The Civilization 5 Combat System

Civilization 5 is scheduled for later this year and already significant changes have been announced. Aside from the fact the game is now hex based, the biggest changes seem to be related to how the combat will function in this game. Crucially, you are only allowed one unit per hex, demolishing the standard Civ strategy of "stacks of doom" where you put all your troops in one big pile and advance them towards cities. Further, you are not allowed to leave troops in cities; instead, cities will require long and drawn out sieges. The idea behind this is to reduce the city centric wars that exist in Civilization 4.

The single unit per hex rule combined with the ability for ranged units to fire over hexes implies a much more zoomed in game. This would appear to be a move to make combat more tactical and less about numbers of units. If you can set up an effective choke point, it doesn't matter how many troops your opponent has, you just have your best unit block the way with archers behind them.

Also, there is talk of things like flanking bonuses for bringing your troops round enemies (though quite how this will work is unclear: will you have to point your troops in a specific direction?). All of this tactical layer sounds neat in principal. Wars have never held much attraction for me as they are too much of a slog towards the end of the game and I am not good at rushing. Hopefully the changes will make the wars more engaging.

If they are hoping to move the battles away from the cities the key thing they need to work on is making battles outside of a city beneficial. In Civilization 4, war was a serious thing. It wasn't permanent, but it had lasting diplomatic consequences with the AI and human players would rarely back down after a quick fight. Therefore, if you went to war, you could expect to be at it for quite a long time. The only thing that would justify the costs would be taking enemy cities. I think the early game could be more exciting if armies frequently clashed to capture resource points or territory. It would even fit with the time line, I can't imagine cave men had peace treaties with neighbouring tribes? As it stands, to capture enemy territory you have to capture the city that is creating the border, which seems a bit drastic for a small territory gain. And if Civ 5 make capturing cities harder, wars could just become and rare but final element of the game, no skirmishes, just total war.

My other concern is that it will be too much micro managing. Civilization is not a war game. War is a required part of the game play, but it is not the only part. By keeping it simple (as they have done up till now) it was assumed that your generals on the ground were managing your archers etc. and you just explained to them what you wanted to capture while you managed the economy, diplomacy and politics. How is having to position your archers behind your axe men going to fit with the pacing of the game? Will it heavily favour people who are prepared to do all this micromanaging?

The game is going to bring back advisor who will help you manage your cities, but I have never liked trusting the computer with tasks, particularly when it is optional and particularly when I enjoy managing my cities. Besides, that just means that those with the most patience will just manage it all and get an advantage at the cost of the pacing of the game.

Obviously, details are thin on the ground at the moment and I don't really know how any of this stuff is going to work.

Games I missed in 2009

Well it is that time of year where all the year review posts begin. I WON'T be doing any decade look backs for a number of reason. Most importantly, technically the decade ends next year! Further, this is the first and only decade which I have actively played video games, so I won't have anything to compare it against. Also, the time span is so great and technology has changed so much that it would be diminishing to any title to say that they can be compared on the same scale.

I believe that even Game of the Year awards are a bit pointless as there are too many different ways of comparing games and no one game is going to come out on top of all the others in everything. Instead, I plan to do a post of great, important or otherwise noteworthy games of 2009 and this post, the games I wished I had got round to playing (and hopefully will at some point) but didn't.

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Like everyone else, I started out dismissing this game simply because it was based on a license. However, time and again I hear positive things about it. For example, I recently read an interview with the developer on Crispy Gamer where they talked about combining different gameplay elements seamlessly. I love the idea of a game that combines action, stealth and sleuthing. In fact, everything about the game sounds really interesting, from the story to the gameplay. The art style and even the combat engine. Great to see a decent license-based game.

Assassin's Creed 2

Assassin's Creed was one of those games I probably should have played but I never really got round to it. My limited time with AC2 was very positive and apparently the developers mixed up the single player so it is less repetitive. The in game world is gorgeous and even with my short time, I was desperate to see more of it.

New Super Mario Bro's Wii

I love the original Mario's, I have a weird love of challenging platformers (odd as most other games I enjoy are often nearer the easy end of challenge). I think this is partly because in 2D, absolute perfection is possible. In 3D, there are too many variables for everything to be spot on, but in 2D, there is a correct time to jump, a correct time to stop sprinting etc. Judging by the reviews of this game, it is classic Mario with multiplayer. Sure, people say that playing co-operative is annoying, but the competitive is where it is at. Finally I can race people head to head on 2D Mario levels - that sounds like something I will enjoy.

Brutal Legend

A strategy game on a console? After Three Moves Ahead covered Brutal Legend, I was sold. I have always quite liked the idea of a strategy game where you control someone on the field, and if Tom Chick says it works, then I am giving it a shot.

inFAMOUS and Uncharted 2

I am a sucker for open world games, particularly ones that give you moral decisions. So I was disappointed that the two most talked about open world games this year were PS3 exclusives. Given a chance, I would probably play them to death.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Enough has been written about this game already, so I won't bother. Suffice to say that at some point, I should probably get it.

Ok, so what did I miss on my miss list? Any other important titles that I should have played? To do this, you need to know what I have played, so stay tuned for my 2009 round up of what I did play.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 thoughts

Activision are calling this the biggest video game launch ever. While I am not sure I quite agree with that (err, Halo 3 anyone?), Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 certainly is the biggest launch of the year, even with Sims 3 and Halo: ODST. So what am I expecting from it?

Call of Duty has always been a reputable series, bringing a slightly arcadey feel to the World War 2 theme that Medal of Honour could never quite manage. However, its real fame came in the form of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. While I was impressed with the action packed single player, the thing that stood out from the start was the multiplayer. A couple of years on, the game has stood the test of time and easily rivals Halo for number of dedicated multiplayer gamers. The innovative level system has inspired many first person shooters and really was the key to making the game play addictive.

This was demonstrated by the sales of Call of Duty 5. While this game was handed back to Treyarch, developers of Call of Duty 1 and 3, they used the Call of Duty 4 engine. The game was perfectly respectable, but it was very similar to Call of Duty 4, in spite of the different settings. Its nazzi zombies mode was interesting, but the game was not radically innovative like Modern Warfare was.

It was around this time that Activison announced that there would be a new Call of Duty game every year, with Infinity Ward and Treyarch taking it in turns.

This brings us back to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the first Infinity Ward sequel to Call of Duty 4, scheduled for release on the 10th of November. For me, this game is pivotal to the future of the franchise. If Infinity Ward can keep the game play fresh and different from Call of Duty 4, then I believe the franchise can survive 2 or maybe 3 more instalments. However, if the single player gets shorter due to the reduced developement time and the multiplayer offers little over 4 and 5, it is difficult to see everyone abandoning the current iteration every year for what will essentially be the same game.

Project Natal = new console?!

It is rumoured that Project Natal – Microsoft's new motion camera and voice recognition hardware - will launch with a new console. This is a shocking revelation if Microsoft really is going to be releasing a new console. This announcement, assuming it is accurate, is highly disturbing.

In the article, they talk about how games will be developed for both platforms, with the new platform having slightly superior graphics. This has a number of implications. Firstly, the already expensive business of producing HD games is going to get a whole lot more expensive. Ok, so the hardware is going to be similar, and it won't be double production costs. None the less, it is going to cost more, even if it is only one and half times more.

And what do developers get with this increased cost, certainly not increased sales. It isn't like there is a market waiting for this console. Think about it, casual gamers, who would be lured in by Natal would prefer to buy the (presumably) cheaper Xbox 360 with Natal. The traditional gamers already own a 360 and the best case scenario is that they will ditch the 360 for the new box. Net gain in customers due to the new console, 0.

This increased cost without increased profit might contribute to the safe-bet game market. We will see more sequels and less new IP. We might even see increased cost in games across the board (Microsoft, I don't imagine, would want new Xbox games more expensive that 360 games, and Sony and Nintendo might be tempted to follow suit).

Speaking in really predictive terms, this may speed up the inevitable, piracy on consoles. One of the reasons the PC market is shrinking compared with the console market is piracy. It is assumed that piracy on console is impossible. Nothing is impossible for a pirate. Given time, all the consoles will be cracked, the market will level out and new anti-piracy measures will have to be taken. Increasingly expensive games may act as a catalyst to the process.

And then you start hitting other problems. Sure, at first the new games will look slightly better on the new console, but hey, us 360 owners don't mind, our games still look fine. But then developers start investing money in making new games look great for the new console. There are a couple of levels that don't quite run at 60FPS on the Xbox 360. No huge deal, they were epic levels. Then it starts appearing in places where it matters, online. New Xbox owners will get a lag free (read: advantageous) experience, whilst 360 users have to lag along. Then 360 owners have to start installing games to get them to play. They have to start turning down graphics options in game if they want a solid 60FPS. Remind you of any other dying piece of hardware (in terms of game sales). Oh yeah, the PC!

It is very early days, this console hasn't even be confirmed. None the less, I play console games because everything just works. As a gamer, I prefer RTS's to action games and FPS's are better on the PC (except Halo 3, which I enjoy loads, but not because it is on the console) None the less, I play a huge amount of console games because everything on the PC is a bit iffy, even though my PC is good. This development, however, represents a trend (along with patches) towards the PC for consoles. Hopefully I am over-exaggerating, but consider this a warning.

Steam: The future of game distribution...

Steam is the future of game distribution...but not yet. Steam Powered Games is rapidly changing the way games are bought and played on the PC, however, there are still a few issues that is going to stop it becoming truly main stream.

Unless you have been living in a hole for the past two years, you will probably have heard of Steam. It provides 3 basic functions: firstly, a gaming community system akin to Xbox live, complete with common friends list, in game tools (including a web browser and chat) and everything else you would expect. Secondly, it offers dedicated servers for large multi-player games such as Counter Strike. However, probably the most unique of its services is the ability to download (legally) entire games straight to your PC - the gaming equivalent to iTunes, if you will.

Judging by PC sales last year, the PC market is now completely dependant upon Steam for its survival. And believe me, I think it will survive. But Steam isn't quite ready to conquer the world. Here are the things that I think they need to resolve to go truly main stream.

1)Bandwidth - Steam side
For years, one of the biggest obstacles for online game distribution was that high speed broadband was not common, and even where it was, it wasn't anywhere near fast enough. This isn't true any more. As far as I am concerned, in the UK within the next 5 years, 5-10Mb broadband will be standard with 20-100 being fairly common. Which is fast enough.

The problem, would currently appear to be at Steams end. I have above average, 20Mb broadband, normally getting about 15mb/s. However, downloading a game from Steam, I will normally get no more than 1mb/s, usually a lot, lot less. Like 10-20Kb/s. I don't think Steam is capping the download. Instead I think their server can't deal with the downloads.

Obviously, this will improve over time. However, if they want to become mainstream, it has got to be as quick as walking in to town. A download cannot take 24 hours.

They are offering a solution which lightens the problem, called pre-loading. Basically, the user downloads the game before it comes out, but can't play it until it does. This is a good idea. Make sure every game is doing it. Make it so it is available as early as possible and make it possible for people to download it a little bit at a time whilst leading up to the release. If the download is available a month before the game comes out (as is usually possible) then every time people log in to Steam, it downloads what it can in the background, then the load will be shared out effectively across the 30 day period.

2)Piracy

Part of the reason that Steam is as successful as it is, is because virtually every game released, is released on to it. If you had to see if a title was available, you just would stop bothering. Steam has received loads of publisher support. Partly, this is due to their excellent anti-piracy techniques. As far as I am aware, Steam games are not easily hacked. When playing a Steam game, the game checks its legitimacy against the Steam servers. This is good, as piracy is a very real threat to PC games.

This is fine, until the connection with Steam is lost. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. If you are charging people to pay games, you have to let them play them, whenever they want to. Either guarantee 100% up-time on your servers or find a work around. Maybe less frequent checking, or allow it to fail a few times. I wouldn't mind, but it has happened twice in two days - Xbox Live doesn't fall over, ever. Well OK, maybe at Christmas, but it didn't stop you playing games, and it certainly doesn't happen on a daily basis.

Survival of the fittest

When playing Dawn of War 2, I have to manage my Steam overlay window, my Games for Windows Live (GFWL) dashboard, and, if I have any attention left, Dawn of War 2. I think that Steam needs to sign a deal with Microsoft or else they are going to start competing against each other. That is bad for Steam, as Steam will lose, simply because there will never be Steam on the Xbox, and the Xbox isn't going anywhere.

Steam need to agree with Microsoft to work together, as Microsoft could easily do what Steam does. Were Microsoft to sell games they would have far greater bandwidth with which to do it. Factor in that they could sell 360 games too, and they would be very attractive to sell with. I don't care how it is done, but make Steam needs to join Microsoft, because they can't beat them.

Pricing

Like iTunes, Steam needs to be cheaper than retail stores. For a good few years yet, people will have an attachment to physical objects. No one is going to pay more (or even the same) for a download. Particularly when it isn't even much more convenient with the 24 hour+ downloads. Game regularly under sells Steam. Steam needs to be doing much more dynamic pricing to keep the prices low. Admittedly, they do more than iTunes, but iTunes offers something that shops don't; £0.79 songs. Seeming as Steam can't do an equivalent (one level of a game just wouldn't work as people would view it as a demo), it needs to be cheaper in general.

I genuinely believe that the future of games is in downloading. Better deals can be granted to everyone and the community system is an excellent reward. However, I don't believe it will necessarily be Steam that wins. They are winning at the moment, but like I said, Microsoft could sweep in at any point.

What do you think? Do you buy all your games from Steam, or do you cling to the polythene wrapping? Do you think that broadband is ready for this? Post your remarks below, I would love to see some other opinions on this.

2008 Analysis

Well sorry for not posting in ages, been busy with Christmas and other stuff.

2008 has ended, and despite a fantastic 2007, it was good game wise. Normally, (normal in that I think I did it last year) I would comment on Gamespot's Game of the Year award. However, this year, they were shockingly poor. Neither Fable 2 or Gears of War 2 made the Best of Xbox 360, let alone Game of the Year. This wouldn't be bad, if there were 10 clearly amazing games, but NHL? It wasn't just these shortlists that were off. For example, Fable 2 was not even listed in the funniest game. Sure, I maybe a bit of a Fable fanboy, but everyone found it funny. But it was in best sequel. What, that makes no sense either. Best Sequel should go to a game which had either a really poor preuel, or took everything good from the first one and crafted it in to something new. Fable 2, while good, did some things less well than Fable 1.

Gears wasn't on best Technical graphics, nor Fable on artistic, Super Smash Bros didn't win best Wii game. All in all, I was highly disappointed in the whole thing. This was worsened by the fact that the comments section wasn't working, I couldn't vote and the whole thing was taking forever to load.

Instead, as I don't play enough game to do my own set of awards, I am going to briefly discuss some of the big, controversial and important releases of the year.

Spore

The brain child of Will Wright was highly hyped, but the press received it with a collective shrug. For me it had two key floors. Firstly, the Space age was hugely frustrating and none of the modes slotted together. I have already published a huge rant about the space stage in my review, but the other comment I have only mentioned in passing. Excluding the space stage, each mode was weak, simple and could be found on the internet. The bit that was meant to be different was that you played them all. But there was no continuity, no consequences. Other than choosing whether to play the Simon Says peace game or a simple power of numbers RTS game, your decisions had little impact.

The game was not without redeeming features (not least the hugely impressive editors), and perhaps minus the hype it would have been good. However, I guess I was expecting something a little more thought out from Will Wright.

Read all my coverage of Spore...

Super Smash Bros Brawl

I will get round to reviewing this game at some point. On the one hand, it is that same addictive, easy to pick up, impossible to master game play that is impossible to resist. But, on the other hand, the game feels constantly lazy. There is no IR support for the menus (instead you use a cursor controlled by the joy-stick!!), the online is not only lacking in functionality, but is also constantly laggy (and consequently, no one plays it). In true Nintendo style, there has been no apology, no explanation and no resolution. I could go on for hours about the features missing from the online, but it really doesn't matter, if it had just worked, it would be good.

Ok, so they failed to take advantage of the Wii, they failed to make a decent online, but at least the standard modes are good. Well, yes. But the characters aren't balanced. So, what exactly did they do in the years they had to develop it. A great game, an even greater disappointment.

Read all my Brawl coverage

EndWar

You may be surprised to see this title, I haven't bought it, don't worry. However, this is the only strategy game to come up with a WORKING control scheme for an RTS on console. While everyone's breath is held for Halo Wars, EndWar did what I have been trying to said needs to be done. And no, I am not talking about voice commands (no pun intended)

This game did three things which made it work on the console. Firstly, it simplified everything. There is only one resource and you don't have to manage its collection (it builds up), there are only 7 or 8 different units fitting a simple Rock, Paper, Scissors thing.

Second, it has come up with a logical way of controlling the units (even without voice, issuing commands is as easy as on a PC) and thirdly, it made the whole experience much bigger. Now before you go accusing me of saying that console games need to be dumbed down, it isn't because of the market. It is simply you sit much further from the screen. On a PC, I can read size 10 fonts, size 20 on a console can be tricky. By making the experience big and visceral, it was easy to play and above all fun.

Yes the voice commands do help, but it was not the only noteworthy feature in the game.

Read my first impressions...

Fable 2

I will be writing about this game for years to come. What can I say? I game with so many flaws, I'm sorry, but it did. Flaws that Peter Molyenux himself admits in an interview (which I have lost the link to, some of it was on Xbox Live at one point as well) But through all this, the game delivered a stunning experience. It is the first game to make me feel something other than, "Woo, I did it". Sure, the co-op was terrible, the game was easy and the world no where near as big as Oblivion. But it is bigger than you think, I bet half of you never went to the cave in Rookridge where you had to swim round the river. I am constantly finding new areas. I will be writing more about this game and what I want from the DLC (which I will sell all my beliefs and probably end up getting!)

Gear of War 2

Horde is an incredible stroke of genius with near endless re-playability (I would like to see anyone do wave 50 on insane, and then anyone do that ON THEIR OWN) The campaigns story is not very satisfactory. At the start, the Locust were nearly defeated and then they weren't, and judging that there is a Gears 3 planned, the end is the same. At the start, Dom had lost his wife, everyone thought she was dead, now she's dead. At the start, humanity was on its last legs, at the end, well you get the idea. The campaign was fun none the less, and co-op is a blast.

The online started off terrible. It could take an hour to find one game. It does appear to be fixed now, and is almost as fast as Halo. It still has annoying timers before you can't quit, you can't party up and the ranking system isn't very rewarding (there are only 5 ranks, so you hardly ever go up, except after you win your first game) However, it is as intense as ever and the new game types work really well. All the weapons are balanced and the game manages to stride the fine line of non-frustrating-but-tense very well.

Read my first impressions...

Fallout 3

I haven't got this game (but I will be getting it soon) but I have heard quite a bit about it. Apparently the start is really bad, but fast forward three hours and suddenly everyone is raving about it. It sounds like Bethesda as done something fantastic with this. They took what was good with Oblivon (large expansive map with near-infinite things to do) but put some character in to it. I am really looking forward to find the parts for the rail gun which pins people to walls, all of the toys and explore the wasteland. I will be writting about this more on Tuesday next week (that's when I am getting it, after my exams)

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriot

Once again, not played on this, but DAMN I wan't too. Sure it sounds stuck up, excessive and redicuolous. But I think that if you have made what some people call one of the greatest series of all time, you are entitled to do that. The mix of genres sounds impressive, but a game where enough love to create 1 and a half hour cut scenes has gone in, I want a part of. Unfortunatley, this is not quite enough to justify selling my house for a PS3. Not that that is true anymore, they are actually reasonably priced - if it had the range of games that the 360 does.

Little Big Planet

But it is getting close (to me getting a PS3). Although this game got kind of average reviews (considering hype) from the press, I really want to play this. Maybe it is my love of making things, particuarly games, or maybe because it is a platformer with a physics engine, I don't know, but there is something about this game which I find irrestible. The MGS (Metal Gear Solid) LBP (Little Big Planet) pack nicely consolidates all that is good about the PS3

Home

Home ceartainly shouldn't be included in this package from what I have heard. Immature pre-pubecent teens seem to make up the numbers, crowding ANY female arvatar and performing acts which I shan't go in to here (youtube Home if you are interested, I am sure there are quite a few videos) Other than that, just sounds a bit boring and depressing. Probably shouldn't have invested quite so much time in this one Sony...

Call of Duty: World at War

Well, I played the beta, enjoyed it and then remembered why I never got Call of Duty 4; I find it too frustrating. Where Gears gets the balance right (almost), this game goes way in to the frustrating side. It doesn't matter how good you are, sometimes, someone will just randomly creep up behind you and head shot you. The fact that a CoD is now coming out every year probably isn't a good thing for the series - I doubt even Infinity Ward can create a compelling campaign every two years that is any longer than 5 hours. On the plus side, it is the first time (that I can recall) where a video game achives that level continued demand, equalling sports games which are conveniently based on an ever changing list of players. I'll hold of judement to, err, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2? Well, there never was a CoD 5...

Stay tuned for what I am looking forward to in 2009.

Peter Explains why there is no minimaps in Fable 2

Peter Molyenux was in a video interview with the BBC about Fable 2. The video is very interesting and I reccomend watching it. One thing he did touch on was why there was no mini map. For those who cannot be bothered to watch the video, here is what he says:

"Gamers...find it very easy to go from 2D to 3D [that is what you do with mini maps, even if you don't think about it like that] they [non gamers] don't get it, don't understand it"

Apart from the obvious points that Fable is neither a casual gamer game, nor is the game void of other conventions that baffle non gamers such as XP, the point he makes, I think, is wrong. A mini map is entirely logical. It isn't like it was something made up for RPGs, or for games in general. Maps were developed long before video games. The fact that they even have a useful "you are here" symbol makes them even more intuitive. Yes, they could be made to be obtrusive, like using symbols and acronyms, but in their raw state they are just useful maps. Surely removing it entirley just makes it worse.

I will be conducting a thought experiment over the coming week to discover whether Peter is correct, and a mini map is just mad for a non gamer, or I am correct; a mini map is a logical way of presenting information. Yes, the trail used in the game is simple, but it's functionality is limted, ristricting what core gamers can do. This nicely brings me back to my orginal point - Fable is not a causal game, it rewards dedication, you must level your character (if ever a more bizzare and non gamer unfriendly concept ever existed, I have not found it) among other RPG conventions.

Still, it is always enjoyable to listen to Peter talking about games, he is a very interesting character. Oh and for those who are interested, I had my second child, she's called Delliah.

On Piracy and Copy Protection

Recently there has been a lot of controversy after EA's big game: Spore, included copy protection that limited the number of installs per key code. While I do not believe this the ultimate sin (hence it being glossed over in my review) that some people do, I do think it is a stupid way to stop piracy. And when there is such a simple solution...

Basically, Spore includes a piece of software - SecuROM - which installs itself on your computer when you install Spore. It then immediatley contacts EA to tell them that your product key has been installed. EA then checks that it hasn't been installed more than 3 times.

Personally, it has not effected me one bit. Sure, it isn't acceptable to send data off without my permission, and if I was to sell it, this could prove an issue, but other than that, it doesn't matter one bit.

My point is this - it doesn't stop piracy of the game! If you can sell it twice, then you are making a profit. The only way it could work is if you only were allowed one attempt, but then, if your computer failed, the game would fail with it. And the best part - you can email EA and they will give you - legitamitley - extra installs.

And it isn't like there isn't a simple, effective nearly fail-safe method. Just check the disk is in the drive at boot. It isn't hard, games have been doing it for years. Someone has obviously developed a method of it not being burnt when the disk is copied - as I discovered when trying to do a LAN version of Railroad Tycoon 3.

I recently borrowed Sins off a friend, only to discover I don't need the disk to run it. There is now no incentive for me to buy it. (For those who are interested, will be giving impressions). However, I am not going to go to the effort of borrowing a disk every time I want to play on a game. Sure, some people will work their way around it, but they are going to beat you WHATEVER you try. But with a simple disk check, most people will give up and buy the damn thing.

Oh and by the way, for those who need a counter to tell you when games are coming out, I am sorry but Fable 2, which got somewhat disappointing scores from GameSpot, is coming out tommorow! Won't be able to play until like 6/7PM so first impressions will have to wait till Saturday.

Nintendo @ E3

How embarrassing. How disappointing. How painfully bad. These are just some of the ways I could describe Nintendo's press conference. It started with a detailed account of someone's skiing injuries. Then an interesting but lie ridden demo of a snow boarding game using the Wii Balance Board. Then some statistics that don't correlate with Microsoft's, and 3 average looking game trailers. They did, some what inevitably, announce a microphone along with Animal Crossing. It might not look great, and no backwards support was announced, but a room mike is better than no mike I guess...

Animal Crossing looks decidedly average. Average graphics, average set of features etc. However, judging by the rest of the of the show, they might have been underplaying it.

Yes, that's right, Nintendo has a cunning plan. It involves under talking and deliberatly missing out key information to upset core gamers to a point of suicide. The problem is, I haven't worked out how this plan benifits them in any way at all. For example, it turns out a new Mario and Zelda are being created. All they had to do was say along with a quick render of Link. THATS ALL THEY HAD TO DO. No effort, shut everyone up for months. But no.

Then the stage goes dark, at first you think it is Wii music because they haven't mentioned it. But then dry ice starts pooring on to the stage and crazy lights start going. Oh my word! Nintendo have some big old hard core announcment. There is litterally nothing else this can be. Nothing. Wait a minute, thats a drummer. Wii Music... *Collective sigh* Wii music is a game I kind of had hopes for becuase if there is one company that can make an affordable Rock Band it is Nintendo (I actually have an idea of a Nintendo Rock Band which I will detail later, but rest assureed doens't envolve hundereds of pounds) because they have a huge music collection that they can use for free. I will happily drum away to Zelda main theme, you can use Brawl as a juke box, so just take it to the next level.

Sadly not, there is no skill. You press buttons at random. When you want. In any order. GH (Guitaur Hero) managed to breach the gap between non gamers and gamers. It isn't so much Nintendo are breaching this gap, they are just catering to non gamers. Why? Probably because they are making a fortune at the moment.

On the plus side, The Conduit looks intense, and actual real people thought it was a 360 game. Plus, it will, apparently, support Wii Speak. On top of the fact, there is a halrious reinactment of Ninty E3, so every cloud does have a silver lining.

Super Smash Rant

For everyone's information, my Brawl code is: 5069 - 5371 - 3115, if you add me, be sure to tell me your code. I play Samus.

Ok, so Brawl has come out in the Uk, I got it on launch day and I was considerably less hyped about it then than I was some months ago. Well done Nintendo. This post is a list of all the things that bug me, annoy me or are just plain right stupid.

Online is the biggest one. Why can't I do everything online with Friends? Surely I should be able to do tourney, Co-Op, rotation Special Brawl and custom stages. It is absurd. Why can I not send messages outside a game to my friends? Why am I only online when playing online, can't I be online when playing the campaign. Why isn't there stat tracking or leader boards. Why is the online better in Mario Kart, a 3+, than in Brawl, a 12+ and definitely hard core title. Why are there lag issues when this is the biggest game on the Wii? Why aren't there playlists (ie. for KO fest/ Stock etc)

Why on earth can I not use the point in the menus?! When you are choosing a character, you literally are moving a cursor ideal for a pointer. Did they just not work it out? Why can't it remember which name you use by default. Every time I have to select THK, JUST REMEMBER IT!

The subspace Embissary clearly cost a lot of development time to produce, just look at the fancy cut scenes. So why is it, for the large part, dull or frustrating. Some of the levels are fun, but why isn't it all? Because their level design, in some places, is non existent. Some times it is just really boring, like a flat path with one jump. Other times the controls, which are built for a button bashing fighter, just aren't up to the job of platformer. It isn't without it's positives, but I would have preferred if the development time had been spent on the online.

Why is the game still unbalanced? You have had years to craft these characters, you haven't added that much since Melee, surely balancing Snake wouldn't be too hard.

Unlockable content is fine, to a degree. But unlocking options?! That would be like if you had to play 5 hours on Halo to get the inverted control scheme.

Small gripe, but why are GC controllers players 1 before Wiimotes. Why can't I set the default to not be KO fest in Brawls.

Well, when all is said and done, it isn't as long as I thought it was going to be. Also, happy Bungie day for yesterday. I hope you all downloaded the map and played the playlist, I know I did. I got a Killtacular on Swords, was very happy. The map is one of my favourites from H2 (I think...) and any map with teleporters is always cool. Anyway, more posts to come. FK watchers, you will be pleased to know I have finally got my head round how it is going to fit together (well mostly)

The Terrible Graphics Crysis

In this months Op-Ed, I will be looking at the effects of "Next Generation Graphics" and if we actually need them.

Many thanks to "my friend" whose, up till now, only use was owning a 360. Fortunately, after coming up with the frankly genius title, he will not be the first redundancy here at Veteran Gamer

Last month, I looked at online gaming. I suggested that online may detract from a game because the developers were focusing online. While I still feel this is true, in comparison to the damage the HD graphics can do, it is negligible and online comes with tangibly good benefits. With the exception of the Wii, all current generation consoles, PC included, are pushing the so called High Definition era. Titles built with the sole intention of wowing the user, such as Crysis and games that have physics engines that put real life to shame, such as the one in Burnout: Paradise. But can a thick layer of beauty really cover up for poor gameplay. Or is it even the cause, suffocating originality?

With an introduction like that, you might think I was just going to rant about graphics. I am, after all, a Wii owner. However, graphics, and I mean this term very generally as I include stunning physics engines (as it has similar pros and cons), are, when used to complement rather than dominate, a very powerful tool. For example, one of my criticisms of Mario Kart was, while the action is often crazy, the fact that all the spinning is pre-animated ruins the chaos and makes it feel scripted. On the flip side, when racing in Forza Motor Sport at 200MPH and you slightly slip, you swerve, knocking the other contestants and causing a huge, entirely spontaneous crash. The fact that you know this can happen adds to the tension of the game. Likewise, part of the reason Halo: Combat Evolved became so popular was the Warthog. The Warthog was fun because, when a grenade exploded next to you, you flew backwards. Which leads me on to my next point.

Good graphics can make a truly immersive game. It is difficult to feel like you are inside a game if you are constantly reminded of it's fictiousness by, say, huge artefacts where your allies head should be. Would the world of Talon IV been as interesting to explore if it had just used dull colours and repetitive corridors? Would Gears of War have won game of the year if the chainsaw animation wasn't quite so belivable? The reason is, most people play games to escape their own world, if they can trick themselves this new, improved world is real, they will enjoy it more and stay in it more. Furthermore, another key feature of modern games is exploration. There is no fun in exploration if there is nothing to find but bland, blurred textures. For example, in Assassins Creed, the first time you arrive at a city, it takes your breath away and makes your long journey worthwhile. This wouldn't be quite the same experience if all you could see was the city walls and a blurry tower behind it and then nothing but the horizon.

Let's take Forza Motor Sport as an example. While Forza Motor Sport 2 is not quite Burnout Paradise when it comes to dynamic damage models, when Forza first came out for the Xbox, it was leading the way in realistic damage models. If it just showed you in a little diagram that the front of your car had been ripped off, it wouldn't have been very satisfying. However, because you see your bumper fly off it makes you appreciate the crash. Once again, it immerses you in the gameplay. By making your car more real, you realise that your shocking driving has real consequences. Also, the detailed enviroments serve to place you inside the car. Finally, by, and you may start noticing recurring themes here, making the maps look real, the player wants to explore new tracks to see what there like and makes the world more real.

However, as the gaming industry has recently out-sized the movie industry, there is now a lot 0f money in this once frowned upon market. At first this sounds good, but as many Hollywood films conform to the same clichés and do not try to be inventive, the same is happening to the video game market. So, the big investors who can't really tell a Wii Remote from a PS3 controller and think the Xbox 360 is Microsofts first games console, come in and see that consoles are pushing good graphics. They demand graphics to be this good, and the developer tells them that it will cost X million amount of money. This means that, as investors do not want to risk such large quantities of money, they go with safe bets. Ie. tried and tested game types, like first person shooters. The effect of this is, when an original idea is dreampt up, it sounds too risky for the investors and they turn the game down. To summarize, because graphics are now a must for current gen gaming, games are expensive to produce, meaning high risk, innovative, games are turned down. All is not lost however, thanks to services like the Xbox Live Arcade, that is what next months article will be on.

Also, similar to the last point, decent graphics take a long time to produce. Because of the aforementioned money constraints, developers will be pushed to release the game as quickly as they can. This means, that other elements, such as gameplay, get rushed towards the end, almost as an afterthought. Once again, this is down to pressures of the developers to make HD graphics in a short period of time. Once again, XBLA can take away the need for fancy graphics and let the focus remain on core gameplay.

A point about PC's as well. By increasing the technical prowess for the game, you shrink your market. Take Crysis, you can buy a top of the range computer now, and you still will not be able to play Cryis the way it is meant to played. While people might say that they are prepared to make compromises, the whole point to Crysis, the reason it wasn't released on consoles, the reasons why the system specs are so high, is because the main selling point is to show the world "This is what our games can do". The side effect of this is, gamers such as myself, get turned off modern computer gaming sticking to the classics and turn to consoles for their HD fill.

When I was thinking of a game for this point, I actually found it very tricky. Not because there is a shortage of games that are entirly focused on graphics, but because I do not buy games that are like this. Instead of blabbing on about a game which my entire opinion is based on a single Gamespot review, I will instead comment on the market in general. Many people will be aware that games are much shorter than they used to be. Gears of War, as great as it is, comes in at under ten hours. Likewise, Call of Duty can be done in less than ten hours. Fortunately, these game's gameplay aren't suffering. However, you could argue that the reason why Assassin's Creed has such repetitive mission objectives is because they spent so long making the draw distance breath taking. The problem with all these examples in showing my point is, overall, I believe that they have benefited from the fancy graphics. If anyone has any examples of games that have genuinely suffered because the focus is entirely on the graphics, please leave a comment.

In conclusion, I think we are reaching a split in gaming. I think the games that appear to be being damaged by graphics, the truth is that the developers couldn't improve the gameplay and decided to spend the time making technically amazing graphics so they can still justify charging money f0r it. I also want to point out that I do still believe the reason why the market is flooded with traditional games rather than different games is down to, almost entirely, the huge cost associated with making a game for the HD Era. I do not think it is because humanity has finally ran out of innovative ideas. Furthermore, because graphics need to be so intricate, game length is suffering and I think that developers now need to find a happy balance. Finally, I think that realistic graphics are going to become less prominent because, lets face it, as realistic as Forza looks, it can't compete with the likes of Paradise which just look cool. It all comes down to why you play games, and because it is for entertainment, realism just doesn't have the same wow factor as it used to.

I hope you enjoyed this post and I really appreciate all comments (which I will read out if I do the Podcast) Also if you have any tips on refining my style of writing or have a suggestion for a topic I can do, please post a remark.

The Importance of Being Online

My first Op-Ed article: How important is online?. I hope you enjoy it, I am working on my style and really appreciate any suggestions. Also, make sure you post your opinions, as they will be read out on the podcast next month! In this article, I will be discussing online and what it adds to and subtracts from games.

Online has, up until now, mainly something that PCs, and PCs only, do. Yes, the original Xbox connected to the internet, and technically so did the PS2, but even the Xbox was quite a lot of trouble to get it online and most games weren't even Live enabled. This has changed greatly in this generation. All current-generation consoles have online capabilities, in fact, I would go so far as to say, that online is what this generation is about. Great graphics barley make up half the market share, motion sensing is also about half the market share, but all 3 consoles, for better or for worse, have online. Not only this, but online is making stories for all 3 as well. Xbox Live has a massive reputation, obviously, but that isn't it, the PSN is trying to be a free, better version of Xbox Live and is one of Sonys main points to push. The Wii, also in the news about its online capabilities, namely how they are under-used, over-restricted and generally disappointing considering the Wii has built in Wi-fi. Finally, the PC's online is changing too, with Windows Live coming in to play, where some users are now paying for a service that used to be free. So to say online is at the forefront of gaming news would be a bit of an understatement, but how important is it really? Is it even a bad thing?

It is possible that online detracts from the games quality. As many of you will be aware, I recently purchased and completed Halo 3. I did so on the second to hardest difficultly, did not play it obsessively and managed to complete it in a matter of days (less than 5) For a game which has been in production for over 2 years, is that not a little short? If I had paid £40 for this game (as it happens, I managed to get it pre-owned) and did not have any intention of getting Live, I would be very disappointed with the game. While online may be very wide-spread, it isn't 100%. Some people could argue that, if you don't have online, you don't get Halo. I agree, but why should they miss out on a fantastic, albeit brief, game. Besides, it isn't just Halo. Call of Duty is another example (And I am sure Metal Gear Solid will be too) Some of this shortness can be attributed to the fact developers need to make amazing graphics or otherwise their title will just be shunned (that is what next months article will be on) However, I don't think it can be entirely responsible, as many of these games use pre-built engines anyway.

Also, as game developers are presuming the game is going to go online, they are delivering un-finished games. This used to be limited to PCs, where developers would just release a patch a month after launch. This was infuriating for the consumer, and when games are costing upwards of £40, it really isn't acceptable. That is not the worst of it, however. Some games take content out that had already been produced at the games launch to sell for more profits. Games aren't cheap, games are short, half the market is PAYING for online anyway, there really shouldn't be additional fees, particularly for horse armour.

That brings me on to my next point, cost. If assuming that you need online to enjoy a game to the full, you are going to need to spend some money. The 360 is the most guilty of this. If, firstly, doesn't have built in Wi-Fi. This is in itself shockingly bad, given that even the underpowered Wii does. But it gets worse, Microsoft charge £60 for the Wi-Fi card. It isn't a special card, it is a USB wireless adaptor, something that you can buy for PC for under £20 without going budget. It isn't even reliable, my friend has got through 4 since getting his 360 this Christmas. Surely Microsoft has taken enough of your money now? No, you have to pay for online. I mean, come on, that is ridiculous. Yes, Live is better than both the PSN and, obviously, the Wii, but £40 a year better? The truth is no, but it won't change because everyone, myself included, will keep buying it because they want to play their games online. It isn't just Microsoft who will rob you though, the PS3 has got a game coming out later this year BUILT around the idea of micro-transactions (Home)

Despite all that, online does have many good points too. The most obvious one is how it extends the game. Single player, no matter how long, will eventually get old, in theory, a decent evolving online game won't. Case in point: Halo. In 5 years time, Halo will still be a blast to play online. Offline multiplayer requires organisation, online doesn't Online means you can pick the game up for 5-10 minutes, play and go. Online means you can meet your friends online and be able to play them with out breaking commitments to other ties.

Also, many game developers will release more content after launch. Sometimes you will have to pay, sometimes you won't. It means that if they find something that isn't balanced, it can be fixed, increasing the longevity of the game. Halo periodically releases new maps that eventually become free. This, once again, keeps players coming back and helps to keep the game fresh. Yes, micro-transactions aren't cool, but if the content is right, then why not? You pay for games. I am not talking about horse armour, something I will never forgive Bethesda Studios for, but extra missions, new maps, different variants etc.

Finally, one of the key things about technology at the moment is user generated content. Take a look at any modern "Web 2.0" site. Post comments and write blog links are everywhere. Games are starting to embrace this, most obviously with things like Mii creation, but also more crucially things like screen shots and movies. Last generation, there were loads of movies created by fans using their favourite games, just search YouTube for Halo 2 Red Vs. Blue if you don't believe me. Or Halo Music Videos But this generation, things can get a little more advanced. With the ease of online, users can work together to make really good content. The online community is ready to embrace you.

So, do we need online? It definitely makes developers lazy, both with length of single player and bug fixing, but mulitplayer is usually the most fun element in a game and online multiplies that tenfold. I recently marked Metroid Prime 3: Corruption down for not having it. It would be, quite frankly, hypocritical to say no to online, as I just finished a Halo game online. However, one thing that might be possible if a developer was feeling really kind, and in some ways Metal Gear Solid is going to do this, is ship the offline portion on the disk having spent all the development time creating it. Then, because it will take a few months for everyone to complete, they develop the online portion and deliver it digitally. People who don't have online won't receive it, but it doesn't matter, because they won't be using it either. However, this won't happen as people are buying short games at full price. What I think we are going to see, however, is single player stuff being added later for a fee. Please leave your thoughts, comments and suggestions how I can make these articles better in the remarks button below.
----------------
Now playing: Oasis - The Importance Of Being Idle
^^D'ya get it?!
via FoxyTunes

Game of the Year Decided

Gamespot has announced the winners of all its various categories, you can see what I thought of the readers votes here

Most Surprisingly good game
I am pleased to say that my vote, Medal of Honour 2:Heroes, is also what Gamespot choose.

Best Graphics, Artistic
I am pleased to say that GS also went with me on this one, despite the readers voting, and went with Galaxy for the Wii!

Best Mutliplayer Game
This was always going to be a close one between Halo and CoD, personally I think that Halo has the slight edge. Gamespot said: Rock Band..?

Most Improved Sequel

This was always going to be a close one. It went to Medal of Honour, once again, I do agree, because the last one was appalling.

Best Use of a Control Scheme
This has to go to a Wii game, doesn't it? The voters went for Assassins Creed, which is absurd. Gamespot went for Zelda Phantom Hourglass, which is fair enough, the sword fighting is really quite good.

Most Disappointing Delay
This went to GTA, although personally it had to be Brawl for me.

Best 360 Game
Goes to Call of Duty. From this, I guess that this will also be Game of the Year, as 360 had a very good year.

GAME OF THE YEAR
How wrong could I be, Galaxy WINS Game of the Year. I knew it was amazing, but wow. Congrats Ninty, now you have sold hundreds of consoles and made great games.

On a side note, I got money for a 360, and so BOUGHT ONE!!! I have Halo 3, Forza 2, PES 06 and Viva Pinata (those last two I am going to sell) Loving every minute of it. Will bring you reviews of all them and more in the new year. On Veteran Gamers new site. Still on for launching this Jan 1st, albeit with slightly less features than originally planned.

Gamespot Game of the Year Awards

Well, as we near the end of the year, all sites start to give out their analysis of the year, and gaming sites are no exception. I don't play enough video games to do my own awards (other than the Game of the Year) but I do like to keep a very close eye on Gamespots. Gamespot have now opened up the read choice voting for all the awards, so head over here to cast your vote. Below is my comments on some of the votes and their results.

Special Achievement
Best Graphics, Artistic - Assassins Creed
Now I am not going to argue that Assassins Creed's graphics aren't good, because they are amazing. But they aren't artistically amazing, just ultra-realistic. Both Bio-shock and Galaxy are much more artistically focus and Eternal Sonata looks to be too.

Best Multiplayer - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
I was highly surprised to find that Halo didn't win this award. Call of Duty did. I have already stated my opinion on this battle, but I was still surprised as I thought that the Halo fanboyism would be far greater than that of a recently released Call of Duty.

Best Expansion Pack - Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance
Nothing very surprising here, except Civ BtS didn't win. However, it wasn't a console game that got it, which is odd as normally the console support is far greater on Gamespot.

Most improved sequel - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
This was a very tight call for me, as Call of Duty 3 was bad, Halo 2 I wasn't a fan of, Medal of Honour 1 for the Wii was appalling and the last Mario was also not mean to be very good. On top of which I want to own all 4 of those titles before March next year! I went for Medal of Honour as the original was so bad. Unsurprisingly, Call of Duty won, as with quite a lot of these awards, it comes down to popularity over actually success in the area (aka. Assassins Creed)

Best Control Scheme - Assassins Creed
This is a terrible, but point proven, example of popularity winning the award. Assassins Creed beat Medal of Honour, Wario, Phantom Hourglass and Resi Evil 4: Wii Edition. Not that there was anything wrong with the control scheme in Assassins Creed, but it was hardly revolutionary like Medal of Honour, Phantom Hourglass or Wario. Unfortunately, as they were less rounded games, they loose the vote.

Dubious Awards

Worst Trend - Lousy Wii Ports
If there is one award that is spot on, it is this one, as the winner was Poor Wii Ports. Although, in my opinion, quick party games and waggles for buttons are just as guilty. Comes hand in hand with well selling console though...

Flat out worst game - Deal or no Deal
The fact that this game got released speaks great volume. The TV program was bad enough, Deal or no Deal, I mean, COME ON

Best of Genre
NONE

Best of Console

Xbox 360 - Halo 3
Call of Duty, got beaten by Halo! Not the best shooter, or the best multiplayer, but it is the best 360 game, that makes sense.

PS3 - Call of Duty 4
A little embarrassing is that all bar 1 of these games came out on 360 earlier, and the winner wasn't the best on 360. Unlucky PS3

Wii - Super Mario Galaxy
Galaxy, unsurprisingly, won this. But I was disappointed to see that Metroid Prime didn't get a mention, it was one of the highlights of the year for me.

Game of the Year
This was very close, but the read winner as of now is currently, just 1% above Crysis, coming in a close second.

Well that's all, make sure to cast your votes as come of them were very close. I reckon that Call of Duty will get the Game of the Year official award, but we will have to wait and see.

Check Mii Out

Check Mii out finally came out today, waking me up with the blue glow. Unfortunately, I was too tired and so waited for this morning before trying it out. I downloaded it and started it up. First, you have to choose a Mii to be your "Mii Artasian" Basically, people can see your nickname and Mii when ever the click on a Mii you have created. No Wii Codes required for that!

Next you are presented with two options. The main submission plaza and the competition area.

In the main plaza, you will find 50 Miis parading about. By default, it presents the top 50, however, you can change it to present, top 50 of that day, all time, 50 random ones and your favourites. Also, you can choose if you just want national Miis or worldwide. Finally, you can choose to have the Miis standing in line, A La Mii Channel, or get them to walk by, 3 at a time, cat walk style, doing little poses (very amusing) Once you have done this, you can click on any Mii you see. From here you can choose to import the Mii to your Wii Console, favourite the Mii (this increases their score and adds them to your favourites) or see friends. This last option I am not entirely sure about, it definitely shows Miis that have similar characteristics and also definitely shows Miis made by the same person. It doesn't show who has favourited it though. You can see who made this Mii and his other creations and see its ratings. Overall, I think this to be surprisingly good as there are many people with either loads of talent or loads of time (or probably both) and you can get yourself some really cool looking Miis. You can search either by giving an entry number of by choosing gender and speciality. If you want to see my submissions, they have the entry codes: "7582-1768-0682" and "8672-0969-5924"

The other element is more competitive. Every week, Nintendo will put up a new person and we, the people, must make a Mii to look as similar as possible. The opening one was "Mario without his cap" After a week, it opens up for voting. I am not aware of any prize other than fame, which is pretty useless on the Wii thanks to friend codes... None the less, should be a bit of fun, and once again you will be able to take the Mii, so if you want a capless Mario but can't make one yourself, this is your opportunity.

Overall, recommend downloading this, is a bit of fun and should get you some very cool Miis. If you are artistic, this looks like a very good portal. This channel does call for two things though. Firstly, the only way this community can take off is if Nintendo needs to relax about sharing Wii Codes. Also, because there are so many people who own a Wii, the amount of different Mii combinations is going to seem very small soon. I think Nintendo needs to bring out more options if they want to keep this channel alive. You can download this channel from the Wii Shop in the Wiiware section, please bare in mind, if you have not performed a Wii Systems Update since the 10th of October, you will need to do so to install this channel.

My Wii Remote Jackets have Arrived

At long last my Wii remote Jackets have turned up. I ordered them some time ago, however, it was only yesterday that Nintendo said they had got to my order, presumably meaning the got quite a few. None the less both my Wii Jackets did turn up today.
The Jacket is light and rubbery and fits the Wii remote excellently. The holds for the buttons are just big enough to be perfectly comfortable without being so big the jacket feels pointless. Also, the top area, the element of the 'Mote with the most fragile elements, has the thickets part of the Jacket and really feels like it would do some good at protecting both the 'Mote and the item it hit.
So how does it actually effect gameplay. Well I am pleased to say virtually not at all. Apart from turning the Wii on, you will barley notice you are wearing this extra layer of protection. At first I thought the B button may be little tricky but considering I use that as shoot in MP3 and I am currently playing with Jacket in said game, the fact that I haven't noticed is quite conclusive. I was hoping this may have slightly better grip, the grip is marginally better, but not really noticeable.
In conclusion, these are worth picking up seeming as they are free. Judging by the extensive rubber used on the head, these seem much more safe. I did a brief test on my brother and he said that the unprotected Wiimote hurt more. They don't exactly help for any proper gamer and do diminish from the looks, however, if you have some less experienced Wii players coming round for the day, it may just be the clincher in saving some one or worse an HDTV.
You can order your free jackets from Nintendo (have your Wii serial number and an email address as the ready) here

Metal Gear Solid and Civilization Revolutions

Metal Gear Solid is Two Games

I was reading a post about the Wiis success in the gaming market when I came upon an interesting piece of news about MGS that I was unaware of. They are splitting the game in to two. The single player portion and the multiplayer portion. That would be absolutely outrageous anyway but it is the only AAA PS3 title left. Everything else is on the 360. The big PS exclusive was GTA, which will be coming out at the same time on the 360 with bonus content. This leaves the PS3 exclusive looking very weak, with BigPlanetLittlePlannet and Home being the only titles worth owning. A very good quote from the post is:

Imagine if you bought Halo 3, completed the story/single player mode, and then when attempting to go online, you get prompted to purchase an additional online pack for another 40 bucks.

Civilization Revolutions

For those who don't know, Civilization Revolutions is the ever popular Civ franchise ported, no sorry, built for consoles. It is currently confirmed for PS3, 360, Wii and DS. Obviously the Wii and DS seem to be the most suited to the game as they both have mouse like abilities. However, GS recently got to try a version for the 360. You use the joystick as the mouse and the face buttons to issue orders. To me, using the joystick as a mouse has always been a fiddly affair best avoided (as in the case of Red Alert for the PS2) however GS says it works well. Civ has the added benefit of being turn based, so there is no rush, however fiddly controls could put off console gamers as they will, in general, not have played many turn based strategy games, preferring action. None the less, I eagerly await this title as I may be able to use it to get more people playing full Civ on the PC

----------------
Now playing: Radiohead - In Rainbows (Their new album which YOU choose the price (even £0)
Get it here
via FoxyTunes

Sony dosen't like the UK

Long term readers of this blog will be aware of my dislike of the PS3. Recently, my opinion had started to become less serve. The graphics were improving, I was starting to see the benefit of having a Media centre that wasn't owned by Microsoft (leading to propitiatory formats only) and LittleBig planet looks really good. Then Sony announced the price drop in the UK. The price will be reduce to £349. Still over priced, but it should be worth it now, as HD is about to become the standard for TV, and once that happens you're going to notice the difference when watching non-HD DVDs. This price includes two games.

However, Sony have just announced that the 60GB model will be discontinued, and when it runs out, it runs out. It will be superseded by a 40GB model, no free games and no support of PS games. This will be priced at £299. This is outrageous. Sony takes everything away from the UK. By next year, assuming that these PS3 sell, it will be impossible to get a backwards compatible PS3. Sony should just cut their losses, release the 60GB in Europe for £299, take the losses like a man and reap the benefits of a far more loving community. Sony has lost a lot of money from the PS3, a bit more isn't going to make any difference, but if they shift a million units in the UK, they are laughing.

Wii overtakes 360 Worlwide

Well, we all knew it was going to happen, and now it has. The Wii has shipped 10.57 million consoles, overtaking the 360s 10.51 in just half the launch time. So what does this mean? Well firstly, it means Nintendo is that bit richer which it can put to making new games, and when it comes to the next generation, can have a console that makes a loss on each sale (Like Sony and Microsoft) allowing them to put more stuff in their consoles. Also, it means that game developers will see that Wii is where the money is because it has the biggest market so will put more energy in to developing games for it. For anyone who cares, the PS3 is on 4.32 million. All figures come from vgchartz

If anyone knows about the Apple vs. PCs ads, there is an amusing collection of spoofs ones advertising the PC here.

7 Most Import Things in a Game

Following a post by Juuso on Gameproducer.net on the 7 most important things to include a game, (although I heard it from Troy Goodfellows post on the 8 most important things) I decided to create a list for there is nothing man likes more than creating lists.

1. Online Multiplayer

This is true for every type of game (except maybe puzzle games) A good online mode can triple a games value. A good multiplayer can make up for an average single player (in the case of Delta Force 2), good muiltplayer can keep players playing a game and thus more interested in sequels and most importantly, multiplayer can extend the games longevity and thus value ad infinitum. Wii Sports is a game that is missing in online multiplayer.

2. Map Editor

Where Troy put random maps in his list, which are undoubtedly important, I think an editor can replace random maps, and improve on their ability. No matter how clever a designer is, the world as a whole is cleverer and will thus make better maps than them. Map editors can keep people tied to a game like multiplayer, on top of the fact it adds to value with out any extra effort on the developer. Map editors need to be well made and easy to use, but with lots of depth, unlike the Civ 4 World Builder. Also in this point is the ability to Mod stuff, this ironically, has been done excellently on Civ 4.

3. Customisation

Customisation should be added wherever it can. I may be alone in this, but I love customisation. From painting cars in Forza, to spending hours creating a character in Oblivion to just changing colour schemes in Dawn of War. Everyone wants to be unique and where online is present, customisation becomes even more important. I get frustrated when customisation is limited when it dosen't need to be(as with Miis) EA is currently leading the way with character development although Forza and Oblivion both need a nod of the hat.

4. Brink of Death

In any action game, you must always be on the brink of death. You must always be checking your health and finding it on one, reloading you gun to find it is the final magazine. At no point should you be comfortable in your position. RE4 does this excellently. Terror can incorporate you in a game like nothing else. This way you are breathing heavily and thank the heavens when you find a pause. Zelda always feels a little safe. You have loads of life and lose it rarely, you always have your trusty sword and enemies never seem to pose much more than a nuisance. Fortunately, Zelda isn't about combat.

5. No locked content

I don't know why developers do this. Why force you to unlock content? You have paid for the game, surely that should give you the right to play with all of it. Ok, I accept that some things should be kept as a reward, such as peripherals and costumes, but completing whatever the goal is should be a reward in its self in a well designed game. It frustrates me when entire modes are locked. For people like me, who often don't complete games, it means that when we review them we can only mark half the content, which will effect the score.

6. Save whenever

Something which is often over looked in anything except long strategy games for PC is the ability to save anywhere. Now I appreciate that developers don't want people saving every 5 minutes so they don't have to go back far, but what if you need to go out. Once again, it comes back to the point that you have bought the game. Yes the game will be more fun if you limit your saving, but that option should reside with the player, who can choose to only save when they quite, rather than the developer who clearly don't have the tasks of real life or know about the individual habits. What does it matter to them if you get less enjoyment from the game because you just want to beat it.

7. Custom Music

A feature often overlooked for people developing for the Orginal Xbox was the ability to use a custom soundtrack. This issue has been fixed with the 360 as music is operated separately from the game. I thought this feature was great. Obviously some games need the tense music to create an atmosphere, but there are some games when their is no reason to have it. Civ 4 does have it, but is quite unique in this. It can't be hard to implement in a game for computers and makes a lot of sense as, thanks to the rise of MP3 players, most people have their music collection on their computer. Not being able to listen to music can often put me off playing a game because I want to listen to some music.

Most of these are small gripes but they really do irritate me when they aren't there. The majority of them their is no excuse not to include them. You can post y0ur 7 in the comments section if you wish.

On a side note, a went on Stealth at Thorpe Park a couple of days, ago, it was terrifying. Go to youtube and type in "Stealth Thorpe Park" and watch the second and third videos for some idea of what it is like. It is absolutely mental, I can tell you that for nothing.