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