forces, including a team of snipers. Similar to Brothers in Arms, a tank will also be at your disposal, providing moving cover where necessary. A two-man sniper team was only made available at the end of Full Spectrum Warrior, but they could have easily been used for the entire game. Complementing this addition, Ten Hammers will allow you to control a single squad member - a feature that was sorely lacking in the original - to take out a particular target. The trade-off will be a momentary complete loss of cover, putting the soldier at risk. This would be indispensable in situations where an enemy has taken root behind some cover that is not easily flankable, and in Full Spectrum Warrior required a massive expenditure of bullets before launching an M203 grenade into the general area.

Once two squad members were killed in Full Spectrum Warrior, the mission ended in failure. A roster of 50 soldiers is available in Ten Hammers, insinuating that most of your squads can be killed in a mission and still be able to continue. I'd like to see the game follow the same formula as Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, though, by providing several specialized soldiers that are worth keeping alive.

Full Spectrum Warrior's multiplayer component consisted of a co-operative replay of the game's levels. The difficulty was the same, and if you've already played the game provides little in the way of a challenge. Ten Hammers now offers adversarial multiplayer combat, with some interesting balances put into place. For example, the U.S. and coalition team will possess greater firepower, but only the insurgent forces will be allowed to respawn. Though I'm not sure if this is an attempt at "added realism", or a commentary on the nature of the adversaries faced by troops in the Middle East.

The battlefield itself has also been vastly improved. Adding some stairs or the ability to scale a roof seemed like such a simple request for the original game; now you will be tasked with securing multi-level buildings. The tactical advantage is clear, but I am anxious to see this new implementation of urban combat. The enemy AI has also been improved, including random spawn points for each map. Like SWAT 4, easily one of my selections for Game of the Year, this makes each attempt of a mission challenging instead of an exercise in memorizing enemy positions.

Of note is the sequel's official trailer, which oddly uses live action recreation of a patrol in a generic looking middle-eastern town for the first two minutes, only to drift into actual game content for the last 30 seconds. It could have easily passed as a commercial for Over There, and I am once again drawn to the comparison with ongoing events in the Middle East. As someone who actively pursues the genre, I often find myself detaching the underlying commentary or weight of historical events from what is actually being offered by the game. It may sound like desensitization, but the truth of the matter is I believe the act of war is indefensible. That these games are still being made is a reflection of what our society deems as entertainment, and for now I am content to observe the evolution of the genre as it embeds itself in the gaming oeuvre.

quake 4: leftover nightmares

The opening cinematic of Quake 4 pans across the back of a lone space marine, visible against the vast openness of space. The view rotates, and I was shown the marine's face, half of which has been removed exposing the grinning skull beneath. The numerous bodies of other space marines float past the virtual camera amongst the remnants of a space cruiser, foreshadowing the bloodshed that will undoubtedly take place on the battlefields of the planet below.

review: age of empires III

Next to Brothers in Arms, Age of Empires III was one of my most anticipated titles of 2005. After seeing the preview videos that exhibited its beautiful graphics and incredible use of physics, I was expecting an RTS game to dethrone Rise of Nations. This was not the case. Instead, the game's pedigree is undermined by an incredibly trite single-player campaign that teaches you more about brute force tactics than its historical content. My full review is over at Clickable Culture.

they hunger again

I recently learned that Neil Manke, famed designer of the mods USS Darkstar and the They Hunger series of zombie-slaying mods for the original Half Life, is at work on a new mod for Source called They Hunger: Lost Souls. There are some screens up, but to be honest they don't look that different from the Ravenholm sequence in Half-Life 2. One thing I remember about They Hunger is the difficulty - like the original Resident Evil, you'd be screaming at yourself for wasting bullets while zombies continue to shamble towards you. It was also clear that Manke spent a lot of time developing a tangible feeling of dread behind his well-designed maps. In a Q&A following the new mod's official announcement, Manke assures gamers that this isn't a continuation of the trilogy, but a brand new game that takes advantage of the unique gameplay aspects that have become available by using the Source engine. It will likely be offered as a paid product through Steam, adding to the growing number of independently developed modifications for Half Life 2.

actors should never quit their day jobs

Especially when they are terrible at it.

According to a few vague quotes in interviews Jessica Alba alludes to being involved in the design of a "non-violent X-Game where you can basically create your own character". This is fucked up on so many different levels I'm having a hard time forming sentences, but I had to record this somewhere so that my future decline into a swirling vortex of insanity can be traced back to this event. Someone hurry up and name the publisher so they can be branded a leper by the gaming community for all time.

I don't even want to speculate what this mystery "extreme sport" is; I'm sure it's whatever is currently airing in between the music commercials on MTV. When you see that this is considered "extreme", can an announcement for a game based on this dexterous display of everyday housework be far behind? I'll bet an actor somewhere with a career in a tailspin is just aching to get involved.

In the 80s, we were inundated with actors that stepped away from the camera in pursuit of short-lived musical careers: David Hasselhoff, Patrick Swayze, Rick Springfield...I'm disgusted with myself that I can actually put that kind of a list together. The embarrassing displays at the Spike TV awards last year showed both actors and music industry personalities wanted a slice of the video gaming scene. Is gaming the fashionable arena for this generation's hip-with-the-times celebrities?

This isn't to say that all actors should avoid the game industry. All you have to do is look back on Escape from Butcher Bay, one of last year's movie-based games that was actually well-produced, had design input from the movie's main actor and stood tall on its own as a game. I cannot hold the same sentiment, however, for the mind-numbingly incomprehensible movie it was based on. The irony!

sort of rotten and insane

the intense clicking of evil

The more I played Dungeon Siege II, the more I came to terms with its shoddily constructed story, infuriating party limitations and repetitive clicking. Don't let that be some kind of disclaimer, however - I'll be god damned if this isn't the best time I've had with a single player action RPG in recent memory. Opinions on its quality have changed very little since my impressions of the demo; seeing the full version has only galvanized my belief that this game truly is the successor to Diablo II. You can find my full review over at Clickable Culture.

Red 5 standing by...

With the requisite Star Wars reference out of the way, GamesIndustry.biz has word that former Blizzard employees Mark Kern, William Petras, and Taewon Yun - some key figures responsible for World of Warcraft - have started their own studio, Red5. According to their website, they have been secretly working on an MMO project of their own, that will "take things in a new direction and push the limits of [their] creativity."

"Our work on World of Warcraft has really opened up people’s eyes to the potential of online gaming in huge, persistent worlds…We want to continue to shape the future of online gaming by tapping into new worldwide trends and pushing the limits of our creativity." says Kern in the studio's first press release. I think what he really means is "we can't fucking believe how many people are playing that game, and we definitely need to figure out a way to secure a slice of that action."

Let's just hope they don't plan on painting the grind in brighter, shinier colors, and offer up something that can actually be called "roleplaying". Fingers crossed, and all that.

World of Warcraft plays dress up

The options for visual customization at the character creation stage in World of Warcraft are extremely limited in comparison to Star Wars Galaxies and Everquest II. I always thought that what WoW lacked in initial customization, they made up for with the unique looking armour and weapons found in game. However as the endgame approaches, every player wants their avatar festooned with the most powerful of epic gear. Ultimately, everyone in each character class ends up looking more or less the same.

With the upcoming 1.7 patch, Blizzard intends to implement a feature called the Dressing Room, where a separate window shows your avatar wearing armour, clothing and weapons before purchasing them. This feature works regardless of the required level of the equipment, allowing you to plan your snazzy new outfit in advance. I can see this also being useful for any Soulbound items you may find that are otherwise unsellable to other players once you've worn them. Though the entire prospect of simply previewing clothing on your character seems ridiculous when compared against a system that actually allows you to customize your outfits.

Tailoring and Leatherworking are the only professions that allow the use of dyes to be used in the crafting process, but even then they're only for use in certain recipes. When I look back to the item creation system in Star Wars Galaxies, it not only allowed players to change the appearance of the item, but also experiment with the item's stats themselves. Through probability and the Engineering skill level, even lower level Artisans in Star Wars Galaxies are able to create powerful items relative to their character's level. World of Warcraft has a similar system in that the recipes you obtain when you first select a profession are usually useful for your character at that level, but the process by which the items are created is extremely stringent in comparison. Indeed, even the player-enchanted items in World of Warcraft's Auction House begin to seem repititious in light of some of the unique or rare drops you would find by simply killing monsters. The entire crafting system seems underdeveloped in this regard.

World of Warcraft has turned into a completely absorbing experience for me; this is a world I can spend hours simply wandering through, paying no heed to the tasks I may have volunteered myself for. The first time I visit a new region I take a few moments to simply observe my surroundings - sure, the monsters may have simply changed names or color, but the environments are easily the most carefully designed elements of the game. With such limited choices for building new characters, I'd like to see more effort put towards allowing players to customize their characters during the game. The social aspect of World of Warcraft is certainly part of the appeal of playing, but careful examination of the gameplay reveals a startlingly slim difference from the typical stat-pumping RPG.

I know you too well

Dungeon Siege II: a successor is named (again)

Through a mixture of flagrant opinions and glowing reviews, Diablo II has come to define the action RPG. After the recent release of the 1.11 patch I reinstalled, hoping to pull myself away from the steely grip of World of Warcraft. Playing Diablo II again reminded me of a few things that one should come to expect when playing an action RPG, creating an ideal opportunity to prepare for the Dungeon Siege II demo.

Ever since Diablo II's release five years ago, many games have tried to claim its mantle. In the past I've named Divine Divinity, Dungeon Siege, Guild Wars and World of Warcraft as successors to the game until Blizzard sees fit to revisit the world of Sanctuary. Even Wild Tangent's Fate has been recently compared to the elegant simplicity of Diablo II, but for me it plays more like a clone of Darkstone than a true homage.

Dungeon Siege II is probably the closest anyone's come to duplicating the Diablo II experience. Overbearing story aside, every single gameplay mechanic is intact - complete with the waves of monsters intent on your destruction.

Maybe it's nostalgia, but I remember Dungeon Siege having fairly impressive visuals. Dungeon Siege II seems to have taken a downturn, or at least assumed that we wouldn't notice a significant advancement of their three-year-old engine. Character models and environments appear meager in comparison to Neverwinter Nights. While the expansive canopy of trees in the demo's first mission can be impressive, it gets to be distracting when you're trying to click on the swarms of monsters heading in your direction. Thankfully, the original game's camera system is still in place. I also liked that the automap actually follows you this time, complete with auto rotation. I can't even describe how livid I was at having to determine what direction I was going on Dungeon Siege's static maps.

When Gas Powered Games said you would have more control over your character in Dungeon Siege II, they came through with their promise. In addition to leveling one of the four main skills through use (Melee, Ranged, Combat Magic or Nature Magic), you gain points to spend on "specialties" for each of those skills. Specialties are passive abilities that add bonuses to your character's attacks such as improved fire spell damage, or more accurate shots from ranged weapons. On top of that, these passive skills contribute to what Powers your character can use. Powers are a unique twist - they're one-off abilities that are separate from your mana pool, but take time to recharge. My fire mage gained a Power called "Flame Nexus" early on, which does a great amount of damage - but is indiscriminate in its sphere of casting.

The "Kill-Reward" philosophy is alive and well in Dungeon Siege II, and for the most part that's the only reason I kept playing. The story is absolutely horrid, and the voice acting does little to alleviate its hollowness. Though this could hardly be considered a weakness, as both the original Dungeon Siege and Diablo II focused very little on developing the backdrop for your quests, and instead stressed the need to level up and get more powerful gear to take on The Big Boss Monster. The truth is, this meta-concept didn't matter during play - it was always about one more level, one more quest, one more chapter - the act of clicking itself became an addiction of sorts. I'd say the biggest problem I have with playing Dungeon Siege II is that you must click every spot you want your party to go. This is infinitely annoying during the many retreats I had to make from its intimidating larger monsters.

I think what impressed me the most about this demo is the amount of gameplay included - there's enough in there for anyone unsure of delving into the final product to make an educated decision. It's very clear that Gas Powered Games has gone through great lengths to try and duplicate the experience of Diablo II; that it should come five years after the fact is probably a testament to Blizzard's original design. That Dungeon Siege II should succeed in doing so is an indicator of its own quality, and I fully intend to be playing the full version when it hits next week.

fresh blood through tired skin

PC gaming on the DS

A strategy I never anticipated for the DS was to host a series of PC ports. I should probably call them "re-imaginings", though, because an initial inspection of Age of Empires DS reveals only a passing resemblance to its forebear. The game has been turned into a turn based strategy title, with battles looking like something out of Advance Wars as opposed to the RTS classics of yesteryear.

Strategy First followed this up with news that turn based franchises Disciples and Jagged Alliance would be available for the DS as well. Along with Age of Wonders, Disciples helped re-galvanize the weakened state of turn-based fantasy epics and secured a position in my catalogue of PC favorites.

On a similar note, Paradox announced last month that their turn-based Europa Universalis II would be available for the DS sometime in 2006, with seemingly little visual modifications.

Nintendo has always been known to capitalize on past successes, as any Gamecube or Gameboy Advance owner can tell you. Instead of simply re-releasing old games, however, developers will be taking advantage of the DS's interface. The buttons coupled with a stylus will attempt to mimic the mouse and keyboard, the PC gamer's requisite control scheme. With two screens at a player's disposal to display information, I can see these titles succeeding in concept, though what remains of the gameplay will be the ultimate deciding factor.

The trend continues in homespun ports, with agile programmers utilizing a growing number of DS development tools to get SCUMMVM running on the DS. I've only seen photos of The Secret of Monkey Island running - but that's enough to get the gears turning. I've said before that Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is easily one of my favorite games of all time; to think that I would be able to play it on the DS has me considering the purchase of a wireless network card to interface with my DS.

Based on my experiences with Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, the first person shooter is another genre that has the potential to broaden the DS's library. Case in point: Heretic DS. Forget for a moment that Heretic was a feeble attempt to recapture the success of Doom. The programmer responsible for the port has not only managed to get the game to run with both screens in operation, it appears that he has essentially copied the design concept of Metroid Prime Hunters. Do not think for a moment that the lack of an analog control stick somehow cripples the DS. When you realize that the touchscreen is an extension of the control pad the potential for this platform becomes perfectly clear.

he hands the drill to his son

spellweaving

A game that was curiously missing from E3 was Mad Doc's Spellweaver. According to a small article in the May 2005 issue of Computer Games, Spellweaver is an RPG that uses voice recognition to cast spells and issue party commands. To me this feels like a natural progression of the genre. Instead of being satisfied with the impersonal click of an icon or execution of a macro, uttering the words themselves should add an entirely new dimension to the gameplay. Unless you're self conscious or something.

This kind of player interfacing was attempted with Konami's Lifeline last year. The game put you in control of the main character's escape from some kind of space station, using only your voice to guide her out of each encounter. It resulted in critical indifference or players screaming at their televisions in response to the poorly implemented design. Arx Fatalis took a different approach to spellcasting with their mouse-stroke system, allowing players to at least "feel" like they're casting a spell.

Mad Doc Software intends to push this interaction even further. Spells are cast by uttering simple, phonetic words in combination. Because the words have no basis in the English language, it makes it a lot easier to localize the game. Not to mention adds to the fantasy of the situation. You will also be able to issue voice commands to the party, though given the success rate of most RPG/RTS pathfinding this may just be adding another layer of complexity. I'm also wondering how chaotic it will be to verbally issue commands to your party even if the game is paused.

The question I have is about gauging spell success. What happens if you mispronounce the words, get them in the wrong order, or take too long to speak them? I would like to see some kind of backfire effect. Immediate feedback adds immersion to this feature, instead of merely limiting it to a selling point. In the end, Mad Doc says that the speech commands will be optional, making me think this is just a way of apologizing in advance if the voice recognition doesn't work.

Spellweaver will actually be the first game to use the Dungeon Siege II engine, a game whose own release has been delayed a number of times and at last check is due this August. I'll likely be watching for both.

I have this vision of the growing demographic of obese gamers, lazing around like Jabba the Hutt defining their thumbs and/or suffering the early stages of Carpal Tunnel syndrome. Having voice controlled gameplay may seem exciting at first, but no movement is required. I'd hardly call barking into a microphone a workout. What happens to reflexes? In FPS games, that's all it takes, really. I wonder how well a voice-activated FPS would work? Could this style of play be adapted to other genres? RTS games are also an ideal candidate, as I could easily see myself giving commands like "Build two farms" or "Four peons go mine copper". Combat could be similarly simplified: "One squad of firebats and two squads of marines assault enemy base. Five siege tanks flank missile silos." This is now entering the realm of the true desktop general. Suddenly I think of Ender's Game and picture a massive army directed by children entrusted with saving the human race.

you squeal and you squelch

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?

Hellgate opened

Putting aside all nostalgia surrounding LucasArts adventures, Diablo II is the best game I have ever played. Including the expansion, I was completely enveloped in its womb of kill-reward gameplay for about 2 years, caring little to interact with humans on Battle.Net and instead opting to grind my way to a complete set of Sigon's Complete Steel. Blizzard North effectively established the model for action RPGs, and the only thing that's come close since is probably World of Warcraft. Or maybe Guild Wars, if it wasn't so...instanced. When Bill Roper announced the creation of Flagship Studios, which was to be made up of a number of ex-Blizzard North developers, I was intrigued. Soon after, Namco was named as publisher of their first project, known only as an RPG. All eyes turned to Flagship. Would someone finally get a Diablo clone right?

One of the reasons for forming Flagship was that Roper was tired of Diablo. I don't blame the guy; aside from a much bigger game, and better items, they weren't really challenged to develop anything beyond the original game's basic concepts. Enter Hellgate: London, Flagship's mystery RPG that according to Flagship's Erich Schaefer, will "blaze a new trail and not simply create clones of our past successes." Sounds like a great idea. I'm always up for a little innovation.

Except.

I saw the screens, and I became immediately terrified. Not because they were scary, either. I saw a clone of Doom 3. Doom 3 was criticized for it's very bland monster design, and I see it here. Even the story has hints of the same: a portal to Hell (Hellgate!) opens in London (London?), a subsequent demon invasion, and then the human race sends out a one man army for damage control. It's getting ridiculous.

Where Flagship is careful to make the distinction, though, are the randomized items and maps that will supposedly increase the replay value. This "item centric" gameplay will encourage the player to collect new weapons and equipment to outfit themselves against the demon horde, though I find it hard to believe this is a selling feature in 2005. The weapons themselves are also being described as "spell delivery systems" as opposed to "guns" in the traditional FPS sense. And being an RPG, Hellgate: London will take into account player and weapon stats, with a small part being played by actual player skill. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines did this with firearms, but combat was more of a distraction than a core part of the game. The excellent story and character interaction were why I kept playing. It doesn't sound like Hellgate is offering the same, but there is a significant amount of questing that will move gameplay along so I'll reserve my judgement on that point.

The randomized levels are also a bit peculiar. Why? Is it a carry-over from the Diablo days, where critics praised the notion of never adventuring into the same dungeon twice? I can't see how this method of level creation will support continuous gameplay. The graphics engine was apparently created in-house, and when you're dealing with 3D there will naturally be loading screens. Part of what made Diablo II so easy to play for hours at a time was that gameplay wasn't broken up by the game loading the next area.

The character classes are also touted as being fully customizable, but there isn't nearly enough information on that now (ie. number, types, etc.). Compared against other FPSRPGs like Deus Ex or Morrowind, expectations naturally run pretty high. Character customization and development will be what makes this game worth playing, because I care little about shooting demons after playing Doom 3.

I'm seeing a lot of information out there now that follows the standard PR fluff routine in preparation for E3. A few screens, a few vague details about what the game is about, and hints of a fully playable version on the exhibit floor. That's all well and good for Flagship, because I doubt I'm the only one that was curious to see what they were up to. That being said I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of loss. It's great that Flagship are trying something different, because in today's gaming market that doesn't usually get you very far unless you've got a track record or hot property to back it up. Sure, I can support a little innovation, but part of me wanted that isometric clickfest.

like my first time that I caught fire

Batallion: Advance Wars for PC

Batallion: Head 2 Head can only be described as Advance Wars recreated using Flash. As long as you can get past the overly simplistic art and effects, the gameplay is basically identical. There's no software to install - the only prerequisite is signing up for a free account.

Once you sign into the game you'll be dropped into a lobby similar to Gunbound. Waiting for an opponent to challenge isn't necessary, however, since you can create your own game and add in AI opponents depending on the size of the map. This is good for practice, or, like me, you lack the patience to put up with half-witted humans. Though I quickly found out the latter wasn't that much of a problem - there simply aren't that many people playing Batallion. I think there were five players at one time waiting for games to be started up, and perhaps 14 games ongoing.

Where developers Urban Squall hope to make money is on the sale of Premium Memberships, which gives access to new units and allows players to create and upload maps. It also allows players to participate in "Squad Wars", which seem to be an implementation of a guild ranking system. Winning ranked games will give your squad "Net Worth" which can in turn be used to buy medals that add unit type attack bonuses in game. Net Worth can also be purchased with actual money, and gained for referring friends that sign up to play the game. This completely eliminates the notion that players sporting a full breast of medals are actually skilled. Nevertheless, this referral program serves as a clever device to get people interested in the game, effectively growing the player base.

Even though registration is free, having to log in to a game I see myself playing exclusively single player next to it's anemic online community seems like an unnecessary step. While the convenience of having the ability to access simple and addictive games without the installation of software has worked for services like PopCap, they at least offer the alternative of downloading a fully functional version that can be played locally. The purity of Advance Wars' turn based strategy is fully realized in Batallion, but it lacks a sizable community to make the game engaging enough to play online.

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.

trial of the isle

I never thought I would see the day where a company like SOE would issue a completely stand-alone demo of an MMORPG that's only been out for four months. That's what you get in Everquest II: Trial of the Isle, a 16 MB client and close to 24 hours worth of updates. Now that World of Warcraft has reached 1.5 millions users worldwide, Everquest II is looking pretty meek in comparison - even next to its predecessor. It's also quite telling that Everquest II is now selling for about $39.99 CDN, while World of Warcraft is still at its launch price of $59.99-69.99. I thought I would give Everquest II the benefit of the doubt with this seven day trial, and try and get an idea about what it was offering. In a couple of words: not much.

vivendi scrapes off tribes vengeance

I can't say I've put much emotional investment into the Tribes franchise, but when I heard that Vivendi Universal had cancelled the forthcoming patch for Tribes: Vengeance, and effectively dropped all support for the game, I was a bit troubled. After surfing the community forum I found out that some poor sap in marketing had actually told everyone that the patch was being worked on only a couple of days earlier. Needless to say this pissed a few people off.

While I wasn't that impressed with what the demo had to offer, this is no way for a game to die after only six months of shelf time. The "Tribes" brand is a landmark in online gaming, and a move like this completely ruins its possible future, both for the fans and as a profitable series. There was much negativity in the responses to the cancellation, the most prominent (and predictable) being the boycott of all Vivendi Universal products. The more passionate but level headed complained that this game shouldn't have been released in the first place, as it wasn't even fit to be called "Tribes". I agree for the most part, because it felt too much like a modification for Unreal Tournament. Tribes was never known for its fast paced, close quarters battles and lone wolf style gameplay.

Shortly after the news of the patch cancellation, the development team behind Renegades, a Tribes modification, announced they would be leaving the Tribes: Vengeance engine behind and joining forces with the Legends team, who have designed a "Tribes-like" game based on the Torque engine that was used for Tribes 2. In this regard, the "unofficial" future of Tribes is in the hands of some dedicated fans, perhaps at the price of falling into obscurity.

speaking of roleplaying events

The Matrix Online beta ended with a crash this week, as users were treated to a complete breakdown of the Matrix. A massive agent assault, spontaneously combusting player characters, and instant deaths were all experienced by players in the beta's final hours. As with the gesture towards Galaxies players, using the universe to convey such a simple act of shutting down the beta program made it seem almost worth looking into.

It was an open beta, and despite my comments I would have liked to give The Matrix Online a try. According to some quick impressions at Render, the feel of the movies was captured, but without any real content to fill out the rest of the package. The combat system is probably at the crux of the entire game, because after seeing the films everyone wants to know Kung Fu. Suprisingly, hand to hand combat shows actual connecting blows, instead of the familiar "wave your arm/weapon in the enemy's general direction". But what about classes? That's one thing I wanted to uncover for myself, because for a game that's steeped in environments similar to real life, what skill archetypes are used to differentiate players? Is everyone aiming to be The One? Player motivation is really unclear in the Matrix Online. I would find it hard to accept if the entire purpose is to run around hacking computers or beating up other NPCs, because we've already seen how much more is going on beyond the Matrix itself (not to mention the thought of paying a monthly fee for a fighting game). A story arc involving the universe's deeper elements would do a lot to push gameplay in a more absorbing direction.

the sound of many enraged...wookiees

The Star Wars Galaxies expansion pack I alluded to the other day is called Rage of the Wookiees. A mild surprise, to be sure, but that's probably because I was expecting something a little more...exciting. Then again, they've already covered the jump into hyperspace, so what else is there besides adding a few new planets or playable races from the films?

According to the announcement, both land and space around the Wookiee homeworld of Kashyyyk will be added, along with many new missions to go along with this new locale. In their contribution to the slave trade, the evil Trandoshans have set up several camps, and it will be the duty of players to either put and end to it or see that it flourishes. This ties in with one of the settings of the upcoming Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, as well as one of the missions in Republic Commando.

I find it a bit ironic that Episode III is going to be using Kashyyyk as a setpiece, because that was supposed to be the setting for the endgame of Return of the Jedi. Up until Chewie was established in a late draft of Star Wars as a technologically aware being - and a remarkable mechanic - Wookiees were to be a race of savages. In fact, that whole sequence where the Ewoks take on the Empire was supposed to be with Wookiees. After A New Hope Uncle George felt he was kind of screwed - there was no way people would believe that Wookiees would fight with rocks and logs after they'd seen him fire his bowcaster or fly the Millenium Falcon. To this day I still believe that Wookiee plush toys would have sold equally well, but that's neither here nor there.

Also added in the expansion will be some new space faring vehicles, the most notable being Anakin's Jedi Starfighter As Seen In The Film. This sounds like such a movie tie-in doesn't it? I thought Galaxies would be able to avoid this kind of cross marketing, since it's a game that's been out for a while already. Due to the nature of its dynamic content though, I guess it was a valid target. It's also pretty transparent that Lucasarts is calling the expansion "Episode III" - I mean, Jump to Lightspeed had "Episode I" right on the box. I know that they're counting from the first release of Galaxies, but really, does the promotion have to be this obvious?

Players who enjoy the space based missions will now be able to take on "space mining" missions, where you can harvest resources from asteroids and contribute to the land based game's economy. This is a great idea, and a step in integrating the two completely different experiences. Another addition is the ability for players to add cybernetic components to their characters, that will in turn offer improved abilities that are more than likely related to your performance in combat. Why this was done is anyone's guess, because the cybernetic enhancements look far too crude to mesh with the period Galaxies covers in the Star Wars timeline. When Luke gets his new hand at the end of Empire Strikes Back, it's clearly meant to be an extension of his existing body. In this new expansion, it seems that these enhancements are meant to look like enhancements, instead of adding a feature in the game to allow characters to improve on their stats without any visible side effects. But maybe I'm just nitpicking.

I'm not sure if this additional expansion was such a great idea, but I think Star Wars is experiencing some kind of fallout with the fans that it recollected after the new action figures and novels came onto the scene in the early to mid 90s. This kind of game and media integration will keep Star Wars in the geek collective consciousness, and that's generally where they want to be. I just hope the playability of Galaxies isn't sacrificed again by a hasty expansion that does little to change the game's intrinsic shortcomings.

to smooth the unattractive truth

inform the troops Lord Vader has arrived

A setting as rich in content as the Star Wars universe, where the story is already embedded in the consciousness of gamers everywhere, allows the possibility of truly seamless role playing in a game like Star Wars Galaxies. Next to its contemporaries, the quasi-modern setting of Galaxies allows people to just be their characters instead of worrying how they'll react to each situation in the technologically stunted worlds that form the basis for fantasy MMORPGs. Some of the most satisfying roleplaying experiences I've had in an MMORPG were in Star Wars Galaxies, because when the grind got boring you could always enjoy what the engaging community had to offer.

My initial reaction to hearing that the 203rd Tatooine Expeditionary Stormtrooper Legion was paid a visit by Darth Vader himself was one of derision. Next to the mass hysteria surrounding World of Warcraft, SOE must be really desperate to retain subscribers to pull a stunt like this. Based on Bruce Woodcock's MMORPG Chart, after just over three months of operation World of Warcraft has a significant hold over the current market, accelerating to 1.25 million subscribers. After a year and a half, Galaxies remains topped out at just over 250,000 subscribers. What happened?

I've discussed in the past the weaknesses that Galaxies has in comparison to the more traditional MMORPG. Galaxies is a job in the truest sense, and requires more time than is reasonable. To develop your character into something that's actually worth playing, you have to suffer through a grind that is both tedious and frustrating. The awards are all long term: become a master armoursmith by crafting millions of items, work your way through Jabba's ranks by taking on increasingly hard missions, or better yet, master multiple professions that may unlock your Force potential so that you can begin the long journey towards becoming a Jedi. To some, dedicating hours to this would seem ludicrous - we're playing a game here, right? It should be fun! Though I always saw it as a perfect adaptation of real life into the Star Wars mythos. Not all of the classes and occupations are glamorous, but they do have their place and make the game world that much more immersive. These store owners and tailors and shipwrights are controlled by real people.

If I was a member of that stormtrooper guild I'd probably feel very proud, but also a little relieved. Relieved that the constant drilling and patrols did actually serve a purpose, because there's no fucking way Galaxies was doling out any experience for that. This was roleplaying in its purest form: players living the life of a stormtrooper when the Empire still had its oppressive grip on the galaxy. Maybe they'll get some interested recruits as a result of this event, which couldn't come a more opportune time. SOE says that the Galactic Civil War is near completion, with updates allowing players to take sides and engage in the struggle to control the galaxy. It sounds like they've really thought about this system, and apparently the legendary Combat Revamp and an as yet un-named expansion pack will actually be released as well.

Sadly, this unplanned inspection by Darth Vader seems to be relegated to fan sites only - it wasn't even listed as a news item on the official Galaxies website. It's not like famous NPCs like this make an appearance every day - as they shouldn't - but this could have been used as a clever marketing tool to get people interested in the game again. Especially the former players that quit the game in frustration after broken promises and an inconsequential expansion pack. It showed that even seemingly insignificant devotion to this game might actually pay off.

So I'll take back my cynical comments, because I know that the dev team on Galaxies has taken a lot of shit from players over the past year and a half. It's nice to see them notice this die hard subset of the larger community. It doesn't correct the game's many underlying problems, but for that moment it at least provided a little context on why people wanted to play this game in the first place.

swat 4: compliance is your only option

SWAT 4 successfully integrates a fluid interface, real time tactics and a completely believable simulation. And like its predecessor, it's a welcome change from the tactical shooters that typically let you shoot first and ask questions later.

The SWAT series has changed form three times since its first release as Daryl F. Gates Police Quest: SWAT, a spin-off of Sierra's recognized adventure brand. Tacking on Gates' name to the title would add credibility, as the former Los Angeles police chief basically invented the whole SWAT (special weapons and tactics) concept and had a hand in the game's design - though it ended up as some kind of one-man FMV adventure. SWAT 2 would take an isometric real-time strategy approach, introducing more of an action element to the game but also allowing you to control an entire squad. Finally, SWAT 3: Close Quarters Battle would arrive after Rainbow Six established a new genre: the tactical first person shooter. Sharing similar design elements, SWAT 3 would still hold its own as a fairly realistic interpretation of these elite police units.

I played SWAT 3 shortly after I completed Eagle Watch, the first expansion for Rainbow Six. The inability to completely plan a mission beforehand made me extra cautious in my approach to the gameplay, because in SWAT you were dropped into a mission and had to deal with tactical situations as they happened - you were never informed of how many adversaries you were facing or their last known locations. The situations were often chaotic, and the civilians weren't always being held at gunpoint - they would sometimes be running around just trying to get to safety, creating a highly distracting battlefield.

I liked that you were able communicate directly with the aggressors: yelling such things as "drop your weapon!", "Stay down!" or "hands in the air", sometimes causing them to open fire. Though they would occasionally comply, allowing you or one of your squad mates to approach and restrain them. It was an obvious movie-like interpretation of this kind of police work, but it allowed every mission to unfold in a believable manner, where not every guy with a gun in his hand was necessarily a threatening target.

Along with a new engine adapted from Irrational's Tribes Vengeance, all of these elements are back in SWAT 4. Though where the game really impresses me is the interface. It fosters a completely seamless experience where the novice can issue "default" commands as the situation applies, or the experienced can delve deeper into the on-screen context sensitive drop down menu and issue a particular command to be executed. Moreover, the interface seems to be designed to let you sit back and let your team do all the work, allowing the player to effectively become the leader. The team AI is very adept in this regard - the only time a team member was incapacitated was because of my carelessness, after I asked them to run into a room without using proper breach and clear tactics. The enemy AI is also unpredictable - rarely will they immediately open fire, and this causes you to approach each possible hostile with caution instead of running nonchalantly through the mission, finger poised on the "Fire" button.

Though this is all seen through the eyes of a fan of SWAT 3; I would hardly call the mission selected for the demo exciting. This may be detrimental for prospective newcomers, and that's a damn shame. In SWAT 3 and the first two Rainbow Six games, reconaissance and non-deadly force missions were always part of the package, conveying the message that to "win" doesn't mean putting a bullet in the enemy. Though sound in their presentation of tactics, games like Full Spectrum Warrior and Close Combat: First to Fight are putting less of an emphasis on enemy apprehension or de-armament and instead opt for simple neutralization - adapting the aforementioned mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. It's nice to know SWAT 4 is taking a more civilized approach, even though the game essentially revolves around the same "player versus the bad guy" model. I'm fully aware of what's happening to the Rainbow Six series, so I'm glad that Irrational has taken care in trying to reproduce what made SWAT 3 so enjoyable. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the full version this April.

sim city

Another friend entered the inescapable vortex of World of Warcraft on the weekend, and I've been doing everything in my power to resist for reasons unknown even to me at this point. To that end I reinstalled Sim City 4, which in my mind is just as addictive, though not exactly an experience that can be shared by all.

Our new apartment has a great view of the city, and during a short break in play I took a look out of the window and felt like I was gazing into a thousand mirrors reflecting back on each other. Indeed, the burgeoning metropolis sprawled out on my monitor was not entirely different from the houses and buildings around me, and for an instant I had one of those episodes where reality and gamespace were indistinguishable.

a bloody valentine for Troika

Last week a forum post announcing the liquidation of Troika's former offices made an appearance. Many (myself included) thought this was some kind of joke, but in the back of my mind I knew that the financial and critical success of Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines was dubious at best. Based on confirmation by the lead programmer of Bloodlines, Troika has all but been dissolved with many of its team members having joined other studios. This would explain the lengthy response for a patch for Bloodlines, as well as its focus on only critical bug fixes. Gamespot picked up on the rumour late last week, with Troika co-CEO Leonard Boyarksky performing damage control with the words "we wish that post hadn't gotten out". Though an official announcement about the studio's status is due at the end of the month, I've since surrendered to these accounts as truth.

Born out of members from the team that developed Fallout, Troika's first published game was the cautiously received RPG Arcanum. Set in a kind of gaslight or "steampunk" setting that mixed traditional fantasy with the industrial, Arcanum had a detailed and unique character creation system, and a refreshingly original world to adventure in. Temple of Elemental Evil, though a poor game, contained the most rigorous interpretation of the Dungeons and Dragons ruleset I'd ever played. But like those whimsical tabletop sessions of yesteryear where memories of that one player constantly banging his fist on the tattered copy of the Player's Handbook keep interfering, you easily lose sight of what made it fun in the first place. Plus the voice acting was fucking terrible.

I'll readily admit that Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines was completely covered in weeping sores, but underneath that slippery exterior is the best game I played last year. Combat may have been flawed, but the adventure presented within was something I will hold close as one of my most favourite gaming experiences. To think that Troika had been developing their own post-apocolyptic game, that now along with Van Buren will probably sink to the bottom of the ocean of unfinished games.

I'll miss Troika. I'll miss them because I know that CRPGs are slowly drifting towards action-oriented affairs; the stuff is guaranteed to sell. Troika was never known for delivering a polished product, but I'll always stand fast to the belief that they had some of the best ideas for roleplaying games. The games industry can be very unforgiving when you expect them to accept an unfinished product in stride. Maybe if they had a little room to breathe, we would have seen Troika mature into a Blizzard or a Firaxis - genre leaders in an industry full of copycats and publisher focus groups. But given where this industry is headed, I think we all knew Troika's demise was inevitable.

one more song to slay this earth

World of Warcraft big in Europe

Over the weekend I learned of Gamma Fodder's wholesale plunge into World of Warcraft. Though I was basically labelled as the dealer of some hyper addictive drug, I can't blame him for wanting to try it out.

Interest in this game doesn't seem to be letting up: the European launch press release cites sales of 280,000 copies last Friday, with 380,000 by the end of the first weekend. Not suprisingly, the official site for WoW Europe warned of choppy seas ahead, as the account creation site was out of order like the North American release, with players experiencing wait times just to be able to get into the game. I find it a bit concerning that Blizzard's European team was not able to foresee this kind of response with so much evidence to support the tidal wave of new users that would hit its servers at launch. Though things appear to have settled down it doesn't negate the fact that they were once again unprepared.

I'm not sure if this is a global sales tactic by Blizzard, where they firmly establish that their product is unplayable so that new users are deterred, but it's not working. People flock to this game with blinders on, eager to drink the sweet, sweet nectar of an MMORPG that is actually fun to play. I fully acknowledge this as indisputable; World of Warcraft injected into every MMORPG fan's mainline exactly what they were looking for - when they can play it. Though when gamers continue to line up for the high-population servers only to have to wait or trudge through a lag-crippled session, it calls into question the reasoning of the gamers themselves.

Due to its level of accessibility and favourable conditions for short game sessions, I plan on getting into World of Warcraft eventually. However at this time I'm finding it more beneficial to observe this growing community from the outside. It seems to me that the game still revolves around a discrete model of "Player vs. Everything", where inter-player communication and cooperation is almost unnecessary. As it stands, World of Warcraft could operate interchangably as a locally-run game. To me, the Battlegrounds are simply something they've been dangling in front of players to convince them that they've made the right decision. These are tactics SOE used when Star Wars Galaxies first launched. The Galactic Civil War was going to change the way people played the game, making Galaxies a true representation of the war-torn universe shown in the films. Though this never happened, and instead the development team pushed out a space expansion while they tried to alleviate the more important class balancing and changes to the combat system, because that's what the players wanted.

After just over two months, it's impossible to predict how World of Warcraft will weather the test of time. I know first hand there is plenty of material in the game to keep players busy, but there are only so many quests you can throw at a player before they start realizing that what they do has little effect on their surroundings. Indeed, waiting while a quest "boss" respawns is enough to remove me from a game world that hinges solely on a player's desire for more experience. Those that have fallen in with guilds have had better experiences in community building, but is the game world deep enough to secure long term interest? For the sake of the players, I'd like to see Blizzard use World of Warcraft's success to build something worthy of its name and not simply rely on its short-term addictive qualities. It's obvious Blizzard can get players to jump in. The real test will be to see if they stay there.

trapped in the sun

attack of the commando clones

With Republic Commando, Close Combat: First to Fight, Brothers in Arms, Rainbow Six: Lockdown and SWAT 4 all arriving in the next couple of months, PC gaming appears to be fixated on squad tactical shooters for the moment. Which is fine by me, as long as they're offering something more than genre lip service.

I guess it wasn't much of a stretch for LucasArts to develop its own take on the genre with Republic Commando: take the nameless, faceless clone troopers from Episode II: Attack of the Clones and put them in close combat engagements, picking and choosing from the featuresets of games to come before it, and creating what can only be called a mediocre first person shooter.

I downloaded the demo last week after hearing a mixed bag of opinions. I was interested to see if LucasArts could tackle the squad tactics genre on its own, as this would be the first Star Wars game in some time that was actually developed-in house. The first thing I noticed was only one of the four squad members actually sounded like Temuera Morrison (Jango Fett). They also had their own "nicknames", and different personalities. I thought they were supposed to be a cross section of an army of clones? Why get tied up in things like "cameraderie" and "sassy one liners" when you're essentially a one man army multiplied a thousand times?

LucasArts definitely took some liberties with the character design, but everything ended up looking like Galactic Heroes. Of course, it's up to the player whether they like this interpretation or not. As someone who enjoys employing precision tactics when facing my enemy, I'd rather not be looking at a chunky, obtrusive interface and even chunkier avatars. I'm really not a fan of the "visor view" either, and in my mind it goes down in history with the likes of Deus Ex: Invisible War's HUD. I can only imagine what this view will be like in Rainbow Six: Lockdown.

I liked the way squad commands felt intuitive, but I wouldn't call it tactics. It doesn't require any real problem solving by the player: simply mousing over points on the map will show "hot" areas, or actions a squad member can complete. Clicking on these points will issue the associated command, but it's not like you get the option of storming a room with thermal detonators or sneaking in quietly. The objectives and their solutions are completely transparent. In the demo's mission, Republic Commando does a good job of making you feel surrounded and overwhelmed, but I never feared for my life. There's a pretty good chance when you go down with 0 health a squad mate will be by to heal you up with seemingly unlimited medkits.

All the weapons felt insubstantial, like toys. I've played Star Wars FPS before, and I know what a repeater blaster should "feel" like. I also find it hard to believe that every character has the entire Republic arsenal at their disposal. Wouldn't it make more sense for the squad to have a Heavy Blaster unit, a sniper unit and a support unit? That way your men become indispensable - not interchangeable. In the face of existing and soon to be released squad tactical shooters, the whole game feels like a toy. More like squad tactical action figures.

The biggest thing this game has going for it is that it's suprisingly polished given LucasArts' past foray into 3D. Perhaps the campaign is really interesting, and eclipses the shortfalls of the game's core mechanics. However I'm not willing to take the time to find out. If you're looking for another Star Wars FPS that doesn't involve the words "Jedi Knight", then I suppose Republic Commando is for you.

Now I'd like to talk about Ash. Ash is a band from Ireland that was introduced to me during the end credits/blooper scenes from the North American release of Rumble in the Bronx. Their catchy tribute to old martial arts films, the aptly named "Kung Fu", played in the background. The next day I bought the album it was from, "1977". Opening with the sound of a tie fighter flying by, and later learning that the album was named after the year Star Wars was released (despite any of the members not being born yet), I knew these guys were for real. I even had the chance to meet them when they came to Toronto back in 1996 to promote that album.

This week I found that one of the songs off of their upcoming album was selected to be on the Republic Commando soundtrack. Once again falling back on their clever songwriting skills, "Clones" will also appear on an exclusive EP called "Commando" which includes a playable demo for the game. I can't vouch for their popularity at the moment, as I've been into Ash for years. Though if anyone will benefit from this multi-media promotion it will be the band. Incidentally, Ash will be back in Toronto at the Opera House April 13th. I will be there.

I don't know if you knew that

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines

Edited January 14, 2005

Appearances can be deceiving. A central theme in Vamipre The Masquerade: Bloodlines, what the world chooses to believe has great effect on what they see. The principle behind White Wolf's World of Darkness is that an entire universe lies in the shadows of our world, hidden by the denial of beliefs deemed superstitious or the machinations of an unseen hand. And what lies beneath Bloodlines' rough exterior is one of the best RPGs I've played in a long time.

As a finished product Bloodlines should be an embarrassment. The first developers to use Valve's brand new Source engine can't even put together decent looking textures, and barely comes close to imitating the amazing lip-synching that went into the characters of Half Life 2. There are obvious typos in the dialog options, graphical slowdowns, and the same sound stuttering that became such a problem with Half Life 2 before it was patched. Watching my Tremere neonate prance around the screen and dance wildly at bars while attempting to seduce people for my next meal felt shameful. To be honest, I thought I had made a mistake picking up this game. But to take Bloodlines at face value is to set yourself up for disappointment. I've dismissed games with fewer bugs than this, and if there is one game that deserves a second chance it's this one. Bloodlines' ultimate undoing is that you have to dig deep to truly enjoy the story presented in its immersive world.

lockdown

Rainbow Six 4: Lockdown. This time, it's personal.

Or so the trailer would have you believe. I really have a hard time accepting this latest attempt by UbiSoft to make their critically acclaimed series more accessible. Maybe it's the lack of helmets, and the soldiers sporting non-standard haircuts and different uniforms. Or perhaps it's the selection of America's latest hot-bed of activity, the Middle East, as the setting for the game.

The screens released a couple of months ago showing off the game's new "goggle interface" that "fully immerse[s] you in the game experience" almost had me in conniptions. Fans had a hard enough time with Raven Shield, which for the first time in the series' history actually made the weapon viewable in first-person mode. It was removable in the options, of course, but the reaction is what's important. The graphics are less than inspiring as well, obviously a result of Lockdown being a multi-platform release. And everything about the gameplay preview points to this being a standard first person shooter, removing everything that made its predecessors unique or interesting to play.

I also love how the game features list rag doll physics as if it means something. Ever since Unreal Tournament 2003 started using havok (and in case UbiSoft's PR department has forgotten already, Raven Shield used the new Unreal/havok engines as well) it's been pretty much standard in every FPS on the PC. Then again, this title clearly isn't aimed at fans of the original - it's aimed at gamers who want to kill terrorists and wouldn't know a squad tactical shooter if it kicked them in the balls. This would also explain Lockdown's "unprecedented multiplayer". What, like totally different than the multiplayer that was available from Rainbow Six in 1998?

What seems to be the spiritual successor to Rainbow Six is Close Combat: First to Fight, a training simulator developed by the U.S. Marine Corps. I saw some of the gameplay demos a few weeks ago, and I am absolutely impressed. Following in the footsteps of Full Spectrum Warrior, the tactics of fire and suppress are used again, but with an entirely new approach to interacting with the environment. Vehicles can be used, and you can actually go inside buildings, where room takedowns are similar to those in Rainbow Six. Morale is apparently used as well, making poor or just plain bad orders have an effect on your squad; though this also applies to an overwhelmed enemy that may just retreat after seeing their comrades cut down around them. I'm a little uneasy about the setting, and the graphics aren't exactly top-notch either, which surprises me considering the game is only being developed for the XBox and PC. Military shooters such as these are becoming a double-edged sword. If you want realism, you have to swallow the propaganda; otherwise you succumb to the curse of accessibility, making the game more of an arcade shooter than something actually worth playing.

bottle up and explode

full spectrum warrior

Earlier this year I had some pretty heavy comments for the 60th anniversary of D-Day, where I started to question my interest in realistic, war-based games. I think everyone should, to be honest, because there comes a time where you have to draw the line between entertainment and out-and-out morbid fascination, or at least realize there's a difference. War themed shooters are becoming increasingly realistic, and although realism is something these games should strive for, I'm not sure gamers should be accepting it so unconditionally.

When I initially heard about Full Spectrum Warrior, it was advertised as an officially sanctioned product from the U.S. Army and so I mentally filed it alongside the existing cleverly designed training simulator of America's Army. Having the support of the organization you're trying to emulate lends a truckload of credibility, but the screens made it look too close to reality. Indeed, you could say that about any war-based game, but with the war ongoing in Iraq my conscience couldn't take the perception of guilt for participating in a pantomime of current events. Nevertheless, reviews stating the unconventional approach to playing the game eventually won my interest, and I was curious just to see what Full Spectrum Warrior was all about.

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.

About The Matrix Online...

Sega and Warner Brothers Interactive announced the pricing scheme for The Matrix Online today, to about as much fanfare as Sega's announcement at this year's E3 about publishing it. The game is slated to launch in January 2005, but the sales numbers for World of Warcraft and apathy towards the franchise condemn this game to an early death. I'm curious to see how well The Ultimate Matrix Collection has done in its first week, because the two sequels have sufficiently pissed off a once loyal fan base, all but terminating interest in spin off media. Warner would have been smarter to realease this game shortly after Revolutions; maybe it would have made people forget about Enter the Matrix.

Just take look at the screenshots. The game feels about three years old, the environments look barren, and the characters blockier than even Enter the Matrix. From what I've read, the game takes place in one city, and every session is essentially your character "jacking in" to the Matrix. What about Zion and the war against the machines? Are endless battles with Agents or Matrix-controlled NPCs the only things you have to look forward to? If the city the game takes place in is supposed to be a battleground, the only concession I would ask is that humans could take on the role of agents, infiltrating the resistance or foiling the plans of the last hope for the human race. The Matrix Online sounds diasppointing and unmotivated; more like painting a run-of-the mill MMORPG with Matrix colors than a game willing to capitilize on the Matrix storyline and mythos. Aside from learning different styles of martial arts, or donning "designer sunglasses" that provide some aribtrary bonus, where's the compelling gameplay? Proabably the worst offense is the developer's assumption that players will accept an experience grind when it's already been shown to us in the films that things can be learned instantaneously.

you just took your last breath

World of Warcraft prepares for launch

Blizzard officially closed the World of Warcraft Open Beta test on Thursday, announcing that they would be wiping clean the servers in preparation for the game's launch this Tuesday. According to the official site, over 500,000 people signed up for the World of Warcraft open beta, before they had to turn away account requests. The game was absolutely packed during the first few days of the open beta: wandering around my test server I couldn't stretch my arms without hitting another player. Adding to this percieved chaos were the truckloads of monster swarms surrounding each population centre. Low level character quests thrive on these "Kill X number of [Monster]" quests, but at peak hours it was like walking through the killing fields. The server lag was equally troubling - but what a perfect way for Blizzard to test their architecture.

The amount of traffic settled down after a while, and I was able to continue my adventures in earnest. I created another Human Warlock, an Undead Warrior, and a Night Elf priest. Once again I was amazed at how well designed each race's homeland was. This was my first time playing a Night Elf, and though some of the quests were a little uninteresting, the virtual realm that was sprawled before me kept me thinking about other things. And when you die as a Night Elf, you are converted to Wisp form instead of the standard ghost form every other race must endure, allowing a few extra degrees of freedom when trying to find your corpse. Blizzard has to be commended for really dipping into every piece of Warcraft lore and making it so believable. Originally I thought the low-poly graphics were a little too cartoony compared directly with my experiences in Star Wars Galaxies, but looking deeper at the World of Warcraft reveals a cohesive whole.

There are many areas to explore: the dwarven mountains of Khaz Modan to the undead stronghold of the Undercity are all reachable by foot. And you can hop on a Zeppelin to travel between the islands of Kalimdor and Azeroth if you wish to explore the homeland of the Orcs. I have to admit it was pretty amusing to see my Undead warrior hanging out with some Tauren Shamans and an Orc warrior in the barren lands outside the orcish city of Ogrimmar. Mounts are also available to travel great distances, and though I talked to players who had ridden on the back of a mighty griffin, my own efforts to obtain a mount were fruitless. I wanted to get a skeletal horse for my undead warrior, but a level requirement (and significant amount of money) was needed. This wasn't a huge deal, though, because the game's quests mostly depend on the surrounding area they are assigned in.

This time around I paid particular attention to the initial character building stages. I found that beginning characters don't feel as useless as in Star Wars Galaxies, and can fend for themselves on all of the beginner and intermediate missions. Any mission you pick up that would be a challenge for your character will be marked in red in your quest journal. You can either team up to complete this mission, or level up a few more times until the quest is marked in green. And because each quest will more than likely take place in one region, this makes it easier to prioritize and plan your trips. It also makes your game sessions much more manageable, instead of spending your time marathon running to your next objective. I found I was able to have satisfying gaming sessions that were sometimes less than an hour with a feeling that I've actually accomplished something: whether it was levelling up or completing a few quests.

But this gives rise to a serious flaw surrounding quests, weapons, and monsters: once you get out of a town or region you have no real direction except to go forward. Going back to previous towns and locations will always contain lower level monsters that don't give out as much experience or better loot, which is understandable to some degree. But I also remember clearing an older quest after levelling up a few times in a later area, and my reward was a weapon that was a lot weaker than what I was currently using. As a result, you will rarely see higher level characters going back to the starting areas, unless they are grouped up and helping out some newer characters with the more difficult quests. In that sense, the game world seems like a bunch of "zones" of increasing difficulty tacked together - something I've heard a number of times used to describe Everquest.

I made a conscious decision to put myself onto a roleplaying server, to see if this would affect the way the game is played. I know that during the first stress test roleplaying was the farthest thing from people's minds as all of the servers were made up of first-time players. During the first two days of the open beta, players on my test server did their best to keep conversation in character. But as new players joined, some not even knowing what "roleplaying" was, this diluted the effect and all but eliminated any hopes of getting a believable game world up and running. With newbies asking questions on one side of me, I had powergamers challenging me to duels on the other. The Blizzard-sanctioned game masters tried to keep out-of-character (OOC) conversation in check, but when you have hundreds of players in one zone, it becomes a large and unmanageable task. I doubt this will change for the full release. But as I have said in the past, I can't imagine this action and levelling-focused game will be attracting the serious roleplayer. To give some perspective about the game's intentions, out of the 12 or so Eastern test servers only one of them was for roleplayers.

On the Player versus Player (PvP) servers, Alliance and Horde characters are automatically at war. Anytime you encounter a player of the opposing side, you can fight them - or be promptly killed - without any warning or authorization. On the Player versus Everyone (PvE) or "Normal" servers, if you wander into an Alliance or Horde area and are of the opposing side you will not be touched. If, however, you decide to attack a town NPC or character while in this area, you will be identified as hostile and will become a potential target. This allows potential for massive, player-driven faction wars befitting of its source material - something that Star Wars Galaxies still hasn't been able to nail down a year after its launch.

This final leg of the Beta testing phase was a good indicator of what things will be like at launch, and allowed Blizzard to prepare for the new user onslaught unlike certain other developers. I said in my first experiences with World of Warcraft that the traditional level grind didn't feel like a grind, and was more like part of being a resident of this virtual world. I would often wander the wilderness while completing my quests, slaying a few beasts on the way just to pick up a little extra experience. Certainly this side effect of all MMORPGs will get tiresome, but during the Open Beta I put any negative thoughts about the grind aside and actually enjoyed absorbing everything this unique game world had to offer. As stylized as the environments are, Blizzard has done an excellent job in converting their legendary universe to a MMORPG. They just have to stay ahead of the curve, and make sure players stay interested once they discover the grind has just been dressed up in some new clothes.

why can't we just look the other way?

tribes vengeance

In the past, demos were a pretty good indicator of what games would be like. You can thank id Software for that, because most often the demo would be the entire first mission of their games. I'm not saying that other developers (or publishers, for that matter) don't do the same, but recently it's been tough to gauge how good the final product will be when they take a mission out of context from the middle of the single player game, ask you to play through, and attempt to enjoy it. Far Cry easily comes to mind in this regard, while Thief: Deadly Shadows did an excellent job of convincing you why you should be buying the game. Multiplayer demos by their very nature are a little easier to create: the inclusion of a few maps and game types should keep the fans happy until release. My first exposure to Tribes: Vengeance was the multiplayer beta, which was fairly satisfying as a reimagining of Tribes gameplay. Having a single player campaign thrown in goes back to the game's roots, although at the time Starsiege seemed like more of a poor man's Mechwarrior.

I played the hell out of the final multiplayer demo, whereas the single player mission acted like more of a distraction. In a sad parody of the opening cutscene of Unreal Tournament 2003, the mission lets you to play as the leader of the Phoenix Tribe dropped into an arena to fight for his life. Because the mission was clearly taken from a point midway through the game, the preceding cutscene only served to confuse things.

The action overall is certainly fast-paced, but the small to medium sized maps and trigger-happy combat would be more suitable in Unreal Tournament or others of its ilk - hell, I could easily deal with having jetpacks in a deluxe version of Onslaught. But what this approach does is take out the large-scale team efforts that were probably my fondest memories of Tribes 2. There was something epic about the fields of battle in Tribes 2, a feeling that is unfortunately lost amongst the hustle of Vengeance. There were times where I was able to launch a coordinated assault for the enemy's flag, but most often it was simply bunch of sequential solo runs for the opposing team's base with a vehicle, which is the type of activity you would see on a BF1942 server. Even the spinfusor, the flagship member of the Tribes arsenal, feels a lot different and is a real bitch to aim properly. Granted, it does as much damage as a grenade launcher (including splash/area damage), but the rate of fire makes it a liability to wield.

The Unreal engine looks good, and Vengeance conveys the same types of bright colors and similarly detailed models as you would find in Unreal Tournament 2003. Attractive as this game is, players of Tribes 2 may find something missing. Vengeance almost feels stripped of the soul that made its forerunners so engaging. Some of the new included multiplayer modes like Fuel and Ball just seem uninspired, and if you really want to run across the field with a ball while being shot at, you should be playing Bombing Run.

All that being said, I found "Winterlake" to be the closest map that gave me that old school Tribes feeling. Seeing the enemy's fearsome dropship on the snow-peaked horizon making an approach for our base, I would often run to one of the stationary cannons and cut loose on the ship and its heavy-armoured escorts. I think many of my favorite moments while playing Vengenace was defending the base, simply because attacking felt so haphazard.

Because multiplayer feels like a Tribes skin on an existing game, I think the average player's reaction to Vengeance will boil down to the single player campaign. This is most unfortunate for a game that pretty much pioneered multiplayer combat on a massive scale. I guess it's only natural that something like this would happen - as we have seen in the past, multiplayer focused games will almost always short change on the single player. In the case of Tribes Vengeance, they just got it backwards.

three completes the five

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.

World of Warcraft stress test beta

Along with other catch up material like the demo for Rome: Total War, the Tribes: Vengeance Beta, The Jedi Trials publish, and the gigantic Pacific Assault demo, I found a most suprising email decorating my inbox when I returned - I had been accepted into the World of Warcraft Stress Test Beta which was extended until this Sunday. The lucky bastards who have been playing this game since last year probably look upon us stress testers as an unrefined mob of inconsequential characters that Blizzard is throwing at their servers - which is true, for the most part - but I'm going to enjoy every minute of this opportunity and hopefully find the time to record some impressions here. The Stress Test is being kept separate from the Closed Beta that is still going on, and there is a Level-grinding contest that will allow some players to secure a spot in the Closed Beta after the Stress Test is over. There is also talk of an Open Beta that is allegedly taking place before the game's release this November. I can feel another delay brewing on the horizon, but you can't fault Blizzard for testing the shit out of their software, and likely providing the MMORPG world with the smoothest rollout in the genre's history.

a chemical embrace

welcome to paradise

(Updated May 19, 2004)

At a time when everyone's just about had enough of Valve's not-so-subtle marketing doublespeak, PC Gamer decides to slap their "World Exclusive Playtest" of Half Life 2 on the front cover of their June issue. Gabe Newell's flighty responses to fan questions leaves the release date up in the air, all the while comparisons to Duke Nukem Forever riccochet off of bulletin boards with head spinning frequencies. After poring through an article cleverly designed to make you soil your pants in anticipation coupled with some more E3 gameplay footage, I quickly put all thoughts aside of whatever I had planned on doing for the summer, and will begin a lineup for Half-Life 2 at my local software retailer. Anyone who's up for it can contact me.

The euphoria left me before it even had a chance to make itself comfortable deep in my chest because there's more in this issue that caught my attention. Specifically, a very glowing review of Far Cry. When I first played the demo, I was definitely amazed at the capabilities of the engine, the infuriating tactics of the AI and the overall scope of the game world. The painstakingly detailed island paradise was big, and the inclusion of vehicles would be something a developer would suggest in a preliminary design document, but not necessarily know how to implement them. Naturally these things get cut and you're stuck with a scripted vehicle sequence like the MOHAA games, Call of Duty and Enter the Matrix. But Crytek managed to pull it off - and although the controls are really, really sloppy you're still afforded the freedom to travel wherever you please whether by boat or by buggy. Anyone who's tried the multiplayer will tell you that it needs work - and UbiSoft hopes to address this with a patch - but with such a strong single-player component it seems there's no reason to turn to the fairly standard frag contests.

So did I submit to overwhelmingly positive reviews despite my nocommittal first impressions? Well if you count that box on my desk that says Far Cry then yes, I think I did.

review: Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow

It's hard to believe that Splinter Cell only came out a year ago. When it first arrived on the scene I thought that the Tom Clancy license was being spread around too eagerly. The previous year saw two expansions for Ghost Recon, and a new Rainbow Six game was in the works for an early 2003 release. As a result I really didn't understand the place for this multiplatform title, or even how well the series would be accepted by gamers. When I heard about Pandora Tomorrow I feared the worst - with little over a year for development I didn't think many improvements could be made. I was glad to be proven wrong in some respects, though, as the multiplayer component has shown us what will work in future games to take on this theme.

why would Heaven need a hitman?

The Painkiller single-player demo quietly debuted last week, while most people were still recovering from UT2004. More accurately, I'd be willing to bet money on the fact that people probably didn't care enough to put the demo down, fearing that they might fall out of practice. I must admit playing Onslaught is not like the UT2003 I grew accustomed to. The battles seem to simmer with a kind of intensity, as if Unreal Tournament players were waiting for this mode of play since the original game's release.

But back to the matter at hand - the Painkiller demo. The ambient music at the menu screen made me feel like I was playing some variation of the Diablo-meets-Quake theme. Playing the introductory "Town" level made me forget for a second that there hadn't been any advancements in level design colour palettes in the past eight years. People Can Fly's PAIN engine is simply gorgeous, but the conventions of the genre become clear after about 3 minutes of playing. Using the Stake Gun versus the swarms of meat-flinging zombies was great for a while, I mean they really get impaled. There is visible recoil and if your target is near a wall they just kind of hang there until exploding to offer up their soul for collection. And those zombies sure know how to aim.

I was about ready to stop playing as I loaded the second level: "The Temple". Although consisting primarily of greys and uh...dark greys, some of the design elements are almost reminiscent of Act II in Diablo II or wouldn't be out of place in The Sands of Time. I can see what the developers were trying to do with this game, and I haven't decided if this is a spiritual successor of sorts to Quake or Doom. With the dark, satanic imagery and constant waves of monsters the designers want you to feel overwhelmed. But I just couldn't get into the game because I felt I had been there before. I can give Painkiller credit for inventing some interesting weapons: the default melee weapon "Pain" is a set of spinning blades you can cut through an angry undead mob with, and almost made me want to watch Krull. Almost.

The “boss” mission in the final level was a nice touch, and once again brought me back to fighting the Cyberdemon at the end of Doom. This time around the sense of scale is really there – this monster wields an enourmous fucking hammer. I watched him knock over pillars in his wake with little effort, while imagining new ways to bludgeon me with his massive weapon. Overall I can't say I was impressed, and I was kind of looking forward to this one. The lack of mid-level saves proved to be frustrating as well, and coupled with the overly familiar execution of a classic FPS theme, I fail to find a compelling reason to play this game.

I also tried out the demo of the first RPG from the developers of the Patrician series of RTS/Trading sims. Sacred is yet another Diablo clone, lodged firmly in the pigeonhole of "action RPG". It's a half decent imitation, but nowhere near being a replacement. The most unique feature being that you can ride a horse - if that's your thing - and attack enemies from horseback. There are a number of special abilities you can gain and combine to form your own "custom attacks", which is kind of a riff on the skill tree in Diablo II. The interface is simple enough; nobody is going to get lost. Combined with a decent engine this could be a good game for someone desparate enough for a PC RPG.

I'm of the belief that 2004 needs a solid PC RPG in this turbulent market, where consoles and PCs are constantly fighting for attention. I was expecting a lot from Sacred, but it just didn't come through for me, even as a clone of one of the greatest games of all time. If anything, this game got me to reinstall 2002's suprisingly excellent Divine Divinity, and got me looking forward to Dungeon Siege II (or even Beyond Divinity).

I picked up PC Gamer's annual awards issue, and as expected Knights of the Old Republic picked up top honors. You really know it was a bad year for PC gaming when a console port could achieve such a feat in a publication that has traditionally been such a stalwart supporter of PC games. I also caught some rumours about KotOR 2, the inevitable successor. Apparently Bioware has been in talks with Feargus Urquhart, formerly of Black Isle and currently the head of Obsidian Entertainment. He obviously brings a veritable banquet of experience to the table when it comes to developing a solid RPG, so if the rumour proves to be true, we can at least rest easy knowing that the series will be handled professionally. In the same issue, out of nowhere Gothic II gets RPG of the year. Usually PCG are content to let a game win its category and game of the year; I guess they think this game is deserving of the praise. I may have to put aside part of my current playlist to go back and check out this forgotten game of 2003.

As an awkward closer, I have to relay that I've seen Lost in Translation. I know now what everyone was talking about. Sofia Coppola has created a very thoughtful film, and not such a departure from The Virgin Suicides. Indeed, there were some laugh out loud moments, but there was always that underlying tone of melancholy and lonliness that left you really associating emotionally with the main characters. I suppose it will win some more awards on Sunday in the same ceremony that will praise Johnny Depp's performance in Pirates of the Caribbean while being hosted once again by the amazingly unfunny Billy Crystal.

when you got that spider bite on your hand

far cry

One of the games I had on my watch list for 2004 - Crytek's Far Cry - released their single-player demo last week. At a whopping 500 MB, it hardly seems worth it for another first person shooter. But I caught the torrent, installed and played it through. I should probably note up front that one of game's features, the so-called "farthest viewing distance in a First Person Shooter", I am inclined to agree with. You start off in a zodiac boat, and all around you are the typical environs of an island paradise. Complete with waving palm trees and pretty, glistening water effects.

Vehicular combat is very Halo-like, and you can quickly upgrade your zodiac to a gunboat and blast away at enemies on the coastline. The dune buggy you pick up in the jungle portion of the map controls like the cars in Enter the Matrix - absolute crap. The sound is truly an accomplishment, though; I found my teeth were chattering when I fired the pistol, never mind the automatic weapons. The AI is very cunning, and the ragdoll physics are more convincing than the exagerrated HAVOK Engine in games like UT2003 and Raven Shield. The many paths through the jungle towards your objective gives a pretty good impression of non-linearity, and it also allows you to avoid some unnecessary firefights. Unfortunately as I progressed through the map it quickly became a pixel-hunt – it seems the swarming AI went to marksmen school, and you're stuck with a wobbly aiming reticle. It doesn't exactly make for balanced combat. Did I mention the lack of mid-level saves? You have to hit prescribed auto-save checkpoints that aren't visible to the eye. Overall a good effort, and the toolset that comes with the game may catch the interest of some modders that will provide some additional multiplayer content.

I also downloaded the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time PC demo, just to see what it looks like alongside my experiences with the Gamecube version. It's very hazy looking, possibly a side-effect of being a console port, but still remains as beautiful as when I saw it on the Gamecube. The camera seemed to be locked in at some points, making some of the obstacles difficult to navigate and aggravated further by default Mouse-keyboard controls. This is not the game's fault though, having had my hands on a Gamecube controller for my first experience with the game.

You remember The Bard's Tale, don't you? And how everything was controlled by the keyboard while the sum of your sensory inputs were a collection of stills and inanimations? The team behind Devil Whiskey has engaged the replicator and created an identical experience. Don't get me wrong, however - the recently released version 1.4 of the demo is a fine homage. I just can't see myself dedicating time to it when there are other RPGs worth investing in. If you're still following the official remake helmed by one of the original game's designers, you can check out some new screens. Can't say I'm impressed though; I'd sooner pick up the highly discounted Dark Alliance for my Gamecube.

Curiosity got the better of me and I tried Gunbound after reading about it on PA. Can someone please tell me what makes this game different from Worms? Other than the fact that you can buy your Avatar a jaunty cap with the points won in battle. The official site's manual is full of so much broken english, if you're brave enough to read through the whole thing you'd end up shooting yourself in the ass. And I think I'd rather not mention the player community, or frustrating lack thereof ("This guy is teh suk. He doesn't know how to shoot!!!1 lol lol lol").

On the bright side, we did manage to dig ourselves out yesterday.

I have a mandolin, I play it all night long

demo: silent storm

At first glance, my reaction to Silent Storm was "Good lord. Another WWII-based game." And by the same guys that made Blitzkrieg, a WWII RTS game that ended up being pretty good, incidentally. Either Nival was feeling particularly unimaginative after their cult hit Etherlords, or they are on to something. I was extremely pleased by the demo for Silent Storm, so I'm leaning towards the latter.

The game sports a great looking 3D engine, and an easily maneuverable camera similar to Dungeon Siege and Neverwinter Nights. I found the graphics to be a bit taxing at some points, though, because I had to turn down the resolution a notch (1280x1024) to get a decent framerate. Hopefully these video optimization issues are worked out for the North American release. The tutorial is well laid out and teaches you the subtle nuances in game mechanics, which I highly recommend playing through before getting started on the included campaign levels. Players of Fallout, Jagged Alliance or even the largely overlooked Shadow Watch may find themselves battling through familiar territory here though; the turn based squad tactics are surprisingly complex.

Objects in the game such as walls and obstacles are destructible, allowing a new dimension of tactics to be revealed. Your characters can run, walk, strafe, crouch or crawl in the prone position, each taking different amounts of action points. The accuracy of the weapons seem realistic enough: you can shoot more with an MP40 or snap off multiple shots with a rifle, but if you can spare the action points you can aim carefully which will result in a higher chance of scoring a hit. Cover and elevation play an important role, as they should; you'll have more of a chance hitting a target far away if you are at an elevated position. This may not seem like anything groundbreaking, and it isn't. However the implementation of the combat mechanics is exceptional, and you barely have reason to think about the combat engine's flaws.

There are two separate campaigns in the full version of the game, Axis and Allies. You're given one mission from each in the demo, and they are both equally challenging and calculatingly paced. The continuous playing of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance has prepared me for this type of gameplay, but some may not like the slow pacing. However the deep customization of skills and ordinance loadouts for each character make this a game you must play slowly, for the rewards lie in heeding the finer points. For each demo mission you start off with a preselected squad, but the full version of the game boasts a selection of over 40 operatives of varying nationalities and classes (assault, demolitions, sniper, recon, etc.). The character models all looked great in-game; they seemed a bit cartoony but were still extremely detailed.

The game is only available in Europe currently, and is garnering a few encouraging reviews. We can expect it to hit stores in North America in late January; I plan on preordering over the holidays. It looks to be a solid turn-based strategy/RPG and as always the subject material makes the game that much more fun for me to play. An expansion for Silent Storm has already been slated for release next year, showing that Nival has high hopes for this series. As do I.

You can grab the demo here to partake in this high-quality gaming experience.

review: Call of Duty (PC)

I waited like a slavering, starving dog for the intense WWII action of Call of Duty. I picked it up last Friday night along with a rental copy of the magnificent Soul Calibur II, but I'll leave that for another post. On the way home I listened to the pre-order exclusive soundtrack CD to get myself in the spirit. Being Halloween and all we had to put up with the snotlings that insisted on coming to our door begging for candy, so installation was delayed until Saturday. The install went pretty smoothly - that is, until I actually tried to start the game.

review: Medal of Honor: Allied Assault - Breakthrough

While waiting for EB to give me The Call (of Duty), I decided to get MoHAA: Breakthrough to pass the time in a similar WWII fashion. A minor annoyance is that EA released a battlechest earlier this summer with only the first expansion, and they'll probably do the same in couple months with the entire set. As if EA needed any more cash. Don't get me wrong though - I love the series and I'll probably get the new battlechest regardless.

One thing for sure is that it's much longer than Spearhead, so you at least get your money's worth. But judging from some of the initial reviews, I wasn't sure what to expect. After being thrown into a sandstorm in the Battle of Kasserine Pass (the first Tunisian mission) I was ready to partake in some cinematic styled WWII action. And for a second I actually believed this. But after playing through the 12 sub-missions spanning the deserts of North Africa to the heart of Italy, my initial hopes were quickly dashed.

legacy of the crusader

Are the people responsible for this mess the same ones that brought us such classics as Fallout, Baldur's Gate and fucking Planescape? I have been playing this game since the weekend, and depressingly I am not that far into it because of the glaring technical and design issues that are in the way of what should have been a fantastic RPG.

I hadn't heard much about this game until the hype machine started up before it's release a couple weeks ago. Strangely enough, Interplay never showed this game at E3. Foreshadowing events to come? You bet your ass.

i assure you it will be operational

Finally some delicious BF1942 news from the good fellows at BFCentral to keep me from falling into my GBA completely.

Item 1: It's about frigging time

The Star Wars: Galactic Conquest mod finally has a release date. The full version of the mod will be available August 1st with one map: the snowy plains of Hoth. The team plans on releasing a patch a couple weeks later with four more maps: Tatooine, Corellia, Yavin and Endor. I think when I purchased BF1942 the guy at EB said: "I'll buy that game when the Star Wars mod is done". Well, now's your chance buddy.

Item 2: Battlefield: Vietnam Screenshots

The whores over at IGN have gotten their greasy hands on some screens for Battlefield:Vietnam. Also, the fine lads over at ToTheGame.com has some more Vietnam lovin'. I'd suggest checking them out if you were interested in what I had to say about PCG's exclusive last week. They all look really good and my excitement level has gone up a notch. This will be another multiplayer gaming spectacle.

Update: EA's official site has posted some more screenshots. They're pretty tiny, but no less exciting. Especially the shot of a NVA soldier taking out a helicopter with a bazooka.

Item 3: Secret Weapons Revealed

BFCentral got a hold of the box art for the upcoming expansion Secret Weapons of World War II. Theoretically the cover should evoke an aura of coolness, what with the V-1 rocket reflected in darkened goggles and the "top secret" blueprints evoking the mysterious and experimental nature of these weapons. Still, I am left feeling unimpressed and just hope the expansion pack itself pays off. As much as I loved Road to Rome, nobody plays it. I mean, why should they when the default maps are great and the mapping community is doing a super job of keeping things new and interesting. Because DICE is adding a lot of new gameplay features (such as mobile spawnpoints in paratrooper transports) as well as a bunch of new maps I have a feeling Secret Weapons will become a fan favorite.

Item 4: A New Official Map

How this piece of news slipped through the cracks makes me wonder just how deeply the GBA has gripped me. A new official map from DICE including a new vehicle (German bomber) and a Radar Tower/AA Gun. The map is entitled "The Battle of Britain" and should be available soon. You can catch some screenshots over at the official site. If it's as good as Operation Aberdeen, we should be alright. I love it when developers go out of their way to please the fan base. It makes the industry look somewhat human instead of a machine that shovels out sequels and half-finished products.

See you on the front lines, soldier.