On the Subject of 2008

Sophie Howard

I was reading an article on technology predictions for 2008 when coincidentally I had the completely original idea of writing some of my own predictions, mainly for games, for the coming year. When it turns out I'm right on all counts I will quote myself at great length. In the unlikely event that I turn out to be less than right I will edit this post 1984-style to make it look like I was correct all along.

MMOs

2008 is supposed to be the year when both Warhammer: Age of Reckoning and Age of Conan are released. Of course so was 2007, but that didn't happen.
AoC, which looks like the slightly less PvP-orientated of the two, is currently name-checked by anyone and everyone who writes a tedious, self-important, wanky "leaving" post on the forums of current MMOs. "waaaah this game sucks, Age of Conan will be so much better". I confidently predict that it won't. In fact I confidently predict both games will be shit, and will see plenty of their own leaving posts shortly after release.
As a PvP game, WAR will undoubtedly see continuous class balancing/nerfing until there's nothing left to differentiate between classes and the players condemn it as bland. Of course if they don't balance it, the same players will condemn the game as unfair.
AoC, which will also be released on the 360 (a huge flashing red warning sign if ever there was one for MMOs) will be dumbed down to the point of idiocy, with nice big chunky menus and easy-peasy mechanics for the console kiddies. It's also worrying that the screen shots that are being released are getting gradually worse and worse, no doubt as they struggle to make the game remotely playable.
AoC has "disappointment" written all over it in permanent marker pen. I'm really looking forward to it because of the told-you-so satisfaction I'll get as the deluded fanboys discover it's not the beacon of MMO perfection they claimed. It'll be like watching a kid who has told all his mates that he's getting the best christmas present ever, only to discover on the day that it's a pair of shit-stained pants.
As for WAR, well I don't really give a toss about that anyway because it's just PvP which is of course worthless.

Far Cry 2
Following in the wake of Crysis' narrative mediocrity, Far Cry 2 could turn out to be the game Crysis ought to have been. It might not be as jaw-droppingly pretty, but it looks more open, with some interesting features like dynamic weather and NPC sidekicks and the ever-popular dynamic fire. As a PC-only title this already deserves the Field Marshal's seal of approval. It's hard to make a prediction about it because relatively little is known, but I suspect it will be good fun and will address some of Crysis' shortcomings, although I also suspect it will come bundled with a lot of bugs and other issues. Still, I'm quietly hopeful and it's probably the game I'm most looking forward to next year. And maybe there'll be a limited edition!

Alan Wake
This will undoubtedly be the Crysis of 2008 as far as hype is concerned omgwtf it looks teh amazing!!!!111 And then it hits the shelves and suddenly everyone will be distinctly underwhelmed by the gameplay, and probably by the poor performance and bugs and other contentious issues like the widescreen implementation etc etc. At least it will give me something to write about. Oh, how I look forward to legions of clueless mongs claiming it's badly coded just because their piece of shit PC can't handle it. Yeah? Have you seen the game code? Can you show me something that looks as good but runs faster? And no, CoD4 doesn't look as good you FUCKING MORON.
Another potential limited edition for my collection, though.

Spore
Back in the day I was sucked in by all the hype surrounding Black and White. Oooh, the graphics. Oooh, the funny animal avatars. Oooh, zooming in and out and using a godlike hand to drag yourself around the terrain. Unfortunately I found the game boring as hell and only ever played 2 or 3 battles or levels or whatever they were.
That's what I imagine happening when I think of Spore. Yes, it makes for very impressive tech demos. Oooh, you can design your own arrangement of legs. Oooh, it goes from single cells to space battles. Unfortunately I can only imagine it being incredibly dull to "play". Maybe if you're into all that Civilisation/Sim City sort of stuff it'll be ok. However, I predict that a lot of people who aren't will buy into the hype and then shelve the game soon after they've installed it. But the fact is they'll have bought it, so it'll be hailed as a massive success by the games industry and probably lead to a resurgence of god games.
I won't be buying it, limited edition or not.

On the Subject of Leveling

Eva Green

Time for an MMO-related rant. I hope you're sitting comfortably.
In the course of some typical holier-than-thou hardcore-vs-casuals thread on the official Vanguard forums that I can't be arsed to look up, one self-styled hardcore player noticed that the in-game character belonging to someone he was arguing with was only in the mid levels of the game. Naturally this led to much scoffing on the part of the hardcore, who was of course fully level cap'd to the max. The assertion was that if you haven't reached the level cap, you can't possibly understand the fundamental mechanics of the game. Having written that, I suspect it's something I've touched on in the past.
As bullshit MMO arguments go, that was a classic. The idea that there's some tectonic shift in gameplay at the high levels is hilarious. What was really happening was that the hardcore was trying to justify the ridiculous grind and tedium he had endured in order to reach the level cap by pretending there is some holy grail of endgame enlightenment, some sort of MMO epiphany that is out of reach of lesser players.
Anyone who's played Vanguard knows that there is really no change in gameplay from level 1 onwards. Oh sure the various numbers get bigger but then the combat stats (necessarily) cancel out for the most part. All you're left with in Vanguard is increased grind. The number of items you need to collect for collection quests increases. The scarcity of those items increases. The number of creatures you have to kill for farming quests increases. The time it takes to kill those creatures increases. The amount of faction required before you can undertake a quest line (and therefore the number of creatures you have to kill to achieve that faction) increases. The number of quests you need to complete, or random farming you have to endure to level increases.
What did he honestly think changes at higher levels? Of course an answer to that question was stubbornly avoided in the course of the argument, dismissed with variations of "you wouldn't understand, you're not high enough level".
Perhaps the AI improves. Perhaps instead of stumbling zombie-like towards you and proceeding to fire off their signature sequence of attacks the enemies suddenly demonstrate genuine variation and unpredictability. Hahaha no of course not.
Perhaps, instead of the same old fed-ex or farming or assassination quests there is suddenly a range of immersive, story-driven quests with multiple possible outcomes? Hahaha no of course not.
Perhaps combat becomes more than pressing a set of buttons in whatever order makes the damage numbers the biggest? Hahaha no of course not.
I'm sure a hardcore would argue the last point. I know you get newer, bigger skills as you level and thus the order in which you press the buttons will change, but that really doesn't constitute a change in gameplay. Any group-based healing or buffing tactics are just as valid at low levels as they are later in the game (again, skills permitting). I know the bigger, badder foes might employ pop-up adds to increase the "challenge" but again, those adds are using the same, tired AI.
This is essentially why I ran out of motivation in the early-30s in Vanguard. Nothing changes. It's more (and more and more) of the same old grind. Until that changes, there really is no reason to keep ploughing through the game. The end result is that the casuals, who would stay the course if there was variety and something to look forward to later in the game, can't be arsed to keep banging away at it and leave. Meanwhile the power-leveling hardcore hit the level cap and (until the recent, long overdue and still typically flawed introduction of the Ancient Port Warehouse raid) run out of things to do and leave. The difference is, the "casuals" had the insight and sense to quit flagellating themselves in the pursuit of some elusive and arguably non-existent "achievement" that has nothing to do with skill or ability.

The Field Marshal's Girls of 2007 Update

2007 draws to a close, but until it's dead and buried I'm still free to steal pictures of attractive women from hollywoodtuna.com add some last-minute entries to my prestigious role-call of the year's top totty.

Krystal Forscutt

Brunette? check Cracking tits? check She's like a cross between Catherine Bell, Lisa Snowdon and with a little bit of Mylene Klass thrown in for good measure.

On the Subject of Vanguard

Lisa Snowdon

"Another sign of the growing maturity of online gaming was the notable failure of titles such as Vanguard.

Although released in February it was error prone and has taken months to become reliable enough."

When even the BBC website calls a game a failure, it must be true.

The Field Marshal's New Years Honours List: Part 2

You didn't think I was only going to give awards to games did you? Hahaha as if. I can't be bothered with any more of that formatting twattery and copying medals off wikipedia so I'll keep it simple this time.
Presenting the Field Marshal's Top Totty of 2007 in no particular order.

Monica Bellucci

I suspect she's the most beautiful woman on earth. Woman of the Year this year, and basically every other year.

Megan Fox

In some ways she's a poor man's Monica Bellucci, but that alone is enough to guarantee inclusion on this list.

Gemma Atkinson

She's arguably not that hot, but she had nice tits even back before the "enhancement" and what with her recent lingerie promotions they're even harder to miss.

Lucy Pinder & Keeley Hazell

They don't really do enough to justify separate descriptions. There's just no arguing with Hazell's stunning figure, while Pinder has larger boobs and a prettier face.

Salma Hayek

Salma's been showing off some serious cleavage recently, and like Atkinson she wasn't exactly flat-chested to start with. Hayek's inclusion might also be motivated by the fact I watched "After the Sunset" again recently.

Alina Vacariu

To be honest I have no idea who she is and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I found some pics of her while I was uploading the others and you just don't overlook a young version of Catherine Zeta Jones in her underwear.


Honourable Mentions
Hayden Panettiere is quite cute, but a bit of a shapeless dwarf. On the other hand Kim Kardashian has some mouth-watering curves, but an annoying, smug face.


Dishonourable Mentions
Britney Spears, one-time top totty, continues to go from bad to worse. The utterly, utterly hideous Amy Winehouse continues to be hideous. As does the equally hideous, droopy-eyed Nicole Richie. Much as I like Jennifer Love Hewitt, the infamous lardy bikini photos were... unfortunate.

The Field Marshal's New Years Honours List

You can't jibber-jabber about games in a blog and not have some sort of pompous awards post towards the end of the year. So after several minutes of careful consideration, here are the Field Marshal's definitive awards (in descending order of greatness).



The Bennett Cross
"... most conspicuous gameplay, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to entertainment in the presence of the enemy"

The Witcher

A game that might have been highly anticipated by the three people who knew it existed, The Witcher appeared to me out of nowhere and quickly established itself as my game of the year by a considerable margin.
Fast and furious swordplay that gets more impressive as you progress and which shits all over Oblivion's clumsy button-mashing, combined with some beautifully crafted narrative and characterisation. The gameplay might be more linear (in a very loose sense) than Oblivion but that only serves to deliver a richer, more rewarding storyline. And it's nice to play a game which isn't afraid to feature a well-defined, strong lead character rather than the anonymous everyman that's becoming increasingly common in games like Half-Life.
The characters are great, the voice acting mostly excellent, the graphics are excellent, the design is superb. There's lots of shagging, lots of swearing, and even bare breasts if you secure an uncensored, non-US version. What's not to like?



The Bennett Service Order
"... acts of the greatest gameplay or of the most conspicuous entertainment in circumstances of extreme danger"

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Having played the original CoD, and half of CoD2, I thought I had a pretty good idea of what to expect from the latest installment. That was until I got stuck into the full game which turned out to be much greater than the sum of it's parts. As the story kicked in I became remarkably immersed in the action, wanting to push on to help power our lads to victory against the filthy terrorist scum. The cutscenes are exceptionally cinematic, there are some typically big, loud firefights. There are some nice distractions like the airborne, night-vision section and the game is very pretty while still running impressively quickly. While not exactly coming out of nowhere, CoD4 was still a surprise hit of 2007.



The Bennett Medal
"... acts of gallantry and devotion to gameplay under fire"

Crysis

Sadly it has become fashionable to bash Crysis in the weeks since it's release, usually by people who feel "ripped off" because their PC can't run it at a million frames a second.
Admittedly the story is a let down, possibly worse than Far Cry's which is saying something. But the gameplay itself is very solid, and of course the graphics are staggering. It's a very good game, even if it could never live up to the absurd hype that has surrounded it for that last couple of years and even if you're too poor to be able to afford a PC that's capable of running it.


Honourable Mentions
Bioshock was beautifully-designed and essentially an underwater System Shock 2, but I haven't actually got around to completing it. Unreal Tournament 3 is basically a shiny UT for 2007 and is good for quick blast now and then. Portal was innovative and nice, even if it lacks longevity (for me at least). I still haven't got around to Half-Life 2: Episode 2, thanks to my ongoing Witcher fixation, but it's supposed to be the strongest episode yet. Gears of War was ok in a sort of one-dimensional console-y sort of way.


Dishonourable Mentions
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes was highly anticipated as the next-gen MMO but has so far failed to deliver despite it's enormous potential. You never know, it could miraculously become good, but it's nearly a year old and the game is still plagued by many of the same problems it has suffered since day one, not to mention crippled by one of the most infuriatingly smug and self-righteous communities of self-styled MMO veterans of any game in existence. A great shame.

On the Subject of Call of Duty 4

Bar Rafaeli

I played the demo, I was impressed by what they had achieved visually with a relatively limited engine, I was unsurprised by the linear design which is common to the previous installments, I thought it was pretty good fun and bought the full game on Steam.
And the full game is exceptionally good. Yes, it's linear. No, the engine can't hold a candle to Crysis. It is, however, really good fun and it's linear because that's the only way you can deliver a compelling storyline and offer a sequence of genuinely exciting set pieces. That sort of game-play in wartime FPS games really dates back to the Omaha Beach landing stage in the original Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. Lots of enemies, lots of bullets and missiles flying around, lots of shouting and explosions. Great stuff.
It's no army simulation, but it is engaging, adrenaline-pumping action. And for a "limited" engine it often looks stunning. The rim lighting they seem to have added to the characters (especially at nighttime) is slightly questionable, but the depth of field is nicely implemented and adds enormously to the experience of crawling through grass or sniping. And without the mammoth performance hit that post-processing adds to Crysis.
There are some genuinely thrilling stages. My favourites include the whole Chernobyl sequence which is rendered in desaturated tones and provides a beautifully-designed and haunting environment of abandoned buildings and wild dogs. It also features a proper stealth section at the start which includes possibly the most nerve-wracking moment in the game as you lie in the grass hoping you're not about to be stepped on, run over or simply spotted by an oncoming patrol of soldiers and vehicles.
I was also impressed by how the Great British SAS get all the good stuff, while the marines are slightly relegated to cannon fodder, although Marine character Jackson's death (yeah, spoiler, whatever) is both surprising and poignantly handled. In fact the way the story unfolds and before you know it you find yourself immersed in trying to achieve the character's goals is what impressed me the most.
The ending is great - hugely cinematic and rewarding even if it does come a little bit too soon. But then that's a common complaint these days and "wanting more" is not much of a criticism.
It's great to have relatively low expectations and then have a truly memorable gaming experience. CoD4 is light-years ahead of it's predecessors and a much more involving game than Crysis with it's Aliens-by-numbers storyline and old-school big boss ending.
I have no opinion on the multiplayer aspects of the game because I have no intention of trying it. I wanted a fun, straightforward single-player shooter and in the end I got a lot more for my money. That's good enough for me.

More on the Subject of Crysis

Maria Ozawa

Finished it. Tried not to rush it because you can only play a game for the first time once. I played it on the default difficulty because unlike a lot of people, I don't treat SP campaigns as another way to demonstrate my elite gaming skills. I prefer to just play through and enjoy it without the frustrations that usually arise when you play a game that was essentially designed for the default difficulty and then made artificially difficult on the higher levels. Maximum difficulty in FPS's often ends up requiring you to exploit map or AI bugs to win, which really defeats the purpose.
But I digress. Visually Crysis is, of course, absolutely stunning. Even if no one on earth can run it maxed-out, there are plenty of regions where I just had to create a save game so that I could go back and admire them again later. The tank battle through the valley is a good example, as is the retreat from the island by land and air.
The story is, also of course, balls. North Vietnamese discover alien artifacts, chaos insues. Not really in the same league as The Witcher when it comes to labyrinthine plot twists.
Crysis follows the current trend for games being quite short, with the developers attempting to justify the lack of content by designing the game as the first part of a trilogy. Yawn. The most disappointing aspect is how the bulk of the action is squashed into perhaps the last third of the game, so just when you think it's shaping up to be impressively epic, it's all over in a flash.
In terms of gameplay it's simply Far Cry + nano suit. Some driving, some boats, some stealth, some big firefights. Nothing really new, but nothing to complain about either. Well, except the pointless and dull alien section. The novelty of zero-gravity wears off pretty quickly, and then it's just another alien corridor shooter which you push through as quickly as possible in order to return to the outdoor goodness.
Still, overall the game is very, very good looking and apart from (or maybe even despite) the impossible hardware requirements it really does deliver graphically.

On the Subject of Skill

Mylene Klass

Just a random rant this time, no pretty pictures of limited editions I'm afraid.
It should be obvious by now that I have considerable disdain for "hardcore" MMO players. They are a minority of MMO populations, but usually a very vocal minority and their bleating can be heard on pretty much any game forum you care to mention. These are people who often started out in PnP roleplaying, usually have a long resume of past MMOs under their belt and who have subsequently developed an inflated sense of their own importance within the MMO community.
There are any number of reasons why these pathetic idiots disgust me. There's the blinkered, close-minded attitude to any suggestion of change to game mechanics. There's the tedious compulsion to demonstrate how knowledgable they are, or how competent they are at a given game, especially if it involves belittling another player. You can guarantee that any time someone dares to suggest they find a particular quest, mission or encounter difficult on a game forum, their post will be followed by a dozen idiots proclaiming "I did it easily", "I beat it first time" or "it's the easiest encounter in the game". More often than not they will provide no constructive advice on how to beat it because they're secretly terrified of other players catching up with them.
Another forum favourite is the "why can't I find a PUG that doesn't suck?" comment. The intended implication is that the player is some sort of elite pro gamer whose skills are so advanced that they are unable to find other players on the same level. What's interesting about this sort of comment is that there are a couple of unintended, and probably more accurate implications. Firstly if you're playing with PUGs all the time it means you're not part of an active guild. You could argue that's because there aren't any guilds that cater for such an advanced player as yourself, but it's much more likely that you're not actually competent enough to join one of the (many) advanced-level guilds that undoubtedly exist. Secondly, if you play with a large number of PUGs and you claim they all suck, remember that the common factor in all those PUGs was YOU. Of course a PUG will never rival a well-organised guild group in terms of efficiency, but on the other hand it takes more able players to operate effectively in a random group and obviously you're not up to the job.
In fact "skill" is an odd term when it comes to MMOs. The fact is most MMOs don't actually require much in the way of skill. Mostly it just comes down to statistics, and balancing the books so that the numbers in your column (armour, damage output, healing capacity etc) are bigger than the numbers in the enemy's column. MMO combat is still little more than a turn-based card game. I've mentioned before how hardcore gamers commonly confuse difficulty with grind, and the same applies to skill. Being willing to spend thousands of hours grinding to level up your stats is just an extension of "balancing the books". There's little skill involved, and trying to discredit players who complain about things like pointless death penalty mechanics is laughable. Reaching a level cap doesn't require actual skill as much as it requires an obsessive compulsive disorder and a large amount of spare time. Neither of which are anything to brag about. There are plenty of games out there that require genuine skill if you're going to achieve above-average ability, whether it's first person shooters, or real time strategy games, or even sports games or beat-em-ups. The closest to MMOs is obviously RTS, although we're yet to see an MMO include any genuine RTS mechanics. Rather we're stuck with lame zombie-style AI and artificially boosted stats in place of any genuine challenge. Network latency issues generally prohibit MMOs from demanding the same dexterity as something like a FPS.
So what skills does an MMO player require? Advancement comes through experience, from learning how the game mechanics operate (although they're all fundamentally identical) and usually from learning the specific weaknesses or exploits that you can use to beat an encounter. In that sense it hasn't really made any progress from the original PnP games. Sadly, as developers fall over themselves to grab a piece of the WoW market we're actually seeing less and less progress in terms of game mechanics. It's obviously better business to give players more of the same, when the same has been so successful in the past, rather than explore new systems and evolve the genre.
But at least that means the hardcore crowd won't have to develop any actual skills for the foreseeable future, and can continue to pretend they're somehow special.

More on the Subject of Limited Editions

Abi Titmuss

Unreal Tournament arrived yesterday so I can now add that to the hall of LE fame. It's a step up from the Crysis debacle, with a proper tin box and at least the art book is hard back and not so easy to mistake for the manual. Actually the tin is odd, it's designed to open from both the front and back, and has built in disc spindles on both doors. Epic have decided to fly in the face of practicality and fill half the box with a cardboard spacer so that only the front lid is operational, and provide both discs in paper sleeves (which is arguably preferable to scratch-prone spindles).
Still, it's a little light on the goods for a special edition. A little figurine or some other bonus hardware wouldn't have gone amiss.
A special nod to the EB/Gamestop package that includes "Unreal Anthology", which is basically Unreal 1, Unreal 2, UT:GOTY & Unreal Tournament 2004, plus a soundtrack CD. Not a bad bonus really, even if I probably won't both bother playing any of them.
As for the game, it runs beautifully and much more smoothly than the beta/demo. As I've previously noted it's common to bash big name games these days and many people like to pretend they're some sort of uber-gamers who are too good for the likes of UT3, and that FPSes (or MMOs) were only worthy in the olden days. Well that's bollocks. UT3 is more great visceral UT action, with some nice graphical flourishes and all the high-speed, well-balanced, adrenaline-fueled goodness of the previous installments. So there.
Of course it's not a patch on Crysis visually, but then at least current PCs can actually run UT3 at high detail.

On the Subject of Limited Editions

Krista Allen

I have to admit I'm a sucker for a Limited Edition. The promise of extra, exclusive shiny things is too much for me to resist, even if it's stuff I'll ultimately never end up using like a "making of" dvd.
On the other hand, the quality of "limited" or "special" editions can be highly variable. My copy of the Crysis special edition arrived yesterday and frankly it's piss-poor. Just a normal fat dvd case, with a half-arsed art book that I initially mistook for the game manual and three discs, including what looks like a copy of the sound track. Although I generally like soundtrack albums so at least it wasn't a total write-off.


Compare that with the Tabula Rasa collector's edition. Now, Richard Garriot comes from a golden age of PC game packaging in the 80's when game boxes routinely contained all manner of promotional junk (often in attempt to disguise the crappy game quality). Garriot's own Ultima games were notorious for their extravagant presentation so I was looking forward to the TR edition and wasn't disappointed. From the cover letter to the intricate construction of the box, from the id card with the serial number to the dog tags, it feels like they've put a lot of love into the design and makes you want to be a part of the game.


Bioshock didn't offer much in it's LE and doesn't come close to TR's presentation, but the miniature Big Daddy model alone makes up for the lack of quantity.


Guild Wars has also offered some excellent LE boxes. As a fan of Jeremy Soule's soundtrack work they're worth the extra cost for the additional soundtrack album alone, and the substantial artwork books are always worth a second look (not to mention the in-game mini pets can be worth serious virtual money if you choose to sell them).



The Witcher offers a similar LE experience to Guild Wars. Slightly sparse, but at least it's in a nice big box and basically well-presented.


And bonus points for including a porn mag (not really, but the art book is great).


Neverwinter Nights 2 was a let-down. A cloth map, a couple of cheapo rings and a half-hearted attempt at an interesting box.


Vanguard offered a nice big box, but not much else. Pretty much like the game itself, in fact.



So Crysis get's a lowly 2/10 for it's Special Edition box set. Still to come is the Unreal Tournament 3 special edition which comes in a tin box or something, although it sounds like that might be overshadowed by all the extra stuff Gamestop are adding to preorders.

Update: Apparently the Crysis SE comes in a proper tin case in other parts of the world, but not in the US or Canada for some reason. Still, that wouldn't be enough to make up for the sad lack of content.

On the Subject of Online Shopping

Catherine Bell

What is it with online shops stating that things are in stock and will ship in 24 hours, and then when you order they decide it's actually out of stock and will take 2-3 weeks. Twice I've tried to order a bloody monitor and had that happen this week alone.
Yeah, I know it's nothing to do with gaming. Just imagine some rant about idiot MMO zealots here, there'll probably be another one along soon. Meanwhile I'll try to find some more totty to fill the space.

On the Subject of Beta Testing

Alyssa Milano

You know, I hate the way MMO "betas" are now commonly regarded as some sort of head start for the grind monkeys*, and some sort of badge of honour on forums. "I've been in the game since beta", usually accompanying a "why has this game become carebear" whine-fest or "therefore I understand the game better than you" retort.
Beta testing used to be about testing the game systems for the developers so that as many bugs as possible can be worked out, or gameplay issues resolved. Now it's all about players having the opportunity to learn the game systems as early as possible so that they can identify and master any weaknesses or exploits and level more efficiently or make more money sooner than everyone else once the game goes live. Not to mention that despite beta tests that can last for years, many games are released with an astonishing array of bugs or poorly-designed mechanics. Probably because the "testers" are too busy trying to get one up on the opposition to actually provide any useful, constructive feedback.
When I provide one of my well-informed, insightful commentaries into the current state of MMO gaming I might occasionally suggest how I would deal with the situation if I were to design my own ideal MMO. Because I do spend a great deal of time pondering the subject.
This is one of those occasions. In my ideal MMO I would have the (open or closed) public beta test take place on some sort of cut-down trial island that offered only a subset of content and mechanics. I would rely on internal teams to test advanced systems because I would recognise that there is a good chance some balancing will ultimately be required whether or not the grind monkeys get the opportunity to "test" the game. I would be very hesitant to open the game to a large-scale, un-vetted audience prior to release. I might have a stress test that offered perhaps a single city or environment, stripped-down to test the systems I was interested in rather than the systems the random yahoos might be interested in.
Unfortunately as the market becomes more crowded companies are pandering more and more to the expectations of the idiot public. That includes gameplay design (whether it's grinding, raiding, PvP or similar) and offering a selection of beta tests to allow some players to feel like they're more hardcore and important than others. It's becoming increasingly common to see posts on forums where people take beta tests (and the player's acceptance into the test) for granted, and those people probably wouldn't even consider joining an MMO that was already live because they wouldn't be able to scoff at the noobs.
Essentially it all comes down to the majority of developers taking some sort of smug "hands off" approach to their player communities, a subject which really deserves it's own commentary.

* grind monkey: a player who considers grinding to be a desirable gameplay mechanic in the mistaken belief that being willing to grind is in some way indicative of player skill.

On the Subject of Gears of War

Kelly Brook

It is good. It makes me think how good Tabula Rasa would be it it played like an MMO GoW. Then again I've barely played TR yet so who knows.
Also on my ever-expanding gaming to-do list: CoD4 (pre-ordered on Steam), The Witcher (barely played, but so far so good), HL2:Ep2 (bought but not at all played), and not forgetting the imminent release of both Crysis and UT3.
Busy busy busy.

On the Subject of Endgame

Jennifer Love Hewitt

A thought occurred to me this morning while I was idly thinking about MMO purists and especially those particularly execrable individuals who consider MMOs to be all about raiding. The journey to the level cap is merely a tiresome inconvenience to these individuals who are constantly whining about "endgame", and usually the lack of it.
Of course 10 months into the game and Vanguard still lacks any raid content, or any other endgame content for that matter. Since it's largely populated by the MMO "elite" as I've previously described, any self-respecting Vanguard player has long since reached the level cap and has spent the remaining time bemoaning the lack of endgame, in between scoffing at players who are yet to reach the cap.
A quick aside at this point. It is common for players who have reached the level cap to comment that no one in the low-to-mid levels really understands the game. This is false. Nothing in Vanguard changes from about level 15 onwards, with the exception of the stats of weapons, skills, armour, foes and quests. It's just the same old shit, with bigger numbers, in different locations, over and over again.
But it made me think, what is "endgame"? Surely the very word suggests that all content has been completed and you have reached the end. Of the game. So racing to get there and then complaining about what it is seems particularly futile.
Of course in practice it means some lazy grindfest designed to offer some pretense of gameplay for those people who have exhausted the primary content. It is therefore necessarily repetitive and tedious. That's the problem with level caps; they create an unnatural barrier to further game progress. Compare that with something open-ended like Animal Crossing where the game is essentially designed to allow you to continue doing what you enjoy doing for as long as you enjoy doing it, no more, no less. That's what I'd like to see in MMOs, rather than the ultimately vacuous "achievement" of having ground your way through the game for long enough for your level number to reach some arbitrary limit. Way to go, cappers, you are "teh 1337".
An interesting contrast is Guild Wars (a game often dismissed by purists as shallow and simplistic). Even in the first (and best) chapter, Prophecies, the game is designed such that you reach the level cap approximately two thirds of the way through the game. Thereafter the game is simply about storyline (and loot, naturally). Sadly subsequent chapters have incorporated new and by no means improved mechanics like titles which have introduced a sad and largely unwelcome grind element to the game. If that trend continues I have little hope for GW2, currently in development.

On the Subject of Purists

Lucy Pinder

I've previously mentioned Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Sigil SOE's seemingly ill-fated MMO originally conceived (and subsequently fucked up) by Everquest designer Brad McQuaid. Quite apart from any gameplay or technical issues, Vanguard suffers from an insidious population of purists and self-styled "hard-core" players looking to turn back the clock and relive their MMO golden ages.
To go off on a brief tangent, anyone who thinks you can reclaim the sense of wonder and excitement you encountered in your first MMO is a deluded idiot. And you certainly won't find it by turning your current MMO-du-jour into a carbon copy of your first love.
But what bothers me about these people is how closed-minded they are when it comes to game mechanics. Any suggestion that a current game might deviate from the official gameplay guidelines laid down by UO, or EQ, EQ2 or similar is met with predictable, tedious derision. What's most irritating is that these people constantly mistake grind for difficulty, and have absolutely no idea what they even mean when they say a game should be more difficult (which is often, because they're typically fond of trying to prove how elite and hardcore they are by claiming they find everything too easy, especially in response to a normal player who might dare to suggest something's too hard).
I am reminded of this subject because of a recent Vanguard producer's post on the official forums where he reveals that they're planning to remove XP debt as a component of death penalty.
Unsurprisingly this had a lot of the elitist fools up in arms, claiming the death penalty is already too soft and the xp debt takes them little time to work off (in other words "I'm so good at this game I hardly notice the death penalty, look at me, look at me, aren't I special?").
I had previously had the unbridled nerve to suggest in another thread that xp debt was a pointless and stupid death penalty. Of course the fucknuts (I really need to come up with a good collective noun for them) missed the point of the post entirely and came back with the same old tired "no, it should stay, it takes no time to work off for me because I'm so good at this game, look at me, look at me". If it's so easy to work off, what's the point having it at all? Their point, really, is that they're scared of any change that might be viewed as making the game "carebear" (*yawn*). These are typically people who have nothing better to do than grind, grind, grind to the level cap and once there, they're terrified of anyone being able to achieve the same goal without having to put in the same hours of mindless drudgery and thereby diminish their achievement.
And that's my point. Grind is not the same as difficulty. Killing a thousand of the same type of creature for some ill-designed quest or simply to gain experience and level isn't something that should be applauded or recognised as a worthwhile achievement. Killing one creature that demonstrates sophisticated tactics (and not just sky-high stats) and provides a stimulating, unpredictable challenge would be far preferable to killing a thousand mindless zombies that simply stagger straight towards you. Improved enemy tactics are supposedly on the Vanguard to-do list, so that's something.
But the same old ignorance persists. "OMG don't reduce the grind! I spent X thousand hours grinding to the level cap and if other people can get there by playing through sophisticated, engaging content rather than mind-numbing tedium then I won't feel special!". Fuck off.

On the Subject of DirectX 10

Sophie Marceau

Playing the superb Crysis demo has reminded me that DirectX 10 exists. It's easy to forget, what with it being Vista-only. I recall prior to Vista's release, our friends the forum idiots were declaring DX10 would be the Saviour of PC gaming and "OMG if it looks this good in DX9, DX10 will be amazing!!!!111!1". Ignorant bollocks, of course.
Predictably, all we've seen in practice are a few gimmicky graphical flourishes in the handful of games that support DX10. Not to mention the main feature of the API, increased graphics pipeline efficiency, hasn't resulted in effortless performance gains. In fact thanks to Vista being a fat version of XP games generally run slower.
I haven't actually tried Crysis under Vista yet, on account of Creative's shitty X-Fi drivers rendering my sound card useless and also because I simply can't be arsed. I believe the "Very High" graphics settings are only available under DX10, but given that my 8800GTX can barely scrape by on "High" I'm not particularly tempted to push it any further.

On the Subject of Crysis

Denise Milani

It's terribly unfashionable to be enthusiastic about a big-name game these days. Fortunately I don't give a rat's arse what all the smug, self-righteous, needlessly contrary kiddie-fiddlers think and I can say without hesitation that on the basis of the recently-released SP demo, Crysis is the dog's bollocks.
If only there was a graphics card on earth that could run it maxed-out, which brings us to the subject of optimisation. Just as with the Bioshock widescreen fiasco, Crysis is bringing out the armchair pundits claiming that Crytek have done a poor job of optimisation because the demo doesn't run at a million fps on their antiquated, bargain-basement systems. If that was true, every monkey with a knocked-off copy of Visual Studio would be banging out games that look as rich and pretty as Crysis, but of course they're not. This game is breaking new ground in visual complexity and that comes at a hefty performance cost. If you can't afford a computer that can at least run it in a playable form that's not Crytek's fault, it's yours for being a talentless, penniless wastrel.
The other classic I've noticed on forums is the ever-popular "the release version will be optimised" suggestion. Bless. As if Crytek have purposely coded the engine to be slow, and will hit a magic optimisation switch before the retail game goes gold and suddenly it will run ten times faster. Of course that never happens, and you can be sure that the release version will be 99% identical to the demo in terms of performance. Maybe future patches, and more likely revised graphics drivers, will squeeze out a little more but if you think your piece-of-shit, circa 1999 graphics card will ever do this game justice then you're only fooling yourself.

More on the Subject of Wide Screen

The rule for games that the choice of wide screen cropping is ultimately the decision of the game developers does not apply to television. While a game engine is potentially capable of rendering the image at any given resolution, TV isn't.
If only tv service providers and/or channel operators could all figure out how to properly broadcast wide screen content, especially when it's HD.
Having wide screen content encoded in a letterboxed format on DVDs is bad enough. Obviously all wide screen DVD content should be encoded as anamorphic.
But what's even worse is when wide screen HDTV content is scaled down both horizontally and vertically so that it appears letterboxed on a 4:3 set, but on a proper wide screen it looks like some retarded picture-in-picture mode. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK are they thinking?

Below is a 16:9 image. This is what it should look like on my wide screen TV.
Poor people with 4:3 sets should either see a horizontally-cropped image:
or a scaled-down, letterboxed image:
The following, however, is a fucking abomination. In NO circumstances should wide screen programs be broadcast in this format:

On the Subject of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

Aria Giovanni

It's no secret that Vanguard has had it's share of drama in it's relatively short life. Wildly optimistic pre-launch claims from head-in-the-clouds supremo Brad McQuaid did little to endear Sigil to players once the game was realeased, "6 months" too early, in a state that was barely recognisable as a game. Loyal players stuck with it in the hope that some of the formidable potential would eventually be realised.
Sadly, very little of any consequence has actually changed since release. There have been sporadic and much-needed performance improvements. There's the usual round of class nerfing every so often (a subject to which I suspect I will return in the future).
Vanguard had a lot going for it. The epic sense of freedom and scale is unmatched. Despite a breathtakingly shoddy engine there are some awe-inspiring environments.
I say "had" because with every passing day it seems increasingly unlikely that SOE will be able to pull Vanguard back from the looming abyss. In fact it seems increasingly unlikely that SOE are interested in even trying. Another round of staff cuts and a relocation are currently doing little to inspire confidence in the future.
There were things I loved about Vanguard, and things I loathed. The often stunning scenery vs. the horrendously poor interface. The sense that, for once, the game world wasn't surrounded by strategically-placed, impassable mountains forcing you to take a specific path vs. some of the buggiest, grind-iest, most tedious quests I've ever had the misfortune to undertake.
To my mind the core of Vanguard's struggle was the piss-poor engine. It's one thing to have astronomical hardware requirements, and the game's artwork does often manage to shine, but awful texture filtering, lack of anti-aliasing and the worst water shading I've seen in a game in many years make you wonder what all the horsepower is being used for. While competing MMOs like LotRO were releasing sizable expansions soon after launch, Vanguard's developers are still struggling with fundamental memory issues that have existed since beta, and which have put the brakes on any serious content development. Player after player hits the level cap, and is faced with no compelling end-game content. That's what will finally kill the game. That, and the staggeringly bad reputation the game has managed to achieve.
It's sad, because the core "feel" of the game hints at something special. It's frustrating because you know under more positive circumstances (and with software devs who actually knew what the hell they were doing) it could have been the connoisseur's choice of MMO. Bad tech and misplaced, old-fashioned mechanics will prohibit Vanguard from achieving any sort of "next-gen" status.
The tragedy is, while Vanguard attempted to be different it's potential failure will only serve to fuel development of cheap and cheerful WoW clones. I'm sure Conan's extended release delay is being used to make the game as casual-friendly as possible in an attempt to avoid Vanguard's fate.

On the Subject of Unreal Tournament 3

Monica Bellucci

Why the bastard hell does the bastard thing crash so much? In between crashes it's chock full of old-school UT goodness, only to dump me to desktop halfway through every damned match.
I would like to be defending it's honour in the face of impending onslaught from the clueless retards who are falling over themselves to be ever so nonchalant and smug and criticise it simply because they think they're some sort of FPS experts and have seen everything done better somewhere else. And oh no! It doesn't look as "realistic" as CoD4! It's Unreal Tournament you fucking idiots. It's not supposed to be realistic. Not that bunny-hopping around in some FPS will ever really be like having Johnny Foreigner shooting real bullets at your real body until you're really dead.
Anyway I know it's a beta. Or a demo. Or a beta demo. And I already have it pre-ordered.

On the Subject of Wide Screen

Salma Hayek

Admittedly this is somewhat overdue, but with the recent release of the Unreal Tournament 3 Beta/Demo I am once again seeing the hordes of ignorant little fools crawl out from under their uninformed, reactionary rocks.
The issue is widescreen and specifically Bioshock's notoriously divisive implementation. Of course by "divisive" I mean the division between people who have a solid grasp of camera geometry, and drooling half-wits who will believe any bullshit that a bunch of educationally sub-normal yahoos choose to spew onto web forums.
Quite simply, a wide screen monitor does not imply a wider field of view.
If you understood that assertion, there is little reason for you to continue reading. For anyone else, let me try and put it into simple terms that even you can grasp.
Firstly, a hypothetical situation. That means pretend, in case I had lost you already. Like when you pretend to have the faintest idea what's going on in the big scary world around you.
Imagine you have two monitors. One is a wide screen monitor and the other is a traditional shape. Imagine that if you took a tape measure and measured from one side of the screen to the other that both monitors are the same width. Yes, that's right, the wide screen monitor wouldn't be as tall, would it? Very clever. But that's beside the point. Now imagine that you're playing the same game on both monitors. Which monitor should let you have a wider field of view? Which monitor should let you see a wider view of the game world? Remember, the monitors are the same width. Consider that if the wide screen monitor offered a wider field of view, objects would appear smaller on that monitor. Think about it.
The number of people who instinctively believe that because they (or, more likely, their parents) bought a fancy pants wide screen monitor that they are for some unfathomable reason entitled to see more of the game world, is staggering. If they can't see more of the game world or if, god forbid, they actually see less because the picture is cropped vertically, then they think they are somehow being short-changed by the game designers.
A question to ask yourself: do you think that modern game developers use wide screen monitors? The correct answer is, of course, "yes". Because wide screen monitors are no longer exclusive or special, in the same way that you're not special for having one. So the game developers are seeing the exact same cropping and field of view that you are, and they are in a much better position to judge what is "correct" than you are, because it's their game. Just because you read that it's wrong on some forum, or because another game did it differently doesn't make it wrong. What the fuck do you know? Getting all indignant because you believe you know better than the game designers when in fact you are much too stupid to ever be capable of developing a game yourself.
Of course there are other whiny, smug little arses who like to point out that some people are sensitive to the field of view and that if it's too narrow it makes them motion sick, as if that's some sort of excuse. That is in fact entirely irrelevant, not only to the discussion of wide screen field of view, but to any discussion of field of view at all.
For now I will skip over the issue of self-righteous, elitist, self-styled FPS veterans whose argument is essentially "I have wasted more hours of my life playing FPS's than you so my opinion is correct". That is a subject that deserves special attention and will no doubt receive it in due course.
There really are people who refuse to buy what is in reality an excellent game, simply because they're too ignorant and closed-minded to understand the issue they're complaining about. An issue that isn't actually an issue at all, if only they weren't too stupid to realise. It's laughable.
Get a fucking grip.