Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
9 Dec 05
It's weird. Every time I see a negative review of a game I put in the holiday game guide, I feel a twinge of guilt. I suppose that's true any time you put something up as worthy. Someone else may use that recommendation and not like it. It's only natural to blame you. Don't worry, you don't have to blame me. I've already taken out the middle man and assumed the guilt for you. Maybe someone will send me a guilt easing note some time telling me how appreciated the recommended gift was. I'm not holding my breath.
I saw Game Ogre's article on MMOFPS' thanks to Slashdot. Inspired by hope in Huxley, they wax eloquent about the potential of the genre (or is that a subgenre?). I disagree with part of their vision though. For a FPS to succeed in the MMO world, the game can't be ruled by the twitch kings. Yes, in a single player game, it's great that one player can take on an army. When the army is made up of online gamers, it stops being fun for almost everyone except the best.
I still say that the best way to go is more tactical gaming. Build on Battlefield 2's success. Give a greater rank structure. As the ranks go higher, give them more power to dole out commands and rewards. Let's take an example. How about a fictional history where America responds to the invasion of Afghanistan with conventional military force. Both sides agree to force limits and no nukes to prevent escalation.
You log on, starting out as a private. You choose your side and basic kit. You sign up with a platoon leader and are choppered to the front. You might start with pitched infantry battles with light vehicles. If you do well, your platoon leader can reward you with a M-60 or better armor. Leaders can also recommend promotions once experience thresholds have been reached as well as recommending awards.
Above the platoon leaders, junior officers might be able to get light vehicles, artillery support or supply drops. They can also promote and approve lesser awards. Above the platoon officer, you might have company grader that can get heavier vehicles and close air support as well as give tactical orders and relay strategic commands. Next up, you could have field grader officers who can dole out special kits like special operations, sniper kits and convert companies between infantry and mechanized. Above that you could have a command group coordinating air assets, sea power, artillery and implementing operational orders. At the top, there's a senior command staff that sets operational plans, acquires assets for those operations and is responsible for winning the war.
Players have the option to jump from platoon to platoon. So if you want to try tanks, you sign up. However, if your group keeps goofing around or ignoring orders, those tanks might be taken away and given to a successful platoon that might already be full. Or if you stray too far from air support, you might find your platoon be decimated by enemy choppers. You can be kicked from a platoon and go lone wolf, but you'll be doing it with a basic kit and making little impact. I'd imagine you'd have to make lone wolves so they couldn't team kill.
You'd probably need some RPG like stats that could be increased with experience in addition to command points to gain in rank. They'd be small bonuses and probably spread across a variety of skills. Perhaps you could even allow dynamic allocation based on the needs at hand.
That's my vision. By giving context and meaning to the battles, they get more intense. The flexible command structure could keep the game interesting for everyone. Of course, teamwork is rewarded in many ways. We'll see how the industry actually goes.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
8 Dec 05
Thanks to everyone who's been using the sponsor links to do some holiday shopping. I know if I take out family and friends, the numbers are pretty small, but it makes me feel good that people want to help out here when it's so easy to forget to use the links. Even if you don't feel comfortable using the shopping links, you can still always click a google adword if one comes up that interests you. Pay per click is pretty rare now, so I appreciate that Google still does it.
Today, I have another demo review for you. This one's pretty important since it's another of those 'How big is it?' demos. It's ALFA Antiterror, and it weighs in at a healthy 1.11 GB. That's right; it's well over a gig. It uncompresses to over two. That's a lot of download time even on pretty fast broadband. So is it worth it?
This is a surprisingly simple answer. The game is niche so if you have broadband and are interested in that niche, grab it. How do you know if you fall in that niche? ALFA is a cross between Combat Mission and Silent Storm. If that sounds interesting to you, you in the niche. If you're asking what are those games, it's probably not for you.
ALFA isn't perfect, it's not graphically stunning, it's something of a resource hog and doesn't run particularly fast. None of those are a big concern if you're interesting the genre. It's all about the gameplay.
You are in control of a squad ranging from a couple of soldier to about a platoon. Either the maps are small or they decided to go with realistic weapon ranges regardless. It's a bit surprising to be able to aim at a target across the map. It's even possible to get kills at range. Obviously snipers are best at this.
I can't say the AI was overly impressive, but it was consistently aggressive so it kept you on your toes. The game uses a CM style 'we go' play where each side gives its orders, then actions are resolved simultaneously. It's not uncommon to pop around a corner and find the target you were searching for gone into the mist.
There's the start of the campaign included in the demo. You play the early career of a former Soviet officer. He earns his stripes in Afghanistan. You start out with a handful of men. Those that survive can gain rank and training to become stronger in the field.
There are also several stand alone scenarios as well as support for hot seat or LAN multiplayer. Since each battle never plays out the same way twice, there's a lot of gaming there. You expect that for a huge download. The only real downside seemed to be pathfinding. Sometimes it got a bit wonky. Since turns are only 20 seconds, it usually wasn't fatal.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
7 Dec 05
Infamy. I suppose December 7th always stands out to Americans. Now, 9/11 does as well. Of course, the Japanese had planned to deliver their declaration of war just before the attack. I can't see how that would have made much difference though. The attack was planned to catch the Navy when it wasn't on a war footing. That's why it was so successful. It's not like they could have given the U.S. a week before Pearl Harbor. I was just reading in the paper that the weaponeer on plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki just died.
I could use a little feedback. There are a lot of games coming out next year that seem to hold promise. I'd be interested to know which ones you're interested in. That way I can be sure to chase down interviews, screenshots, details and information about them. I try to cover a lot of games, but I'd rather be serving the interests of my audience than randomly chasing down everything that looks interesting.
I saw the first review of Hammer and Sickle is out. It's pretty harsh. One concern that I thought was noteworthy was the point that the RPG elements of the story are pretty weak. The Silent Storm engine didn't seem well suited to providing a deep interactive story. Beyond that it seems the review could have been written about Silent Storm. We'll have to see if other reviews pick up.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
6 Dec 05
I sometimes wonder about my gaming habits since they're now so fractured. I'm sure they'll get more predictable again sometime, but it seems like I've been saying that for a long time. With a large backlog, many unfinished games and eclectic tastes, I never know what I'm going to be playing. Since I never know when I'll have a chance to game again, I guess that works out.
Anyway, I started playing Homeworld 2 again. I'm sure it's partially thinking about Sword of the Stars battles. I also have fond memories of the original. Homeworld 2 is just a fun, gorgeous game so I fired it up again. I guess I hadn't gotten too far in the campaign. I must have just been playing skirmish. I was still on some of the early missions.
There are some RTS conventions I like. One good one is if you're going to limit my units in a single player campaign and dole them out as the missions tick along, make sure you create missions that demonstrate the usefulness of each unit. While the uses of some units are immediately obvious, some of the smaller specialized units can get lost in the shuffle. If the game is well balanced, that can leave holes in your strategy.
I was thinking about that playing one of the campaign missions. I was attacking an enemy shipyard with a carrier coming to the defense. Since both can produce ships, it can be a tricky battle. One early, failed attempt proved instructive. I had taken out his first wave of defense and severely damaged his carrier. I tried to concentrate fire to finish it off. I had my carrier producing more frigates to increase my fire power. While focusing on finishing the carrier, I hadn't noticed enemy production had shifted to fighters and corvettes from frigates. Suddenly my corvette protectors were gone and my frigates were popping one by one (cleverly my only remaining flak frigate went first). Though I quickly switched production to fighters once I realized what was happening, it was too late. Some reserve enemy frigates had arrived and without a defense against the swarming fighters and corvettes, my fleet was lost. Needless to say, I didn't make that mistake again.
Speaking of Homeworld 2, perhaps someone can help me. You play the Hiigarans in the campaign. They don't seem to have a good way to take out subsystems like the Vaygr lance fighter. It's usually easier to just destroy the ship than taking out the systems. The exception seems to be when you vastly outnumber the enemy. Then you can disable engines and send in the marines. Of course, I might be missing something.
This week's game is another portable strategy game. It's Field Commander (official site) from Sony Online Entertainment for the Playstation Portable (PSP). It's a turn based 3D strategy game set in a fictional future. You fight the terrorists by choosing from eleven officers and fifteen combat divisions to assemble your strike force. You'll lead your units through 30 campaign missions. Field Commander also offers a mission editor with online distribution, local and online multiplayer, and challenging AI. It features land, sea and air combat. Look for Field Commander in February 2006.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
5 Dec 05
I was reading a couple articles today that I wanted to pass on and give you my thoughts about them. The first is on the 'Uncanny Valley' which is a phenomenon where people respond emotionally to things that resemble humans. The idea is that as a thing (in this case they start by talking about androids) looks more and more human, the greater the positive emotional response up to a point. After that it drops off precipitously into a negative response (the valley) before climbing back up as actual human appearance is achieved. In short, things that look very human but clearly are not (e.g. zombies) are disturbing at a fundamental level.
It was pointed out in thread I found the link that this could be a problem as graphics approach photorealism. I don't know if that's the problem. Motion capture is still an option to improve animation. Combine that with good voice acting, and I think the mind fills in the rest. It's like CG in movies today. Unless I want to look for it (or it's awful), it doesn't stand out.
I was a bit more worried about AI. While we're a long way from conversational AI, I can see where that will be a major hurdle. Until it approaches near human fluency, it will be creepy and disturbing. The other AI concern I have is just noted from my own behavior.
There are two things that totally blow my sense of immersion in a game and get me upset. The first is AI cheating. When I know something couldn't have been done (usually according to the defined game rules that I can't break) and watch the AI do it, I get angry and thrown out of the game world. The other time I'm thrown out is when AI does something unbelievably stupid. In other words, I was playing along suspending disbelief that I was battling a sentient opponent when it chunked. Everyone can make mistakes or misjudge battles. Usually it's some sort of meaningless sacrifice of a unit that should have been protected at all times or charging a machine gun one unit at a time. Things that are so stupid and meaningless that no real person would ever do them. Boom, I'm thrown out again. There are workarounds here too, so perhaps we're good until truly dynamic gameplay and AI.
The other article I wanted to mention was a defense of Roger Ebert. Since I didn't actually contradict Ebert's point when I mentioned him, I'm not technically at odds with the article. I'm more at odds with the premise that emergent experiences are less artistic than directed experiences. Obviously, I wouldn't be running this site if I didn't believe that emergent gaming and the value of those experiences. If you create something that's wondrous but different for each person each time they experience it, how could that not be valuable and artistic? I'm not going to argue against the article's point that there's much room for improvement in storytelling in games.
Oh, I've received word that the Xbox 360 port of Quake IV is not up to snuff. Perhaps waiting for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is the best bet.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
© Talk Strategy 2005