Star Wars: The Old Republic

Also known as Star Wars: The New Dead MMO.

I don't get it. This new MMO by Bioware is good overall... the graphics are nice, the setting is engaging the voice acting for all the NPCs is refreshing... there are problems such as the PvP system, particularly disappointing for several reasons but I'll get into that later. Ultimately though the Old Republic is good... better than WoW that's for sure. So why does it seem dead mere months after release? I propose three major reasons.

1. MMO burnout: I know that I will not raid seriously in SWTOR because I'm just not looking for that experience. The raiding or 'operations' read like it would be fun... but I can't see myself doing the grind, finding 7 or however many people that are needed and killing bosses for hours straight. And I'm certain I'm not alone.

2. Bioware fucked up; pre orders of the game were able to play pre-release and there seemed to be too many people on too few servers. So Bioware put up a lot more servers... but a lot of these people appear to have been just checking things out and now the servers feel underpopulated or even dead. How this could be fixed I'm not sure but they need to do something.

3. WoW is still running; SWTOR is better, much better in my estimation... but there is a strong pull when you've been playing an MMO for a long time, a kind of gravity that constantly threatens to suck you back into the world of Blizzards creation... Despite its apparent loss of market share it's still a big game and it's hard to compete with that.

The first reason seems to be the greatest, from what I've been hearing it seems the losses from WoW haven't moved on to another game, they've moved on from the genre entirely. I can't blame people for dropping MMOs, I think it's the nature of the beast. A quick game of a shooter with mates will never lose it's attraction for me, but when an old friend asks me to log into WoW 'for old times sake' I say, jump onto ventrillo and I'll have a chat, skip the boring grindfest of a game.

Anyway, Star Wars! PEW PEW!

As I said, Star wars is a good game and I'm enjoying treating it like a single player game with multiplayer distractions such as dungeons/Flash points. The major negative is that I hate the PvP.

When I first played the game the PvP seemed pretty good, imagine a situation, where a level 10 character and a noob in PvP is on a nearly equal footing to a full level (50 in SWTOR) in terms of health and stats and such. There would be some differences, namely the skills available and their 'talent build' as you learn more skills and unlock more talents as you level up, but a skilled lower level player can and did dominate higher level characters due to this PvP balancing Bioware implemented.

Then they fucked it up... FUCKED IT UP HARD!

There's a PvP stat... WoW players will understand immediately what that means, but let me explain: In WoW, there was a stat you could build called 'Resilience', it was a kind of armour or defence that only worked when fighting other players and was the result of the initial design of WoW, player characters tended to be glass cannons dealing a lot of damage (or healing or tanking) but being relatively fragile compared to the NPC bosses. As a result, the best strategy in PvP was to simply aim for the biggest damage output so you could 'burst down' or blitz your opponents before they could do the same to you eliminating any chance for strategy or planning beyond "WHO DO WE KILLZ FIRST LOL". In other words...

Resilience was Blizzards band-aid fix to make PvP viable in a game designed for PvE.

This meant, if you were a new player or you were on an 'alt' that PvP was torture until you got a basic set of PvP gear, this turns off new players and leaves you with a situation where PvP games can become stagnant. Ultimately, the majority of dedicated PvP players have the same or similar gear making the gear essentially irrelevant except to allow you to brag in public chat or on the forums.

Now imagine, if you will... a game where they've designed PvP such that the survivability and damage output of a character is defined solely by the class and specialisation choice... and skill. No special stat required, right? But wait, if there isn't a special PvP stat, then the gear in PvP could be used in raiding, we can't have that! And we have to have SOME sort of gear reward for PvP. So Bioware introduced a stat called Expertise which increases your damage output and reduces incoming damage in PvP. This is only on gear from doing PvP, as you might expect.

Expertise is Biowares band-aid fix to make PvP gear attractive when it didn't need a fix at all.

PvP is fun before this stat comes into play, mercifully you can't get any of the special gear until you hit the leveling cap so while leveling, you can enjoy the PvP as it could have been. Once at 50, you once again have to choose... Lose over and over again in matches against people with the special gear, or avoid PvP altogether. And in this way, Expertise is WORSE than resilience! Because in WoW you could wear powerful gear from PvE/raiding into PvP matches and do alright without the resilience, but in SWTOR the only stat that matters in a PvP match is Expertise! So you MUST suffer the torture of the PvP gear grind and suffer you do... as a new level 50 character in PvP your role is to die... and die... and die and be abused by your team mates for being worthless and losing the game for your team.

And that, is not fun and I will not do it...

This black mark will likely stop me from bothering with PvP entirely, which will limit my options at level 50 to doing the odd flashpoint or operation... and as I'm not interested in being a full raider again and the game seems too quiet this will probably lead me to cancel my account when I finally become bored with leveling new characters.

Missed opportunity Bioware.

Keeper3 - We didn't need special gear rewards to kill each other in Quake, we don't it for PvP in MMOs.

Sword of the stars 2

Also known as "Patch of the updates 2: Fix day"

I bought Sots2 on release day... they still haven't delivered the finished game... the news page on steam is a list of patches longer than a bad day on WoW after a major fix and it's just ridiculous. The game was UNPLAYABLE and I contend that Steam and the developers have essentially committed fraud and cost many people time and bandwidth for little gain.

I wanted to do a review of a game, not a failed attempt at delivering one.

Keeper3, just because there isn't a game yet, doesn't mean I can't hate it.

Rogue Warrior

More like "Rogue yawnior".

I thought about writing a huge post, listing the things I liked and disliked about this game when it boils down to one, simple thing.

There's no effort here... nothing beyond basic mechanics, basic story, basic graphics. It's a D- game, barely passable with only one interesting feature: the voice acting treads into "so bad it's good" territory, though it's never Laugh Out Loud the insipid dialogue and the deadpan delivery do make me chuckle from time to time.

That's it, I refuse to put more effort into a commentary on this game than was put into its development cycle.

Keeper3
So bad, it's really bad.

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.

EvE Online

Soooo I've quit WoW, as those who read my blog would know, and to fill the void I've been playing EvE; a game once described as "A game for those people who are to nerds, as nerds are to normal people".. essentially people who are nerds squared.

Is this true?

Well, yes and no, EvE does require more patience, more research and math than say WoW. It's a weird little game with a small community consisting of many little factions, alliances and mobs each with their own slightly different spin on what the game is about. PvP, missioning, pirating, industry, Planet Interaction or all of the above and more.

It's a broad yet deep game, it's almost too much and can scare new players away... though there are plenty in the community that don't mind.

Ultimately it's a niche game, a niche full of amusing nerdy stuff about flying through space and doing almost whatever you want... a little like elite.

...the physics are kinda fucked though; it's like flying a submarine.

Keeper3; I likey my space ship... it goes zapzap!