So I've played Frets On Fire quite a lot more. It is so good. I have some issues with performance., though. It could be either the framework (I think it's Python-based) or maybe my dual-core rig. It's not game-spoiling by any means, but weird, as the game appears light-weight. Sometimes it skips frames in-game, and quite often the menus stutter and crawl.
My initial recommendation of my Apple keyboard for FOF is hereby withdrawn. I've noticed it's no good for gaming: the feel is very nice in typing, but it's too soft for gaming, where you often need to hold keys down for extended periods. My old, flat Logitech proved a better match, as it has only a little space on top of the function keys you need for playing, it's light and it has a soft, yet precise digital feel.
Showing posts with label pc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pc. Show all posts
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Massively Multiplayer (EVE, Stormreach, World Of Warcraft, CCP + White Wolf)
I've been intrigued by the massively multiplayer games for a long time. I've played some Anarchy Online and tried free demos of a couple of others, but haven't really gotten into any of them, mostly due to the grind of the games being such a bore: the games don't properly start until you've invested dozens of hours and made friends with other players.
These games are commonly called massively multiplayer online something-or-other, usually roleplaying games. The "massively" is just needless gloating, and "multiplayer" says the same as "online", really. If it's an RPG, I like to stubbornly call them net-RPGs or something of the sort, as I feel just stupid saying "MMORPG" aloud. Don't you? If it's not an RPG, can't we just say it's an online game? Or a net-game?
There is one game in which the "massively" part rings true, which is one of the reasons I'm itching to try it out. Eve Online's players truly are all in the same world, running it in unison. It's a grand social and economical experiment, hailed by some as the ultimate game and by others as the, well, ultimate bore. There's been a lot of cool stuff done in Eve, like the way the economy actually works and the way the players have set up the world's allegiancies on their own, without GM intervention. We intend to check out EVE with my wife in the Christmas holidays.
Then there's World Of Warcraft. It's massive in the sense that everyone and their cats have played the game and there's a truly massive amount of players at it at any given time, regardless of how many separate servers they inhabit. The games has one thing going for it: it's visually so pleasing that I find it hard to resist jumping in whenever I see it running on-screen. We had already decided against ever trying it out, wary of some of our friends' regret over the time they'd put into it, but last weekend the fever hit again.
I really don't want to spend all my spare time on a (single) game. However, there's nothing wrong in playing something for a while. There's another online RPG I'd really like to check out, Dungeons & Dragons Stormreach, but I always thought that I shouldn't touch it as I wouldn't have the time it required, anyway. But so what if I only played for a couple of months, as with other games? If the game can't offer proper gameplay during the opening moments, it's probably not worth my time anyway.
As I had pondered about these things and settled on rying out at least the free demos of these games, the news hit that CCP, the company behind EVE, had agreed on a merger with White Wolf, the company behind my beloved Vampire tabletop RPG. Something good is bound to emerge from this union.
These games are commonly called massively multiplayer online something-or-other, usually roleplaying games. The "massively" is just needless gloating, and "multiplayer" says the same as "online", really. If it's an RPG, I like to stubbornly call them net-RPGs or something of the sort, as I feel just stupid saying "MMORPG" aloud. Don't you? If it's not an RPG, can't we just say it's an online game? Or a net-game?
There is one game in which the "massively" part rings true, which is one of the reasons I'm itching to try it out. Eve Online's players truly are all in the same world, running it in unison. It's a grand social and economical experiment, hailed by some as the ultimate game and by others as the, well, ultimate bore. There's been a lot of cool stuff done in Eve, like the way the economy actually works and the way the players have set up the world's allegiancies on their own, without GM intervention. We intend to check out EVE with my wife in the Christmas holidays.
Then there's World Of Warcraft. It's massive in the sense that everyone and their cats have played the game and there's a truly massive amount of players at it at any given time, regardless of how many separate servers they inhabit. The games has one thing going for it: it's visually so pleasing that I find it hard to resist jumping in whenever I see it running on-screen. We had already decided against ever trying it out, wary of some of our friends' regret over the time they'd put into it, but last weekend the fever hit again.
I really don't want to spend all my spare time on a (single) game. However, there's nothing wrong in playing something for a while. There's another online RPG I'd really like to check out, Dungeons & Dragons Stormreach, but I always thought that I shouldn't touch it as I wouldn't have the time it required, anyway. But so what if I only played for a couple of months, as with other games? If the game can't offer proper gameplay during the opening moments, it's probably not worth my time anyway.
As I had pondered about these things and settled on rying out at least the free demos of these games, the news hit that CCP, the company behind EVE, had agreed on a merger with White Wolf, the company behind my beloved Vampire tabletop RPG. Something good is bound to emerge from this union.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Previews (Warhammer, PC FPS titles)
PC back catalogue
With a gaming PC in the house after a long hiatus, I've naturally seeked out demos of interesting PC titles I've missed over the years. Some initial impressions, then:
Far Cry: highly interesting. Runs super-smooth with high settings and looks lovely. The sense of freedom is something I haven't previously experienced in a shooter title and it really feels like you can approach situations any way you care. I was initially lured by the bright, tropical graphics, but the gameplay feels like a winner, too.
I played the demo through obsessively, delighted at how challenging it was. As a sidenote, I remain a fan of the checkpoint system. I don't want to break my immersion with quicksaves - which often leads me to forgetting to save my progress if the game doesn't have a checkpoint system. Checkpoints also split the game into bite-size chunks. This demands further play.
FEAR: FEAR is perhaps the PC title I was most looking forward to, but I'm a little disappointed. The controls feel as off as they did with the 360 version (a Monolith mainstay, unfortunately) and the graphics stutter more than they do on the Xbox. I remain intrigued by the premise, so I'll likely look more into it, but with diminished expectations. It could be I'd be better off with the 360 version, which runs smoother.
Half-Life 2: that's correct, I haven't played Half-Life 2 yet, though the original game is among the best games I've ever played. I intend to, especially after playing the demo. The game still looks good and runs super-smooth.
Gameplay feels more like, well, playing than running and gunning in the classic FPS sense. With limited ammunition and the environment-manipulating gravity gun, you're left thinking of other ways to solve the problem of staying alive. The aesthetic design is so cool, too.
Warhammer: Mark Of Chaos
I only briefly treid the demo of the new Warhammer real-time strategy title. It felt a lot like actual, miniatures-based Warhammer, which is only a good thing. I'm not sure, but it looked like they were even playing by the "real" rules. Units are counted in models, not "men", and that kind of thing. There is an option customize some unit colors, although it would be awesome to be able to actually "paint" the models.
I was worried they'd go the popular Warcraft way of candy colors and high fantasy, but it seems they've kept the premise down low and gritty. My other fear was that they'd go all Warcraft on the gameplay, too, with base-building and whatnot, but this seems unfounded. You pick forces, set them up and go at it.
This is very much the way I envisioned a computer-Warhammer back as a kid when playing around with the models. Only that with a computer game, you can field a thousand-strong army and it'll only cost you the 50€ for the game.
With a gaming PC in the house after a long hiatus, I've naturally seeked out demos of interesting PC titles I've missed over the years. Some initial impressions, then:
Far Cry: highly interesting. Runs super-smooth with high settings and looks lovely. The sense of freedom is something I haven't previously experienced in a shooter title and it really feels like you can approach situations any way you care. I was initially lured by the bright, tropical graphics, but the gameplay feels like a winner, too.
I played the demo through obsessively, delighted at how challenging it was. As a sidenote, I remain a fan of the checkpoint system. I don't want to break my immersion with quicksaves - which often leads me to forgetting to save my progress if the game doesn't have a checkpoint system. Checkpoints also split the game into bite-size chunks. This demands further play.
FEAR: FEAR is perhaps the PC title I was most looking forward to, but I'm a little disappointed. The controls feel as off as they did with the 360 version (a Monolith mainstay, unfortunately) and the graphics stutter more than they do on the Xbox. I remain intrigued by the premise, so I'll likely look more into it, but with diminished expectations. It could be I'd be better off with the 360 version, which runs smoother.
Half-Life 2: that's correct, I haven't played Half-Life 2 yet, though the original game is among the best games I've ever played. I intend to, especially after playing the demo. The game still looks good and runs super-smooth.
Gameplay feels more like, well, playing than running and gunning in the classic FPS sense. With limited ammunition and the environment-manipulating gravity gun, you're left thinking of other ways to solve the problem of staying alive. The aesthetic design is so cool, too.
Warhammer: Mark Of Chaos
I only briefly treid the demo of the new Warhammer real-time strategy title. It felt a lot like actual, miniatures-based Warhammer, which is only a good thing. I'm not sure, but it looked like they were even playing by the "real" rules. Units are counted in models, not "men", and that kind of thing. There is an option customize some unit colors, although it would be awesome to be able to actually "paint" the models.
I was worried they'd go the popular Warcraft way of candy colors and high fantasy, but it seems they've kept the premise down low and gritty. My other fear was that they'd go all Warcraft on the gameplay, too, with base-building and whatnot, but this seems unfounded. You pick forces, set them up and go at it.
This is very much the way I envisioned a computer-Warhammer back as a kid when playing around with the models. Only that with a computer game, you can field a thousand-strong army and it'll only cost you the 50€ for the game.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Tech survival +1
I'm writing this on my new computer. It is the first I've built myself, right from choosing parts to assembling the thing. It's not quite done yet, there's a bunch of cables hanging from the case which need to find their counterparts on the motherboard, but it works and I've got everything installed with just one day of tinkering.
Thankfully, the speed increase does seem worth it. Of course I've ran some old 3D Mark benchmarks to see the delicious 100+ FPS scores, and I also intend to test-drive some old games which used to be too much for my old rig (Update: Half-Life 2, FEAR, Unreal Tournament 2003 all run well. Great!). I'm doing something wrong, though: one guy on the 3D Mark 05 benchmark has an identical system to mine, yet he's scored over double the points.
Anyway, I'm just glad I've got it all together. There was a brief feeling of desperation when I couldn't get the graphics card to display anything, but apart from that, it's been remarkably trouble-free. (Update: Simply unplugging and replugging the GPU did the trick.)
And what games am I anxious to try out, apart from the great Frets On Fire? There's at least Dawn Of War, FEAR, Far Cry and just to see how the rig handles it, good ol' Doom 3. And some indie stuff I couldn't handle previously.
So far there's just one let-down: it makes a lot of noise. I'm real happy that I chose slightly less noisy components, but it could be that a couple of low-noise fans and a proper power supply would be in order. At least the hum is stable and low in frequency.
Thankfully, the speed increase does seem worth it. Of course I've ran some old 3D Mark benchmarks to see the delicious 100+ FPS scores, and I also intend to test-drive some old games which used to be too much for my old rig (Update: Half-Life 2, FEAR, Unreal Tournament 2003 all run well. Great!). I'm doing something wrong, though: one guy on the 3D Mark 05 benchmark has an identical system to mine, yet he's scored over double the points.
Anyway, I'm just glad I've got it all together. There was a brief feeling of desperation when I couldn't get the graphics card to display anything, but apart from that, it's been remarkably trouble-free. (Update: Simply unplugging and replugging the GPU did the trick.)
And what games am I anxious to try out, apart from the great Frets On Fire? There's at least Dawn Of War, FEAR, Far Cry and just to see how the rig handles it, good ol' Doom 3. And some indie stuff I couldn't handle previously.
So far there's just one let-down: it makes a lot of noise. I'm real happy that I chose slightly less noisy components, but it could be that a couple of low-noise fans and a proper power supply would be in order. At least the hum is stable and low in frequency.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Frets On Fire, new computer
One of my reasons for finally getting around to upgrading my computer (see below) was that even indie games are too heavy for my old setup. Luckily this latest gem I came across does work, and it's sweet indeed! Frets On Fire is a simple clone of the hugely successful Guitar Hero series on the consoles. Holding your keyboard like a guitar feels great one you're past the "I can't believe I'm doing this" stage. At least my Apple keyboard works great this way.
New computer
Might as well mention what I ordered and why, since this is the kind of information I looked for in the net for weeks before figuring out what I need. We wanted a rig to last us for the next three or four years in mostly light home use, with forays into graphical applications (Photoshop, InDesign mostly) and gaming. Some care was taken into keeping it upgradeable.
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ boxed, 2.2GHz, 1MB(2x512) Cache. We settled on a dual-core because it felt like with Vista right around the corner, now would be a good time. Our heaviest resource loads are graphics applications, which could really benefit from better multitasking. I simply picked a dual-core processor in the mid-range price, landing at 215€.
Motherboard: Abit AN9 32X AM2 nF590-SLI. We needed an AMD M2 socket for the processor and the price difference between the recent nForce 590 and ageing nForce 4 chipsets wasn't huge. This one cost 180€. Reviews suggested that this board or one of its variants was a good choice for a powerful, upgradeable setup. I wanted the AM2 socket for future-proofing, too; it seems like socket 939 is phased out byt the time we'd need a new processor. It could be I went overboard with the motherboard and it doesn't help with the next upgrade after all, but I like knowing that the base of the rig isn't shaky. I went for SLI because I wasn't going to buy a high-end graphics processing unit, but I wanted the option to boost GPU power cost-effectively. Oh, and the mobo is passively cooled.
GPU: Club 3D GeForce 7600GS 256MB Silent, PCI-E. The choice in GPU was basically between the GeForce 7600GS and GT. The 7600GT is currently the mass market choice in the around 150€ range. GT is only slightly more expensive and considerably more powerful than the GS, but I really wanted a passively cooled GPU. The GS should be enough for our needs and since it's SLI-capable, I can always just plug in another similar card to boost the power to something approaching the levels of mid to high -end cards (I think). You can get a passively cooled 7600GT, too, but delivery would take several weeks and they cost over 200€, compared to the 120€ for the GS.
Case: HyperCell2 6211L-CA with a 400W power source, at 70€. I did think about purchasing a separate power source as my old computer has an Antec power source which alone cost 70€, but we settled on a cheap case which looked good.
Memory: Kingston 1024MB (1GB) 533MHz DDR2, PC2-4200, CL4, for 130€. we were tempted by 2 GB, but 1GB felt adequate for now. It can always be added to later.
I won't bore anyone with the DVD toaster and hard drive details, especially since I don't really understand anything about them. I do expect the SATAII HD to feel lightning-fast compared to the IDE (PATA) drive I currently use. Well, as far as "triple-speed" equals "lightning-fast", anyway... I also think we'll get a major reduction in noise, since the thing will only have a processor and power source fan. Well, it may be that we need a case fan, too, but I'm only adding one if necessary.
Expect massive complaining once I get to assembling the thing and find out that nothing fits.
Update (9 November 2006): Some clarifications!
The motherboard is not passively cooled. It just has a heatsink in addition to two small fans. I was distracted by the "Silent OTES Heatpipe" designation. I ended up getting an Abit AN9 32X Fatal1ty AM2 nF590-SLI for the motherboard. It's basically the same board, I can't tell of any major differences between the two.
The case does have one case-fan to begin with.
I also picked up another GPU, as the one I wanted initally wasn't readily available. I got an Asus GF7600GS 512MB PCIE, which is basically the same unit, except with more memory. I'm slightly mystified by the card's performance in tests, as it routinely rates lower than the 256MB variant. Oh well, runs well enough.
The SATA2 hard drive is sure fast, and silent. Actually the more silent HD and optical drive are maybe a bigger thing than more silent fans would be.
I'm thinking about overclocking, too, since the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ AM2 should go up to 2,9 GHZ with ease, with just air-cooling. I don't want to risk my new hardware, though, so we'll see. If performance becomes an issue.
New computer
Might as well mention what I ordered and why, since this is the kind of information I looked for in the net for weeks before figuring out what I need. We wanted a rig to last us for the next three or four years in mostly light home use, with forays into graphical applications (Photoshop, InDesign mostly) and gaming. Some care was taken into keeping it upgradeable.
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ boxed, 2.2GHz, 1MB(2x512) Cache. We settled on a dual-core because it felt like with Vista right around the corner, now would be a good time. Our heaviest resource loads are graphics applications, which could really benefit from better multitasking. I simply picked a dual-core processor in the mid-range price, landing at 215€.
Motherboard: Abit AN9 32X AM2 nF590-SLI. We needed an AMD M2 socket for the processor and the price difference between the recent nForce 590 and ageing nForce 4 chipsets wasn't huge. This one cost 180€. Reviews suggested that this board or one of its variants was a good choice for a powerful, upgradeable setup. I wanted the AM2 socket for future-proofing, too; it seems like socket 939 is phased out byt the time we'd need a new processor. It could be I went overboard with the motherboard and it doesn't help with the next upgrade after all, but I like knowing that the base of the rig isn't shaky. I went for SLI because I wasn't going to buy a high-end graphics processing unit, but I wanted the option to boost GPU power cost-effectively. Oh, and the mobo is passively cooled.
GPU: Club 3D GeForce 7600GS 256MB Silent, PCI-E. The choice in GPU was basically between the GeForce 7600GS and GT. The 7600GT is currently the mass market choice in the around 150€ range. GT is only slightly more expensive and considerably more powerful than the GS, but I really wanted a passively cooled GPU. The GS should be enough for our needs and since it's SLI-capable, I can always just plug in another similar card to boost the power to something approaching the levels of mid to high -end cards (I think). You can get a passively cooled 7600GT, too, but delivery would take several weeks and they cost over 200€, compared to the 120€ for the GS.
Case: HyperCell2 6211L-CA with a 400W power source, at 70€. I did think about purchasing a separate power source as my old computer has an Antec power source which alone cost 70€, but we settled on a cheap case which looked good.
Memory: Kingston 1024MB (1GB) 533MHz DDR2, PC2-4200, CL4, for 130€. we were tempted by 2 GB, but 1GB felt adequate for now. It can always be added to later.
I won't bore anyone with the DVD toaster and hard drive details, especially since I don't really understand anything about them. I do expect the SATAII HD to feel lightning-fast compared to the IDE (PATA) drive I currently use. Well, as far as "triple-speed" equals "lightning-fast", anyway... I also think we'll get a major reduction in noise, since the thing will only have a processor and power source fan. Well, it may be that we need a case fan, too, but I'm only adding one if necessary.
Expect massive complaining once I get to assembling the thing and find out that nothing fits.
Update (9 November 2006): Some clarifications!
The motherboard is not passively cooled. It just has a heatsink in addition to two small fans. I was distracted by the "Silent OTES Heatpipe" designation. I ended up getting an Abit AN9 32X Fatal1ty AM2 nF590-SLI for the motherboard. It's basically the same board, I can't tell of any major differences between the two.
The case does have one case-fan to begin with.
I also picked up another GPU, as the one I wanted initally wasn't readily available. I got an Asus GF7600GS 512MB PCIE, which is basically the same unit, except with more memory. I'm slightly mystified by the card's performance in tests, as it routinely rates lower than the 256MB variant. Oh well, runs well enough.
The SATA2 hard drive is sure fast, and silent. Actually the more silent HD and optical drive are maybe a bigger thing than more silent fans would be.
I'm thinking about overclocking, too, since the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ AM2 should go up to 2,9 GHZ with ease, with just air-cooling. I don't want to risk my new hardware, though, so we'll see. If performance becomes an issue.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Online leaderboards (feat. Doom), 3D platformers (feat. Sonic), Defcon
Doom
I purchased the 360 version of classic Doom at 800 MS points (roughly 9€). It's a no-frills conversion, exactly what I wanted - no tricks done to the original graphics or sounds, all four episodes, controls work very well. It's a great game. I have one thing to complain about: the map is utterly worthless on a non-HDTV. Really, you need to take the massmarket (like all of Europe) into account when designing your game views.
A couple of things came up during playing the first episode through in one sitting.
First and foremost are the online leaderboards, viewable per level. All games need this feature. It plays straight to my competitive spirit. It feels so good to be the best player among your friends and to, say, finally break the global top-1000.
Leaderboards are what keeps me playing Geometry Wars, too. It bugs me that I'm sitting right on the average level (according to MyGamerCard.net). I need to break that half a million to get above the crowd!
Then there are Doom's controls. As per the original version, there is no Y-axis; you don't aim up and down. The character automatically targets monsters above and below you, provided that they line up with your gun. I'd really like to see a modern shooter do the same. Sure it needs some clever level design (Doom's essentially flat), but it would keep things much more free-flowing and immediate.
I recall the makers of the original Unreal Tournament's Xbox version attempting something in this vain, via level design. I don't know how that worked out, though.
I didn't buy Doom merely because I loved it as a kid. I imagined that it would be a great game, period. And it is. If anything, provided you can look past the low-res graphics, it's even better today. It absolutely wipes the floor with so many modern shooters, despite being released in 1993. The lighting is very effective, the level design is engaging, the overall aesthetic design hasn't aged at all.
Oh, and like reviewer Kristan Reed on Eurogamer put it, this game features bodies which do not disappear. Thirteen years ago. Get with the times, shooter designers.
Sonic: The Hedgehog next-gen
I've said it before and this latest offering only enforces my position: platform games should never have made the jump to 3D presentation. It doesn't work! I tried and tried and tried and simply could not hit the lines of rings with any confidence. The automatically aimed spinning attack does work, but as usual, the camera is worthless (you wouldn't believe how slowly it spins).
There's been a single instance of 3D platforming working well - Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time - but even that one stellar example of the genre had some problems with the camera.
So in a nutshell: kill 3D platformers, kpls.
Allegedly the original Sega Megadrive/Genesis Sonic is coming to XBLA in the near future. That's an almost guaranteed sale right there and I imagine it will work much better than this entirely competent, but by its nature, awkward offering.
Defcon
I've liked Introversion ever since I found Uplink, the awesome hacker game they released in 2001. Their latest release Defcon has generated a lot of hype. The game was released a few days ago and the demo is now out, too, go get it.
I had trouble imagining how the game would play out in practice, but having played through the tutorial, it's all clear now. I've yet to try a full-fledged game, but it's pretty safe to say at this point that it's a sure sale for me (PC hardware permitting, my home machine's ancient). At 14€ for a brand new game, I really can't complain. Although I might go for the boxed copy, which is priced a little higher, but even that's a ridiculous 21€! And it feels good to know that you're paying straight to the developers themselves.
It's also interesting how cool and distinctive Introversion's games look, despite the authors claiming that it's all "programmer art". Their soundscapes are thoughtful, too. I hear that Defcon sports "situation room ambient" consisting of cigarettes lighted, coughs and so on, which is really a magnificent idea. Can't be witness to that myself, yet, because I didn't have audio on the laptop I tried it on.
Update: Defcon runs just fine on my 900 MHZ/512 MB RAM home system. I've taken a beating from the computer twice, now. Well, at least it runs fine with only two players, that is.
I purchased the 360 version of classic Doom at 800 MS points (roughly 9€). It's a no-frills conversion, exactly what I wanted - no tricks done to the original graphics or sounds, all four episodes, controls work very well. It's a great game. I have one thing to complain about: the map is utterly worthless on a non-HDTV. Really, you need to take the massmarket (like all of Europe) into account when designing your game views.
A couple of things came up during playing the first episode through in one sitting.
First and foremost are the online leaderboards, viewable per level. All games need this feature. It plays straight to my competitive spirit. It feels so good to be the best player among your friends and to, say, finally break the global top-1000.
Leaderboards are what keeps me playing Geometry Wars, too. It bugs me that I'm sitting right on the average level (according to MyGamerCard.net). I need to break that half a million to get above the crowd!
Then there are Doom's controls. As per the original version, there is no Y-axis; you don't aim up and down. The character automatically targets monsters above and below you, provided that they line up with your gun. I'd really like to see a modern shooter do the same. Sure it needs some clever level design (Doom's essentially flat), but it would keep things much more free-flowing and immediate.
I recall the makers of the original Unreal Tournament's Xbox version attempting something in this vain, via level design. I don't know how that worked out, though.
I didn't buy Doom merely because I loved it as a kid. I imagined that it would be a great game, period. And it is. If anything, provided you can look past the low-res graphics, it's even better today. It absolutely wipes the floor with so many modern shooters, despite being released in 1993. The lighting is very effective, the level design is engaging, the overall aesthetic design hasn't aged at all.
Oh, and like reviewer Kristan Reed on Eurogamer put it, this game features bodies which do not disappear. Thirteen years ago. Get with the times, shooter designers.
Sonic: The Hedgehog next-gen
I've said it before and this latest offering only enforces my position: platform games should never have made the jump to 3D presentation. It doesn't work! I tried and tried and tried and simply could not hit the lines of rings with any confidence. The automatically aimed spinning attack does work, but as usual, the camera is worthless (you wouldn't believe how slowly it spins).
There's been a single instance of 3D platforming working well - Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time - but even that one stellar example of the genre had some problems with the camera.
So in a nutshell: kill 3D platformers, kpls.
Allegedly the original Sega Megadrive/Genesis Sonic is coming to XBLA in the near future. That's an almost guaranteed sale right there and I imagine it will work much better than this entirely competent, but by its nature, awkward offering.
Defcon
I've liked Introversion ever since I found Uplink, the awesome hacker game they released in 2001. Their latest release Defcon has generated a lot of hype. The game was released a few days ago and the demo is now out, too, go get it.
I had trouble imagining how the game would play out in practice, but having played through the tutorial, it's all clear now. I've yet to try a full-fledged game, but it's pretty safe to say at this point that it's a sure sale for me (PC hardware permitting, my home machine's ancient). At 14€ for a brand new game, I really can't complain. Although I might go for the boxed copy, which is priced a little higher, but even that's a ridiculous 21€! And it feels good to know that you're paying straight to the developers themselves.
It's also interesting how cool and distinctive Introversion's games look, despite the authors claiming that it's all "programmer art". Their soundscapes are thoughtful, too. I hear that Defcon sports "situation room ambient" consisting of cigarettes lighted, coughs and so on, which is really a magnificent idea. Can't be witness to that myself, yet, because I didn't have audio on the laptop I tried it on.
Update: Defcon runs just fine on my 900 MHZ/512 MB RAM home system. I've taken a beating from the computer twice, now. Well, at least it runs fine with only two players, that is.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Are videogames art?
End of discussion.
This is amazing on so many levels. Gentlemen, I salute you.
It is an exciting time to be into videogames. People are doing things that go far beyond the original intended use of the games. This video could be up in a museum and nobody would think twice about whether it's art or not.
(Yes, yes, of course the accepted answer to the question is "well, they can be".)
This is amazing on so many levels. Gentlemen, I salute you.
It is an exciting time to be into videogames. People are doing things that go far beyond the original intended use of the games. This video could be up in a museum and nobody would think twice about whether it's art or not.
(Yes, yes, of course the accepted answer to the question is "well, they can be".)
Monday, July 17, 2006
Perfect Dipper Super
I won Kotaku's comment of the day contest. The story about the World Of Warcraft guild paying for its member's family's upkeep during a three-month stint in chemotherapy is exceptional, and I felt awkward commenting on it, but I do stand by my observation on communities being the real "next generation" of videogaming. Anyway, I'm getting gaming swag and a couple of games from the cool folks at Kotaku.
The game loot is all PC, sadly: Guild Wars: Factions, Lineage II and Auto Assault. I don't know much about the latter two, but Guild Wars sparks a lot of monologue.
Seeing that I don't have a gaming PC, I don't know if I'll ever play Guild Wars, but the game intrigues me mightily. (Indeed, I immediately checked out how much a minimum-spec grpahics card would cost to run the game, though I've said again and again that I can't be arsed to buy a gaming PC... again.)
I was always interested in GW due to its excellent art direction, but Eurogamer's enthusiastic review really got my attention. GW seems to do lots of things right.
To begin with, there is no level grind. There is a level progression, but I'm told you'll cap out on level 20 within one week of playing. I take it that the levels are there mostly to gradually introduce the elements of the game. But you won't be spending your valuable time killing ever so slightly more powerful bunnies to get a couple of percentage's worth of increase to your damage potential, when you reach the next level in perhaps a couple of more hours of killing bunnies. Many folks say that World Of Warcraft doesn't really "begin" until you reach level 60. I'm supposed to grind until that to enjoy the game? No thanks.
Guild Wars is based on instances: whenever you embark on a quest alone or with your mates, you go at it without the other gazillion players in the same space with you. While many argue that instances kill the "realism" (yeah, right) in an online game, I say the opposite. World Of Warcraft and its like suffer tons because you have all the other players (many of whom look exactly like you) crowding your view.
GW allows the player interaction (and everyone's in the same world, no server-specific content here), but only in the hub areas - out in the instanced world, you can adventure just with your buddies. No queuing (sp?) to kill the monster spawn that's required in your quest. No killstealing. I couldn't put it better than Eurogamer reviewer Kieron Gillen in his review of the original Guild Wars:
"I was recently playing another MMO Beta. No name, as I'm currently under a non-disclosure agreement. It's very much based in the Korean model, with lots of extremely repetitive monster-bashing, but cute enough.
At around 3 AM in the morning I had a moment of terrifying clarity as I pulled back my camera to examine the surroundings. I was in a field packed full of people, all hacking down virtually identical monsters with their own virtually identical attacks and sullenly ignoring each other. Everyone's attacks, for a second, seem to synchronise, in a steady heartbeat, pumping XP through the body of the playerbase and money into the heart of the developer.
This is humanity reduced to the rhythm of a machine, the player as a combine-harvester, the point of the game suddenly clear. Not to be fun, but to be addicting. I was in a Killing Field. If this is all that MMOs are - and the core of most mainstream MMOs are - what exactly is the benefit to the player of these areas being shared?"
Guild Wars has no subscription fee. This is the single thing that got noticed when it was gearing up for launch, and probably the reason why it's successful. Now, I perfectly understand why most "massively multiplayer" games have subscription fees and I have no regrets paying for the excellent Xbox Live Gold service. But paying money for a single game does not fit my gaming tastes, because I'm a dipper; I dip in and out of games, often playing a single game for one or two nights and then shelving it for months (or years!). So committing myself to spend all of my game time to one game just won't do.
Related to this, Guild Wars is also designed to not require lots of time to enjoy. Many people tell me they only play it occasionally, and it doesn't punish you in any way for this. You can compete, even though you're not a hardcore online nerd. Indeed, the game notifies you when you've played for a long time and advises you to take a break! Commendable.
Guild Wars is built on player vs. player (PVP) gameplay. PVP is not for me in other online "ropleplaying" games, because it's reserved for the elite only, novices need not apply. GW removes the barrier by setting the level cap within reach of the casual player. So you can get immediate access to the good stuff. I don't know if I'll like it, but it sounds so tactical with its interchangeable skills that Magic: The Gathering and its ilk spring to mind, which is a good thing.
Speaking of the interchangeable skills, this is a major innovation. All online RPGs to date (to my knowledge) suffer from new players making blunders in character creation. Then they notice that they can't succeed with the character they've made... after playing for weeks. GW takes this crap away, you can be a different guy in every single game you play. Although you'll probably have favorite setups you always use, you're not stuck with them. Every time you head out from the hub areas, you pick eight (yes, just eight) powers from your selection to use. This reminds me delightfully of building a deck in a collectable card game (albeit a small deck).
In Xbox 360 news, I got Perfect Dark Zero. It does a couple of things very well despite not being anywhere near the Halo-levels of FPS goodness. The basic gameplay is all right, although nothing special. But the structure keeps things tight.
There is no saving: you need to complete a level in one sitting. This is not a problem, because they rarely take you more than half an hour to complete. After every level, you get very detailed statistics of your performance, which are then compared to your personal best, and crucially, to the world record. I have a strong urge to beat the par times and get higher on the world ranking. This leads you to viewing the singe player game as a sports arena; you play through the levels thinking how you could be more effective, not just to see the next level. Once you know your way around, the levels can often be completed in around five minutes. I would urge other developer to take note of this, it is very compelling indeed.
In pop culture news, I first saw a trailer for the new Superman movie last night. I'm suddenly interested in it, because the bullet in the eye stunt was cool. Beyond. Words. Neo, eat your heart out.
The game loot is all PC, sadly: Guild Wars: Factions, Lineage II and Auto Assault. I don't know much about the latter two, but Guild Wars sparks a lot of monologue.
Seeing that I don't have a gaming PC, I don't know if I'll ever play Guild Wars, but the game intrigues me mightily. (Indeed, I immediately checked out how much a minimum-spec grpahics card would cost to run the game, though I've said again and again that I can't be arsed to buy a gaming PC... again.)
I was always interested in GW due to its excellent art direction, but Eurogamer's enthusiastic review really got my attention. GW seems to do lots of things right.
To begin with, there is no level grind. There is a level progression, but I'm told you'll cap out on level 20 within one week of playing. I take it that the levels are there mostly to gradually introduce the elements of the game. But you won't be spending your valuable time killing ever so slightly more powerful bunnies to get a couple of percentage's worth of increase to your damage potential, when you reach the next level in perhaps a couple of more hours of killing bunnies. Many folks say that World Of Warcraft doesn't really "begin" until you reach level 60. I'm supposed to grind until that to enjoy the game? No thanks.
Guild Wars is based on instances: whenever you embark on a quest alone or with your mates, you go at it without the other gazillion players in the same space with you. While many argue that instances kill the "realism" (yeah, right) in an online game, I say the opposite. World Of Warcraft and its like suffer tons because you have all the other players (many of whom look exactly like you) crowding your view.
GW allows the player interaction (and everyone's in the same world, no server-specific content here), but only in the hub areas - out in the instanced world, you can adventure just with your buddies. No queuing (sp?) to kill the monster spawn that's required in your quest. No killstealing. I couldn't put it better than Eurogamer reviewer Kieron Gillen in his review of the original Guild Wars:
"I was recently playing another MMO Beta. No name, as I'm currently under a non-disclosure agreement. It's very much based in the Korean model, with lots of extremely repetitive monster-bashing, but cute enough.
At around 3 AM in the morning I had a moment of terrifying clarity as I pulled back my camera to examine the surroundings. I was in a field packed full of people, all hacking down virtually identical monsters with their own virtually identical attacks and sullenly ignoring each other. Everyone's attacks, for a second, seem to synchronise, in a steady heartbeat, pumping XP through the body of the playerbase and money into the heart of the developer.
This is humanity reduced to the rhythm of a machine, the player as a combine-harvester, the point of the game suddenly clear. Not to be fun, but to be addicting. I was in a Killing Field. If this is all that MMOs are - and the core of most mainstream MMOs are - what exactly is the benefit to the player of these areas being shared?"
Guild Wars has no subscription fee. This is the single thing that got noticed when it was gearing up for launch, and probably the reason why it's successful. Now, I perfectly understand why most "massively multiplayer" games have subscription fees and I have no regrets paying for the excellent Xbox Live Gold service. But paying money for a single game does not fit my gaming tastes, because I'm a dipper; I dip in and out of games, often playing a single game for one or two nights and then shelving it for months (or years!). So committing myself to spend all of my game time to one game just won't do.
Related to this, Guild Wars is also designed to not require lots of time to enjoy. Many people tell me they only play it occasionally, and it doesn't punish you in any way for this. You can compete, even though you're not a hardcore online nerd. Indeed, the game notifies you when you've played for a long time and advises you to take a break! Commendable.
Guild Wars is built on player vs. player (PVP) gameplay. PVP is not for me in other online "ropleplaying" games, because it's reserved for the elite only, novices need not apply. GW removes the barrier by setting the level cap within reach of the casual player. So you can get immediate access to the good stuff. I don't know if I'll like it, but it sounds so tactical with its interchangeable skills that Magic: The Gathering and its ilk spring to mind, which is a good thing.
Speaking of the interchangeable skills, this is a major innovation. All online RPGs to date (to my knowledge) suffer from new players making blunders in character creation. Then they notice that they can't succeed with the character they've made... after playing for weeks. GW takes this crap away, you can be a different guy in every single game you play. Although you'll probably have favorite setups you always use, you're not stuck with them. Every time you head out from the hub areas, you pick eight (yes, just eight) powers from your selection to use. This reminds me delightfully of building a deck in a collectable card game (albeit a small deck).
In Xbox 360 news, I got Perfect Dark Zero. It does a couple of things very well despite not being anywhere near the Halo-levels of FPS goodness. The basic gameplay is all right, although nothing special. But the structure keeps things tight.
There is no saving: you need to complete a level in one sitting. This is not a problem, because they rarely take you more than half an hour to complete. After every level, you get very detailed statistics of your performance, which are then compared to your personal best, and crucially, to the world record. I have a strong urge to beat the par times and get higher on the world ranking. This leads you to viewing the singe player game as a sports arena; you play through the levels thinking how you could be more effective, not just to see the next level. Once you know your way around, the levels can often be completed in around five minutes. I would urge other developer to take note of this, it is very compelling indeed.
In pop culture news, I first saw a trailer for the new Superman movie last night. I'm suddenly interested in it, because the bullet in the eye stunt was cool. Beyond. Words. Neo, eat your heart out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
