Why I Love... Watching And Waiting

Unusually, I'm writing this whilst playing a game. I say unusally, because the part of my collection visible from here includes Smash Bros. Melee, Halo 2 and Timesplitters 2, and so moments of reflection and thought don't usually crop up in the twitch world of supers, rocket launchers and campers.
Thing is, I'm not playing any of those games. I'm playing... Civilisation III.
I'm playing Civilisation III, and on my desk is a hastily scrawled map with some arrows on, indicating my imminent invasion of Greece through my western mountain range. Once I secure their iron supply, you see, my allies who have courageously played through the internet with me for god-knows-how-long will swoop in from the south with reinforcements. Meet you in Athens for tea and medals, and so on.
It's a great game, I'm not refuting that. It's just that whenever someone walks past me, there's a tangible sense of disgust in the air. I'm not headshotting Covenant mercs. I'm not hitting Pikachu with an umbrella. I'm not even waiting to pounce. I'm just waiting. And watching.
Why? I don't know why. We could quite easily be playing anything else right now. Even something like Generals would be faster than this. The timer in the top right hand corner of the screen suggests a playing time of well over eight hours - that's taken us four days alone. So why, in the name of God, are we playing this?
I get a bit worried whenever I look at the chart games in the local retailer. At the moment the likes of Episode III (hack, slash, hack, rinse, repeat) and Starfox Assault (jump, duck, shoot, rinse, repeat) are gracing the dizzy heights of the charts. What are we playing these days? While Red Alert 2 and Civilisation III languish at the bottom of the bargain bin, the mainstream hack and slashers rise up high.
But that is the way it has always been, more or less. The mainstream keep the industry going. The thought provoking games (think Republic, Spore or Evolva) promise us the moon on a stick. Civ III is a pitch between the two - it has elements of epic greatness. But ultimately, it's pared down and simplified. It's the Marks and Spencer of the gaming world - you know there's better stuff out there, but for now this is pretty good stuff.
Why, in the name of God, am I playing Civ III?
Simple. Because if I don't annex Greece soon, I won't be able to import saltpeter from the west - and without the saltpeter my colonies in the east will surely fall. But that isn't the whole answer. Really, I'm playing it because its damn good fun - which is, after all, what gaming is about. I've decided (after many attempts with everyone from my girlfriend to my younger siblings) that some games I just can't convert people to. Like Marmite, if you like it you often have to just sit back and enjoy it all on your own.
And so, I'm writing this whilst playing a game - but really, I don't have time for this. My emissaries from the south are calling for aid to the Roman's noble conquests, and my scribes have informed me that we have no saltpeter on our land. It looks like I'll be moving south before the day is out.
For now, fair reader - good day.

[Review] - N

Although we pretend to want free-roaming, non-linear masterpieces with eye-aching graphics and an epic narrative, most gamers are not averse to the simple things in life. From ‘Avoid Missing Ball For High Score’ to Quake III we’re just as happy with something genuinely refined and polished as we are with a game that offers the depth and complexity of Neverwinter Nights or Civilisation III.
N is simple. A quick glance at a screenshot – a quick glance at the name – and you can tell this. N’s clean, crisp yet fondly retro graphics and simple, yet strangely stressful, gameplay provide a blend smoother than Master Chief’s visor.
N combines the Fun ethics of classic arcade games development with the ‘What If?’ mentality of the underground/bedroom coding scene. The ‘real life’ physics engine combines with the classic platforming recipe to create a fast-paced against-the-clock gaming experience which is absolutely, blissfully, free of charge.
Small enough for 56k users yet enduring enough for even the most adept platform gamer, N succeeds in every way great games of its type should. With a level editor which allows you to craft everything from a race to a rescue mission and a secret mode on offer should you (by some inhuman feat) manage to complete all 300 levels, N will keep all gamers happy for some time.

Download it here.

84%

[Devil's Advocate] - Witch Hunt.

Find the original article here.

Kick 'em while they're down, the old adage goes. A good one, that. Take Nintendo for instance, now in a painful session of decline, despite their attempts to revolutionise the gaming world, who are now the butt of many a gaming joke. Once the revered creators of Mario and Samus, now forgotten in favour of mass market pandering. I laugh along with everyone - Nintendo seem crooked now, off-centre in a world of Halo, SingStar and Puyo Puyo Pop Fever. It is easy, as I said, to kick them while they're down. But what's even easier, it seems, is kicking them while everyone else is kicking them. Electronic Arts have fallen foul of what can only be described as the Microsoft Complex. It's a catch twenty-two situation of monstrous proportions.
Electronic Arts was founded many a decade ago - a small company with big aspirations (as all companies should have). My first experience of Electronic Arts was through, believe it or not, a paint program they had created rather than one of their flagship titles, such as Worms. it was innocent, genuinely living up to their goal of creating software that 'made it worth owning a personal computer'. They were audacious. Cunning. Eager to rise to the top. And that's exactly what they did.
The problem with being at the top is that it's quite easy for other people to throw rocks at you. Now, Electronic Arts are being called the Microsoft of the games industry, and with good cause - they're hated almost unanimously by gamers for their apparently feckless attitude to the gaming industry and sickening love for the $2.5billion they receive each year. And so, like some devil-like scapegoat, if something goes wrong in the games industry, it tends to be their fault. And am I going to join in with everyone else? That should really be rhetorical by now.
However, soulless this may sound, companies are out there to make money. They can chirp on all they like about how they value their customers - and they might be telling the truth - but at the heart of the matter, they are their for their shareholders, their paypackets and their growth. Electronic Art's first aim as a company was to gross $1billion in six years. It took them twelve, but they were the first games producer to do so. Its a feat that epitomises the can-do attitude of the industry around that time. When faced with the assertion that they are money-grabbing sons of guns, therefore, they're quite within their rights to nod and smile enthusiatically. And you'll sneer, no doubt, maybe mutter something about capitalist pigs. But you're wrong. You're just damn wrong.
Electronic Arts produce games. It's what they do. It's their job to pick out what they believe to be the most promising games projects and push them to completion - promote them, fund them, nurture them and reward them. EA Spouse might complain about the working standards, but that is an industry-wide problem. Electronic Arts are very, very good at what they do.
Case in point - The Sims 2. The Sims was one of the greatest creations in the history of PC Gaming. Creator Will Wright threw himself into the gaming industry yet again with plans for a game that none had ever thought really possible, but he pulled it off. EA backed him every step of the way, treating him like a rockstar and giving him what he needed to make a landmark game of the latter 1990s. Everyone loved the Sims. Even those who say they now hated it loved it at the time, I am sure of that. But then the add-on packs came out. People scorned as EA chruned out relentless upgrades for a game, and then the real sledgehammer in the coffin - The Sims Online. Regardless of what you might say of the add-on packs, however, EA redeemed themselves with The Sims 2. Completely and utterly. The Sims 2 shows how EA's influence in the modern gaming climate really can create lovable games that have a place in the history of gaming culture. An upgrade from the original in every way, The Sims 2 is an example of how hiring good designers and giving them money can actually work. Cynical? No. Something you don't want to hear? Quite possibly.
The fact of the matter is, EA knows what it is doing. If the bastardisation of every sport under the sun by EA Sports was not a lucrative idea, then it would have caved in by now. But EA do not produce update after update to their sports franchises because their doctor has recommended it. They do it because people are willing to part with their money for such an experience. If you are angered at EA's lack of updates to Zero Hour, then do not buy Red Alert 3. Vote with your wallets if you wish but I - and EA - know what the reality will be. They have what you want. And you have what they want.
And thus, to my final point. Electronic Arts are not some subsidiary of Hell. They are a victim of the mass market. They have not made the gaming industry a mess of Japanese popular culture and brash American shooters. They have merely done what any good business would - they have sat down and worked out how to capitalise upon it. EA is the barometer of the industry. The industry does not march to the tune of EA's trumpeting. Rather, EA is just reflecting what gaming has become. That is the reason you rebel against them. That is the reason you despise them. Because you are sickened that this has been allowed to happen. And I can't really blame you.
Who's the devil, Ctrl-Alt-Del? Electronic Arts, or the consumers who buy the NFL sequels every year just to get the new names?

Hmph. Maybe Challenge Everything means we should challenge ourselves first before blaming the biggest target?

ExActly.

Hardware VS. Software

PR men have really bad reputations. Awful. It isn't their fault really - they aren't telling us to be gullible, just exploting the fact that we are. But most of the time they have our best interests at heart - if only we'd trust them, they might actually sell us a real gem. Of course, most of the time that isn't the case. Buzzwords and catchphrases fill the air and pages with an air of polished mucus. "New AND Improved!" cry the oxymorons, and the morons themselves lap it up. Graphics, you say? Well, it's just got to be better than actual gameplay, hasn't it? Right? Yes, it is very easy to stand up here and say that. Indeed, I've been taken in before myself. But what do we hold to be better - the software or the hardware? With buzzword generators now changing 'The Console War' into 'The Software War' (and quite rightly too) what should we really appreciate as the best advancement? It's not really an easy question to answer - and you're probably going to be drawn to the same conclusion as 'Should I Believe In God Or Not?', but that doesn't mean you shouldn't know where to stand. Let's take Doom 3 as a case in point. iD had progressed so far into graphical development that John Carmack, chief designer on key iD titles since time began, had actually reached discussions with graphics card engineers on the kind of technology he needed to be in home PCs for Doom 3 to run. Games designers designing hardware too? Well, why not. After all, it only takes one look at the spectral lighting and per-pixel shading of Doom 3's environments to tell that its been worth it. And, indeed, the gameplay was slick and adrenaline-fused. But look at the Myst series. One of the biggest selling games franchises of all time, and the graphics are undeniably glorious to look at. Its latest installment takes this even further, with full animation and more interaction with the games environment. But many people would argue that the game is flat. For instance, you don't have to do much more than click everywhere, and only occasionally work out a pattern to things. These are, naturally, extreme examples from a platform where such conflicts don't usually occur. But look at the console world, and we see a far clearer picture. Nintendo. The grand master sage of the industry. Yes, we had precursors to it. Yes, we've had (arguably) better things since its Golden Age. But no, you can't dispute that it has left possibly the greatest mark on the gamers of this world. It was magnificent - the rise of the Famicom to the Super Famicom, or SNES to anyone west of Korea, is sure to be heralded as a turning point in the industry's evolution. It fought off (or at least battled strongly with) Sega in a (virtual) cosmic battle of epic proportions. And then Sony got involved. Not that this was a bad thing, necessarily. But the jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was a large one, especially when Sony promised much more than just a bigger number. The Playstation was born. The SNES began to drop. Nintendo had no choice but to announce the imminent N64 - with an even bigger number next to the -bit! Amazing! This, for most people, was the first choice between software and hardware. Here was the N64 promising number-crucnhing power that had never been heard of before. 64-bit processing? To those that knew what it meant, it had numerous majestic possibilities - and to those that didn't it merely sounded really damn cool. But then there was the Playstation, promising a lower bitrate but amazing games series, later including Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid - previous Nintendo front-runners. There they were, sitting on the benches. Did the people choose games or power? Well most people are aware of the answer - they chose both. The Playstation had a modern feel and, once it realised who to target, became popular with the new wave of gamers harshly dubbed 'the Mainstream'. Nintendo retained most of its afiocondos, and has since been labelled as the last refuge of the true gamer. It doesn't really matter - both groups of consumers fought with their wallets and the console war remained a dead heat. Was it hardware or software? No-one really knows, because no single console could be said to have performed better. Even the second generation console war has its share of consumers, albeit this time geared between Sony and Microsoft and sadly away from Nintendo.
But the next generation is coming now, and what of that? Already we are playing games where the grpahics are better than they need to be. Where will the advances be made next? Realistically modelled wind? An accurately-calculated weather system? At what point do aesthetic enhancements stop adding anything to a game? And so the Playstation 3, XBox 2 and N5 will not be fighting their battles on the circuitboards, but on the discs themselves.
Is this a bad thing? Well judging by some of the spurious sequels and worn-out genres scuffing around the shelves at the moment, quite possibly. If the games industry of the future is to be weighed on the quality of the games then we could be facing a decided lull in the coming few years. However it isn't all doom and gloom. While companies such as NVidia brush up their finishing touches to their latest range of 64-bit graphics cards, games developers are really pushing ahead with even the bleakest genres and gameplay styles.
On the one hand, you have games like Darwinia. Here we have a revolutionary game idea that blends a seamless transition of graphical styles with a gameplay never seen before. It's the brainchild of Digital Dreamscape, with postmodern stylings and the vibe of bedroom coders breaking from what they call the 'underground gaming scene' and into the brave new world of the next-gen. But you also have heartening stories of games such as Half-Life 2 and (potentially) S.T.A.L.K.E.R. These games are using the tired and deprived First-Person SHooter genre and not only giving them a facelift, but really pushing them into the new age.
Computers are growing up. They aren't games, they're barely entertainment. They're now experiences. The days of the pretty light shows are over, because everywhere we look are equally pretty light shows now. Now gamers will be given the chance to play properly. Some see it as a step forward, into a new generation of gamers and games. Others see it as a rose-tinted step backwards into the era of bedroom gaming where the ideas and content ruled, not the resolution.
Either way, games are changing. Very soon we'll be fighting on new battlefields - but this time it's how you fight, not what you fight with, that will determine whose side you are on.

Mass Production

Picture the scene. You’re a hardcore gamer (this might not be so hard for some of you), and Long Running Series Volume 23 is waiting for you at the store. You rush to buy it, run home and begin to settle into a fantastically involved session of stats, stories and special effects. Then you find that some corporate publisher has taken over your independent hard-working developers, the manual could fit inside a fortune cookie and your favourite characters are now being voiced by American teens – or aren’t there at all. Just whose mass market are we pandering to? At what point did the target market blur into mass market?
Gaming used to be – and sometimes still is – referred to as being for those with too much money and not enough life. Perhaps they're right - many gamers would proudly agree in fact - but whether or not gaming is a pointless hobby for boys trapped inside men's bodies, gaming was the refuge of the proud and the few. Those brave men who sat in the dark recesses of their own bedrooms and blazed their own path through the new territory of open source code and blocky graphics. Suggesting that gaming might be fun was like suggesting the Earth might be round in the sixteenth century. Actually doing anything related to gaming was like exploring the New World itself - in more than one way. Very soon, gamers had established themselves nicely and were reaping the rewards of their perseverance.
Back then, almost everyone was hardcore. There was no middle ground, because there was so little ground that it was impossible to offer any to people who were undecided. You were either in, or you were out. There was no casual Sims gamer to speak of, and there wasn't much of a mass market either - by definition, if you were a gamer you were the mass market. How do you segregate a market that is already so small?
The masses are very easy to attract though. The joining of the hardcore gamer and the mass market was necessary because, like civilisation itself, it can only truly progress through increased interest. If gaming hadn't grown, it would have been crushed by the rise of other markets . It's only choice was to try and accept and deal with the sugar-sweet musings of bandwagons and pop culture.
At first you had Mario. Then you had Crash Bandicoot. Now Mario is struggling to reinvent himself for the twelfth time whilst we're looking at Tak and the Power of Juju and Inane Platform Character 4 (possibly not a real game). The mass market slowly grew in size and strength until it had power over most of the releases. Take a look at the charts today and you'll see samey sports or driving games, poor attempts at licensing films and only occasionally a true gem somewhere. The mass market has allowed games to be made simply because they'll sell. Who really wants that?
Well the problem is that everyone, really, wants something like that. Mass Market gaming is what keeps us alive. Without the appalling attempts at Disney games or the contrived Sims add-on releases you wouldn't appreciate the true genius of other games. Where would Halo fit in? Where would Half-Life be made? Similar to great civilisations again, balance is the key. Mass Market games are the big things that let the little things happen.
It isn't all doom and gloom. We're bringing together two parties. Hardcore gamers are showing the mass market what an indulgent gaming experience really is, but similarly mass market gamers are teaching others to remember to have fun. For every adrenaline-fuelled Medal of Honour onslaught you've got to chill out on the Eyetoy - and for every wailing and flailing on Singstar you need to hop skip and jump your way through a level or two of Mario Sunshine. It's all about the balance.
People get offended when the Mass Market begins to take over. And not just offended - scared. Edge ran a cover story about the mass market's slow infection of the industry a little under a year ago, but the reality is far from this. The mass market needs to come of age, too. Yes, occasionally you get long running series that have been warped by the desires of bigger things. But similarly you get series like the Sims that try to 'grow up' too fast and alienate some of their followers (see The Sims 2). The two seemingly opposing sides of the gaming world need to come together and combine their aims and abilities to create an industry that is not simply targeting the lowest common denominator, but also interested in fun for all. Perhaps the next-generation is where this opportunity lies.

The Real Deal

"Reality isn't all it's cracked up to be, remember that. If reality was that much fun people wouldn't play games."

Scott Orr, Ea Sports (attr.)

Apart from a shameless, shameless product placement deal with Airwaves chewing gum I would say that Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is a pretty good game. I like being a ghost, with my array of increasingly unlikely gadgets and weapons, and though SC:CT can be seen by many to be simply more of the same I don't think that that's entirely fair. The AI has been revamped, the interactions rethought and the graphics overhauled. But above all, it feels a little more realistic.

The light meter shows you how visible you are, the sound meter compares how much noise you're making to the ambient noise. Fabric tears, ripples, rustles. Darkness is your friend. Realism has been used to make the game more challenging. But still, when standing in a darkened corridor frozen to the spot as a guard walks right up next to me, I'm not seen. Ridiculous? Maybe. Smart design? Of course. Realism in games is quite a complicated thing...

Gamers have had a fetish with realism in games ever since 3D games really came to the fore. Before then, we'd always appreciated advanced in technology but we'd never fantasised over them. The jump in detail from, say, the NES to the SNES was something. But the jump from the SNES to the N64 was quite something else. Once gamers had got to terms with the thought that photorealism wouldn't always be the realm of science fiction they started to become very, very interested in the prospect of The Next Generation.

Realism soon infested all aspects of game design. Take a look at most press releases for games and the classic selling points are realistic graphics, realistic physics, realistic facial animation - the list goes on, not to mention becoming more absurd. Which is fine, for as long as they contribute to gameplay. The gravity gun in Half-Life 2 is a clever little thing, combining a love of physics with a love of smacking stuff around, but as realism gets further and further into the psyche of the average gamer we notice some dangerous trends appearing. At what point does realism stop being fun?

Let's take The XBox 360 for example. Next generation on the horizon, and already people are talking numbers. But that's all they're talking. One teraflop? It might sound impressive, but if all it is is chugging the graphics on a Pong remake, no-one's going to notice. Despite this, though, a recent survey on Gamesradar showed that over 30% of gamers are most interested in the hardware capabilities of a console, even over games.

But the realism isn't just graphics and horsepower, it's game-based too. Though we strive after realism its worth pausing and asking how far we want to take that. Halo 2, the sequel to Bungie's landmark FPS that, arguably, put XBox on the map. The physics engine was completely overhauled from the original, meaning Master Chief had weight and depth, the Warthogs had fully-functional rollcages and, most importantly, obscenely large explosions caused obscene amounts of carnage. Which is always nice.

So for Halo 3, are we looking for more physics, more shaders, more realism? It would seem that way. But realism has to stop before we have Warthogs stalling, guns jamming and 'shrapnel wounds' stopping people from running properly. Realism in games is fun when it means making the game real. Start making the world real and it starts to lost its sheen.

A final thought - Spore, the latest gem from genius designer Will Wright, looks set to be one of the most inventive and audacious games - ever. Start in Eden, end up as God. A sweet pitch and no mistake. But Mr. Wright knows that a game this clever needs to keep the fun things in life - killing, for instance, and space travel - and cut out the boring things - like keys. No-one likes keys. Realism is used to take the player on a phenomenal journey through the very essence of existence... but it's never used as an obstacle.

We can only hope that the mighty teraflop does the same.

Away From Keyboard

Well, I'm back. I've gone through exams, Halo 2, the birth of Phoenix Publishings and a Generals league. But I'm here again and ready to write on the gaming world once more. Don't forget to check my archives for my older stuff, but hopefully I should be updating once a week with the best of what I've done throughout the week.

See you around.


FinalSin