The Net Neutrality post

I'm going to be honest: I really didn't want to have to write this post. "Net Neutrality" has always been one of those super charged and politically loaded catch phrases, and with a controversial court decision this week it has become only moreso. Getting into a neutrality argument is akin to a PS3 versus Xbox 360 fanboy argument. Both sides just throw out straw man talking points that barely have any connection to the truth.

You can't even research the subject of net neutrality all that well, as virtually every source out there is loaded with a view point and only gives you a tenth of the counter argument. It is, without a doubt, the most annoying and ridiculous subject to have to write about.

I mean, just look at the name of the issue: "Net neutrality". What kind of loaded crap is that? Who wants to be against keeping Internet access and content fair and neutral? But that isn't even close to what the FCC was trying to do here. In fact, "net neutrality" kind of sounds like the "fairness doctrine" that regulated broadcasts. Who wants to be against "fairness" on the radio? - Except that it didn't promote fairness in the least. It was just a huge overreach by the FCC, and a government power grab that crippled political free speech across the broadcast medium.

But it is political and, tangentially, it has to do with games, so the damn thing falls into my blog's jurisdiction.

Lameness.

Let me get the controversial part out of the way first: I am anti "net neutrality", and I'm glad that Comcast got the better of the FCC recently. There you have it. If you have a burning hatred for me now, so be it. Go read another blog.

I can see why it might seem like a good idea to not allow broadband service providers to limit bandwidth to certain customers. In fact, as a gamer it certainly seems scary and unfair that my cable company could decide to knee cap my speed just because my games suck up so much bandwidth in comparison to other people who just browse the interwebs in their off time.

But here is the thing: They haven't actually done that. Not yet anyway, and we don't have any real proof that they are even thinking about it. What they have done is put a cap on bandwidth in response to Bittorrent users. Bittorrent users, who suck up unreasonable amounts of bandwidth at all hours of the day, while they aren't even at the computer, and who are more than likely downloading something illegally. I'm all about protecting the rights of the consumer... But these consumers? Fair enough, my hatred for software pirates burns so brightly that I say f*** those particular consumers anyway.

And here is the most important part that EVERYONE seems to miss: This whole thing was just a big FCC power grab! You may not totally be in love with the idea of the ISPs being able to cap bandwidth, but how can you POSSIBLY think that it is better to put the government in charge of that? I trust Comcast WAY more than I trust some government bureaucracy. Comcast may try to cap certain activities based on the wasting of their resources, but the government will try to cap certain activities just because they get it into their stupid heads that it is somehow bad for us.

Eff that, says I.

And for all those the-sky-is-falling doomsayers who came out in response to the court decision last week: Don't worry so much, political hacks bros. Again, us normal bandwidth consumers have nothing to worry about at the moment. And even you bittorrent pirates don't have much to fear. ISPs will likely come out with a tiered access plan for you. You want to suck up a load of bandwidth by downloading movies and leaked game betas? Fine, just pay a little extra per month for premium access.

So everyone calm down. It may be hard to see, but the good guys lesser evils won.

March Round up

Review Round Up for March:

• Mass Effect 2: The core gameplay doesn't suck quite as much as in the first one, but that still isn't the reason why you come to play this game. The story is fun and full of good Trek style space drama. And you get to sex up Tali (in the worlds most disappointingly tame sex scene ever). Unskippable, long intro cut scenes, along with not particularly inspired gameplay (uninspired, but not at all painful like in the first Mass Effect - worth noting) keep me from replaying the game now or ever. Buyer's remorse? I borrowed this one from a friend, so no. Even so, I'd say it was fun enough to be worth $40.
• Blade of Darkness: I have to come back to this classic 3d hack and slash platformer every couple of years. This game is everything Price of Persia 3 was supposed to be, and on top of it it has a very innovative and brutal combat system that rewards strategic dodging and precise timing. On top of on top of that it has graphics that were drop dead gorgeous at the time the game was released and a realtime shadow system that holds up pretty well even today. This game, from Euro developer Rebel Act Studios (now defunct), should be in every PC gamer's library (but isn't in many).
• Die by the Sword: I picked this one up on a whim from Good Old Games last week. You can't help but love the wacky, wonky, and novel as hell control scheme that basically lets your mouse directly function as your sword arm in-game. Who would of thought that a studio that has for the last several years (and CoD sequels) been so creatively dead, Treyarch, could have come up with such a novel and fun approach to hacking and slashing. The downside to wacky, wonky combat is that it makes the single player extremely tough and random. Now, I'm sure there are some Die by the Sword masters out there who can fight two Ogres at a time and dissect them like insects with their precise mouse movements... But that isn't me, or likely most other players who can't do anything more strategic than flailing their sword arm around like a spastic tard and hope to get a random decap on our Ogre boss foes. Also, the game at times has some really awful level design that is so bad that it makes you wonder if it is some kind of sick joke. But in the end, getting your leg cut off and then hopping-and-flailing your way to a victory decap is still one of the most satisfying hack and slash experiences that can be found. Buyer's remorse? For 6 bucks? None at all.
• Lead and Gold (beta): This offering from newly formed small timey Euro developer FatShark which, if word on the street is correct, is comprised of a lot of ex-Grin employees, has just hit Steam this past weekend. The game will premier at $15, but you can preorder now for 10% off and an entrance into the beta. Basically, this is a 5 on 5 team class-based shooter set in the wild west. Now, for the scary part: It is an Xbox Live Arcade port. Now for the even scarier part: It is really damn good. Yes, I said it. This is an Xbox Live Arcade port that doesn't allow (at the moment) for dedicated servers, doesn't let you change any graphical options, and doesn't even have chat implemented yet because it is such a bare bones port... And yet the game is just so damn good at what it does that I can't help but love it. It is the next best team shooting game to Team Fortress 2, and it is only $15. It gets the shooting almost completely right, with just a few small balance issues that are acceptable for a beta. It nails the presentation with great graphics combined with a unique look. It gets the team part of team shooter right by adding the class "synergy" feature (basically, it is an aura unique to each class that buffs nearby teammates, thus promoting sticking together in groups). Plus, how many other wild west themed games are there? Buyer's remorse? Not on your life.

Tiny Previews:

• Just Cause 2 demo: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-boring. There was a time when "sandbox" meant something special, but now it seems that sandbox games are almost a majority, and Just Cause 2 does nothing to stand out from the crop. Basically, this is Mercenaries with a grappling hook. Now, I admit that I did get a big smile on my face the first time I grappled a civilian to a moving car and watched as she got dragged down the street and swung into the side of a house. But everything about the core gameplay - the shooting, the missions, the weapons, the bad guys - everything is just so bland that I can't imagine anyone enjoying this thing. The demo is limited by clock, and I found myself bored and completely done with the game long before the short timer ran out.
• Splinter Cell Conviction demo: This blew me away. First off, just so everyone knows, I hate stealth games. I just hate stealth. I even hate games that aren't stealth games but make me do it for just one level for a diversion from the main gameplay. That is how much I hate stealth. I hate having to crawl instead of run, and having to plan out my movements precisely, and having to reload just because I was spotted and that screws everything up. And the Splinter Cell series was like the king of hardcore stealth. Sure, there is Metal Gear, but that has always been Stealth Lite in comparison. If crap goes down in a Splinter Cell game, you are almost always toast. If ! goes down in a Metal Gear game, you just hide in your box and wait for the bad guys to forget about you. So yeah, I've never liked Splinter Cell. But Conviction seems to have been made for me. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of stealth. You are still totally rewarded for careful planning, and thoughtful movements. But the rewards are for gamers like me. See, for every carefully planned Splinter Cell Conviction stealth execution, you are rewarded with a Sam Fisher Super Move(R). The Same Fisher Super Move allows you to pick any three targets in a room and just destroy them with your pistol, in a method so cinematic and satisfying that I will never get tired of seeing it. Finally I have a real incentive to be a stealthy shadow of death: If I am, I am allowed to briefly be an action movie hero and get a "get out of any sticky situation free" card. Truly, this is a stealth game made for me. I, for one, can't wait.

Rebel Rousers

Have we all played the new AvP yet? Good, so we all know of its mediocrity. Everybody who has played the thing has been able to figure this out instantly. It must go without saying that the UK developer Rebellion, who presumably have played the thing more than anyone, must also be more aware than anyone of just how mediocre their game is.

That is why a Gamespy article about Rebellion and AvP really caught my eye. Actually, it caught my eye in a few ways. First of all, in the UK AvP is now the fastest selling game of 2010, despite having a Metacritic rating of 65 (for a little bit of context, Xbox Live Arcade game Polar Panic has earned a Metacritic rating of 69). That is worth a double take right there.

But if that is worth a double take, what came next is worth a spit take. When confronted with the clear evidence of the not-so-great critical reception of his game, Rebellion CEO Jason Kingsley counters with: "The reviews have been mostly good."

...Buh? On the outset this seems to fly completely in the face of the facts. Maybe he clarifies his statement, so we read on: "We've had three totally shit reviews by some Americans, which is a bit odd. Some of them were inexcusably bad. If you discount those poor reviews AvP is averaging high for us."

Ah, I see. So basically, if you ignore all of the shitty reviews for your shitty game, the game is actually a critical success. By that logic you can say that if you ignore the 5 bad reviews for Polar Panic, then Polar Panic is actually a contender for game of the year.

Now, I have to admit that my initial reaction was to get all pissy at the way he seems to try and play the victim of the bigoted anti-Brit, American game journalists. And to be fair, he really does seem to be trying to do just that. But if you look a little closer, you can see what is really happening. I mean, even IF you discount those three reviews, the average only goes from 65 to 68 (and yes, I really figured this out by finding the average of all the reviews with the exception of the three worst). You can hardly call a 68 average a "critical success", and Rebellion knows it. So why would they say otherwise?

This is when I remembered a little something that happened in the gaming community just a couple of years ago. FASA had just released its Xbox 360 game Shadowrun to tepid reviews (66 on the Metacritic). That is when the head of FASA jumped on a gaming podcast show and started ranting about unfair reviews. In particular, he was bothered by the way so many reviewers touched on the $60 dollar price tag. For my own part, I loved Shadowrun as a Counter-Strike clone with a twist on the 360. Yet there truly was not enough content in the box to justify a purchase. How can you not factor that into a review, which primarily exists to help consumers figure out if they want to buy the game or not?

Anyways, what happened next is that the game undersold, and then FASA was liquidated by Microsoft. The whole "these reviews are crap" thing was just FASA trying to justify its existence to Microsoft. FASA was blowing smoke and trying to stay alive as long as possible.

Fast forward to the present day, and we see developer Rebellion trying to tell everyone that everything is a-okay despite bad sales in the US and bad reviews everywhere. Blaming bad American game journalism is just Rebellion's way of spinning the situation so that SEGA won't liquidate them in the same manner that Microsoft killed FASA.

Is it deceptive? Yes. And annoying. But I guess I can't blame them much. They are just trying to hold on to their baby. With that in mind, I'll even root for them a bit. Rebellion doesn't have a terrible pedigree (they made the first AvP, after all), and maybe they have a good game left in them if they are given the chance to make it.

As for the initial double take, the game outselling all others in the UK. This stat is just as bewildering as ever. If I had to guess, I would say that this doesn't so much indicate that the game is flying off of the shelves in the UK as much as it indicates that nothing is flying off of the shelves in the UK. The total game sales numbers must be crap, and AvP has just managed to become king of that extremely small hill. But since I can't find any total sales numbers anywhere (and I barely bothered to look), I can't really back this up.

But I'm probably right. As always.

Game Review: NOLF Part 1

So I watched the newest James Bond installment this weekend. I think it was called "Quantum of Solace" or some such, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it sucked. And that it got me into a frisky spy mood.

So I immediately ran upstairs to my stash of old games and dug out a popular gem from the year 2000. "No One Lives Forever", developed by Monolith on their Lithtech engine (which powered other great games like Aliens VS Predator and other bad games such as Shogo: Mobile Armored Division) and was published in Y2K by Fox Interactive.


For the uninitiated, NOLF is a first person shooter set in a 60's spy environment. The story and all of its characters are equal parts spoof and homage to all things good and bond. You play as sexy spyette Cate Archer, a low tier agent in the British Secret Service who is struggling to gain attention and credibility in a very sexist environment. You should probably be aware that the game was released to solid praise, and is often cited as one of the better games of all time, including recently in a 10-best-games-in-the-decade list compiled by one of my favorite (NSFW) video reviewers "HotLezbianAssassin".

You should probably also be aware that my first playthrough ended after about two hours of boredom, whereupon I uninstalled the game and never looked back until last Sunday. Yes, I first bought the game while everyone else was singing its praises, and immediately hated the experience and quietly shelved the thing.

But now I am coming back. There has to be something to all the praise, hasn't there? Maybe now that I am ten years more mature the game will appeal to me in ways that it couldn't before. Of course, game design has also advanced ten years since the release, and with it my standards. But supposedly the game has withstood the test of time, and I will endeavor not to be too anachronistic in my criticism of the thing.

After having completed the first mission my thoughts are thus: Yup, I still hate this. Part of the reason for my blogging this review is that I don't think I can muster the will power to keep playing if it isn't for the blog.

But before I get to that, my initial thoughts were "holy crap there is a lot of exposition in this game". This is, in all fairness, some of gaming's (at least FPS gaming's) first stabs at trying to make a movie-like experience and tell a real story. But instead of bringing the player into the experience and telling the story around him with scripted sequences (like in Half-Life), this game opts to go with ten minute long cut scenes, wherein two or three characters stand in a room and talk to each other. The dialogue isn't particularly bad, and sometimes is even quite witty, but after the five minute mark I find myself struggling not to hit the skip button.

As for the meat and potatoes of the gameplay, NOLF likes to be something of a stealthy shooter. You are encouraged at all times to sneak around and cap enemies from the shadows. I hate this mechanic every time it is tried. And while it is integrated here better than in most games, I still would rather run around and blast things. Unfortunately, you really can't do that here because baddies are ridiculously good shots, often hitting you through the damn walls, and your health never recharges throughout a mission (though you can get new body armor) so conserving it is imperative.

Also, because of the stealth element the level design is more open than your average corridor shooter. Usually this is a good thing, but not ten years ago. Ten years ago there was no Halo, and so nobody had yet thought that if you have an open level design you should put indicators around the level that tell the player which way to go. In Halo, this was something as simple as green lights on openable doors and some arrows on the floor. But NOLF is before all that, so you are forced to try every door to see if it opens, and I often find myself running around the level looking for that one place I haven't gone yet. Again, to be fair a lot of games from this time have suffered from that, Half-Life included.

The palette cleansers, ah the palette cleansers. I could be wrong, but I think NOLF may have even invented these little devices. To explain: A palette cleanser in gaming is when you do something completely different for a small level of the game, and it is used to break up the monotony of the game's bread and butter gameplay. For example, in Gears of War this was the vehicle segment. So far NOLF has thrown a sort of gallery shooter at me and it was just sort of interesting to note that I can't really think of other FPS games at the time that did this sort of thing.

There will be more to come as I play through. I will probably only update the review on weeks when there isn't anything particularly fun to write about that relates both gaming and politics. Weeks like this one. Also, screen grabs.

Until then, have fun you sexy secret agent readers.

The Olympics Take Gold Medal in Irrelevance

It was tough to pick this week's topic. On the one hand, I had found an interesting news story that has to do with gaming and the people who don't get it clashing yet again. On the other hand, the people who don't get it are this time played by the Olympic Committee, and who really cares about them anymore?

The scoop is that some competitive gaming advocate is trying really hard to bring LANs to the Olympics (presumably with medals for which team plays the best Counter-Strike, not who can chug the most Mountain Dew: Code Red, or who can get laid the least), but the Olympic Committee is having none of it. I would quote the exact arguments for you, but they are so weak that it is sufficient to say that they consist of "Gaming IS a sport!" and "Nuh-uh!".

Personally, I still wouldn't watch the Olympics if they included gaming. But with half of the sports on the roster being so niche and rare that nobody even knows how they are played (what the crap is "skeleton" or "nordic combined" anyway?), why not add a place for one of the fastest growing competitive diversions in the popular culture?

As an aside: I know a lot of people want gaming in the Western world to be treated with as much pomp and celebrity as it is in places like Japan and Korea... But why? Gaming is for nerds, and I am happy with that. I don't want to watch jazzed up tournies of nerds who think they have a skill worth being idolized about, being idolized by sheep audience members, all for playing a game that is ten years past its expiration date (*cough* Starcraft) with such a science that the fun is entirely sapped from the game play experience.

But maybe that is just me.

Dante's Inferno: Rich in Iron(y)

So Dante's Inferno (the game) has finally hit the streets and I've had a chance to give the demo a spin on Xbox Live.

I want to make it clear that I haven't played the full game, so it is possible that some of my opinions based on the demo may be wrong.

I also want to make it clear that I don't really need to play the full game to form my opinions on it, as it is a shameless derivative of God of War, and thus it is most likely that my thoughts are correct. As always.

The game is comfortably mediocre, but the sheer averageness is not what I want to make a focus of in my writing. I want to draw attention to just how hard they have tried, nay struggled, to make a game that is offensive to Christians (Catholics, in particular). I find it interesting because, from a game design perspective, this is the most extreme example that I can recall of taking a AAA budget game and spending every penny on marketing instead of making a good game.

You may recall the mock protests over the game that EA put on (tastelessly, even for them) at last year's E3. The initial idea was to make fun of christian groups that the media likes to popularly portray as always being loud and angry about something or another. In an odd twist of fate, the people most fooled by the mock protest were many in the mainstream media who, in a stunning display of ignorant prejudice, couldn't help but jump at the chance of making fun of those ignorant, prejudiced religious folks.

I should point out that, to their credit, many gaming media websites, like Gamespot, actually got it right. Maybe they hate EA more than they hate religion.

I also can't help but find it amusing that they should try so very hard to craft a Christian bashing game, knowing that of all major religions the Christians are the least likely to try and kill you over your insults. What they were counting on was some angry blogging to generate buzz, and none of the more unpleasant things that can happen when a certain other religion gets insulted (I'm looking at you, Zarathustrians). Fortunately, no religious groups took the bait and the only insulting thing about the game is its own shallow gameplay (and, if you are well read enough, the butchering of a classic work of literary art).

The game itself has you in the shiny metal boots of a Christian crusader who dies and, obviously, goes to hell for his part in the war. Then you kill Death, and something something something, your constantly naked wife is murdered and for some reason she goes to hell too (possibly for never wearing any clothing) and, yadda yadda yadda, the poet Dante Alighieri teaches you magic spells and helps you traipse your way through hell and a series of images and landscapes straight out of the Subversion for Idiots guidebook.

As a final note: The gamer in me can't help but add this bit: The game of Dante's Inferno is, after all, worth a rental. I look somewhat forward to button mashing and quick time event-ing my way through this thing on some boring weekend. Also, they clearly hired the same people who did the Heavy Metal cartoons to do the cutscenes for the game. That, for me anyway, is a small plus.

Still, I'll probably have to roll my eyes a bunch along the way to the end.

Back with vengeance so fiery!

Expect updates once a week on both this blog and my Stingy Hat game dev blog(http://stingyhat.blogspot.com/). Speaking of which, check out my up and coming game over at Stingy Hat. It should release within a week, as soon as I add a HUD and figure out how to get SDL to build in release mode.

Anywho.... Game Politics!

This week's topic of discussion: Venezuela? More like VenezGAYla! Am I right?

Basically what happened is that Hugo Chavez took to his popular weekly radio show this week to uncover games for the evil, capitalist brainwashing tools that they are. During his show, which I believe is called "Listen or Die with Hugo in the Morning!", Chavez made the sinister connection between games, violence, and drug use.

As it turns out, "Some games teach you to kill." Furthermore, these games are all made by (evil) capitalists for (evil) capitalist reasons. What else is made by capitalists? Drugs.

Ah, now you see. Clearly, video games are full of evil subtext that tries to lure our youth into violence and the fair market system. Drugs can lead to violence and are also bad, erego drugs = videogames.

Confused? Well I've drawn up this handy diagram for you using MSPaint technology. Enjoy.

Read more about this story here.

Also, check out my new review of Army of Two: The 40th Day at 360Fahrenheit.com, kindly posted by fearless leader and all around foxy lady Tara Jayne.