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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Time Machines

Games may be accepted by mainstream culture as a medium for entertainment, but as a learning tool for something besides killing your fellow man I think society at large would have words to quickly refute the possibility. I've considered myself a casual student of history for the past few years, and I can easily attribute my interest to a simple catalyst: games. Whether it was the rise of my German Empire in Civilization III or storming the beaches in Allied Assault, both games got me interested in the facts behind the gameplay. My latest article at The Cultural Gutter explores history and gaming, and why we still have a lot to learn.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

empire at war

As is the trend with print media's brief grasp on exclusives, some scans of PC Zone magazine appeared on Planet CnC over the weekend, displaying Petroglyph's upcoming RTS: Star Wars: Empire at War. They were soon taken down for obvious reasons, but as we all know the damage had already been done. 1UP has since posted a preview with screens, no doubt based on information already released in PC Zone and CGW's cover story.

Up until a few months ago, the project tackled by former members of Westwood's Command and Conquer team had been tightly under wraps. Understandable, given the medicore reception of Galactic Battlegrounds, essentially a Star Wars skin on an aging engine (pun intended). And let us not forget the complete flop known as Force Commander, LucasArts' last attempt at an original engine, and a sucking chest wound for Star Wars gamers everywhere.

According to a description at TheForce.Net, the events of Empire at War will be set a few years before A New Hope, and will purportedly cross over with some elements of the upcoming Episode III, a logical decision given the game's Fall release. It also sounds like the technology revealed in the battle in Episode II will also be available.

Empire at War also hopes to take Star Wars RTS into space, and although the gaming press loves to make comparisons to Homeworld in this regard, with a game divided between such disparate fronts I hardly think that they'll be able to capture the fluidity of Homeworld's interface and still make it adaptable for the ground based battles. Still, I like the thought of a brand new engine, and look forward to what the game has to offer in terms of gameplay. Those eager to cut their teeth on Star Wars capital ship battles can always try out New Rebellion for Homeworld, or wait for the upcoming Warlords - an absolutely amazing looking adaptation for Homeworld 2. Next to these ambitious mods, the space battles in Empire at War seem less than inspiring.

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.

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