Rage; also, RAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

So, ID software recently release a game called "Rage", and ironically there's plenty of rage surrounding it. I'm mostly indifferent, although somewhat amused at Rage. I just don't care about it... to me it looks like a rehash of the Fallout setting and, worst of all, the PC version is essentially a port.

I was all set to ignore Rage and allow it's existence to fade away from my memory and slip into my subconscious... until I saw this.

John Carmack "We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games."

...

"That statement will enrage some people,"

No, really?

"but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version."

He goes on about focusing on consoles for the development of rage, and that while PCs are 10 times more powerful, it means that 10 times the effort is required to make use of that power and other complete bullshit.

PCs may not be the leading platform for games, but they should be. Why? Because everyone has a PC. EVERYONE! So when you make a good PC game, your audience is EVERYONE, not the fraction of people that own a certain console, every household in the western world... If developers could actually sit down and make games that would bring the punters in and use what the PC has they would know this.

But no, it's easier to develop for consoles, so let's just ignore the PC.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, if they make SHIT for PC, no one will play games on the PC... and if you can get exactly the same damned game on console or PC, why would you deal with the technically more difficult PC unless you're good with technology? On top of that, the PC has the worst restrictions when it come to copy protection, is it any wonder there are those that want to avoid it?!?

Carmack, you are a disgrace, once you were a pioneer in gaming development, your company essentially created the online FPS genre, now you're just another hack using his past efforts and his companies brand to sell mediocre rubbish. Like Lucas, Spielberg and any number of greats that have been laid low by their own fame, confident that only they can be right about their field and ignorant of the epic failures of their most recent projects.

I'm going to go play a better game than rage... Like Quake.

Keeper3, Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage!

PS Oh, and the release of the bloody game on PC was atrocious, mister "multi-platform" developer.

Quake 4

Subtitle: What the FUCK happened here?

Let's back up a bit...

Quake was landmark title, it was so good that despite us being in the age of Modern Company of Honour*, where sequels of the 'big names' of the modern shooter genre are just tiny incremental improvements, there are still people playing Quake, Quake 2 and Quake 3.

So... what's wrong with Quake 4?

Well... Unfortunately it is essentially of the modern age... and it's shit, thus the subtitle.

It's strange really, Duke Nukem Forever comes out with all this fanfare... and disappoinment. Quake 4 barely rated a mention... I didn't even know it had come out until I got it on special on....

WAIT FOR IT!

Steam.

It's funny because it uses imagery from a comic about child abuse...

This game is essentially a bad modern warfare... it's like taking the obsession of realism from modern warfare and mixing it up with over the top movie US Marine bravado and bullshit gears of war Space Marine gorilla men.

Oh, and the ending is stupidly bad.

That's really all I can say... this game shouldn't exist, it's like a squibs fart at the end of a series with an otherwise great pedigree. It takes away from the series. I mean, if I show this to someone that hasn't played any quake game before, would it make them want to play the others?

NO!

And even if it did... it would be under false pretenses... because it is soooo unlike any of the other quake games! Even quake 2 which has a similar story and setting, plays it in a much more sobre and subtle way.

Play something else... I know I did. That's right, I didn't finish the game, I looked up the ending on youtube. Glad I did or I might have snapped my keyboard in frustration at the time I wasted to reach that ending!

...bloody useless game. I don't even remember what made me play it as long as I did. Oh, there was one section that was interesting; at one point your character gets captured, and partly converted into a Strogg Trooper (mind control, cybernetic enhancement, etc), but you're rescued before you mind control is turned on. Up to that point, you really do feel kinda helpless and it was actually pretty engaging... then it ended and all that really happened is that you were now stronger and had more health.

Meh. Wasted opportunity for some really dark story telling.

Keeper3,
Oh how the mighty have fallen, ID... just die gracefully.

*Modern Warfare, Bad Company, Medal of Honour... and it is 'honour' NOT 'honor'! I speak and spell the Queens English!

DLCs and the death of the expansion pack...

DLCs are interesting... In essence, the DLC is a replacement for the old idea of an expansion pack... How many "expansion packs" have you seen in the last few years? Beyond the next sack of insipid content for your chosen poison of the MMO variety I can't remember any.

Sooo... is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Well, ultimately it doesn't matter. The slow, unstoppable change to electronic distribution won't be stopped by our complaints or any misstep by any random company. But let's look at it anyway!

Positives:
DLCs allow you to buy only the content you want! Each DLC can be a bite sized bit of content that is both easy to download and install yet give you plenty of enjoyment for your money and bandwidth.
DLCs are easier to make than an expansion, meaning more content will be available (on average) compared to what we used to see.

DLCs are a less risky method to providing content, allowing developers and publishers to release more experimental types of material that in our modern profit driven existence might not otherwise see the light of day.

Negatives:
DLCs are the next stage of non-complete-release-itis; back when games were on cartridges or floppy disks (that were actually floppy! *gasp*) it was bad practice, worthy of flogging, to release a game with any notable bugs... let alone leaving the game unfinished! These days incomplete games are sadly common, with endings that show a lack of care and game killing bugs, poor design... etc. DLCs are often promised to fix various issues, a DLC pack should not be considered a good way to deliver bug fixes.

Stupid ideas for DLC! E.g. Horse armour... FUCK YOU BETHESDA!!! Simple model and skin changes, stupid boosters to your characters for no good reason... Essentially pay to win booster packs for your game.

And finally, Day One DLC; this has a special place in my cold, dead heart, Day one DLC covers any 'content' that is either used as a stick to flog people who buy a game second hand or as a way pretend a game is cheaper than it actually is and sell important game content at an inflated price. EA are especially guilty of this practice and seem to have elevated it to a level of an art form providing BOTH TYPES of day one DLC for their most recent opus, Mass Effect 3 (Oh, and a review is coming for that one folks!).

Conclusion:
DLCs are good overall, but it's clear that just as any game that comes out can be a piece of garbage fodder or the best thing since sliced bread DLC content isn't necessarily good or bad so my advice? If you love a game and it's got DLC have a look, otherwise ignore.

Keeper3 - Ooooh... there's DLC for fallout 3 that makes it NOT CRAP!!! Oh wait, that was a mod, nevermind.