Recently in Games Category

Because I run a game news site, I use Google Alerts to scan the Internet for gaming news and deliver me a list of potential articles by email each day.  Today's list of potential material included the following listing (modified slightly to fit this site's format) about a new Nintendo Wii (pronounced "wee") game that cracked me up.  When I read Google's excerpt from the article, it just got funnier:

If you don't get the joke, read this site's entry for the word "wee" (which sounds like Wii).

Then consider the site's definition for "whack off".

Then put the two things together...

Then read the article excerpt for an added laugh, talking about allowing the player to have an artificial sensation based on arm and hand movement...

Over Thanksgiving, I purchased Stronghold 2 for $19.99 from Office Max. I was in the mood for a real-time strategy game, something a little different than my usual sci-fi fare. Stronghold 2 certainly seemed to fit that bill. It featured medieval castles, catapults, trebuchets, archers, polemen, etc.

The graphics in the game are 3D and more than adequate to the task. It was very easy to tell units apart on-screen, buildings looked unique and recognizable, etc. Rotating the camera in the game proved to be rather difficult, so I rarely tried. It just wasn't worth the effort.

The sounds are also adequate and not overdone.

The controls are a bit strange. To select a unit, you left-click on it. To move it, you left-click where you want that unit to go. Most of the time, this works fine. Sometimes, however, this makes it difficult to select and move units that are located close together.

There appears to be a "tech tree" of sorts in the game, where you can initially make only spearmen and archers. Supposedly you can also make armored troops, swordsmen, and a variety of others. Unfortunately the manual doesn't explain this well and it's certainly not clear in playing. After playing several levels of the single-player campaign, I still can't make a mounted unit or a sword-swinging unit. I've no idea why or how. Worse, my AI opponents all seem to be able to produce these units in quantity, and their units seem to take 2-3x the damage mine do before dying.

In addition to the "invisible" tech tree, the game also suffers from a "wash, rinse, and repeat" mission design. That is, at the start of each mission, you begin with almost nothing. You have to scramble to gather resources, build defenses, and construct units to defend and/or attack. Meanwhile, the computer throws wolves (which eat archers and spearmen for breakfast), bandits (who can kill several of your units with one of theirs), enemy forces (which can kill several of your soldiers with one of theirs), time limits, and more at you. Once you've managed to beat the level, the cut scene explains that you've decided to move to another castle for the next mission (i.e., rinse away all your progress) where you start all over again (i.e., repeat).

Sometimes, the cut scenes make some very lame excuses for the "rinse" part. For example, after fighting my way through one map, my "character" and another decide that they need to use their enemy's castle because it's better located and will be easier to defend. Below is the castle they think will be easier to defend:

Below is some video I shot while at Gen Con 2006 in Indianapolis, inside the Exhibit Hall where products are bought and sold:

As you've seen from other articles on this site, I've been attending the Origins International Game Expo for several years now.  My interest in (non-computer and computer) gaming dates back to before high school (over 20 years if you need to know specifics).  I recently began collaborating with a friend and co-worker on a new site for (mostly non-computer) gaming called "The Gamer Hotsheet".

The Gamer Hotsheet provides information about new board games, miniatures games, miniature figures, role-playing games, and computer games that are similar in complexity to these games.  Each day, we scour a long list of game manufacturer sites to bring you information about the latest releases, sales, etc.

If you're interested at all in traditional gaming, check out The Gamer Hotsheet.

My brother and I were fortunate enough to get into one of the "Car Wars - Rogue Arena" games at Origins 2006.  Rogue Judges events seem to be very well-attended, probably because the group does a great job of running the games it does.  The GMs (game masters) know the games well, keep a positive attitude working with less-experienced players, have an organized system for going through players' turns, etc. It's because they do such a great job that they can effectively handle 20 players at a Car Wars table.

Rogue Judges has a great-looking arena set up to play the game, with buildings you can crash through, pedestrians you shouldn't hit, trees, overpasses, etc.  They have condensed rule cards they use to help move things along, as well as pre-designed cars that have comparable strengths and weaknesses.  They maintain a good sense of humor and try to keep the game fun and realistic as they go.  It's for these reasons I try to sign up for one or more of their events at Origins each year.

Rogue Judges also does a great job of making it easy to find the games you're trying to play with them.  Their banner can be seen all the way across the exhibit hall.  Once you get there, individual sheets listing the games they're offering and the dates/times are displayed.  Each gaming table also has a placard telling you at a glance what game is being played there.  Compare this to Inner City Games, whose game I had a ticket for and couldn't find in the Exhibit Hall, even with the help of the HMGS folks on the stage at the front of the room (who had a map of the place).

Today my brother and I attended our first day of Origins 2006.  We first played a round of the miniatures game "Injurius Games - Keep What You Kill".  Between the two of us (and the kindness of another player), we got a full squad of soldiers.  Here's a bit of video from that event:

 

Although the convention officially began Wednesday, there wasn't much going on then that I was interested in.  It also appears that this is true for others as well, since (as you can see from this video of Exhibit Hall C where the miniatures gaming takes place) there weren't very many games setup yet or many tables full:

 

 

Still, though it wasn't that busy yet, you can see that people are having quite a good time with the games that are underway.  There's a lot of interesting-looking terrain and table setups in place, and I'm more than a little curious to see what tomorrow's activities will bring.  You can be sure there will be some video here tomorrow.

In the evening, we played a very well-attended Rogue Judges event, "Car Wars Rogue Arena".  Here is a little bit of video from that:

 

 

I've also taken some still photos that I'll be sharing later.

Today, the makers of the Grand Theft Auto video game reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  This is a travesty.  This entire issue should NEVER have reached the FTC, and the members of Congress who pushed the FTC to get involved (most notably Hillary Clinton) should be ashamed of themselves.  Their complaints about this game show their ignorance and fear of technology and media.

The controversy over Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas centered on the fact that there was "adult" themed content in the game.  This content was NOT accessible to purchasers of the game as distributed by the manufacturer.  A player could only access this content if he or she made changes to the game so that it would run sections of code the manufacturer had blocked out to keep the game's rating more appropriate for teenagers.

For those of you who don't see why I find Hillary's objections so offensive, let me give you an analogy.  Let us imagine that I own a beach house that I rent out to strangers 6 months a year.  In that beach house, I have a closet that I keep certain personal possessions in (e.g., toiletries, cleaning solutions, medications, etc.) since I'm there half the year.  When I'm not there, that closet is kept locked and renters are given an agreement to sign which says they're not to go in that closet.

One of my renters has a teenage kid who figures out how to pick the lock on that closet.  Inside, he finds something that interests him.  He writes an article on his blog that tells his friends about the beach house and how to pick the lock on the storage closet.  One of his buddies visits the house, picks the lock, and takes a whole bottle of my blood pressure medicine, believing it to be something that will get him high.  He dies.

In this hypothetical example, I took reasonable precautions to protect that child.  I locked the medications away in a closet.  I made it a condition of rental that no one opens that closet.  Getting into the closet required a person to learn to pick a lock, something most people can't do.  After the person picked the lock, they'd have to dig through some sealed boxes to even find the blood pressure medication.  I think most of us could agree that the precautions I took are quite reasonable.  Yes, I could have removed the medication from the house entirely.  And I'm sure that after hearing of the death of someone's child, I would have wished I had.  But the bottom line here is that if people had respected my rental agreement and not bypassed the protection measures I had in place for their safety, the child wouldn't have died.  Period.

In the "real" example of the game, purchasers of the software were given a product that was designed to work a particular way.  Out of the box, that software did not provide access to the sexual content Hillary found so objectionable.  It was, like the medication in my hypothetical example above, locked away and hidden from people.  The software's license agreement probably contained language indicating that it was illegal to modify it, or at the very least that the manufacturer wasn't liable if the user modified that software.  If someone got to this sexual content, they got there because they violated the license agreement and took specific actions to modify the software to make the content available. 

In retrospect, the manufacturer of GTA:SA probably wishes they had deleted the content from the game before shipping it.  But from a purely business perspective, that would have required programming changes, added costs, and delayed the release of the game into the market.  Game customers are generally not that forgiving of delays, so it might have hurt their sales.  Their decision to lock off that content was a practical and reasonable one.  It really isn't their fault people modified their game to access content they had intentionally hidden away.

As someone who saw this hidden content, I can tell you that it was clear that the manufacturer did not intend for customers to play it.  It was buggy code and not as polished as other aspects of the game, giving a clear indication that the developers abandoned the idea of including this kind of content earlier on in the process.  If they had really intended for people to find and play it, they'd have cleaned it up and tested it more.

Personally, I think Hillary needs to keep her nose out of video games.

I was reading Wired yesterday when they mentioned a Flash-based game called "Johnny Rocketfingers 2" on Newgrounds.com.  It's a graphic adventure game that's relatively short and a little bit challenging. I finally beat it late last night and thought I'd share the solution here in case anyone gets stuck trying to finish it.  (By the way, in case you didn't know already, the game has very graphic depictions of violence and other objectionable content, so I don't recommend it for anyone under the age of 18 or anyone easily offended.)

Here's a complete walkthrough for the game:

The "original" Johnny Rocketfingers cartoon is quite a bit more crude, not as well drawn and animated, and even more offensive than the second.

So I was playing "The Godfather" last night on my friend's xBox. Besides the fact that the xBox controller is the most evil and insidious invention on the planet, the controls were pretty straightforward and easy to use (but they're better on a PS2 controller, I'm sure). To start off with, the beginning cinematography is absolutely outstanding! Graphics, story, voice acting, all the elements needed for a great game are present right from the very start. The story starts off with (extremely minor spoiler) a brief tutourial that ends with a man being gunned down in front of his young kid. Guess who that kid grows up to be? That's right, he's our main character and I'll bet he'll want a little taste of revenge before it's over.

To begin with, the world is HUGE, looking like something that came directly from Grand Theft Auto. Starting off you'll create your own character from menus that look very reminescent of Tiger Woods golf. I didn't mess with this too much and just hit "randomize" to continue on (God was he ugly lookin')....but character creation is very in-depth and looks like it could take quite a while to perfect.

Earlier this year I reviewed the EXCELLENT game "Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse" by Aspyr. In the review I mentioned that there are some areas I found really difficult to beat without using cheat codes, but I never told you what those cheat codes were or how to use them.

Cheating with Stubbs is pretty easy. First, open the Notepad program on your system and create a new document containing only two lines:

cheat_deathless_player 1
cheat_infinite_ammo 1

Save this file with the name "init.txt" (the exact file name is critical). Move the file into the directory on your PC where Stubbs is installed. If you're in the right directory, you'll find "stubbs.exe" there. The next time you launch the game the cheats will be installed.

When you play with cheats enabled, it won't look like they're working at first. You'll only know they're working when you don't die after losing all your health.

NOTE: When I last played the game, having the "deathless_player" cheat on prevented me from being able to complete the "poison the water supply" task. The game locked up instead of moving on to the next cut-scene. You will need to save the game before starting that part, then move the "init.txt" file away from the "stubbs.exe" program, and start the game again without cheats to get past that area.

I've played a number of massively-multiplayer online games [wikipedia.org]. I have played Ultima Online for 6-7 years, Earth & Beyond from the beta test to its death, Eve Online for a few weeks, and City of Heroes a few times. I've come to the conclusion that rigidly-defined character types detract from a game's "fun".


As Raph Koster [raphkoster.com] discusses in A Theory of Fun for Game Design [amazon.com], games are abstract versions of real situations and decisions that we have to deal with in life. Perhaps this is one reason why researchers have indicated that surgeons who play video games make fewer mistakes [usatoday.com] in the operating room. The games help them sharpen eye-hand and decision-making skills that translate into actions they perform in the operating room. While it may not be the reason we play, games help prepare our minds for dealing with real life.  They allow us to try our hand at things which would be expensive, dangerous, or impossible to try in real life - and we learn from those experiences.


Koster suggests that games are fun when they provide a challenge that's just a little beyond our grasp, and get tougher the better we get at dealing with the challenges.  When game designers limit players' options by saddling them with characters that are artificially limited, they remove some of the challenges and strategic options.  This makes the game less fun.

For example, consider checkers [wikipedia.org] and chess [wikipedia.org]. In checkers, you have two types of pieces (regular checkers and those you've "kinged"). Pieces can move in only one way. Chess meanwhile, is more complex. There are many more kinds of pieces to move, and each piece has a unique set of rules governing how it moves. The chess player has many more options available to use to "trap" or win against the opponent than the checker player.  Both games can be fun, both can be challenging.  All things considered, chess is more challenging and for most people more fun than chess.

To me, what makes an MMORPG fun is a combination of the following factors:

• The ability to tailor my character's skill set (i.e., no rigidly-defined character types that prevent me from combining the skills I want to combine in one character)
• The ability to adjust a character's skills if existing skills turn out to be uninteresting or useless to me
• The ability to play "solo" and still enjoy myself, with the option of greater reward for teaming up with other players
• Making PVP combat an opt-in feature
• The ability to own virtual property in-game, like a house, store, or similar place
• A way to conveniently sell loot and crafted items to other players, even when I'm not playing, and a relatively easy way for other players to find the items I'm selling and vice-versa
• A variety of equipment options that allow me to tailor my weapons and protection to the enemy I am dealing with
• The ability to craft items in the game, and the fact that some items are "rare" to obtain and/or create
• Regular additions to the in-game content (enemies, quests/missions, equipment, etc.)
• A mechanism for turning in-game money into real money within the game, and vice-versa (this includes allowing in-game items to be sold on eBay)
• A reasonably large "universe" in the game, featuring a variety of locations and "themes" (e.g., desert, polar, tropical, etc.)
• The ability to travel to previously-visited locations nearly instantly
• In-game activities, story lines, and other content that I can optionally choose to be part of
• Some "instanced" content, to eliminate the effect of other players "camping" or "farming" popular areas
• Gaining of skill through USE of the skill, not through anything related to "leveling"
  

Notice that the above list doesn't include a number of things:

• Fancy 3D graphics and sound effects (UO has a very dated 2D look and I don't mind that.)
  
• A musical soundtrack (This is one of the first things I turn off anyway.)
  
• In-game characters voiced by human beings (I can read just fine.)
  
• Prohibition of the sale of currency and items on eBay (or elsewhere)
  
• Extensive customization of character appearance (I honestly don't care if my character doesn't look "unique" so long as I can recognize which one's mine.)
  
• In-game social events and locations, like discos or weddings (These are optional to me.)
  
• Official "groups" like guilds, super-groups, clans, or corporations (These often wind up being more trouble than they're worth.)
  
• Support for audio chatting in the game (i.e., a "TeamSpeak" equivalent)
  
• Efforts to eliminate "farming", "camping", or other such acts (People are going to do this anyway. If you have "instanced" content then these activities won't unnecessarily harm other players.)
  
• An assurance from the developers that no character can progress faster than any other (I don't care if someone else's character hits level 20 in 2 days while I only get to level 10 in the same time.  If I want to level as fast, I can create a character just like it.)

I have yet to find an MMO that offers all the things I'm looking for. Ultima Online and Eve Online come close, but don't quite make it.  Earth & Beyond failed miserably.  City of Heroes and City of Villains fail even more miserably. World of Warcraft delivers on most of them.  Pirates of the Burning Sea delivers on several.

The primary one is "It's not fair because...", but the ultimate reason is "I can't afford it." Some folks are more honest about that than others. Even the arguments about 'earning' it ends up with "I spent 3 months doing X trying to make Y drop, but now some jagoff with $Z can go on eBay and buy it." Frankly, if *this* ruins your gaming experience then you weren't having that much fun anyway.

The real problem is the professional sellers. In games like WoW and EQ/EQ2 they camp the best spawn points and then harass or pull mobs onto anyone trying to hunt those areas. It's one thing if they spent a couple hours a day trying to get some uber loot to drop, but the real pros tend to camp the spots all day/all night. No one gets a shot at it. This does ruin the experience for folks, because htey may not be there for the uber-loot, but something common that drops off the kill which they need.

The best solution would be making the spots where the uber loot drops instanced. You get a quest to clear X dungeon/castle/forest. You show up and click on the mission door, or whatever, go in and clear it. You may have to clear it 100 times for the uber loot to drop, but at least everyone has a shot at it. It's not the best solution, but at least you can balance the needs of professional players (those playing for money) and amatuers (those playing for fun).

The amatuers have their fair shot at it dropping. Those who don't want to clear the same dungeon 100 times can still go to eBay or wherever and buy it. The pros don't have to worry about noobs getting in their way or getting harassed about the hogging the best spots.

Failing that they could offer them items for sale for in-game money. The trick would be making folks 'earn' it. Perhaps you complete a very difficult quest and you may buy one item from the Developer store. Failing the quest means having to start over. It should be extremely difficult, perhaps requiring the assistance of other players, and be timed. On top of that, making the spawns/mission requirements random.

I think WoW or EQ2 had an inventive solution, setting up an in-game eBay. Players could auction off loot to other players for in-game money. 

I've been a student of massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs, or "MMOs" for short) design since I began playing Ultima Online several years ago.  Since then, I've played Earth and Beyond, EVE Online, City of Heroes, and a few others.  One thing all these games try to do, unsuccessfully, is maintain what they refer to as "balance".  The reason they are unsuccessful is a simple one:  Balance in a game is a myth.  It doesn't, can't, and won't ever exist in any game that people want to play for very long.

Any MMO is a combination of the game rules (as implemented in the software and overseen by game masters or administrators), player characters, game content (monsters, environments, missions, quests), and the people who play it.  If we define "balance" as keeping all these factors under control so that no player or character gains an unfair advantage over another, we can quickly start to see why no MMO will ever be truly balanced.

Before we look more deeply at that, let's first look at what makes any game fun.  According to Raph Koster in his book "A Theory of Fun for Game Design", a game offers puzzles to solve, patterns to learn, teaches us something or how to do something, and gives a feeling of triumph when we succeed at learning.  As Koster says, "To make games more long-lasting, they need to integrate more variables (and less predictable ones) such as human psychology, physics, and so on." (Page 38).  MMOs usually offer players a variety of things to learn, such as how to approach a potential enemy, strategies for dealing with an enemy that does a lot of damage at close range (e.g., used ranged weapons and stay away), and there can be a feeling of triumph when we've made it through a difficult mission.  There are often a lot of variables in these games (skills to learn, tools to use, etc.).  So why can't we have a truly balanced game mechanic?

As you could determine from the game reviews on this web site, I'm not that much of a "twitch" gamer.  I don't care for first-person shooters as a general rule, unless they deliver something more than a "shooting gallery" experience.  Half-Life 2 did that, in its challenging puzzles and interesting story line.  Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse did that with humor and interesting twists on weapons and strategy.  Need for Speed: Underground 2 and Need for Speed: Most Wanted (not twitch games but not really strategy games) deliver in a sort of "wish I could do this in real life without hurting anyone or going to jail" kind of vein.  To a lesser extent, even the "Battlefield" and "Star Wars: Battlefront" games provided a strategy experience in that you have the chance to play cooperatively with someone else to achieve your mission goals.  Unfortunately, the gaming industry seems to want to deliver more and more "twitch" gaming and less strategy/simulation gaming (aside from the latest, greatest Microsoft Flight Simulator release).  I miss good strategy/simulation games.

The last really addictive strategy game for me was Capitalism II.  There were a ton of opportunities to play the game from different perspectives and in different scenarios.  I could try to corner the market on a raw material and gouge the computer players out of business.  I could focus on research and deliver products that were far better and much cheaper than my competition.  I could buy them out in the stock market.  There are seemingly endless ways to attack the problem of dominating the business world in that game.  True, there were arbitrary limits on the size of shopping centers and factories, but that became a part of the strategic problem (how to maximize space).  It's such a good game, in fact, that I still dust it off occasionally and play it - over four years after its release date.