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.