PC Game Girl

PC Game Girl Has A New Home

2010-02-09T15:46:00.002-06:00

Thanks to a friend donating me some space on his service, I have moved my blog and now use Wordpress to manage it. So update those bookmarks, and you can now find me at:

http://gamegirl.5elements.net/

Google Analytics

2010-01-19T21:51:00.000-06:00

A little over a week ago, some close friends were discussing the statistics of their websites according to Google Analytics. Although I have used the service before, I felt it was not really needed for my personal blog. The goal for this site is not to grow into anything big, but to simply write about something I am very passionate about. However, with the continual talk of Analytics and my competitive nature, I caved to temptation and included it here.

I checked the results for the first time yesterday, and I must say I am pleasantly surprised at the results. Thus far, I assumed my visitors were primarily my friends and the few people who follow me on Twitter. Instead, people were coming to me from the oddest places, as well as some major networking sites. The viewers from Linkedin surprised me the most, and now I am intensely curious as to who is discussing my little blog there. Additionally, it appears my post on digital distribution has received quite a bit of activity, leading me to believe I hit some nerves on the topic. I only wish more would stay and discuss it.

So to all the newcomers who are finding their way here, welcome! Feel free to follow me on Twitter (@pcgamegirl), or email me if you feel the need to for some reason. I am always curious to hear what others think.

No Thanks.

2010-01-18T17:13:00.009-06:00

I know I have a tendency to be cynical about video games today. Part of this is due to having played video games for far too long, and focusing on how wonderful they used to be. I feel as though games have become too mainstreamed, and quality is severely suffering because of this. When I begin to lighten up and wonder if I am being to hard on the industry, more announcements come out that reinforce my cynicism.

While these are not technically new announcements, they are to me. I tend to not follow video game news very often, as so much can change during the course of development. Instead, I start following games closer to release, and rely on my friends to point out any key news that is noteworthy.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

My first disappointment lies with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (BFBC2). I am a huge fan of the Battlefield series, as they offer some fun environments with a solid focus on teamwork. I missed the first Bad Company game due to being a console exclusive, so I was excited to hear the sequel would be released on the PC. It was my hope that this game would help save the FPS genre on the PC, as so many other games have destroyed the core fundamentals of it (Call of Duty).

I expressed some concern in November regarding BFBC2 and the inclusion of regenerative health. I really do abhor this system, as combatants do not magically regenerate health on a battlefield, and it seems very out of place for a quasi-realistic shooter. However, in trying to warm up to the changing genre, I was going to give it a try. That is, until today. I stumbled across a thread regarding BFBC2, and one user mentioned the lack of prone. Believing this to be a rumor, I investigated the claim further and it appears to be true.

I am in disbelief. Why are developers continually removing features, instead of adding new ones? Prone is highly essential to a Battlefield game, as I cannot imagine being a sniper or a heavy gunner without the ability to drop to the ground for concealment and stability. Browsing forums, I saw many complaints that snipers are hard to see, so people are glad the feature is gone. I am at a loss for words. Snipers are supposed to be hard to see, as that is their entire purpose. A good sniper understands his environment, the angles, and how to take advantage of it all. If you do not want to get hit by a sniper, the solution is simple...do not stand in the open and keep using cover.

I have gone from being really excited about this game, to the point I likely am no longer going to bother. Why do I want to pay for a new game with less features? Instead of being a challenger to the Call of Duty series, it feels like this is going down the same path and will become another ruined, streamlined "run and gun" series.

Mass Effect 2

A little over a week ago, I mentioned my fear of downloadable content and how it is hindering me from purchasing new games. My primary concern at this time is for Mass Effect 2, a game that I was also fairly excited to play. Bioware seems to have a huge love for downloadable content, and included advertising NPCs in Dragon Age: Origins to promote this content. So I was worried what would happen to the sequel for Mass Effect, a game I dearly loved.

While no official announcements have been made yet, I fear my concerns may be valid. There is already talk and rumors of upcoming DLC. While developers have tried to assure consumers that day-one content will be free, there is concern it will follow in-game advertising along the lines of Dragon Age: Origins. According to Joystiq,

"The piece also mentions an in-game store for unlocking DLC called "Cerberus Network," which sounds a lot like Dragon Age: Origins' DLC platform."

If that is the case, and Bioware heavily pushes DLC for this game and leads me to believe they left out content in the base game, they lose me as a customer. I am not going to continually support companies that implement this type of behavior. How hard is it to create a solid base game that will not nag consumers to purchase even more? The games industry survived for decades without this implementation, and we do not need it now.

Supreme Commander 2

This one I mentioned in Twitter a few weeks back, but I felt it deserved additional mention here as it fits the theme of this post. It was recently announced that Supreme Commander 2 would not contain custom map making tools, and would be a Steamworks based title. They claim the tools are too complex to provide to the public, thus hindering any hope for community created content. Additionally, being a Steamworks title, we continue the trend of publishers taking over and controlling how we play games.

Frustrated

As much as I love playing games, I often question the length of time I will remain true to PC gaming, and video games in general. I have supported this platform through ups and downs, and have always been pleased with my time spent on here. However, developers continually take away core features that we as PC gamers have come to know and love, or they fill their product with in-game advertising for downloadable content. What in the world is going on here? Why are PC gamers continually supporting this behavior?

What I wouldn't give for games that are not dumbed down, with features removed. I think learning that prone was removed from a game, because it made snipers to hard to see, was the final blow. How about teaching gamers to use cover, and not stand in the open, instead of removing a vital aspect of being a sniper or heavy machine gunner? How long are we going to coddle those who love to whine, and cause our beloved games to drastically change?

At least on the bright side, I may be saving quite a bit of money this year that was going to be invested in upcoming PC games.

Sunday Ramblings

2010-01-17T21:54:00.001-06:00

Today I did a little shopping with my mother and sister, as we decided to have a fun "girls day out." It was definitely a fun trip, as we had some excellent Mexican food for lunch, and ended the day with some Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream while driving along the coast heading home.

During our trip, I naturally had to hit up Half Price Books. This has become one of my new favorite places to shop, despite not being a big book reader. They have a ton of recent and older PC games that typically run $6, so it is hard not to go crazy and buy everything up. I behaved myself today though, and only grabbed Devil May Cry 4 for $6. My friend mentioned it was well worth it at that price, so I guess I will find out! So far, I am becoming quite impressed with Capcom games, and how well they look and run on my aging PC. I just hope the gameplay holds up as well!

However, no time to start with DMC4 just yet. As curious as I am to see how it plays out, I am still a bit addicted to Resident Evil 5. Despite some wonky controls at times, co-op is still a blast, and I am loving the Mercenary mode. Jill is quite the badass if I may say so.

My Thoughts on Digital Distribution

2010-01-12T18:29:00.013-06:00

For those who know me, or follow me on Twitter, it is no secret that I dislike Valve's digital distribution service. I have had my fair share of troubles with the service, but all of this is does not compare to the real issue that bothers me. We, as gamers, are allowing our rights as consumers to be taken away by publishers and digital distribution services. We are allowing ourselves to be manipulated by them, and I fear what it means for PC gaming in the long run. This is not something that applies only to Steam, but to nearly all digital distribution services.

Removal of Consumer Rights

In the United States, consumers have certain inalienable rights that companies are not allowed to infringe on without risk of legal action. One of these rights is the First Sale Doctrine, which states that consumers are allowed to sell a copyrighted work in whole, so long as no additional copies are made. This allows consumers to resell most forms of media they no longer wish to keep, without risk of companies suing them for redistributing a product. When it comes to games, multiple courts have ruled in favor of the First Sale Doctrine over the EULA, and have allowed titles to be resold.

While I am not a big time video game trader, although I do find services like Goozex fun, I appreciate having these rights and the ability to control the products I buy. Digital distribution completely eliminates this aspect, as they term their service a subscription service in their Steam Subscriber Agreement. It specifically states,

You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by installing the Steam client software and completing the Steam registration. Additionally, as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content ("Subscriptions") available to Subscribers.

Many consumers seem wholly unaware they are not purchasing actual copies of video games, but merely access to play them. When I try to explain this to some users, I hear the tiring argument that I do not own any software anyway, even if I purchase it retail. This is not true, and is an argument that has been wildly twisted around.

When I purchase a video game through a retail store, I do not own the intellectual property that is on the disc, meaning I do not have the rights to copy and redistribute it. I do, however, own the physical medium it is on, and I am allowed to sell this product, in full, if I so please. The simplest way to explain this is to relate it to a book. When you purchase a book, you do not own the rights to the story, but you do own the book itself. Video games are exactly the same.

In regards to the licenses purchased through these services, these are all tied to a single, non-transferable account. This is where digital distributors lure consumers in. Consumers become blinded by marketing terms, such as convenience, and enjoy having all their "games" tied to one single account. They are able to manage and update their games easily, and they are able to avoid the use of actual discs. What they fail to see is that by tying all our licenses to one account, we run the risk of losing all our games with the press of a button.

People tend to argue this will only happen if you abuse the service, or request a charge back via your credit card company. While this is true, there have been a wealth of reports regarding accidental disabling of accounts. I accept many of these are people leaving out key details, where in fact it is their fault, but I have also seen reports that sound legitimate by people who were once Steam supporters. Others have lost their accounts to hackers in ways that Valve cannot even figure out.

Although the chances of this are slim, is it a risk we really want to take? Do we want to invest hundreds, if not thousands, in something that can simply be turned off with the press of a key? Why run this risk when there is a perfectly good alternative, retail, that has absolutely none of these risks? As a consumer, I prefer to keep the rights to my games, and my risks minimal.

Publisher Are In Control

One thing I often see on various game forums are rage posts against publishers, and how we need to stand up to "The Man." While I do not exactly share this sentiment, it makes me wonder, why are gamers so quick to support digital distribution then? While digital distribution is preventing us from owning copies of our games, it is also giving more power to publishers.

From various articles I have read over the years, I get the impression publishers want two things: higher prices and to eliminate the used games market. Digital distribution solves both of these problems, so it is no wonder more publishers are taking advantage of it. Since many digital distribution services are deemed as subscription services, as well as being account based, there is no product for consumers to resell. Publishers also discovered they can control the retail market by implementing Steamworks into games, forcing consumers to commit to these services and forgo their rights.

Additionally, as any savvy shopper is aware, games are more expensive through these services than the retail market. The only exception are weekend and holiday sales, many of which are also questionable. The reason for this is publishers indirectly control the price of games. Unlike the retail market, digital distribution works on a revenue sharing system. Publishers demand a certain amount of money from each sale in their contracts.

As a result, services are forced to comply and price games high enough to satisfy these demands, as well as their own needs. This has been confirmed by multiple, smaller developers who communicate with their players. Additional information regarding prices may also be found here.

DRM

This is one of the few areas that baffle me the most regarding digital distribution, and often portray gamers as hypocrites. For many years now, there has been an outcry against digital rights managements (drm), and rightly so. DRM often tends to punish the legitimate user more than the pirate, who continues to play games unhindered.

Why then, are consumers so thrilled with these services? Some of these service impose the most invasive form of DRM possible at this time. For example, let us look at the Steam service. To play a Steam game, or one that is infused with Steamworks, the consumer must launch the Steam client. This program is used to authenticate the user every time a game is launched, and it must continue to run in the background until the game is shut down.

This may not sound terrible at first, but let us look at the previous outcries against DRM. As Spore and Mass Effect 2 were nearing their release dates, Electronic Arts announced it would be imposing a new method of SecuROM. This method required the game to go online every 10 days, and authenticate it was a legitimate copy, and not one being played by many others at the same time. Gamers became so furious, it was enough to pressure Electronic Arts into removing this method and opting for the standard activation limit system.

Do you see where things get confusing, and make gamers look hypocritical? Gamers fought against 10 day activation requirements. Yet, many embrace Steam with open arms, which requires authentication every time the game is launched, and the software must always be running in the background, monitoring the user. How is this better? Are we so blinded by a tidy interface, and illusions of game management, that we cannot see we just took a step backwards?

Still, people may prefer this method, and if that is their choice then more power to them. However, I have often been denied access to my games because the server is to busy to allow me to play. This typically happens during all major promotions or holiday sales. Why should I not be allowed to play a game because they cannot manage their own servers? Additionally, there have been times I do not want to update my game, but the service forces me to anyways. A patch may make changes I do not want, or cause more problems, but I have no say in the matter. Even if I go offline before accepting the patch, the game will be unplayable. Then again, maybe I should just be happy my game gets patched at all, unlike those in this list.

Ignorance & Inflation
In December 2008, Steam implemented regional pricing for all European consumers. This sounds all well and good, until consumers realized the prices were greatly inflated. This caused a wave of change in the digital distribution world, as publishers began forcing other services to do the same, or risk not having the chance to sell a title. Now, nearly all of these services used inflated regional pricing, making it the worst possible option for most European consumers.

Additionally, the problem is not only inflated prices, but charging consumers in the wrong currency. For example, Norway is not a part of the European Union, but Steam insists on charging this demographic in Euros, as well as forcing them to pay VAT on downloaded goods which they normally do not. It has been over a year since these changes took place, and these services have not remedied any of the problems they created with regional pricing. In fact, they have not even taken the time to comment, and continue to ignore the pleas for help or answers.

No Live Support? Really?

Support is a difficult thing to fault these services on directly, as this is a hit or miss aspect for many consumers. Some have excellent experiences, while others wait days for any reply. Personally, I have been one of the ones who waits for any help, or receives form letter responses in which support clearly did not read my ticket.

In August of 2009, I emailed Steam support to inform them of a very serious security hole with the password recovery feature. I wanted to let them know in case they were unaware of it, and I asked if they had plans to fix this any time soon. Instead of responding to my email, they simply reset my login information and told me to stop all communication with the phisher. They completely ignored the reason I wrote them, and then took action to reset my account without requesting proof of identification. Really Steam?

Over the holidays, I was also left wondering if I was charged for a game or not. Steam told me I owned the game and the billing was being processed, while the website told me my payment was declined. I could purchase the game again, but that would risk me being double charged for the same game. I could contact support through the ticket system, but the sale will be over by the time I get a response. If only there were live phone support I could talk to for serious account and billing issues, I may be more forgiving.

Instead, all services opt for a ticket support system, leaving their consumers waiting days for any help. Why do I want to invest in a company that cannot respond to me in a timely manner about important issues? If it is a minor issue, it is no problem waiting a little while for a response, but if I am having actual billing issues or my account becomes hacked, I don't want to wait days to find out the result.

Summary

I guess in the end it comes down to user preference. If you want another service to manage "purchased" games for you, and allow publishers to consistently price games over what they should be, then by all means I hope you find happiness with Steam. Personally, I chose my own rights, and not allowing a service or publisher to dictate how I choose to play my games, or what I do with them.

It just never ceases to amaze me the arguments I see being made for Steam. All to often I see people who believe they actually bought a game, when it was nothing more than access to a title you do not own. I also see those who berate all forms of DRM, but embrace Steam as DRM-free.

I personally fear what it will mean to the future of PC gaming. I imagine retail will still exist for many years to come, but as more publishers move to digital distribution, or adding Steamworks to their titles, we are allowing them to take our rights as consumers and control our games. Is this what we really want? Are we ready to hand over full control to third parties and publishers? Can we thoroughly trust in these services to have our best interests in mind at all times, or is their only concern lining their pockets?

Fear of DLC Preventing Purchases

2010-01-11T17:17:00.003-06:00

When I am deciding which games I would like to purchase, I typically base my decisions on the quality of the game and how much it costs. I am definitely a budget gamer, as it allows me to have more money to spend on other titles. So generally, I go with the game that seems to give me the most bang for my buck. However, I have recently come to the realization that downloadable content is now my primary decision maker for games, and it is not something I appreciate having to focus on.

Downloadable content has been around a few years, and is nothing new. It is essentially the equivalent to the expansion packs of days gone by, where approximately six months to a year after release, developers would release a giant pack of content to keep a game fresh.

My problem is, DLC has been sorely abused over the past few years, and I am now fearful of many game purchases. More and more games are announcing or releasing content the same day the game comes out. This concerns me, because I begin to wonder if this was content originally in the game, but removed so the developer could make an extra buck. Downloadable content is also becoming invasive, as with Dragon Age: Origins, where NPCs are basically in-game billboards to purchase more content.

I cannot support any game that has downloadable content on release day or right after release. It feels like a cheap grab for my money, and I begin to wonder how much care and thought was put into the base game. Was their focus on a quality experience, or how much they can leave out now, and charge more for later?

Until now, it has not been a problem to avoid such games. Yet, now I find myself becoming more paranoid about game purchases. Instead of focusing on buying quality games at good prices, I fear purchasing a game that will have DLC announced for it the next day. I was excited about purchasing Mass Effect 2 at the end of this month, but now I am not sure. Should I wait a few weeks, and see how Bioware will handle DLC? Should I just buy it now and risk it?

I believe I will wait, which means publishers have effectively scared me off from making any release day purchases from this point forward. I am not against the idea of DLC itself, but I will not support those which abuse the concept and clearly are not focusing on making a solid game alone, but how much they can make by chopping it up into pieces. Now it is time to wait, and see how Mass Effect 2 will be handled.

Resident Evil 5: Fun with Co-op

2010-01-07T20:20:00.003-06:00

I admit, i am a huge fan of cooperative based shooters. As much as I love the competitive nature of online FPS games, there is something relaxing and fun about playing a shooting game alongside a good friend. When Gears of War was released, the cooperative shooter genre seemed to explode once again and quite a few similar titles were created, which I was no doubt excited about.

One game that caught my interest is Resident Evil 5. When I briefly owned a 360 (eww!), I rented a copy of the game to play with one of my friends. I was iffy on this title to start with, as I am not a huge fan of creepy games, nor did I want to play a shooter with a gamepad (yuck!). I gave it a try though, and found myself pleasantly surprised. However, due to our LIVE subscriptions running out soon, we were forced to rush through and play on a lower difficulty (normal). So when I found the PC version of Resident Evil 5 for $12, I snatched it up to give it a proper playthrough, and have another co-op shooter to add to the collection.

I must say, this is by far one of the better cooperative shooters I have ever played. It does have its quirks, no doubt, but many of them are minor in the grand scheme of things.

My primary appeal with this game is it actually feels like you have to work together. Other titles tend to be basic FPS games with two people playing side by side, with little need to work together. In Gears of War, we were just simply shooting enemies together, and occasionally would split up when the game forced us too. In Resident Evil 5, there is just a little more feel of togetherness and the need to work together.

One aspect of the game that I appreciate is the need to coordinate inventories and weapons. You could just grab stuff and run off, but you will likely die in the long run. Instead, it is better for players to work together and use different weapons, creating excellent synergies during enemy rushes. For example, I primarily focused on using the shotgun for knockback and keeping the immediate area clear, while my friend focused on pistols and automatic weapons to finish them off. Even at the highest difficulty, good teamwork will dominate enemies.

Additionally, the game itself is simply impressive. Despite being on an aging PC that I hope to upgrade sometime this year, the game runs flawlessly at the highest settings and looks gorgeous. The environments are very well detailed, and you actually have a sense of being in a little village and not in some random map with a flat backdrop. It is interesting to play through a world that flows together, and devs allowing gamers to see their progress and what is up next.

It may sound silly to appreciate such simple things, especially in today's world of games, but as a long time gamer I have come to appreciate this type of stuff. Too many games in the past have haphazardly put random maps together, and then stretched some scenic picture to be the backdrop.

The game is not without its quirks though. My biggest dislike for the game is quicktime events. I prefer boss battles where I am reliant upon my own skills to survive, not simply whether I can hit a key combo fast enough. Quicktime events became events of frustration, and I get annoyed somewhat everytime they appear. This is something that needs to stay in the world of consoles.

Additionally, the controls take some getting used to, but I can't decide how I feel about them. I am so accustomed to shooters where you can freely move any direction without hindrance, but RE5 relies on a slower movement system that seems more accustomed for gamepad users. However, it does add some more realistic control to the game, and really isn't terrible. Once I became used to it, it feels pretty natural. The only real frustration is trying to do quick turns, where I either move to slowly or to fast. No matter how I move my mouse, there seems to be no middle ground.

All in all, this is an excellent cooperative shooter. It is likely not something I would play alone and relax with, but with a buddy, it is fun and at times, laugh out loud funny. Mistakes are going to happen, and hilarious results will follow.

Check it out if you are in the mood for a solid cooperative experience with a friend.

2009 Backlog

2010-01-04T01:43:00.002-06:00

I try to play through most games I purchase, but there are times I can't help but be distracted by another shiny new title that steals my interest. So, looks like I have my work cut out for me this year, along with the new titles I am looking forward to. Mass Effect 2 soon, and Supreme Commander 2 to follow! Not to mention, watching how Battlefield Bad Company 2 will turn out for the PC.

Backlog from 2009:
Torchlight
Trine
Medieval II: Total War
Mirrors Edge
Prince of Persia
World in Conflict
STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl

Some games I am not sure I want to continue on with, and others I just haven't been in the right mood to play such as Stalker. I absolutely loved Clear Sky, so I know Shadow of Chernobyl will be just as awesome if not more so. However, since I purchased it, I simply haven't been in the mood for a post apoc game. Torchlight, I just love it, but currently sidetracked by some other titles. I am determined to finish this game in hardcore mode!

The Dark Side of Holiday Sales

2010-01-03T22:26:00.002-06:00

The holidays no doubt mean an immense amount of holiday sales and savings. It is something fun to look forward to each year, as the savings can be pretty big at times. Yet, as with most sales, there is a darker side to them as well, and something I personally find very scary.

What I am referring to is not a problem with the stores or digital services that offer these games, but the incessant need of many individuals to continually buy things they do not need. Browsing forums, I am seeing post after post of people buying more games than they could possible play in one year, unless they only dedicate a few days to each one. Even if you confront them about it, they shrug it off and feel as though they got a bargain in the long run.

It just doesn't work that way. If, for example, you really only wanted 5 of the 50 games you purchased, you really are not saving a dime. The money you save is being wasted on games you don't need, nor will likely play over the course of the year or years to come.

The only possible explanation I can think of is people feel as though it makes them more of a gamer, and as if it is something to brag about. While some may find it impressive, I find it annoying. Gamers need to give thought to games before purchasing them, and not only look at the price tag. As gamers, we vote with our wallets, and if we buy crap, publishers will continue delivering crap. Whether the game is $1 or $50, it matters.

A few of the threads in mind while writing this post:
Total Damage Done (post #16)
Valve, WTF Are You Doing To Me? (post #1)

As for myself, I set aside a budget of $50 for holiday sales, and only spent $7.50 on Burnout Paradise. I was fairly pissed I even bought this, as two days later I finally found a store selling retail copies for $9. I would have gladly paid $2 more dollars to avoid the billing hassle Steam gave me.

The Ikari Stole My Heart

2009-12-29T01:17:00.005-06:00

(pictures coming soon!)

As someone who loves first person shooters, I understand the value of a quality mouse over any other peripheral you can attach to a computer. Approximately four years ago, I obtained a Logitech G5 laser mouse. It appeared to be a solid mouse with decent specs, and had an adjustable weight system to help the mouse move exactly the way a consumer may want it to. I had been a long time fan of Logitech products, and this mouse soldiered on faithfully through many online wars.

However, something in the back of my mind was nagging me to try something different. I had never indulged myself with "professional gaming" equipment, as I typically found it to be more of a gimmick than anything. I browsed way to many products to list, and read more reviews than I care to count. I was set on trying a Razer mouse, but I was still slightly annoyed at their site and their style. Why do mice need to light up in the dark? Why do pictures have motion blurs attached to them? I want a solidly built mouse that is gimmick free and designed purely for performance and comfort, not lights and motion blurs!

I then remembered Steelseries, who has been around for quite a while, and checked out their products. I became intrigued as their mice seemed to focus on specs instead of pretty lights, and they had a wide range of complimenting game surfaces. Everything seemed to be serious business here, and so I made my decision to forgo the Razer and take my chances with a Steelseries mouse.

Shortly thereafter and over the holidays, I obtained a Steelseries Ikari Optical Mouse and an I-2 Gaming Surface. It was a bit excessive for me and something I had never done before. A "professional" mouse and a freaking glass mousepad to use it on? I knew I had lost my mind, but I must admit there was a bit of excitement with trying something new.

The products came extremely well packaged and protected. This was a huge concern with the mouse pad being made of glass, but it arrived in mint condition from NewEgg (love you guys too!). I immediately hooked up the mouse, which has no need for drivers, and was playing in no time. All I can say is WOW.

The mouse is incredibly responsive and glides effortlessly over the glass surface. The shape of the mouse is very comfortable as well, and fits my grip style perfectly. I tend to hold a mouse with my hands in a semi-claw fashion on the top, and the palm of my hand resting on the back with a gap in between. The mouse is light and easy to move/flick with my fingers. More importantly, there seems to be no loss whatsoever in tracking, helping to remove any needless frustration in the midst of a battle.

The glass surface, well, there are simply no words for it. It sounds so excessive and useless, especially when there are less costly alternatives that are excellent as well (I have used a Func 1030 for years now). At this point though, I just don't care. It works perfectly with an optical mouse, and is so smooth that it is almost scary. As an added bonus, it just looks bad ass in its simplicity. I refuse to use anything else as long as I can help it.

The two products were no doubt made for each other, and the entire experience has been sublime to say the least. Thus, my heart is torn. Logitech has been faithful to me over the years, and the G5 has been an incredible mouse. There is some sense of loyalty there, and I hate to remove it from active gaming duty. However, in all my years, I could not have imagined a mouse performing as well as the Ikari has with the I-2 mousepad. I cannot seem to get over how effortlessly and freakishly smooth it moves.

In the end, Steelseries has just adopted a new lifelong customer. That is, so long as they continue to focus on quality and performance, and do not give in to pretty lights, 100 buttons on one mouse, or some other crappy gimmick that means nothing to actual FPS gamers. They have my admiration, and I am not sure, but I think I have theirs too.

Steamed Over Billing Errors

2009-12-28T23:02:00.002-06:00

One thing I pride myself on is finding the best deals for video games, and very rarely buying a new release on the first day. For those who are patient, games can typically be bought for more than 40% off the original price a few weeks later. It does require some investigative work, but it literally pays off in the end.

Sadly, everyone assumes Steam is the key to saving money on PC games, but that is very rarely the case. During the first day of their holiday sales, Mirror's Edge was marked down to $5. People jumped all over this title and bought it immediately, but I bought it for $6 retail a few months ago. Sure there is $1 difference, but in the grand scheme of things, I got just as good of a deal and I am not reliant on a third party service to "maintain" my games for me.

Anyways, enough ranting about that. With the Steam holiday sales that are currently going on, I have been keeping a close eye on the site. Although there were some good deals, I held off on buying any games. Unless I really want it, what is the point in buying something that will just sit there in my list unplayed? However, today the daily deal was Burnout Paradise for $7.49. I was excited, as this typically runs $30 anywhere you look, and I have wanted it for the past few months. So out came the credit card, and I knew I would soon be on my way to sandbox racing bliss.

Wrong. I added the game to my cart and entered my billing information. However, there I sat for roughly 10 minutes, waiting for the actual process to go through. It simply timed out, but I saw the game in my Steam list. I assumed it went through, and the website was simply being bombarded and couldn't show me the receipt. I was unable to launch the game though, and it claims my payment is still processing.

For hours I was left with a game sitting in "My Games" list on Steam, and I received an email saying my credit card was declined. I have never had a problem before like this. Yet, the game remained in my list and said it was processing payment. What in the world am I supposed to do now? I have less than 24 hours to purchase this game, and Steam won't let me. There is no support phone number, and email support takes to long. That is, if they even bother to read the email, as I have had previous tickets returned with generic form letters that did not answer the question or come close.

Apparently, I am not the only one with this issue. So here many of us sit, wondering what to do. Do we purchase the game again and risk being double billed? Do we wait for support and risk losing access to a wonderful game for $7.49? No clue. Moderators moved the threads to the support forum which is rarely read by the general public, sweeping it under the rug. The thread has since died and already been moved back a page at the time of this writing.

I have been frustrated with Steam before. I do not appreciate it when a third party service tells me their servers are to busy to authorize me, or I can't access a game because of network issues on either end. This really is the final straw though, as I sit here wondering what my credit card statement will say tomorrow. I am done with purchasing anything on Steam. I would completely remove the software if I wasn't forced to use it to access Counter-Strike.

The Regression of MMOs

2009-12-16T23:12:00.006-06:00

As I near the end of my 14 day trial in Champions Online, I can't help but think about the regression of MMOs. It is not that Champions Online is terrible, but it is the latest example of how this genre has removed dynamic elements in favor of "safe elements."

The Better Days

My first real MMO experience was beta testing Neocron. This game left a lot to be desired, but I fell in love with the idea of it. The world was fairly open, and once you left the safety of the core town, you were open game for any form of PvP. Players would band together and lock down sections of the city, or fight out in the wilderness. It was fascinating watching players group themselves together based on ideals or playing styles, and work for a common goal.

Afterwards, I moved to the pre-combat update version of Star Wars Galaxies, the first MMO I actually subscribed to. I am far from a Star Wars geek, but the game catered to practically all types of players and did it well. You could pick from a variety of professions, and focus in one area or become a jack-of-all trades. You could focus on socializing and become a cantina dancer, or you could work the economy by crafting and selling goods through actual physical stores you create. If you wanted to fight, you had a wealth of options to pick from. You could join a faction and fight the other, fight against the environment, or become a bounty hunter who specifically hunted Jedi with the help of actual working drones.

The only major problem with SWG was the lack of end-game content, and thus I moved to Lineage 2. I fell in love with the game, and it consumed my days for the next three years. The game itself promoted conflict by providing an open pvp system and resources to fight over. Every day provided some new form of drama as clans allied and warred each other. I was more impressed how seriously people took it, as I sat in on what sounded like a real world gathering between countries and a working of alliances. Shadowbane and EVE Online were also along the same lines as L2, with player controlled virtual societies and economies.

Current Games

Now days? MMOs are entirely dull. Developers no longer include a diverse profession system or open pvp within their game. Instead, games focus entirely on quests, limiting pvp to arenas, the solo experience, static economy, and limited professions/classes. Essentially, they are playing it safe and trying to avoid any conflict that may upset a player or force them to push their own personal limits as a gamer. Now, gamers no longer need to be bothered socializing, and can play most modern MMOs solo aside from the occasional raid boss. Now, gamers simply run through the motions, and no longer have any impact within the world.

Don't get me wrong through. Champions Online is sweet in its own way. It has no classes, and you have a wealth of customization options to create a unique looking character. However, the rest of the time is spent doing quests alone, or arena pvp. There is nothing dynamic within the game, and once you run through the missions, there is little else exciting to do. All that is left is to replay the game again and again with a new hero. A majority of it, other than a few instances, can be almost entirely solo.

I also played the beta of Aion, and was sorely disappointed. PvP did not open up until much later in the game, and I was forced to spend much of my time doing quests just to get to the better portions of the game. I did enjoy the flying aspect, but even that was limited and I was still forced to walk in certain areas. All in all, I felt like I was playing a glorified World of Warcraft, and I gave up after spending some time on the mainland. What is the point of doing more endless quest grinding just to get to pvp I hear so much about?

It's disheartening to see MMOs turn more into FedEx training programs than dynamic worlds that players can make their own. I hope in time things will change and games will return to the previous dynamic worlds that once dominated the genre, as well as become more varied in style and setting. Get over medieval fantasy already, and get creative.

/rant

Community Picking Up The Slack

2009-11-23T18:03:00.002-06:00

Sadly, many games today (especially on the PC) are released in a half-assed state or do not include features and settings PC gamers are used to having. One such game is Borderlands. I had a great time playing this with my friends, but it was also frustrating having to sit and tweak the most basic of options through editing files. Nearly a month after release, no support for these options has been added.

Sure the argument can be made they are busy and changes take time. However, these arguments typically fail when the community fixes them overnight or create external configuration utilities. If a typical consumer can do this in their spare time, why can't one person who is paid to build games do this within a reasonable amount of time?

Here is the result of one man's work made a little over a week after release. I get the feeling the wrong people are developing games, when the community can pump out working fixes more quickly.

Another Game Forcing Steam?

2009-11-23T00:20:00.001-06:00

Ever since I heard the announcement that a new Serious Sam game was being released, I have been fairly excited. I absolutely loved the older games due to the non-stop chaotic action mixed with a bit of humor. This week, the game is finally being released and I could not wait to get my hands on it.

I admit, I have not entirely kept up with the finer points of the game, and took it upon myself to assume it would be a normal release like most other games. I was determined to wait the extra week or so, and grab a retail copy of the game to avoid Steam. However, to my disappointment, I have learned this is yet another Steamworks title and I have no choice in the matter.

It is not that I am opposed to Steam for the sake of it, or to go against the grain and be different. The software does have its benefits for some, and I have used it since its inception when Counter Strike moved from WON to Steam. Over time, I have grown weary of it, and I have little interest in continuing to use it.

My primary concern with Steam is the fact that a third party service controls access to my games, and further removes consumer rights. It is frustrating when the Steam network goes down as it did tonight, or Steam does not allocate resources properly for a large promotion, and I am consistently denied access to my games because the server is to busy. All my games are legally purchased and paid for, and I should not be denied access because another company is having problems.

In regards to consumer rights, I no longer have control over my games. Games purchased via retail are typically allowed to be resold thanks to the First Sale Doctrine, which allows the resell of purchased media so long as copies are not made. Games purchased or tied to Steam cannot be given to a friend, traded on Goozex, or sold on Ebay. Effectively, Steam owns the game, I do not.

Normally, Steam issues do not bother me as I no longer purchase games through the service, and instead opt for retail only copies. However, now I am unable to avoid Steam there. More and more games becoming Steam exclusives, where retail copies are forcing consumers to use Steam regardless, including Serious Sam HD. Other previous titles are Empire: Total War, Modern Warfare 2, and Dawn of War 2. I am still annoyed I pre-ordered Dawn of War 2 online and was not aware I would be forced to use Steam. This is one game if I could resell, I probably would.

It is simply frustrating that I am losing my right as a consumer to purchase and play a game normally, and forced to use a third party service to manage my programs. If people want to continue letting Steam control their games and support excessive DRM, that is fine. Just stop forcing it on the rest of us who want to legally purchase a game and enjoy it normally.

I doubt I will be purchasing Serious Sam HD. I am tired of seeing developers do this, and I no longer want to show support for such games.

Company Transparency

2009-11-19T17:02:00.002-06:00

One thing I really value within a company is transparency. When a company takes the time to inform consumers of what is going on with the company and future plans, it shows they truly care about their customer and do not want to leave people guessing.

My demand for transparency has been reignited by the recent release of Stardock's annual consumer report. In the report, they talk about a variety of subjects that include regional pricing and availability, status of software, Steamworks, future plans, and the result of their consumer survey. Needless to say, it is a very interesting read and worth skimming through if you are at all interested about PC games and digital distribution.

The problem is, so few companies take the time to do this and show their consumers that they care. The best example is Stardock's competitor, Valve. Valve is well known for the lack of information they distribute or the ability to keep consumers informed of changes. It has been nearly one year since Valve's regional pricing scheme went into effect, enraging many European gamers. A thread on the topic has reached nearly 7K posts, but Valve refuses to comment on the situation, angering gamers more and leaving it to third party sites to investigate what is really going on. Few know the future plans of Steam, where the service is headed, or any basic knowledge beyond what we can figure out for ourselves.

I am not a huge fan of Stardock nor Steam, as I still opt for retail games over digitally distributed ones. However, Stardock is continually scoring bonus points in my eyes as they are transparent. The CEO of the company does not hide and regularly posts on forums, his blog, and responds often to articles. The silence of Steam makes them appear more and more like a large corporation who does not care about consumers.

Why can't more companies provide annual reports, or keep in touch with consumers? Is it so difficult to hire a community manager to keep the company informed? To let consumers know you care? To post updates or what future changes may be coming?

Mixed Feelings on Demigod

2009-11-13T18:59:00.007-06:00

Yesterday, Demigod went on sale for $15 at Impulse. Despite not being a huge fan of DoTA style games, I found the demo to be fairly decent, and I already knew a few people who had purchased the game. I decided to take the plunge since it was so inexpensive, and I must say that after playing a few games, my feelings on it are extremely mixed.

The game itself is fun, and I enjoy it a great deal. I primarily use the Sedna character, as she is a decent fighting and support class who can fill a few different roles. Not to mention, she just looks exceptional and more my style compared to other characters. It definitely takes some time to adjust coming from the demo though. Despite a 100% win streak the first few games, that quickly got wrecked as I began to encounter other demigods that were not in the demo and apparently, are pretty brutal if I am not careful. All in all though, I enjoy playing with my friends and find it entertaining.

However, with games such as this, there is one problem. Once a team gains a slight foothold, unless the other is very coordinated, comebacks are fairly difficult and it becomes a lopsided match. It appears people are unable to cope with this, and begin abandoning games at even the slightest hint at defeat. This is reminiscent of playing Left 4 Dead, when someone ran ahead alone and died, raged at the team, then ragequit because of it.

The sad things is, comebacks are possible if people coordinate themselves and try to work together. Leaving it early or midgame just screws the rest of the team over as the AI is severely lacking. One could argue there is little point staying if you are losing. Really? It gives you time to experiment and practice, and try to figure out why you are losing and how to improve. If you are continually leaving at the first sign of defeat, how are you going to learn what is going wrong? Blaming your team and claiming innocence is not the answer, but part of the problem.

Additional problems are the attitude displayed by many. I imagine I would be used to it by now, as few communities trash talk as much as those within the FPS genre that I play often, but at least those tend to be ignorable somehow. Starting out with an excellent win streak and not being a general "noob" to gaming, I still had a variety of people refusing to play with me and lol'ing at me in the server lobby. My friend was also playing alongside me with roughly 15 games under his belt, and we still had difficulty with some people wanting to team with us. People care so much about their stats and win rate, they forget how to have fun and just play a game. That's right, a game.

Sedna Domination

My other concern is the connectivity issues within the game. As most know, Demigod had a rough launch due to some networking errors, caused by a variety of factors. To me, this was forgivable though, as Stardock CEO Brad Wardell was very transparent about the issues and what they were doing to solve them. I loved hearing developers be open and honest about what is going on, thus they scored a few bonus points with myself.

There are still some very fussy issues though. During one game, the player window popped up and showed two players had lost connection to each other. As stated by others, we were stuck here until one decided to leave. Being on opposing teams, this forced one team to take a loss and play at a disadvantage. This was not just a simple timeout error, as both were still talking in chat, but somehow they were unable to continue playing together.

Honestly, I have no idea how I feel about the game. I enjoy the game itself, but the community and mid-game connection issues are headache inducing. Guess we'll see how future games go later tonight.

Torchlight Owns Me

2009-11-12T21:49:00.001-06:00

Upon starting Torchlight, I was determined to play the game on the most difficult setting with the possibility of permadeath. I have been having a great time, especially with how many battles have caused me to come close to death but I somehow pulled through. However, I lost my fifth Vanquisher today, and have come to the conclusion this game is brutal and I have simply met my match.

Rest in peace little one

No matter how well I may be doing or how pimped out my character is, there is always that one moment where things just get so insane, it is near impossible to pull through. Today's lesson? Don't take the phantom portal on hardcore mode. Just...don't.

Surely the sixth time is a charm...?

Modern Warfare 2 Hosting

2009-11-12T21:40:00.002-06:00

Alright, this is my last post for now on the whole Modern Warfare 2 craze, but I had to post it as it made me laugh a good deal. I honestly have no idea what Infinity Ward was thinking, but sadly, it sounds like they are not changing their mind despite the negative effects on gameplay. On that note, enjoy.

Seriously Guys?

2009-11-12T21:34:00.002-06:00

I am all for boycotting what you firmly believe in. I believe consumers should exercise their rights and speak up against bad behavior by various companies and services. However, it seems people do not fully understand what a boycott means, and have made them and others a joke.

Here is a hint. If you are going to boycott a game, don't purchase it and play it while still part of a boycott group. You completely nullify the message you are attempting to get across, and companies will continue to believe they can do whatever they please.

Battlefield Bad Company 2

2009-11-10T20:44:00.007-06:00

I will admit, I have been out of touch with news on various first person shooter games. I have been fully aware of the upcoming Bad Company 2 release, but I rarely research titles more in depth until closer to release due to the immense amount of changes that happen between the initial announcement and release. In wake of the Modern Warfare 2 release and surrounding issues, I decided to begin researching other upcoming shooters, including Bad Company 2.

DICE has made it a point on multiple occasions to take a dig at Infinity Ward by claiming in multiple interviews they will not remove dedicated server support, appearing to stay true to the multiplayer community. This no doubt is good news, and shows the series will not deviate to much from what we know and love.

However, I saw something else that caught me off guard. Bad Company 2 will feature regenerating health. I realize this is old news to those who regularly keep up with the game, but as I mentioned, I typically avoid doing so until game concepts are more finalized. This is extremely disheartening, as I am a fan of the older model that uses finite health and medics for regeneration, creating a good sense of danger, atmosphere, and teamwork within the game.

Browsing around online, I came across this interview by GamerBytes, where the health regenerating system in 1943 is discussed.

"Battlefield 1943 will be the first Battlefield game with regenerative health. Why make the change? Is this something we could start seeing in all Battlefield titles?

PL: This is not a grand plan to implement in all future games, but again something we think is suitable for this game in particular. It’s feels like a modern game mechanic that’s very common in many shooters nowadays, and one of the goals here has to make it more accessible to more players. It really changes the pacing in this game, to the better we think. We’re not necessarily making it less deep, but it’s just another kind of depth, you’ll have to manage your health in another way."

That answer scares me a bit, that they are using a certain mechanic because it is very common in other shooters now. I personally could care less if other games use it or not, I do not play those games. I play the Battlefield series that has always featured the older health system, and relied on medics to tend to wounded players. It was a great system, so why is DICE now deciding to copy other games? In an unofficial poll on the BFBC2 forums, 69% of the players do not want regenerating health.

So what is the deal with disliking regenerative health? It is not that I dislike the system itself, it works fine in certain games. I had absolutely no problem playing with it in Gears of War. However, the Battlefield series, along with others I play, are quasi-realistic military games. I feel regenerating health destroys the pace of these games and removes the element of danger. Players know if they survive the initial firefight, they can hide and camp somewhere until they heal themselves, then haphazardly run back out into the fray.

Finite health systems, in my opinion, slow the pace of the game and require players to work together for safety. It provides the element of danger, knowing that any bullet wounds will cripple your chances of surviving future firefights and require extra caution. I loved it every moment I played Counter Strike, as I may be wounded and the odds stacked against me, but I was able to pull through without the use of regenerative health. Such events required me to pace myself and listen for sound cues for the perfect time to attack. It was great watching squads stay together in the Battlefield games and working with medics (or being one).

This is not a complete deal breaker for me, but I am on the fence regarding whether I want to try this game or stick with the previous games in the series. Battlefield 2 and 2142 are still highly populated and use the methods I prefer more. I am also aware, according to some articles, BFBC2 is more oriented towards being a single player game with multiplayer added on. This alone gives me hope for BF3, which is already in development, will remain true to the series with finite health and an intense focus on teamwork and medics. I hope enough gamers express their concerns to DICE and encourage them to return to what the series has been before the introduction of 1943 and BFBC2.

Shooters for the Masses

2009-11-10T03:25:00.019-06:00

As most know, today is the official release of Modern Warfare 2, a game shaping up to be the most controversial release on the PC this year. This is primarily due to the choices Infinity Ward and Activision have made during the creation of this title, including the removal of dedicated servers, a new matchmaking service, the forced use of the Steam client, and smaller maps with fewer players. Needless to say, Infinity Ward has lost touch with the multiplayer community, and removed the very foundation of online FPS games that we have come to know and love.

However, this is not a rant about dedicated servers or matchmaking. As much as I would enjoy writing about it, I feel there is little I can say that has not already been said, and gamers are well aware of the absurdity of these decisions.

What I would like to touch on is, why are gamers all that surprised Call of Duty has evolved to this? As a long time player of the genre, there has been a clear progression through the series of it becoming a more relaxed, casual shooter built to cater to the masses. By this, I mean the game is continually designed to be more friendly to newcomers and remove the learning curve that comes with traditional games.

The first game started off great, and was a simple but extremely solid shooter with no gimmicks involved. As the series continued, more casual friendly features were placed within the game, including regenerative health and perks. These so called features have removed the competitive edge from the series and made it more friendly to the average gamer. I am fully aware there is a "hardcore" mode which removes the HUD and ramps up bullet damage for quicker kills. However, this is not the primary way the game is played for most.

As sales continue to rise and make the series one of the most successful franchises in video game history, it is no wonder Activision is now removing dedicated servers and decreasing player count. As more casual friendly features were added, sales increased exponentially, and thus Activision believes that is what players are after. To continue along this path, they are now trying to streamline online play by removing the need to deal with servers, ping, and even the fear of becoming overwhelmed by to many players.

Latency Indicators on PC Version

Simply put, the Call of Duty fan is just as much to blame as the company itself. Gamers have continually encouraged Activision to create a more relaxed shooter, and Activision has followed along this path. I am not defending Activision either, as the choices they have made for Modern Warfare 2 are asinine at best in my opinion, but I can see how gamers have indirectly encouraged these decisions to be made.

No doubt many will disagree with me, and I can understand that viewpoint as well. However, the newer generation of FPS gamers are not aware of my history with the genre and what it used to be. FPS games relied primarily on skill, rewarding player speed and dexterity. If you were a newcomer, you were expected to learn and practice a great deal if you wanted to keep up with seasoned veterans. There was no magically regenerating health, perks, gimmicks, or other features to assist you along your way.

Now publishers are attempting to appeal to the masses, and by doing so, are creating a series of FPS games that continually remove features that were previously deemed essential to online gaming. The more gamers purchase these titles, the more Infinity Ward and Activision will continue along this path. Now the developers are removing dedicated servers, something that provides a rich variety of places for gamers to play and find a community to call home. Games are now being made with smaller maps and players per server, helping the game be less overwhelming for the average gamer. Matchmaking now dictates our online experiences for us, so consumers do not have to understand server options, ping, and more.

My point? Consumers have encouraged this behavior, causing the FPS genre to continually lose sight of its roots and support publishers as they create shooters for the masses, not dedicated fans. Had gamers not eaten up every Call of Duty title, and spoken with their wallet, the company likely would have stuck to the older formula and not removed our beloved dedicated servers among a variety of other things. With the massive sales Modern Warfare 2 will bring, expect the situation to get worse, not better.

There are still some franchises out there that remain the hope of gamers like myself, and some developers have publicly stated they will not remove dedicated server support in future titles, showing they have not lost touch with the dedicated and competitive group of FPS gamers that still exist. If you have become frustrated with the latest turn of events, I implore you to try some of the other, more solid games out there that provide a wealth of options and solid gameplay.

For quasi-realistic games, I suggest CS/CSS or the Battlefield series which has been excellent and has maintained a solid fan base over the years. The CS series is brutal for newcomers, but rewarding for those who are able to learn and meet the challenge. The Battlefield series focuses more on tactics and teamwork, relying on squads and classes to work together for success while providing a fun experience. If you really want to get old school though and work on speed and dexterity, try the Unreal series or Quake Live, two fast paced, crazy shooters that will always be dear to me. All I know is I am glad I did not purchase any games beyond the first Call of Duty, knowing I did not contribute to the slap in the face FPS gamers just received.

Torchlight Awesomeness

2009-11-07T18:59:00.003-06:00

When I first discovered Torchlight, I was extremely excited to have another co-op action RPG to play with my friends. It is fun and refreshing to go adventuring together with others you know, and try to create synergistic builds for complete annihilation. However, when I found out the game would not contain a multiplayer portion, I became deeply disappointed and on the fence about whether to purchase the game or wait for a weekend sale. A close friend who had already been playing the game chipped in and grabbed me a copy to end my distress, and now all I can do is feel guilty for not wanting to purchase this sooner, and support what has turned out to be an excellent game.

One thing about Torchlight is, it does not pretend to be something new and crazy. Instead, it clearly mimics the early Diablo series and attempts to improve upon it. They have done an excellent job in my opinion. The most noticeable improvement is the visual style, as the game sports a vibrant artistic style that is fun and interesting to look at. It is especially nice to enjoy a modern action RPG that supports higher resolutions, causing less eye strain after long periods of play.

The gameplay itself feels solid. One of the first things I noticed is skills and crits actually have some oomph to them. Nothing sounds week and underpowered, but match the environment and destruction you are causing. The screen will shake at times and the sounds are excellent. Nothing is more satisfying (at my current level anyways) than getting lined up just right for Ricochet, and watching the screen shake and all the creatures in my way become obliterated.

Another nice touch are the underground merchants that are randomly placed throughout the game. I was already aware of the pet companion who will carry items back to the surface and sell them for you, but I was never told these mysterious merchants existed along my journey. It is great to have an additional resource to offload items on, and purchase a few basics so my experience continues unhindered. I am a pack rat, no doubt about it, so I am loving every bit of this.

More than anything, I enjoy finding the oddest combination of weapons to use and making them work. My first class is a Vanquisher, the equivalent to the Diablo rogue, who specializes in bows, crossbows, pistols, or rifles. The game supports dual wielding, and you are not limited in what goes in each hand. You can use a pistol and shield combination, or a pistol in one hand and a freakishly large mallet in another. It looks comical, but it works well. If you choose to mix ranged and melee, the game understands this and will save precious dps by using each weapon accordingly. You will always use your pistol at range, and melee weapon when a creature gets to close for comfort. With the crazy bonuses on the weapons, I am having a great time mixing and matching, and no longer being limited to specific builds.

(My apologies, XFire messed up the audio sync slightly)

There is much more to write about this game, but honestly, I am antsy to start playing again. While Diablo will always remain the classic and first choice for action RPGs, Torchlight has become the best competitor as of yet and overtaken Titan Quest and Dungeon Siege in my mind. Oddly, I have not noticed the lack of multiplayer. While I would love to play with my friends, I find myself so engrossed in the game I tend to forget that I am playing alone. That alone is a major feat in and of itself, as I very rarely play action RPGs without additional players.

Kudos to Runic Games, you have a new fangirl.

Direct2Drive Speaking Against MW2

2009-11-05T15:41:00.002-06:00

I personally do not play the Call of Duty series, as I have been disappointed where the series went after the first game. I prefer more realistic games that do not involve gimmicks or regenerative health mechanics. However, I have still been following the drama a great deal, as I find it amusing the choices Infinity Ward has made and how they have destroyed the foundation of multiplayer shooters on the PC.

More worrisome than the choices being made regarding gameplay, are the choices being made for distribution. Infinity Ward and Activision have opted to tie the game directly to the Steam service. While I use the service myself, I still prefer to have the option and freedom retail provides. People claim the convenience of online services cannot be beat, but they fail to see the inherent problems that also come with the service.

Direct2Drive has released a public statement today on the matter, and it is one which I agree with. Consumers should not be forced to use additional third party clients, as they lose control over how they may access a game. They are the mercy of the service with little to no options. Publishers need to not remove consumer choice and force them into any one service. With three major titles now having tied themselves to Steam, I worry if this will continue to be a growing trend and continue to diminish consumer rights.

I can't wait to see the next blunder from Infinity Ward, there are still six days left until release.

Edit: Nevermind, I was just linked to this article. So much facepalm.

SWAT 4 Gold

2009-11-05T15:06:00.001-06:00

Earlier this year, a friend pointed me towards some hilarious SWAT 4 gameplay videos on The Spoony Experiment website. I remember when this game came out, but I never got around to actually purchasing it for myself. After watching the videos though, and replaying the demo, I couldn't wait to grab it.

Sadly, the game still remains fairly costly considering its age, and thus I have never been able to bring myself to purchase it. I kept an eye out for various GoGamer sales or mark downs at Amazon, but it still remained pretty high. Low and behold, dropping by my favorite cheap games store, Half Price Books, my craving for tactical shooters has ended.

As much as digital distribution appears to be taking over the industry, this is why I will never fully convert to using these services. Retail provides so many benefits and bargains that online services cannot compete with.

Gamers Are Becoming Too Soft

2009-11-04T14:59:00.004-06:00

One of the most disturbing trends I have seen within the gaming community is how gamers are becoming spoiled by features that previously did not exist, and can no longer handle the challenges older games once provied. Some of these features include regenerative health and quick save systems. If a game lacks such a feature in today's market, consumers log into various forums and vent their rage, claiming a developer is lazy or is using game mechanics from the '90s. I find it baffling to see how gamers have changed over the years, and now complain when a challenge is presented.

Although this has gone on for years, I am going to use some of the more recent examples. Last month, I continually heard about the game Demon's Souls for the PS3. Despite being primarily a PC gamer, my interest was piqued due to the surrounding hype. A friend tipped me off to a "quick look" video at Giant Bomb, and thus I decided to check it out. Within 6 minutes, I was already shaking my head at the comments being made.

The reviewer states that health and mana do not regenerate once depleted. The secondary reviewer asks if it regenerates at all through the level, to which he was told it does not and you are required to use items to restore health and mana. The primary reviewer then states the game "uses a lot of mechanics that were crafted in 1990 like not regenerating health and not regenerating mana," followed by, "this game is hard." Further comments include suggesting to turn up gamma and ruin the atmosphere, as it is not worth risking death and losing collected souls, and no quick saves exist in this "brutal" game.

I was both amused and disheartened at the comments. The amusing part lies in how many games in the past did not rely on regenerative systems or a quick save option, and achieved great success. Now when games are released similar to those of the past, they are deemed hard, brutal, and only for masochist. The disheartening part lies in how it is a clear indication of gamers becoming spoiled by gimmicks and casual systems that have invaded mainstream titles.

Growing up, I remember one of my favorite games on the NES and SNES was the Zelda series. This game has no regenerative health, nor could you quick save in the middle of a fight in case things go wrong. Gamers played through this game just fine, albeit it provided additional challenges. The Diablo series was even more difficult, as dying meant losing equipped items and gold, and having to run a good distance to retrieve it. Few people complained about these games and they have become famed classics. Why then, are we complaining about games that follow in the footsteps of these titles? Are gamers becoming so incapable they can no longer handle a challenge that requires some planning and actual decision making before charging into a fight?

This is not an issue related solely to Demon's Souls or Giant Bomb videos. Recent releases, Torchlight and Borderlands, have also received some criticism, as gamers claim these games rely on the ancient Diablo system and do not improve upon the genre. Gamers complain about free-for-all loot systems not being fair, and find the "hardcore" mode of Torchlight pointless without a quick save option. For those who are unaware, hardcore mode refers to character permadeath, something quick saves would nullify. Essentially, if a game provides a challenge, expect a majority to complain about how wrong the game is.

Role-playing games are not the only genre that suffers from casual features spoiling gamers today. My biggest passion within the game world are first person shooters. I enjoy the competition and camaraderie found within this environment. I have spent countless hours in the Counter Strike series as well as the Battlefield series, among many others over the years. Yet, I find myself playing far less shooters these days, as they have become plagued with gimmicks and made far to easy.

The best example I know of is the Call of Duty series. I fell in love with the original game, and played it a great deal upon release. It was a solid shooter with excellent gameplay for its time. However, I have not purchased any further Call of Duty games, as they rely on regenerative health systems that remove the challenge and thrill of battles. Some of my favorite moments in shooters have been when I am low on health, and fighting to survive and outsmart my opponents. If I succeed, a great sense of accomplishment ensues as I was able to win using a crippled character by outsmarting and outshooting opponents. In modern shooters today, this feeling no longer exists, as one can hide behind some cover and restore their health. The only reason I can see these games remaining as popular as they do is it makes first person shooters more accessible to a mainstream, casual gaming audience.

Please not I am not against replenishing health in FPS games, only those that place players in a quasi-realistic setting but add features that are clearly out of place. Health systems in Unreal Tournament or Battlefield I find to be excellent, as they fit the setting of each game very well. The Battlefield series is especially nice, as it promotes teamwork for the sake of survival.

I do understand and appreciate that there is an immense amount of variety among gamers and what they wish to play. However, I find it worrisome that more games are leaning towards the casual side by implementing user friendly mechanics that remove challenges seen within older games. It leads one to believe this is the future of gaming all together, games based on casual mechanics and instant gratification without any skill involved.

I believe the following video is an excellent example of where we are headed in the world of video games. Although this is still a young gamer at only 11 years old, it shows the vast differences between classic games and modern games. He specifically states it is not as easy at Halo or Call of Duty, two of the most popular FPS games on the market today. When asked if he would devote time to such a game, he says no and would rather play Call of Duty.

Do we really want to continue on the path of quick and easy games that require no skill or challenge to complete? Games that promote instant gratification are often the first to be discarded once the novelty has worn off. There is little reason to return to a game when you know exactly what is going to happen, and you are simply running through the motions, not truly interacting and working towards a goal. I for one hope more games with "mechanics from the 1990s" are released, as I am tired of casual features invading my games.

Great, another 'girl gamer?'

2009-11-03T21:45:00.003-06:00

I can already hear the sighs from my fellow gamers, asking themselves why is there yet another girl gamer attempting to grab attention via blogging? I promise you, that is not the case. I am not here to harp on sexism in games, nor am I here to ask explore why more games do not appeal to a female audience.

The purpose of this blog is to discuss how games and communities have changed over the years, sadly not for the better. I have seen some shocking and surprising statements made by both gamers and the industry, and I fear for the future of my beloved hobby. I worry games are becoming to casual and mainstream, and no longer providing the enjoyment, challenge, and quality they once did. I hope to provide some perspective from a seasoned gamer, and create discussions on where we are today and where we are going.

You may be wondering, why use a 'Game Girl' title if it does not relate to the primary content I am writing about. To be honest, a majority of other titles I wanted through Blogspot were already taken, and this sounded like a good temporary title. An added bonus is I hope to provide better representation for female gamers. Currently, there are many who play games in an attempt to gain attention from the large male population, or those who have never played anything other than The Sims but pretend to be seasoned gamers. Frankly, I find them highly annoying.

So on that note, I hope you enjoy browsing the musings of a random gamer girl, and find what you see interesting or helpful.