Multiplayer Cheating

Cheating in multiplayer gaming is just not the done thing. It is frowned upon, as it should be, because it creats an unfair playing advantage for those players who use hacks (haxxors) in what, should be, a level playing field. Fortunately the use of software such as Punkbuster gamers can play in an environment which they consider to be relatively fair and cheat free. However, this is not always the case.

An incident occured at the end of last week which not much of the Australian gaming world will know about. It is alleged that four clan (team based) players were given life time bans from the OGN network for either using hacks which provided an unfair advantage or using software which disabled Punkbuster from being able to take ingame screenshots while playing Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising either in public servers or during tournie practice matches. An easy analogy for how these cheats work is by looking at drugs in sport. Some hacks provide you with an ingame "performance" boost like taking steroids. Whereas other hacks act as a "masking type agent" which prevents the punkbuster server from being able to take screenshots from that particular PC and therefore not allowing admins to be able to check if that gamer is using a hack of some sort. Much in the way a masking drug will not allow a drug test to check if steroids have been taken. To continue the drugs in sport analogy, of which, all four players accused of cheating have been alleged to have provided "positive" drug tests for either using hacks which improved performance of their game play or using software which masked the results.

Obviously, when these incidents occur and there are only two other incidents in the last couple of years that come to my mind where team (clan) players have been alleged of cheating there is a lot of bad blood spilled in the process of identifying and banning the players. Unfortunately, there seems to be no easy way to do this. Unfortunately, the incidents seem to bring out the worst in people not the best. It is quite natural for those players who play honestly to want to let off some steam at those who have been accused as they feel betrayed by people that they may have trusted. Also, those players who are a part of the team, unfortunately, tar their team mates (who have been playing honestly) with the same brush through their dishonest actions. The other difficult aspect of this process is that the entire process is self governed. There is no over ruling body who controls this and there probably never will be. It would be too difficult to manage. So, it is up to the gaming fraternity to govern this area of gaming and this does not make the job any easier.

How do we treat these people who may have once been our friends? Do we follow the group mentality and public humiliate these people for being dishonest? At what point in time do our actions in putting these people down and riding them in to the ground make us no better than the cheaters themselves? Forums are a funny thing. I don't think they bring out the best in people. They are a faceless, humanless way to converse. It completely looses the subtlty of speech and face-to-face relationships which we experience every day. Forums also seem to give people the opportunity to say things that they would not say in every day life. While there may be some satisfaction in riding these people in to the ground, there also needs to be some moderation on what we say and how we say it. No one will ever understand the reasons why someone cheated, or, what they have been going through in their lives to make the decision to do this. Ultimately, I end up feeling sorry for these people because they have lost more than just the multiplayer game play through their actions. They have lost friends and acquaintances which they may have had over years. These players are going to loose far more than the honest players in the long run. After having said all of this I wouldn't suggest that anything less than a life time ban from that game and those servers is appropriate. These people, no matter what they are going through in the real world, have made a conscious decision to cheat. They have downloaded and installed the hacks in the first place. What I would say is that those who stand on the higher moral ground is that they take the time to consider that those people who have been caught cheating are going to loose a whole lot more than just the game. What is the use of standing on the higher moral ground if you stoop to the cheaters level to beat them senseless as they pass out the door?

PC Powerplay

In a move which is not really going to concern anyone I have decided not to renew my subscription of PC PowerPlay which runs out at the end of the year. My main reason for reading a magazine like PC PowerPlay is for the game reviews. The game updates and previews are generally a month old when they go to print and you can find more up-to-date information on the internet. Game reviews I don't like reading online and would prefer to read in a magazine format. However, the standard of the reviews in PC PowerPlay are just getting worse. A part of the problem comes from the ego of the reviewer itself. They cannot distance themselves from the personal to make an honest and impartial judgement on a game (while every review is subjective it is up to the reviewer to approach a title with as much impartiality as possible). Some of the single page reviews just aren't worth the paper they are printed on where the reviewer gets on their high horse and craps on about one single facet which has tickled their fancy and forgotten about the whole game.

I have read PC/Commodore and Console magazines for twenty years and I believe that the quality of the content is getting worse. Reviewers seem to have their heads stuck so far up their own arses that they have forgotten what game reviewing is all about and would prefer to tickle their own egos from the inside out.

I just can't be bothered wasting my hard earned money on a magazine which is going down the toilet. I've got better things to spend it on like upgrading my PC or buying a next generation console and actually playing games rather than read about someone else's biased opinion on them.

The good thing about PC gaming is that more often than not a game demo is released for a PC game giving the gamer an opportunity to try before they buy. While this is not always a guaranteed way to assess a game it is, at least, possible to sample the software and make a somewhat educated decision on the purchase.

In Corporations We Trust

What do you do in a world where there is no transparency? If we weren't involved in doing bad things then we really have nothing to hide. This is often the line sprouted by Corporations and Governments when they are looking to take away basic civil liberties from people. However, why does this not work the other way? In a move which was praised by the gaming community Ubisoft dropped the use of Starforce copy protection on their games. Only to replace it allegedly with a spyware tool called SendStats.exe on the Heroes of Might and Magic 5 game release. Sendstats sends encrypted information to a Ubisoft server collecting data about the computer inwhich it is installed. This is no different from the SonyGate scandal which rocked the world earlier this year and has cost Sony millions of dollars. It was only discovered by a user and never revealed prior by Sony until it was made public that the software was, in fact, spyware (a direct derivative of actual spyware software). How does the phrase, "If they are not doing bad things then they have nothing to hide," applies directly here, however, Ubisoft hasn't been over forthcoming with what they are doing.

The official response to gamer's concerns on forums has been, "Heroes 5 is collecting anonymous data that is being sent back to Ubisoft. This is done to help balancing the game - as you can imagine, even a lengthy beta test (the closed betatest lasted four months) is still less game sessions a week of playing after the release. So we keep track of the time spent in a mission, in a battle, battle results, skills use, etc." While it is not new for information to be collected about game play habits or CD Key information which Half Life 2 and Doom 3 performing these functions. If this is all they are they are collecting then what is the need to encrypt the information? If that is all they want then why hide it from others? If they wanted to tailor the game through balancing various aspects of it then why don't they read their own forums and discuss the game with gamers rather than allegedly installing insidious software on their systems to do it surreptitiously?

Ubisoft goes on to say, "This is a Ubisoft technology sending data to Ubisoft servers, and it is covered in the EULA displayed during the installation." The EULA says that they will collect data, but not how they collect the data. So, how does this make the use of invisible and encrypted software and information right? "We have used this during the whole beta test phase. If you are comfortable with this data tracking, you should simply prevent it with your firewall - I wouldn't imagine a PC User surfing the web without one!" The software doesn't show up in windows firewall for you to block it. Furthermore, it is alleged that even if you do manually block the software your firewall will continue to prompt you about its blocking after several minutes, interrupting your gameplay.

The thing that irritates me the most about all of this is that the large corporations complain about people using technology to violate their copyright ownership and then say that the technology is not capable of providing real alternatives for online distribution. But when it comes to spying on their customers through the use of spyware type applications then the corporations are more than happy to give the technology a go. What a load of bullshit and what a backwards world we live in. As far as I am concerned consumers should be jumping up and down at the corporations and threatening them where they can hurt them the most, by not buying their products. If people were to completely boycott Sony and Ubisoft products because they have been allegedly involved in insidious activities to collect information or run applications on their computers then do you think they would think twice about doing it again? These companies are more than happy to take your hard earned money from you and then proceed to violate your trust. Then people should hurt them with what they care about most - making money. Restrict their ability to make money by boycotting their products. They will then think twice about being shifty.

The other thing is that with all of the intelligent people in the world who fiddle around with computers how long do they think they can get away with these things without getting caught? How stupid are the people who work for these corporations who think it is a good idea to do this? Cause the fact of the matter is that there is someone smarter out there who will catch them out. I think consumers should vote with their wallets and using their combined purchasing power to hurt these companies with the thing that they love the most (and they LOVE money, money greed and power are the things that they lust for) hurt their ability to make a profit.

Free FEAR Multiplayer

In an excellent move by Monolith they have decided to release FEAR Multiplayer for free. Monolith will call the release FEAR Combat and all you'll have to do is register your email address with them and they will post you out a CD Key.

FEAR Multiplayer was excellent when the game was first released. There is something about the combat in FEAR which just seems better than other multiplayer games. I can't put my finger on it, but it is excellent. The only real problem with the multiplayer when it was first released was that it had no punkbuster support. Unfortunately this created too much cheating with multiplayer. It took Monolith around four months to finally release a patch which contained punkbuster and by this time the multiplayer had lost the initial rush that it had.

I would hope that other gaming developers may take a leaf out of Monoliths book and decide to release multiplayer components of single player games for free. Hopefully this will also create some new interest in FEAR multiplayer which is absolutely excellent. I wonder if Monolith have made their decision based on the success of Enemy Territory and America's Army. Two very popular free online multiplayer games. Don't forget that it is also a good way for them to promote the upcoming release of the new FEAR expansion as well.

FEAR Combat should be released in just under a week. If you are looking for a decent multiplayer game (which should rival Counter Strike for its appeal IMO) then check this out. The unfortunate thing is that I paid for the full game and had to live through the days when there was no multiplayer support. So, does this mean that I will get a discount on the release of the expansion??? I don't think so. Sometimes it's not a good idea to take up a new game early.

It would be nice if some of the bigger software companies released more stuff for free. Although, I don't think it will happen very often. They release game demos for free. Look at Dark Messiah. Four hours of downloading and half an hour of play (if you are lucky).

FEAR Combat

My Dad's Console is Better than Your Dad's Console

It is that year when we get to see the launch of 3 new consoles in one year (I don't think this has happened before with 3 new consoles being launched in the same 12 month period). It is a good opportunity to hear a lot of chest beating from either Sony or Microsoft about how their console is going to own the Christmas holiday buying period. I'm surprised that they don't tout these harsh words with the likes of terms which gamers would understand, like n00b or some form of 1337 speak. Like "Xbox 360 will pwnz0r the PS2 come Xmas," or "Microsoft will h4x0r the PS2 off the market," or, "Sony n00bs the 360 will pwn the suxxor PS3 FTW." Surely, this type of talk would strike fear in to the hearts of their competition much like it does when a 12 year old says it to you online. I always quake in my boots when I am called a n00b. It is the ultimate putdown by someone who hasn't quite mastered, and probably never will master, the English language. This is the type of language that gamers understand and obviously prefer. Why not start marketing their scare tactics in this way.

So, look out console n00bs.

Dark Messiah Demo Released

The Dark Messiah Demo took me 4 hours to download (on ADSL) and I must have finished playing it in 15 mins. It seems the anticipation of the download is much higher than the satisfaction of actually playing the game. While the demo is excellent the insignificant time you get to play it compared to the 4 weeks or so we are going to have to wait for the game release may kill some of the expectation for the game. Why release such a short demo with the game release so far away? Don't get me wrong I do want to play the game some more, but the demo was hardly worth the 4 hour download time and the 1.4gig that it has bitten in to my download limit. Dark Messiah is like one of those prostitutes you see in Full Metal Jacket who say, "Love you long time," and then take five minutes to pleasure you. Basically, they promise the world and deliver not much.

The other things that I am asking myself now that I have played the demo is what will the game release be like now. There are a few things that I can factor in to the equation of considering whether this will be a worthwhile game to purchase or not. Firstly, it is utilising the Half Life 2 engine. What this is telling me that it will look awesome (and it does) but leave me feeling with a completely unsatisfied experience once I have completed playing it (just as the demo has). Considering this is a level based game and considering it does utilise the Half Life 2 engine the levels will probably be very short (While Half Life 2 was supposed to be seamless the 30 seconds of play/30 seconds of load time killed the experience for me).

Otherwise the demo is pretty good fun to play. Being able to impale enemies with a kick of your foot is excellent. The HDR is fairly well implemented. I have also run the demo on my single core desktop (7900GS 256mb) and a dual core notebook (7600 256mb) and it runs extremely well on both with detail set to high. There is a roleplay element with the ability to set skill points to different areas, however, this system does not seem to be as involved as other dedicated Role Playing Games. The graphics are excellent, and considering it is utilizing the Half Life 2 engine you would be extremely disappointed if they weren't.

The game is due out in the next month or so and, I will have to say, that I will be buying it. I just hope that it can break the precedent which Half Life 2 has set for me. Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines is another game which uses the Half Life 2 engine and creates a much more satisfying game experience than Half Life 2.

I'd better start saving my money cause there are some good games coming out in the next couple of months. Gothic 3 is another one that I am looking out for and will hopefully challenge Oblivion for the RPG (Game of the Year) crown this year.

Online Concerts (Yeah), Featuring Duran Duran (DOH)

I never thought I would have to write something about Duran Duran, not because they are not my type of 80s band (although I understand they have recorded past the eighties), but just because I think they are crap. It seems that Duran Duran are still not opposed to trying new things and, as such, they will be involved in an online concert on a virtual island in the online role playing game Second Life.

While they may not be the first to do this they are trying to create a lot of publicity for the concert. I will say that I won't be signing up for second life just to hear Duran Duran play. An online concert just doesn't hold any appeal for me. What kind of atmosphere will they create with a virtual mosh pit? It just wouldn't be the same. There would be no chance of injuries. No one passing out from heat exhaustion. No body surfing. And what would be the point of having a mosh pit for a Duran Duran concert anyway? People won't start slam dancing when they boys break out a classic synthesizer riff. And if people did I would be a little concerned. What is going to differ this experience from listening to a live song on mp3? Not much really.

I don't know how this concept will take off. Online, simulated experiences more often than not don't match up to the real thing. If it did there would be more people having online sex rather doing the real thing. This domain still seems to be dominated by the strange and lonely people who currently inhabit chat rooms.

What is this but nothing more than a means to promote an online role playing game which doesn't have much market share. There is a growing base of these community based online role playing games. To me it is like playing the sims (which I don't do).

UFO: Afterlight is on its Way

Turn based combat games are not for everyone. Most people tend to go for the real time strategy games like Rome Total War and the RTS genre has been growing leaving turn based with a smaller fan base. The UFO game type franchise has been around for a long time. It started with the XCom series which was developed by Microprose (of which I was a big fan of Terror from the Deep - Wikipedia). UFO has been influenced by the X-Com series and attempts to be the "spiritual successor" to these games. The series incorporates base and resource management along with Turn based combat. There has been a recent announcement that the next installment of the UFO franchise will be released early next year.

I purchased UFO: Aftershock when it was released last year. I installed and played it in the first week and then uninstalled it. I wasn't unimpressed with the game, but just was too busy to get involved with a complicated game. After thinking about it for some time I decided to reinstall the game. Like I said before, Turn Based combat is not for everyone. It is slow and very time consuming. The more people you control the longer the combat takes. You have to be prepared to do a lot of saving and replaying in order to get the results that you want because the combat will not necessarily play out the same way twice.

After playing the game over the last week and a half I have restarted it three or four times. It has taken that much time to come to grips with the base and resource management. The game allows you to acquire technology then research and develop it yourself. However, this is a time consuming process and depends completely on what resources you control. To this end I feel that the game is somewhat unbalanced. The resource management side of the game is too difficult to control. Resources are consumed far too quickly and are very hard to come by. This then limits all of your manufacturing and research operations which then limit your future activities. There is a lot in this game. A lot of technology to research and develop. A lot to think about as you play and decide what is the most important thing to develop based on your limit resources. Thrown in on top of this you have to attack and defend provinces as you expand your own territories.

The combat in the game is relatively well done, however, I felt that the maps could have been a bit bigger. The maps in Fallout Tactics were a lot bigger from the start, however, Tactics didn't have all of the resource management side of the game either. They have incorporated an experienced based system for your team. This allows you to recruit members from different factions within the game, level them up and then provide them customized training in specific skill groups. There is a great deal of different weapon types to select from as well. With traditional projectile weapons to alien inspired laser weapons and psionic based weapons as well. You can develop these weapons and also customize them with modifications.

Otherwise, this is an enjoyable game if you are prepared to put a lot of time in to it. If you play UFO: Aftershock for half an hour or so every now and then you really won't feel that you've achieved much with the game. It is something which can take up large chunks of your time.

The other thing about this game is that it is developed by an independant publisher, Altar Interactive. With the announcement that the next installment in the UFO franchise will be released early next year it may be worthwhile hunting down a copy of UFO: Aftershock to get yourself ready for the new release. I'll definitely be looking out for Afterlight when it comes out. From what I understand they have modified some of the resource and base management side of things to simplify the process for simpletons like myself. It's good to see that a small independant developer is prepared to continue a game format which is popular to a cult following of people. Most of the major developers are not prepared to release turn based games because they just don't generate the revenue of MMOs and other types of games.

UFO: Aftershock Webpage

Games Ratings in Hot Water

It seems there have been a number of incidents over several years which has bought games under the spotlight in the US. The Comlumbine shooting was one, the hot coffee mod for GTA: San Andreas was another, and the nudity (which was not even full nudity) mod for Oblivion was another. Each one of these cases was high profile news in the US and created a public debate over the way games are rated and the violence contained in video games.

I find it ironic that video games are noted for their violence and not Hollywood movies. Violence in video games is far less graphic than even some lower budget films, but no one seems to be jumping on the band wagon to get movies banned. I watched a movie called Hostel on the weekend and some of the graphic nature of the violence was far worse than I have seen in any video game. Of course, the movie was a part of the Tarantino stable of films (who else gets off on gratuitous violence more than the director of Reservoir Dogs). Hostel shows people getting their heads literally caved in by children (no less). It shows people being tortured and dismembered in some of the most graphic scenes I have seen in a film. But I don't hear people jumping up and down about the graphic nature of this violence. Another film which is extremely graphic in nature is Saw. Yet, people aren't screaming about the violence in this film either. Isn't this a double standard? Cause the violence in films is far worse than that of video games. It is far more realistic than anything that a programmer can put to a PC screen (at the moment).

What has happened in the US is that a Bill has been proposed which would require the entire content of a video game to be viewed by the Ratings Board prior to a rating being determined for a game. How is that going to be possible with a game such as Oblivion which has over 200 hours of game play most of which is non-linear? And Oblivion is one of the games which has caused a part of this controversy.

As far as I am concerned Ratings are not the issue (except we need an R rated category in Australia), but enforcing the age requirements of ratings in retail and rental outlets. What is the use of having a ratings system if it is not enforced in any way? The whole system is a farce because nothing is done to make sure that children under the age requirements of a ratings category is purchasing the game in the first place. If parents choose to purchase a game for their children without first doing the research on what they are purchasing then they are to blame for their choice, not the game companies for providing the content. We live in an information rich age but it seems that most people prefer to err on the side of ignorance rather than educate themselves in the first place. Why review the ratings system if you are going to do nothing at all to enforce them? The government are more concerned with making sure that children under the age of 18 do not buy cigarettes than children under the age of 15 purchasing an M rated game or movie. This is just a complete double standard and an excuse to lay blame on the gaming companies rather than admit that we have a relatively inept system for enforcing game and movie ratings.

Xbox Study Shows Microsoft Makes Children Distrustful

Of all the useless pursuits in the world this would have to be one of the biggest waste of time I've heard of in a while. Someone has paid a marketing company to do a study on how children react when shown the Microsoft and Sony logos. Rather than ask the children how it makes them feel the market research company got them to write a short story prior to being shown the companies logo and then to write another after. They would then use a computer program called text-mining software to analyse the words used in each story. This software then analysis the words used in each story and makes a judgement based on how the person is feeling.

The researchers said, "Our findings confirm that brand advertising can increase positive attitudes and perceptions. The reverse is also true. Some ads actually decrease brand trust in the target market. That's why it's more important than ever for marketers to pay attention to psychological profiles and the power of the subconscious mind."

After being shown the Microsoft logo the boys who were shown it felt more self confident but distrustful. This sounds like the perfect description of Microsoft. They are the largest software manufacturer in the world but who really does trust what they release. There hasn't been a single operating system released by Microsoft which was not full of bugs which needed to be fixed by numerous patches over time. Why did Microsoft need to pay someone to tell them this? Isn't it blatantly obvious? (or just blatantly obvious to everyone who doesn't work for Microsoft). I could have told them this and they could have paid me a lot less than some overqualified psychologist. Maybe when you have as much money as Microsoft you've got to spend it on something. Over analysis of market placement is a good way to do it because it looks like you are, at least, getting something for your money without actually doing anything constructive with your money.

What's A Slow News Week?

So, what is a slow news week in gaming? It is a time when there is not much to report. Not much information being released about new games. Really, that is the reason why we read through the gaming websites. I don't really care about the financial statements of gaming companies and there seems to be a lot of crap reported about how much money they are or are not making. The news that EA have made a massive loss is not really news because they didn't make as big a loss as they expected. Well, that is a comfort to me. I was not sleeping at night worrying that EA might go out of business. God forbid, who would make those endless rehashed sports games which don't really change year from year? Who would make games across multiple formats and cater for the lowest common denominator? I am sure that if EA went out of business then someone else would fill their place. A good example of how the EA yearly sports game release works is Tiger Woods Golf. For me, Tiger Woods 2004 was the best release of this game. They introduced some excellent concepts and did them very well. Multiplayer was excellent and the game had a great deal of variety. Since this release they have actually made the game worse. Changing the putting system to make it more difficult (not that Golf isn't difficult anyway). Removing some key multiplayer features and slimming the game down somewhat. Why would I bother purchasing 2005 and 2006 if they have dramatically changed or improved the game? Essentially the game of golf hasn't changed.

Another news item which has been floating around this week has been the news that E3 will be dramatically changed. Big Deal. Never been there and never will. What does E3 really do for gamers except release excellent pictures of booth babes and exclusive game footage? Well, I am sure another event or circumstance will present itself so that these things can still be released. But as a gamer how does the decline or fall of this event affect me? It doesn't. So, why would I bother noting this down as a significant event in gaming? I wouldn't. In the end the excessive cost of this event means that gaming companies will continue to charge high prices for games because they have to offset the cost of their First Class lifestyle to the consumer. In the end it is not the game companies who were paying for the event out of the goodness of their hearts, but the gamers who paid for the event through game purchases. Unfortunately, I hate to say that this event will not reduce the pricing of games. Furthermore, you don't just have the news article to say that E3 is changing, you have all of the subsequent fluff stories to go with it. How is the industry reacting to the news? What will replace it? If E3 farted would it cause a hurricane on the other side of the world? Who really cares? I don't. If there's no news to report then don't report it. Just because you have space to fill on your website doesn't mean you have to fill it with drivel (that's what this blog is about). It was reported on one gaming website that the new E3 would be more intimate. What does this mean? There will be slow dancing and quiet mood music. Or, they will provide spaces for game developers to shack up together and have a love in.

A news item which did catch my interest was that the Murdoch owned broadcaster Sky is reported to be looking to get in to PC gaming. Obviously with Murdoch's purchase of ign.com he believes (or his advisors tell him) that there is good money to be made in gaming. What does this mean for the industry? Who knows. Certainly Murdoch's publishing interests are not known for maintaining high risk low return ventures. So, does this mean that they will not be looking to break the mold, but produce highly marketable mainstream regurgatated products which add nothing to the industry. There are many TV series which I have enjoyed but have only managed a short run on a murdoch owned network (The Tick, Greg the Bunny, FireFly, even Family Guy was cancelled by the network and brought back to life because of popular demand). The only TV show which manages to criticise the network consistantly is the Simpsons. The only reason they can get away with this is becuase of their huge following. Do we need a Murdoch owned company in gaming? Do we have a choice? Well, no we don't have a choice. But the thing which I like about the free market world we live in is that the consumer holds the power. The unfortunate thing about this principle is that consumers just don't know it and aren't organised enough to utilise their buying power to hold any potential sway over a multinational.