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.