PC Gaming - Where Are You?

Where are the big PC Game releases for this year? It seems that big name PC only games have dried right up. Most of the big name PC game releases for this year have been ports of console releases or multi-platform games. The biggest PC Only game release for the year has been Conan: Age of Hyborian Adventures. You would hardly consider this to be a title which reaches across the spectrum of gamers to reach the widest possible audience.

Most games now are provided in a multi-platform format. It would be fair to say that these games are created with the lowest common denominator in mind. High end PC gamers are missing out to a degree. The money that this part of the gaming market spend on their overclocked high end gaming rigs is becoming a waste. The reality of homogonized console gaming is becoming more of reality every single day that passes. Look in to the future and try to think of the big name games which are going to be PC only ... Spore. Spore is hardly the type of game which appears to push the boundaries of PC hardware. There are even rumours circulating that Diablo 3 will be multi-platform. This does not surprise because Blizzard will want to reach the largest audience possible to make as much money as possible.

It is easy to jump on the "Death of PC Gaming" bandwagon but the future doesn't look to bright. Games releases are what we should be judging this future by. PC Gaming is the backbone of the gaming industry. It has outlasted any console on the market. It has done this through diversity. It has provided a greater number of gaming options than the limited input of consoles. Unfortunately, this may not be enough to save the format from homogonized releases.

I don't believe that PC gaming will die. But what we will see is less PC only releases and more cross format titles. At the point in time when there are no PC only game releases then, at this point in time, should we judge PC gaming to be dead. Currently, there is no other platform which allows people to enter the world of games development without a massive outlay. Hopefully, it will be the modding community which keeps PC only gaming alive.

My Xbox 360 Eulogy

My Xbox 360 (as pictured) passed away quietly in its sleep last night. Unfortunately, even though my console was only 1 year and 11 months old (man. date 31/8/2006) it was still unnamed. I feel disappointed that while we spent a lot of quality time together that my console had to depart without having ever been named.

I was fortunate enough to have spent some quality time with the console during that short period of time we had. We have completed together Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Rainbow Six Vegas, Vegas 2, Crackdown, and Saints Row just to name a couple of the games. I was looking forward to spending more time with the console in the future waiting for the release of Far Cry 2 and Gears of War 2.

I feel disappointed that Microsoft created this product in such a way that it was destined not to live a long life. To be able to live beyond 2 years and to experience all the riches that new release games have to offer. Surely, we all deserve the right to a long life (except of course if you live in the third world and then you are destined to serve the West as some form of slave labour ... and yet we still do not understand why it is that you hate us).

So, it is that my life as a consumer is defined by the things that I buy and not by the human relationships that I can manufacture. That those things which are mine say more about who I am than I can possibly say with words or independant thought. The fact of the matter is that, as a consumer, I am unable to create independent thought that is anything more than the rewording of a slogan or jingle.

What do I do now? How can I possibly structure activities to fill my spare time without my Xbox 360 console. I am unable to create the desire to walk outside, to change the channel, or structure thought for myself. I rely on the imposed structure of my time that the products which I own provide. Without them I am nothing.

RIP my Xbox 360 console. Much loved. Greatly missed.

E3 ... Do Gamers Really Care?

E3 is on again. You probably know this because, all of a sudden, there is a mass of information being posted on gaming websites. So much information that I get to the point where I just can't be bothered reading it at all. Many gaming websites don't necessarily sort through the information, or think that gamers are interested in reading about press conferences.

I think the best thing for a gamer to do while E3 is on is to go on holiday. Any major news will live on after the conference. All of the small and insignificant news will just go away as though it never existed in the first place.

If you want to know what I think has been the biggest news story of the conference then my money is on Final Fantasy XIII being released on the Xbox 360. This is big news for a number of reasons. Square Enix has been in bed with Sony for a long time. I think that this news item is indicative of the way platform gaming is going. In the past it was possible for a developer to rely on exclusivity to push sales because there was predominantly one major platform (which was the Playstation). Now, it is very difficult for developers to ignore a multi-platform release because they risk losing revenue. This also highlights Sony's arrogance in the marketplace (yes, they appear to be more arrogant than Microsoft). Sony refuse to kick in money to those developers who have supported the Sony brand in the past in order to drive console sales through exclusive titles.

E3 is all about Information Overload. If that is your thing then suck it up. If not then find your favourite game and play as much as you can. Ignore the fact that E3 is on. After it is all over you really will not have missed out on anything.

Break Up Of The Century: Id Software and Activision

Usually E3 is all about the game announcements. It used to all be about the booth babes ... oh, what booth babes, but unfortunately, the ESA stopped taking viagra several years ago and dropped the booth babes from the agenda. This led an exodus of developers. Not because of the rising cost of showing your wares at E3 but because the booth babes were gone. The same too has happened with game announcements they are just not as important any more.

To prove this id Software have led the charge to announce that it has broken up with long time partner Activision and is now in bed with Electronic Arts. Seems like the progress we are making towards creating the UberDeveloper just took a side step.

The unfortunate thing about this announcement is that everything EA touches turns to shit. John Carmack seems to think that EA's shit smells pretty nice and has jumped on board. This is a real shame.

Why Ratings Do Not Work

Australian Gamer have published a letter from South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson which was sent to one of their readers as a response to an enquiry about implementing an R 18+ Rated Category in Australia. The Hon. Michael Atkinson is, of course, the man famously involved in denying Australian Gamers of an R rated category.

Interestingly enough his response says more about the way our ratings system doesn't work than the way that it does. In his response he quotes the National Classification Code:

"Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;
(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;
(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and
(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner."

In this instance gaming adults aren't able to play what they want. Direct evidence that the ratings system is not working. Secondly, the Attorney General of SA must not believe that the self governance of ratings system enforcement at a retail level must not be working because he believes that these items, if R18+ rated will find their way in the hands of minors.

The Hon. Michael Atkinson says in his letter:

"I cannot see how adding an R18+ classification for games will stop parents from making bad choices for their children or stop children getting hold of a game from their friend and sibling."

This is a further example that he does not believe that the ratings system which is currently in place works. For example, if a parent were to purchase an R18+ game for their child without doing any prior research in to the product they were purchasing then he does not consider this to be bad parenting but a bad choice. Surely, the R18+ rating should be enough evidence that the said game was not suitable for their children in the first place.

So, is this decision to hold out on an R18+ rated category about the government actually becoming the indirect parents of every child in Australia? or, about recognizing that the ratings system is actually not working as it should?

In his letter he confirms that the ratings system is broken:

"Given this data, [...79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision...] I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games, once the games are in the home."

I don't believe that it is up to the government to parent our children. As 'responsible' adults it is up to us to make the necessary mistakes that it takes to become a better parent. I find it absurd that these points are not made by these legislators to show that the ratings system does not work. We have a system of governance which would prefer to work with a broken system rather than find a better way of doing things.

To be fair, most of the Hon. Michael Atkinson's concerns rest with controlling the nature of content after purchase, therefore regulating the content bought in to the country is far easier than educating people.

"What the present law does is to keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree. This is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, it is worth it."

The problem here is that extreme material is not being kept off the shelves. The scenes in SAW and Hostel are far more graphically depicted than any video game I have ever played. As far as I am concerned this is where his logic fails. Extreme material is not being kept from being imported in to Australia. Only selected material.

While I don't believe that editing games for the Australian market in order to import them is a bad thing. That the changes that have been made to the games have necessarily changed the gameplay in order for the game to function at an acceptable ratings level and that these changes, in reality, open the games up to purchase by a much larger market in our small marketplace. I don't agree with the hypocracy which goes on at a legislative level with regards to this ratings debate.

Ausgamers Give Battlefield Bad Company 9 out of 10 ... What The?

I like the Ausgamers site. Always have. With the addition of Steve Farrelly writing their reviews they had, I believe, become critical of the games they had been reviewing. So much so that I was actually reading their reviews rather than just going straight to the score and moving on. Let's face it. Games reviewing is nothing special. You hardly find prose you want to read and the content is usually pretty boring.

Today they published their review of Battlefield Bad Company and they gave the game 9 out of 10. If you hadn't guessed from some of the stuff that I have posted about the game Bad Company would have to be one of the worst games I have ever played. Without a doubt it is a relatively soulless shooter. Yes, the script is interesting and funny at times, however, the game is poorly implemented. How then does Ausgamers get to the point where they give this game 9 out of 10?

I honestly don't know. Anyone who has played the game and has a long history of gaming behind them would have to see the poorly constructed mechanics which run the game. This cannot be glossed over by a funny script ... or, maybe it can. As Dan at Ausgamers is quite taken with the game. He points out that the environment is destructible but does not point out that certain objects are not. These objects can get in the way of maneuvering vehicles to the point where it is frustrating.

What is the deal with these games? Frontlines Fuel of War I mistakenly purchased because it was given good reviews. I liked the first level of the game, but then found out that the rest of the game was sadly lacking. Definitely, alongside Bad Company, it was one of the worst shooters that I have played.

This is the greatest problem with the gaming industry. The reviewing process is fundamentally flawed. Games journalism has succumbed to the corporate interests which control them.

EA Create New Game Naming Convention

Electronic Arts, the pioneer in gaming if you don't mind me saying, has created a brand new naming convention for their games. Bad Company is the first game to adopt this technique which EA will hopefully adopt for the future. Bad Company actually refers to badly implemented friendly and enemy AI ... hence Bad Company. This is not a reference as others may or may not have stated to a bad corporation.

The implementation of AI in the game is so poor that, at times, you may not think that there actually is any. While EA have been the pioneers at charging full price for their annual updates of their sports games it seems that their grip on the first person genre is failing (that is if they ever really had a grip).

Look out too for the indestructible witches hats. That's right, those pesky traffic cones which you cannot even drive over in a tank. It seems that while the environments in game are semi-destructible the traffic cones are indestructible. Nice touch. I am sure this is just to keep all gamers on their toes. Wouldn't want to let anyone steal the traffic cone after a wild night out.

Once again, well done EA. Excellent job.

Look out for future games releases which will implement this naming convention. "Company In Crysis" this is where the executives at EA are hunted down on a lonely pacific island by angry gamers. "We Charge You More For Sports" The all in one monthly sports update where EA start releasing monthly updates to their sports games where you have to pay full price to play.

Fallout 3 Banned ... Gaming Has No Meaning Any More

Gamespot are reporting that Fallout 3 has been refused classification in Australia. Gaming websites prefer to use the descriptor banned when referring to this phenomena. The word banned has far more impact on the uneducated. It seems more severe. It evokes a greater emotional impact. Refused classification just doesn't have the same impact but is a more accurate descriptor.

This does not necessarily mean that the game will not be released in Australia. There are no recorded reasons as to why the game has been banned. Some are saying that it is due to the use of morphene in games but this is just speculation. As with GTA IV there was a lot of gossip over the interweb about what would be amended for the the Australian release of the game. As was revealed after GTA IV's release not a whole lot was changed in the game to get it through the Australian censors.

There was a time when I would have said that Fallout 3 not being released in Australia was then end of gaming as I knew it. However, with changes the changes that have been made by Bethesda I am not overly fussed any more about the game's release. Game's which have been passed on to developers other than the original creators generally don't have the same soul as the original games. Call of Duty 3. Command and Conquer.

Fallout 2 is one of my all time favourite games. I am not living with the expectation that Fallout 3 will be the same.

Dark Sector Unbanned In Oz

Just to show that Australia is a progressive nation the OLFC banned Dark Sector after it was initially submitted for ratings classification. Games Politics and PALGN is now reporting that the game has been resubmitted with significant changes and is now rated MA 15+.

The game has been developed by a small developer and they have modified the game so that it conforms to the OFLC's guidelines.

However, you have to ask the question. Could this have potentially opened up the game to a larger potential market and increased the earning potential of the game? While it would have cost the developer money to remove the content they can now reach a larger target audience (as long as the shops actually enforce the ratings system in the first place). Could this have been better for the game in the long run?

The same goes for GTA IV. By removing the content which the censors do not like the game is released in a lower rated category and should, therefore, open the game up to a larger audience than a R18+ market. This is something which is not really talked about by gamers. They are all lamenting the fact that the game is edited for their gaming enjoyment (personally, I don't understand what all the fuss is about ... the changes do not change the gameplay ... I don't really care if I don't get to see some explicit content ... big deal). Parents are not necessarily going to purchase an R18+ rated game for their children to play, but they are more likely to purchase a MA 15+ game. Surely this has to be better for game sales in the long run.

One of the major changes to Dark Sector was the removal of decaptitation. Sounds important to the gameplay, but something which has been available in other games. Makes you wonder why they were asked to remove it.

UberDeveloper One Step Closer

We have been closely tracking recent steps towards the UberDeveloper for gaming. This will be a time when there is one massive developer making all of the games in the world for the lowest common denominator. This is a momentous time in gaming for the corporation because it means they don't have to worry about any troublesome competition in order to create the best product. It means they will be able to make any product and just dump it in to the market.

Blizzard and Activision will be merging (actually Activision and Blizzard's parent company Vivendi are merging but no one thinks of WOW when you say Vivendi). Activision are one of the oldest developers in gaming responsible for such classics as Pitfall on the Atari and the little remembered River Raid (...don't worry River Raid, I won't forget you).

All that needs to happen now is for EA to purchase Take Two. Then EA to purchase Ubisoft and Activision and we will begin to see the reduction of competition across the board. The beginnings for the creation of the UberDeveloper are well and truly in place.

Soon, there will be only one ...

Bioware "We Make You Want To Buy Games"

It's not very often that you hear logical, down-to-earth, statements from developers. Usually, they are promising too much, delivering too little and busy making shorter games for the casual gaming market. MTV Multiplayer have a brief statement from the CEO of Bioware on how they plan to beat piracy. Surely, you are thinking to yourself, excellent. "I am going to have to log on to the internet every five minutes to make sure that the game doesn't deactivate itself, otherwise they will program a self destruction circuit in to my computer so that they can ensure that I don't play a pirated game," but this is untrue.

Ray Muzyka, BioWare CEO, has stated that they want to create games that people want to play with downloadable content and multiplayer. If players feel there is value for money in what they are purchasing then they won't want to pirate the game. Finally, someone in the gaming industry who is not focussed on creating some form of nefarious copy protection options to protect their product. Rather, they want to make good product, that's a first for our neoCorporate ways.

Here is the full statement from the Ray Muzyka:

“We’re doing a lot of post-release downloadable content on all of our PC titles going forward ... We think it’s a good thing to encourage players to make them want to buy a PC title. That’s ultimately the best, most successful path to prevent piracy — to have players that want your games, want to believe in them and think they’re high-quality and realize they’re going to get a lot of value out of them as platforms for long time afterwards.”

So, it seems that not all developers are focussed on ridiculous copy protection type options that force you to connect to the internet or sign your soul away to the devil in order to play the game.

What Was Atari Thinking?

I was tempted to really see what Alone in the Dark was all about after the recent controversy. Atari were on the warpath to "defend the game's honour" as such. I was never really a fan of the original game. I always thought that the imposed third person perspective was awkward and somewhat hackneyed in its delivery as a game mechanic.

I was ready to set aside what I thought of the original games and the controversy and just give the game a go. I didn't realize that this would be time that I would never get back as much as I wanted it to return.

The game implements a "blink" function. As the game starts in the first person perspective it fools you in to believing that the game will play in this manner. As you have just woken from a slumber (possibly drug induced) the game developer (Eden) make the right stick button a function to blink your eyes in the game. Never in my life have I had to tell my eyes to blink. They do so as a reflex or a need to moisten my eyes and maintin correct function. If I had to tell my eyes when they had to blink then I think the continual focus of my thoughts would be that this necessary but frustrating function of my body was not working as it should. This is much the way the "blink" function is implemented in game. This is a poor device. It is used to show off some HDR type visual effects in game which, I must say, are pretty much of a muchness now. HDR really has lost its "wow" factor and will hopefully one day pass as an implemented effect and become just a part of the game environment. Obviously Eden are pretty chuffed with their visual effects. But why didn't someone during the development of the early part of the game say that this is not working. I wouldn't have minded if the blinking was incorporated in to the character's first person perspective. But having to do this manually was a bad choice in game. While I can choose to blink my eyes when I chose to I prefer to let my body manage that function of my sight without my need to interfer with it and this is what should have been done in the game. If you choose not to blink then your view of the world becomes overwhelmed by light (which I have never experience in 'real life' myself).

Further to this Alone in the Dark pretends to be a first person game. The start of the game is in first person perspective but then it changes to the third person fixed camera. This, once again, is poorly implemented. As soon as something happens in the game world the game pulls you out of first person and back to the fixed camera view. This can happen many times during one scene which constantly made me switch back and forth between the two views.

This game is frustrating. Needless to say that I won't be completing it. The story may be interesting, but yet another game about an "evil power" that has over run an area ... well, haven't we all seen that before. Surely, this story concept must be considered cliched.

Sorry Atari, but what were you thinking?

Screenshots? I Think Not

Computer and Video Games.com are promoting this image and several others as "screenshots" from the new Operation Flashpoint 2. Unfortunately, the idiots there cannot tell the difference between "concept art" and an actual "screenshot". The image pictured here and the others on their article to promte Operation Flashpoint 2 are either concept art or cut scene video but not screenshots. Check out the other screenshots at their website here.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of morons who are involved in "games journalism". These morons don't know the difference between concept art and a screenshot. These morons are the lap dogs of the marketing machines which push the gaming industry. This is something that goes on constantly within gaming media and unfortunately gamers don't say enough about it to stop it from happening. Concept Art is not a screenshot. Screenies taken from cut scenes (AKA so-called Duke Nukem Forever "screenshots") are not screenshots either. In fact, these things are misrepresentations of actual gameplay. This is a practice that those people who promote and market games do not want to stop happening in gaming because it creates a better image of a game in gamers minds.

I am looking forward to Operation Flashpoint 2 even though it has not been created by the original developer. Unfortunately, Armed Assault which was created by Bohemian Interactive (the original developer of Operation Flashpoint) was more like Operation Flashpoint 1.5. Such are the machinations of modern game publication. Armed Assault was not the greatest game and not worthy of being called the "spiritual successor" of Operation Flashpoint. If these early signs are anything to go by and they are promoting concept art as screenshots then maybe Op Flashpoint 2 isn't shaping up too well either.

Sony Recall Firmware ... Next Generation Buggered

It seems that not everything is rosy for the next generation consoles (which are now current generation and will one day be past). It seems that if Microsoft hasn't made your ring red and Sony's BluRay drive isn't playing up then updating your system online could be the next on a long list of problems with the consoles.

Sony have pulled the 2.4 firmware update (which implements their trophy/achievement system ... lol) after it has created issues with users. The question that should be asked is "How much testing goes on prior to release?" There is definitely a growing trend in technology where products don't appear to fully tested prior to release.

For the PS3 users who have been affected by being early adopters of the firmware update then it appears that reformatting their hard drive does the trick. Shame about all of the savegames and other useful data that they will lose in the process.

Nice one Sony. You da man.

Do My Boobs Look Big In These?

It's good to see that gaming doesn't promote any negative stereotypes in women. I mean, when all the women in gaming look so hot what are the negatives? As this character pictured from Soul Caliber 4 shows women in gaming are voluptuous and sexy (in a dangerous kind of way). In fact, all of the women portrayed in gaming are hot. Lara Croft's boobs have managed to get bigger with every Tomb Raider release. This shows women to be confident and beautiful in a surgically enhanced kind of way. Surely, this does not highlight the truly superficial nature of gamers. This just shows that geeks need the loving of a hot voluptuous woman too (even if it is in their imagination). There's no burning of any bras in gaming because, quite frankly, women portrayed in games don't wear them.

Obviously, the images which are used to promote games say a great deal about how they are marketed and who they are marketed to. These images appeal to the target audience who are going to play games such as Soul Caliber 4. I am guessing that it is not aimed at the female market. Considering the game has adopted Darth Vader and Yoda as characters this gives you a fairly clear idea as to who the game is aimed at.

Women in games tend to be stereotypically beautiful with massive tits and perfect bodies. Games such as Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball do this unashamedly. Funnily enough, such a game is not so much about the volleyball as it is about buying clothing for your character. What self respecting bloke would admit to buying that game to start with and talk to their mates about accessorizing clothing with their characters?

If gamers were presented with more realistic impressions of women in games would they sell any less? Or are we so taken by our superficialities that we need these things in the mass media to reassure ourselves that maybe we to can buy our way to happiness?

Oh ... I Can See Your Pop Up ... Is That Normal?

There is a school of thought amongst gamers (yes ... gamers can think ... don't go there) that although in-game worlds are artificial that they should conform to a number of real world parameters. Hence, we see the incorporation of realistic solutions being incorporated in to game worlds by developers. Physics, High Dynamic Range Lighting these are real life features which are incorporated in to game environments. However, there are many things about gaming and the worlds they inhabit which are inherently unreal.

Enemy spawn is something which is unreal. People, in real life, don't just appear in your sight when we come within a certain distance of them (although the if a tree falls in a forest argument could be applied here). Realistically, it is not possible to expect that characters in games should just sit there waiting for us to approach them. This would consume necessary system resources which are used to make the world look pretty and make the AI think realistically. Some game developers make some effort to hide enemy spawn. They create closets or areas which are spawn locations and are sometimes restricted to the player.

When enemies spawn in front of you it is like the lights coming on in the middle of sex. It completely spoils the mood.

I was showing off the destructive environment of Battlefield Bad Company to my brother. This involved loading up a grenade in to the rifle mounted launcher and letting a few rip. I focussed on a two storey house in the distance and started to lay some systematic destruction to its walls and roof. After emptying my supplies of grenades I moved a couple of metres forward in the game and two enemies spawned on the first floor of that very house. They appeared out of nowhere. Immediately they knew where I was and laid down some fire in my direction. Firstly, the AI knew where I was even though they weren't looking at me. Secondly, they appeared out of nowhere.

Suddenly the game lost a lot of its appeal.

As humans our world conforms to a world view which is the culmination of the of the way we perceive the world during our "nature vs nurture" development. For many people, their world view is structured by a belief system, such as religion, or a philosophy, or by science. Generally, this world view structures our perceptions of the world. We apply these formulas provided by religion and science to the world around us. It helps to provide our world with meaning and a structure by which to relate what we experience. When things occur in life which do not conform to this view then we can have trouble relating to these events.

In many ways my own world view attempts to conform to logic. I like it when things are structured and in a logical manner. So, when I see enemies spawning in front of my very eyes it really does affect the mood and atmosphere of the game. Suddenly my suspension of disbelief is lost.

For some gamers this is not an issue. The ghosts in Pacman spawn in a small area which is on screen and is restricted to the gamer. This has been an ever present reality for gaming since its creation. It does highlight the limitations of the hardware, but also affects growing expectation with how in game worlds are developed and implemented.

What are your expectations for in game worlds?

Consoles Going Cheap ... but apparently not nasty

Microsoft are attempting to take the console sales momentum away from its competitors in Australia by dropping the price of its Xbox 360 console across the board. The Arcade pack will come in as the cheapest next generation console at $349.00 (Aus).

Kotaku are reporting that Microsoft are repackaging refurbished Arcade consoles as new, however, this may be limited to EB Games stores. This was also reported by a reader of Screen Play blog recently as well. Apparently, the offending consoles are limited to the arcade packs and can be distinguished from new consoles because they don't support HDMI output.

Just a note on console pricing. Whenever a new console comes out the developers cry poor. They say that they lose money on each console. What they don't tell you is that the retailers who stock the product are lucky to make 5 per cent profit on the console sale (not including delivery cost of the item). 5 per cent is not a lot of money. This percentage generally doesn't change through out the course of the consoles life span. So, while the major manufacturers cry poor they price their own items so that it is difficult for the retailers to actually make a profit out of selling their products. Microsoft continue to make record profits. Sony also continue to make profits. Shame about the poor retailers who have to sell their products.

Pricing of the consoles are as follows:
* Elite Console 12o gig HD - $649.00 (with free games)
* Arcade Console - $349.00 (inc)
* Elite Console 20 gig - $499.00 (inc)

There hasn't been a lot of press about the 'red ring of death'. So it appears that Microsoft might have sorted out some of the issues with this problem. Don't forget that they have extended the warranty of the consoles to 3 years if you do happen to experience a red ring (... on your console).

Living Under a Rock Update

The "Oh ... I was living under a rock" update from the weekend.

Blizzard have announced Diablo 3.

All the hack and slash geeks can rejoice. It looks like they will revive the isometric view and there doesn't seem to be any pay to play, which is even better news.

Did Someone Break the Savegame?

I wouldn't confess to being a great gamer. I wouldn't even consider myself to be hardcore (at gaming, anyway ... another story), but when I play games on the console I always pump up the difficulty to the hardest. This is not from some deep seated masochistic desire to inflict pain on myself (the pain I like to inflict for other reasons), but generally if you are going the 'softer' difficulty options then you really aren't interested in playing the game, you are just interested in saying that you finished the game.

I picked up Battlefield Bad Company last week after not really reading anything about the game. I had seen an early trailer of the game and then put the game in the "it's EA, avoid if possible" pile. I put the game in, pumped up the difficulty and started playing. For once I was surprised by the game. It was quite obviously using the battlefield engine and the game feigned being of the open world variety, but the dialogue was excellent and the story a little different from your usual.

It wasn't until I had died a couple of times that I realised that there was something inherently wrong with the savegame function. So wrong that the game stopped being challenging. So wrong that I even thought at times that the game could be as bad as Frontline Fuel of War and that is pretty bad. It wasn't completely apparent at first and took a couple of reloads to work out what was going on with the savegame but the way this feature has been implemented the challange of playing the game on the hardest difficulty has been completely removed from the game.

Usually with a savegame or checkpoint after you die the game reverts you back to the point at which there was a save or checkpoint. That means that everything in the game is as it was when the save occurred. All of the enemies that you have killed are revived. All of the damage that you have done is repaired. Your health is restored to the level that it was at the save point. Which means that you have to replay through the section that you have just played again in the hope that you don't make the same mistake that made you perish in the first place.

I don't mind this. I like the challenge. It may make some games repetitive, but they are difficult to complete. Battlefield Bad Company does not implement its save feature in this way. As you play the game there is a message displayed that lets you know that a save has taken place. The game is then not saved at this point. The location where you are when this save takes place is saved. What then happens is that when you die you are taken to this location. Everything in the game world is as it was when you died. This means enemies that you killed just before you died but after the save point are still dead. You enter the game world with your team at the location where you died. Suddenly they are trying to work their way back to your save position. This in itself is strange. So, the game world does not revert back to the save point. It stays as it was.

This has created,in many ways, a completely meaningless difficulty system. While the enemies may be more difficult to kill the game itself is not more difficult to complete. The save function is obselete and, somewhat, is not really a "save game" function. It is a save location function as the game does not save. It may save if you reload, but not if you die.

Considering the game took years to develop and play test. At what point in time did someone think this function was a good idea? Is this just a major developer catering entirely for the casual game market? Why is it that we, as gamers, cannot choose the type of save game that is enforced on us in order to make the game play more the way we would like?

I was really looking forward to this being an enjoyable game, even though it was published by EA, and yet I come away from it with the same entirely empty feeling that I felt as I play Frontline Fuel of War.