This is all you got?

Rambling Post #357
Two gaming posts in a row? Wow, really big into gaming lately. Nothing about the upcoming story project, or goings on at the Ranch, or politics, or something that caught your eye or just about life in general. I could talk about lottery pools or go on about the sudden chill in the air that the seasons have brought us or general opinion stuff. Remember when I was mad at Burger King for putting fries on the burger? I could do that. Maybe family events? Changes in dietary habits? Books you've read then? No, none of that. Just the gaming then? Damn. I need to get out more. After I finish this game. And it gets warmer.

Before I saddle up and take on the Quentin Tarantino -esque masterpiece of Red Dead Redemption 2 (started my download on Wednesday night, thank you very much, only took took 30 hours) I want to take a moment to examine the title I'll be putting on hold for a while. A very long while. My original plan after finishing the sorely disappointing Just Cause 3 earlier this year was to dust off my older Playstation and revisit the original Red Dead Redemption. But my "To Be Played" list is so long - damn you flash sales - that I started a new title instead.

I think Rockstar has spoiled me.

The title that  I started was Mafia 3, the story of a black Vietnam vet taking on the mob in a fictional version of 1960s New Orleans. The game specifically indicated in the setup that to the producers felt it imperative to the gameplay that the player experience the actual racism that the main protagonist would have experienced. But this is a first person shooter. So the hero is a black guy...shooting racists in the old south. This would be the part where I give a sinister smile and say..."Go on." But that's it. And it's executed so poorly that had I won the billion dollar lottery I would have bought the title, hired new developers and redid the whole thing. As I said, Rockstar it is not.

Rockstar set the bar for open world games and nobody seems to have even gotten close since Saints Row 2 (another title I would have bought and done over, but just for the better visuals). Now let me say this, the location cinematics for Mafia 3 are amazing. Driving through the downtown area at night or traipsing through the swamp right at dusk are just visually stunning. The layout of the city, with it's divisions has a good feel for it as well. Right about there however, is where the game goes left.

It all looks so nice. But life is more than looks. 

Let's start with driving. I'll admit it, I'm used to wheeling and dealing about under sunny Los Santos skies going where I want how I want, i.e., driving on curbs, breezing through lights, clipping pedestrians, etc. Police shmolice, pfft.  As you move through the city in Mafia 3 however, the game makes a point of letting you know the cops are watching. So a drive through the city feels different. Plus the brakes are too harsh, people lean on the horn to quick and it all feels stiff. Even when I had the cops on my tail racing through the bayou it didn't feel true.

Then there is the actual gameplay. Most shooter games let the player decide how to approach things. Are you sniper? Do you lie in wait? Ambush? Go in guns blazing? Well, not so much here. Despite implying that the game allows some choice, based upon the tools you have and the way the weapons are set up it's basically a stealth game. That you only get two guns at a time is okay, I even enjoyed the tactical feel of making weapons decisions in Far Cry. But you're limited to less than 40 bullets for both the pistol and the other gun, the health bar is wonky and the bulletproof vest may as well be worthless. I mostly find myself working myself through the maze of the building, dock, warehouse, or where ever it is, lying in wait in a dark area until the enemy NPCs split up and then whistling to lure one of them closer where I do silent takedowns. So I'm maybe shooter isn't the best term.

What's severely lacking here however, is what makes the difference between a top tier title and everything else: There is simply nothing else to do in this gorgeous setting. A top tier open world game, like say Witcher 3, is practically overflowing with races, side characters needed things, etc. They have none of that here. They have the standard collectible search, but it's hardly a search since there is a simple way to display everything on the map which reduces the hunt and find to run around and grab. And although there is money, er, kickback and other cash, there is nothing really to spend it on. Your outfits are all set at the beginning so no shopping, you don't have to eat, one of you lieutenants has a car service to brings rides. Other than on your very limited arsenal, the money is barely a way to keep score. And with no side gigs it means to me that most of the map is just wasted.

Just some ideas. Since the ambiance radio updates go on about civil rights activities, why doesn't this character have a mission or fifteen dealing with that? And the main character gets a CIA buddy to help him out, so why are those side missions in the DLC? This could have been a robin hood -esque story with moral choices. There should have been a shopping system where on the poor side of town he can shop but as the neighborhoods get more racially sensitive, he's not allowed to shop unless the clerk is black or he has to buy the store? He should have had a hideout, or series of hideouts that he could upgrade. There is so much they could have done with this...and they didn't. Maybe it's all in the DLC?

Sigh. 

Barkeep. Two fingers of rye. Enough of this, I got to mount up and ride!

Wither mine 2K

Ramblings Post #356
I like gaming. I first started gaming on a PC, long before consoles were a big thing, with a game called Cannons. You estimated wind and powder needed to shoot the cannon on the other side of the valley. It was thrilling at the time. At this point if the game is well put together I'll give it a try. At least that's my excuse for Dwarf Fortress, as it is very well put together. But because I'm not totally cerebral, I also enjoy the occasional console masterpiece. Or I did. The more things change...

My affection for the company that produces the better console basketball simulation is long gone. What was a fun little setup that allowed you to live out your NBA superstar fantasies has become a near naked annual digital shakedown. I'm a realist, and I am fully aware that games are not charity or community work and that companies need to turn a profit. I am also fully cognizant that stuff that used to be part of the game is now sold as DLC, as well as this newest development of planned accelerated obsolesce.

As you may know, I'm a Playstation guy. Not that I have anything against XBOX, but I kinda do. Not the point. But my unit was one of the older models with a paltry 500 GB hard drive. It sounds like a lot, and it was when your average game was 35-55 GB. But as the games get more complex, the sizes have also grown, the next big thing - Red Dead Redemption 2 - was supposed to be coming in at 105 GB. I understand now it's just 88 GB, but that's still pretty damn big. It would, er, it will take up almost 20% my hard drive. But my drive was over 90% full. Which means something had to go.

Or did it?

A conversation with the guy at Gamestop, they are actually good for something, kicked off a little research and I eventually stumbled upon a Playstation upgrade kit. At Staples of all places. (Amazon has one too, same kit.) With that in hand it took me a short half hour to switch out the smaller drive for a larger one. I had properly backed up my games - use the backup feature if you do this, don't just save your game files like so many YouTube videos say, otherwise you leave out your settings, backgrounds, and your saved highlights. It was after I reloaded the games when I discovered the issue.

Now, I still have 2K15. I like 2K15 because I play Career Mode and the this is the last one free of much of the dramatics of the modern iterations. Just a touch of story: you start on a 10 day contract and play your way into the league. It eliminates the possibility of Rookie of the year or the Rookie all-star game, but it's still a pretty fair little deal. I understand the new 2K has you start in China and go through the developmental league. Ugh. Why they don't go back to the All-Star game play-in sequence from 2K12 I don't know. Or why with every new year you have to start over instead of letting your character continue like in The Show. In any case, I'd played my first half a season - and I play the full 48 - and my character had become a hot commodity. I was in the midst of a 2 year deal, the league's leading scorer, clocking some endorsements and my team was first in the division.

So I'm checking to make sure it's all back. I had a ton of Witcher 3 DLC, but since it was all free why wouldn't I? My Mafia 3 game picked up like I hadn't even turned off the game. Baseball, sword fighting game, WWII bomber game etc., were all good. I start 2K on my new drive and ...to play my saved 2k game, which I played off-line after they took the game servers down, and my system says it needs to connect to those now non-existent servers.

Yeah.

Now, when I bought the game the servers were still up. Yes, I've had it that long. And after the shut them off I actually restarted. Now after switching out my hard drive, I have to restart a third time? For like serious - serious?

I really don't want a My Career game scripted by Spike Lee, or starting in China, or whatever. It's shame that modern gaming has devolved from "getting what you paid for" into "getting what I want you to have until I need you to buy some more product." If 2K just created a cap out patch every time they shut down the servers for a previous iteration, allowing you to keep what you paid for, OR sold a side DLC that let you import a previous character or league with all the accumulated stats into the latest version I would be fine with their business model. I might even be cool with buying the new versions. But this just feels wrong. It feel exploitative. And since I'm the one being exploited, it's extra not good.

May have to check NBA Live and see what they've got to offer. After I've played Red Dead Redemption 2 for a while of course. 

Barkeep, I'm need my saddle and my gear. It's almost time to ride out. And whiskey neat while we're waiting.

Just Cause 4 what?

Ramblings Post #350
It is a downright crying shame that in this day and age of insane visuals and renders in modern game play that I still spend the majority of my time engrossed in the not particularly visually friendly, always frustrating and constantly in need of a tweak Dwarf Fortress. My latest fortress has me trying to stave off mass PTSD (I"m trying to see if letting the dead bodies rot away before moving the remains from the battlefield minimizes the effects to the non-military dwarves). And yet I find doing that more stimulating than finishing up Just Cause 3, which I bought on DAY ONE. 

I actually tracked down a copy of Just Cause 2. Seriously. I went to like five stores in Atlanta to get one. And it is one of the greatest games ever built. A huge campaign area with vast highways, jungles, cities, villages and military bases to raid. There was the space ship launch facility, the night club in the sky, the mysterious island, a snow hill run, nuclear subs, and it just kept getting more and more over the edge. Okay, taking the campaign bases got repetitive after a while, but that almost became an afterthought as you traveled through deserts, swamps, broke naval blockades, leapt off mountains, ducked through cities, raced speedboats and flew jets. It was the kind of game that was just this side of perfect. So, when Just Cause 3 was announced I was sure that what they'd done was just worked out those last few kinks on their way to building something magical. 

Boy, do you want to talk about disappointment.

At first I was like wow, then I was well, then I was like waah! That last one is me crying. What came out was what happens when you try to be extra, but forgot what made the original (or in this case the second one) work so well. I'm not even sure if the makers understood what made it so great. Part of the joy of JC2 was the campaign was integrated into the play area, making it feel interesting. The map was expansive but made sense, the villains just enough but not too crazy. It felt organic. All that went away with JC3. The military bases looked like something out of a James Bond film, the troops seemed cartoon, the missions too long or just ridiculous. And while I didn't mind the arcade features of something like Far Cry 3, because they weren't integral to the gameplay, the number of times you go back and blow something up for "funsies" or to earn a new toy in JC3 ruined the immersion.

And the map. Lord the map. While yes, flying a jet from one end of Panau to the other in JC2 could take 10 minutes, but the map didn't feel too big. And there was always something to do there. In JC3, there are whole sections of the map with no bases, no villages, no hidden goodies, no...nothing. Maybe I missed something but damn. I finally just stopped playing, which has me messed up because now I feel funny starting anything else on the PS4 because the game isn't finished.

Which brings us to Just Cause 4. With tornadoes, and lush jungles and...just stop. My understanding is that JC3 was intended to be something else - a more social game online affair rife with micro-transactions and shared achievements. And then they blinked because that really isn't a Just Cause thing, or it tested poorly or something, went back and stripped all of the money parts out and we were left with...that. My question is, with JC4, did they go through with it this time? Because I can just replay Just Cause 2 again. Seriously.

Barkeep. Maybe I don't want to play a game with 400 of my internet friends, then what? My order? Can't you see I'm trying to unload some thoughts here? Obviously that means gin.  

Why not? It's Only a Dollar....

Ramblings Post #314
First you click the button, and you go weee! That's how they get you. Like drugs. First hit is free. That's how they get you hooked on that...um, whatchacallit, Candy Crush. Before you know it you're Mafia Warring, Farmvilling or worse. That's when they got you. Before you know it you're giving up your Latte and muffin for a power-up or a shiny new tractor. Just stick with the drugs boy. Cheaper. Smarter! 

I've been writing quite a bit, a couple of pages a night (not much of it usable) and researching,  wasting more time on reddit than I'd care to admit in mixed company, and so this blog and my game play have dwindled and currently consists of monthly updates plus the free to play games in the Apple Store on my Ipad. Don't judge me. This desperation has pretty much convinced me that I really need to create one of these phone gaming apps because this right here is just ridiculous. I've downloaded and deleted more than a few, but I see what they're doing and I'm pretty sure that once I'm finished this project I can come up with something a few million folks will be willing to download...as long as it's free to start. That's the key.

I've written about the dangers of DLC in the past, but this is something different. Good DLC is like adding toppings to a burger, making an already good product better. Bad DLC is selling you the bun and charging you extra for the meat, making you pay extra for what should have come standard. This is DLC supreme. It's selling you that same burger by the bite, and calling it gourmet. It's reminiscent of the old double my pay scam I once read in a Richie Rich comic book. 

The few games I've taken the time to start all begin the same way. Some relatively crudely designed story to make the cartoon mechanics of the game make sense, and an incredibly easy first level. You feel so alive, like the conquering hero! This continues to the second or third level depending on how many levels there are. Or, if there are only six levels, like in the racing game I downloaded, then you just get the one. I mean, I was the king of the track the first season. Win after win, zoom, zoom, zoom. Then came season two. And suddenly it's like I'm racing against Ferrari in a little red wagon. And looking at the way the game is structured, it doesn't appear you can't even really grind you way through like you would in a regular console or PC game. So I figured, why not, it's just a buck, and opened the power up menu.

Whoa.

Okay, kids, let me say this, if you look through the power up menu of one of these "free games" and one of the items has a retail value over $40, you might want to think about just deleting that whole game. Because I've got a business degree and modicum of experience, and I'm fairly certain when I tell you that this seemingly ridiculously priced item for a casual game you play maybe ten minutes per day if you're bored, IS THE BARGAIN PRICE. A deal if you will, the discounted hook-up. This price actually SAVES you money. Because I'm also almost fairly certain that what the developer would prefer you do is take the $1 or less option. Because you'll do that without thinking about it. Repeatedly. And so eighty five 'why not, it's only a buck' mental justifications later, they've doubled their income.

For the record, I'm just gonna try to grind it out and see how that goes. It will certainly make the game last longer.

But that give someone a buck mindset, that is what the developer is aiming for. A six or seven hundred thousand curious downloads of something as brilliant as matching the shapes, and the average developer is in high cotton. And let's say a fifty percent bailout rate at the first level. Which translates to three hundred thousand on the first round. Then you figure each level up another ten percent out.... it just keeps adding up, dollar by dollar. If you get lucky and get a Candy Crush, with fifty MILLION or more players, you can get to a few hundred million in a snap. Just like the old Mars Candy Co, a billion dollars a nickel at a time.

I've often lamented as to certain business models and their effectiveness for getting people to part with their money, usually as deceptive or unethical constructions. This I envy. This I want in.    

All I need a theme.

Barkeep, I'm gonna need some five hour energy, a sketchpad and three peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Brain food.  

And it's street name is....DLC.

Ramblings Post #232
While I prepare for the future, I'm playing a few computer games. My mother would deride me for playing, but games keep the mind sharp, like the puzzles we used to do as kids, because that's all most games are: big 3D puzzles. I prefer strategy games, where they give you the tools and let you succeed or fail based upon your planning as opposed to how fast your thumb twitches. Because if your mind can keep straight a medieval empire or command a star-ship, surely a TPS report shouldn't be too much of a hassle.

I've never really been in favor of Downloadable Content, or DLC as it is more commonly called. It's where a maker of software games provides you the user with "additional" features that can enhance the game you've purchased, meaning you'll want to play it again. This is especially annoying when these "additional" items are available on day one, the first day the game is available. It's like going to to buy a car then finding out things like the radio, the seats, or even glass in the door windows are extra.

Now, to be clear, I don't really have a problem with real extras, or things you might call "cheats." Games will occasionally sell you things you're supposed to achieve through good game play, and that's okay. Everyone isn't as diligent or patient as I am. And sometimes, they sell you things that enhance how long a game will last - for instance, I'm still playing my Tiger Woods 12 from three years ago because with the DLC at the time, I have around 35 courses, some of which I still haven't played. 

This spring the usual suspects got all in a tizzy when SimCity rebooted, and the masses realized that the model was not only hopelessly broken, but we could also see the alligator in the swamp. SimCity's DLC would go on for years....you could feel it. A fast $5 for alternate town halls. Another $10 for a resort tower. The sponsored content for $5 more. And so on and so forth.  I for one refused to buy this game. But then while we weren't looking, they (the industry) got us anyway. 

I speak of Civilization V.

I like the "Civ" series. I remember borrowing an apple computer for a weekend to play in college and waking up to hear my roommate, who had looked at me skeptically when I tried to explain it to him, cheer about his first settlement on a new continent. It is remarkably addictive. I still  have a copy of Civ III and Civ IV around here someplace. My current copy is from Steam because they had it on sale. Like a 75% off sale. But I'm not particularly happy with this new iteration, which eliminated battle stacks and in turn stretches out war which already could last 50 turns into 150 turn slog-fests. But I still played. A little bit.

NOTE: This is not my Civ counter. Mine barely has 100. But people play it like this. It's serious.

Then the "expansion packs" started coming. 

The first expansion packs were for new rulers, which meant instead of facing the same enemies every time you'd get a little variety. This was cool.  But I was barely playing the game and still hadn't met all the original opponents, so maybe in a future purchase, a few bucks here, a few bucks there, get them all. Then an expansion pack which introduced more map options, which mean changes in game strategy - islands vs continents, or archipelagos. Again, maybe in the future.  Then one that introduced religion and few more new rulers, then another with international trade and some more new rulers..hey, wait a second....

But they're supposed to make the game so great. Only, wasn't the game supposed to BE great to start with?

The last two big expansion packs, the ones that introduce religion and international trade. Weren't religion and international trade a big part of the BASIC game, way way back in Civ IV? So now we're supposed to pay extra for stuff that used to be just part of the game? Wait just a second there bucko! You've just stripped down the 2011 model, slapped on some new graphics and called it the 2013 model. Then you're selling me back all the stuff you took out...for half the cost of the original game! Do I look stupid?  But even as I gripe, even as the words hit the paper I know that I'm just waiting out next Steam Sale so that hopefully I can get the last expansion packs for cheap. Freaking pushers man, freaking pushers!  

So I guess the future is DLC.

But then the games themselves are now DLC, and not the familiar CD that used to come in a box with glorious art and contain other helpful things like instructions and maps. I must be old, because at one point I remember games that came with the strategy guide IN THE BOX. The effect of the nickel and dime business model on the consumer is frightening when you lean back and look at it. 

Barkeep, a nice rum and coke. For an extra two bucks its a premium rum? And for another dollar, an extra shot? And for one more dollar I get ice? Didn't ice used to come with it?

So I played this OTHER game...

Ramblings Post #229
I am still a gamer. I'm five games behind the Thunder in my middle of my 4th season of NBA2K, I have just started my first season after promotion to the Argentinian Premier League and I am just hoping for a mid-table finish in Football Manager 2013, and my troops are poised on the border as I contemplate invasion in Civ 5. I've also just recently gotten the water flowing to the Wasteland in Fallout 3, the English just declared war for no reason in Total War Empire and one day I promise you I will get 2 million in revenue from cigars in the original Tropico, this I swear! So, you might say, I'm a gamer.

I did not like Uncharted 2, so why am I playing Uncharted 3?

Maybe I'm a little too "old school" or maybe I just don't get this new style, but I when I play a video game I expect it to be a video game and not whatever this was. And this was less video 'game', more interactive story/puzzle arrangement with cinematic movie cut-scenes spliced in as an excuse to set up a multi-player experience.

So let me tell you how I really feel.

For those who haven't played the series, the hero Nathan Drake (using the Indiana Jones Random
Destruction of Historical Sites Theory) flits around the globe finding incredible secret cities and major artifacts. The trick of the game is that is more "cinematic" than the average game with visual angles that enhance the story.  For instance as the building around you collapses, the visual angle shows you the incredibly detailed destruction animation, as opposed to say the path you could be using to escape. Which makes for interesting game deaths...er, game play.

This is actually in the game...looks great, doesn't it?

My major problem with the game is that is so transparently a puzzle. As I said in my previous critique of Uncharted 2, I know that all video games are basically puzzles. Most, if not all,  just hide it better than this series. The game is a continuing series of gloriously painted static locales with only one pathway through, grand set pieces that amount to little more than fast twitch exercises and puzzles so unintuitive that if the game did not literally stop and point out to you what comes next (which it does frequently) every player would still be in the French Chateau. Seriously. 

Further, the fight animation comes with continuing pop up cues, the enemy AI are straight out the Minion Academy and those aforementioned grand set pieces, the part which makes it like the a game it should be, usually require a particular weapon to complete. Thus there is no real choice in playing style, there is only the narrative. The makers also managed to infuse that an annoying effect from Far Cry 3, deciding in some inane meeting to let the player experience what the hero is seeing when he's drugged! Not that it appears to have any real effect on gameplay, but oooh, look how everything is all wavy now.

And I call it an excuse to set up multi-player because it's so short. I know, the old complaint, "not only is it bad, there is so little of it!" Here, because the game has so little replay value, you would think they would make it long enough to crack your spine. I finished it so quickly I had to check the online walk-through to make sure that really was it! And this for a game that came with a 12GB download for the cut scenes alone! Also, the game opens with a default to the multi-player selection instead of the single game. That might be considered an indicator. Just saying.

On the plus side, you don't have to keep your companions alive, they can look after themselves.

Well, maybe now that I'm done with this "game", I promise myself this time for real that I won't pick up the producer's next game, the heavily praised Last of Us. This style of game play is not for me. Instead, I can concentrate on establishing a dynasty in Middle Europe. I got that game here someplace. Ooh, wait, I still have some cities in SimCity 4 percolating around here somewhere!

What's the barkeep? The original question of why bother? Oh, because it was free. Let me get a Mirmosa, and do you serve brunch?

This game I should still not be playing (again...)

Ramblings Post #221
Things I need to stop doing: indulging in the odd snack, eating ice cream sandwiches in particular, putting off a serious exercise routine, putting off learning a foreign language or two, putting off yard work, playing Dwarf Fortress. Yes, I still play the game, because it's a challenge. It is also time consuming, aggravating, in many cases futile and in more than a few cases generally frustrating. But alas, here we go again.

I'm back to the Fortress. I need to stop playing, as a game can take hours out of the day watching the little fellas run around accomplishing nothing. I really should be reading up on Georgia Law just in case the curve lets me actually pass the Bar. I'm doing some interning now, three days a week which will teach me the actually being a lawyer part of being a lawyer, so I need to focus. But I also need stress relief, because with any new experience comes stress.

And so I play the Fortress.

I've gotten decent at it lately, learning to pick my embark sites better, becoming a Mountainhome regularly, going over the population cap, getting down to level 100 while mining. I by no stretch of the imagining would I consider myself "good" at this...too many flaws as least as I perceive them. But like a lot of things I'm not good at I persevere, until I get better. 

Things I've learned..

- Set everyone but the Miners to Mason right after you pick the spot, don't waste the points during setup.

- I don't build into cliff sides, I find a nice flat spot and dig out a channel...then surround it on with walls and gates (bridges). Then by placing fortifications on the tops of the walls, a couple of squads of archers can hold off a invasion easily.

 - Speaking of Archers...you need them! I'll setup an "expendable" squad first, but then Archers. Train them for three or four years. A good set of Archers can end an invasion from battlements in the first few volleys. 

- As soon as you hit stone, start building the walls, before your dwarves have other things to do. I generally go with an inner wall, then an outer enclosure. Once I've got a thirty or more, then I start getting fancy...walls for the pastures, walls for above ground fields, etc.  

- My initial setup includes extra seeds, so I can set up two farms to start...which makes the food supply last longer.

- I start with two dogs and two cats. They breed, supplying me with dogs that later can be trained for war animals and cats which wander, and act as an early warning system for ambushes. And, if you get desperate, can be used for food.

- I generally change the first names of all the characters, it just makes it easier for me to track them. All the first characters names start with A, the second wave B, and so on.

These aren't tips for the newbie. Newbies should just concentrate on keeping folks alive. And don't forget the water.

Barkeep. I'm spending way, and I mean way way too much time on this. I need a drink. And a sandwich.

Why We're Really Mad about SimCity (2013)

Ramblings Post #219
Currently I am in the midst of a 14-game win streak in my fourth NBA season, managing an Argentinian Soccer Team and just realized I'm going to have gut my Transfer budget to resign my key players, two tourneys away from the Masters, picking out which faction I want to be in control of in feudal Japan, slowly taking control of Stillwater, trying to run a train based empire in central Africa, and hoping that the Baron of Black Gorge ends his mandate soon so that my dwarves don't starve. Those are the games I can remember that I'm playing. I think I might be a gamer.

The nostalgia aside for a building cities on islands linked by a symphony of bridges in the shape of my initals or that resembles what you imagine Gotham City must look like, we're really mad at EA for SimCity for actual reasons. Let me be clear: I and most other detractors of this incarnation realize that since the company owns the property that they can do what they want with it, and are not obligated to meet our demands in anyway that do no serve their own ends. That said, making your customers mad usually isn't the best business model. I think a number of software companies, if not the whole entertainment community,  have looked at the Apple model, which is more akin to a cult, and are trying to trap it's customers into arrangements that keep them tied up forever.

Note, unless you're Apple, or other cultists, this is not a good business model.

First, had they just named the thing SimCity Online it would have cut out a bunch of confusion. That little phrasing changes the whole connotation and expectations of potential purchasers. The problem is you can't really sell a strategy game for online play, especially since the heart of the game is solo city building. What happens if you cut a deal with five cities...and four of them quit playing? In a questing game, you find new people. In a strategy game with locked regions...then what?

Was that so hard?
Via Reddit. I forget the redditors name.

Plus, having a game that is locked into a server and players need to communicate with other players in the game indicates that this game is a "temporary" situation. By that I am pointing out that as there are currently no monthly fees - ala World of Warcraft or EVE - which would be the incentive to keep the servers humming five years from now for a game whose sales will peak this year. It doesn't matter how much DLC they try to append, it's a downward curve. And each quarter as that profit margin drops, it becomes more and more likely a cost cutting executive will suddenly decide to pull the plug. Meaning you didn't "buy" the game so much as lease it....which is not how this type of game genre works. Simulation games are for strategy players, people who aren't really interested in swinging the sword a thousand times but instead tend to play games over and over, for years, inventing new things with the tools given.

Then there are the lies. When asked, EA stipulated that computations are run server side, so a single player game is supposed to be impossible. But some of the game developers are quietly confessing the cloud connection isn't strictly necessary. And then someone modified (modded) the game so that it can be played without a connection, less than 30 days after release.  It's like a restaurant saying there hamburger is 100% American beef, then finding out its 50% Mexican horse and 20% unclassified filler. In some areas, abusive treatment of customers works, they even enjoy it. This is not one of those places. 

Forget that people have already figured out how "to game" the mechanics, creating cities with practically no industry or commercial sections, with sims getting "rich" going to the park. Making the game pretty to look at, but essentially broken. The mod might have to fix that too.

We all know the real reason for the always on internet connection was an ill-conceived attempt to prevent piracy, so why lie? And now because of this all out effort to combat thieves and make the game all pretty, it seems that a pirated version, which is coming as sure as the sun will rise, will give players what they actually want - an off-line version that actually works correctly. And this isn't an industry where you want a third party producing what is technically is a better product than the original.

The video game industry isn't quite like other industries, in that you're going to buy toothpaste (I hope) and toilet paper (I pray), so particular consumer demands only weigh in so heavily. The industry is a luxury item, and even the production of good, popular games isn't a guarantee of success - ala THQ. When a staple veers too far off course, the fans, the very vocal fans...speak up. And in this day and age there are two many avenues to do that. And in a market already crowded, the cumulative effect might amount to little more than commercial suicide for a major game industry franchise.

Barkeep, I'm firing up the wayback machine. I think I have SimCity 2000 around her somewhere.

SimCity (not a review or an endorsement)

Ramblings Post #216
Why do we play? We play to escape the humdrum reality of lives, just as when we read or go to the cinema. We play video games because they let us become someone else, allow us to triumph as participants instead of passive observers. We realize that these worlds are but fantasy, but if the choice is to remember that you're an accountant lost in a cubicle farm or to pretend for a while to be what you always dreamed....why not pretend? 

Image via Redditor TotalBiscuit

I have played SimCity since it's first inception. It is the essence of management games, where you have to balance the needs of the citizens versus the tools you had to work with.

I remember building my airport downtown to see if I could get one of the planes to crash (this was in the mid 90's). I remember trying to build a city with only subways. Or when I finally got my first highway system only to screw it up completely. Or when I figured out how to make farms before you could designate a zone agricultural.  I remember the joy when my dense zoning finally yielded skyscrapers, when I realized that the all the houses near the mayor's house were ritzy, when I got my own little silicon valley going, arcologies, and all the llama references. There was the city I tried to build like a doughnut with space to put all the big stuff downtown that fell apart. It was maddeningly addictive.

I will not be buying the latest iteration.

Why? That damned always online concept they have appended to the system. Plain and simple.

Even worse the damned thing can't be modded, has removed terraforming, shrunk the size of the city you can build and removed the idea of single play entirely. Who exactly is this game made for?

Not everyone and not everything can be made social. That the old versions game still has an active modding community to creates maps and new parts of the game speaks volumes. People who play SimCity's previous versions do share, but in essence like to create their own space.

I've never played Farmville, or Mafia or any of those other social things on Facebook, where I need a friend to drop by to help me play better. Maybe I'm missing something. But the idea that I would need a slot on a server to play a game at home - where I intend to interact with nobody is ludicrous. That the game encourages dealing with other folks is silly. We aren't questing here, this is city management.

That if the server is full and I might not be able to play at all is even more insane. That five years from now EA might decide to shut down the servers making play impossible borders on detachment from reality! I have games I still play that are ancient. I still boot up the original Tropico, Railroad Tycoon II and Ancient Empires II when I get bored. I have a copy of Front Page Sports Football 97 that still gives me a better challenge than the latest Madden. I still play SimCity 4.  

That this new version (released today) of the game actually tracks individual Sims better than all the previous versions is just twisting the knife. It's so much fun they say. Not if I can't put my city on an island shaped like Mickey' Mouse's head. And what if I want to start over?

Oh, well. The version I'm still playing has whole regions. And terraforming. 

Barkeep, as Mayor of Shuckyduckieville, I hereby declare this bar open!  Drinks for everyone! The city isn't paying for any of this.

More of the game I should have stopped playing

Ramblings Post #197
That it requires you to search for the silk webs to make the cloth to make the clothes that you then have to trade for weapons you'll have to get your warriors trained on, after you've kitted them out with armor made from metal you had to smelt from the ore you had to mine is what makes the game epic. Conversely, those same elements are also what make it a headache. 

This is an invasion. For me, this is would happen about four years in.  

My on-again off-again love affair with Dwarf Fortress maybe headed back off again. I realize that the game's tag line is that it's fun to lose, but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Sick and tired.

I think that the longest one of my little fortresses has lasted is maybe six or seven years.  Maybe ten, I'm not sure. Now, through trial and error, I've gotten fairly decent at layout and design - workspaces partitioned off, storage piles for materials close, craftdwarves turning out masterpieces by the dozen, legendary hall arrangements with kitchens and ale brewing nearby, fully stocked hospitals, dorms, public and private gardens, armories, barracks, and war dogs trained, catapults at the ready. I've figured out for the most part how utilize managers and bookkeepers, get my walls, gates and fortifications in place, forge a few of the harder metals, and discovered the intricacies of the weapons, training and armor equipping.  I've even had four squads training at the same time when the population was just over one hundred, including a archery squad, fitted out with quivers, bolts and  waterskins.

I've even figured out that if you don't build bedrooms until you got everything else squared away, you can generally delay migrants which conserves most resources, plus delays the inevitable invasions.

I like doing this part. The first ambush happens and I can get through that with barely a scrape. A few wounded from time to time so the diagnosers and wound dressers get in a little practice. Even the first siege or two I can break. There was a memorable one that broke as soon as I'd taken out all the trolls that made up the first wave. Good times. And after I'd scoured the battlefield for the the spoils, I'm usually sitting pretty when the traders show up.

Until say, something crazy happens. Like a two sieges back to back - each one over a year.  They come in sixty strong, riding on something crazy, from four different directions, so I wisely just decide to wait it out.  And then water, which is always a problem for me, starts to run low. And with no water, issues start arising. I'm talking lots of infections because the docs can't clean the wounds from the last battle (like I said, very detailed game) and dwarves dying of thirst. Or then you find a cavern with a large body of water and a fire breathing forgotten beast shows up. I have yet to figure out how to fight fire breathing beasts. You couple one of those with no migrants and the tantrum spirals, and pretty soon you're looking at a mess.

My advice to newbies: Figure out the water system early. Really. Because nothing hurts worse than seeing the glimmer of something nice start to develop only to have your dwarves start to die of thirst because the lakes freeze over when it's cold. Really. After one winter I looked around and couldn't find any of my dwarves...because they were ALL outside trying to get a drink of fresh water!

Clear the wagon, make your first dig and get your stuff secure, get some crops going, start building your walls for defense, build a depot, make some crafts for that first trade, and then build a nice water system...  before you build a legendary hall or start designing apartment blocks. Before you establish your gypsum empire. YOU NEED WATER.

Second, take your time. Because although it looks like it, this isn't the fast button pushing kinda game you're used to playing. This long term strategy and forethought. Planning and execution. Read the write-ups on the dwarves closely. Think about your layout before you commit to it. I tend to always leave in space for expansion.

There are a lot more tips I had planned to impart....but then half the fun is figuring it out on your own. Well, maybe not.

Barkeep. Some of that ale we brewed up....in a mug I had them make.

Yet another game I have no business playing...

Ramblings Post #164
You can't make your focus singular. Even when I was working out strong...it happened...even then I had those little things that let you take your mind off how much your feet hurt, or how much your arms ached, or if that popping sound was your spine suddenly saying "no mas"! Now that I'm honing my mind, or something like that, I need little ways to let me mind relax, but not so much that sink into the couch and fall asleep with the TV watching me. I need something I can pause or turn off at whim, so I can get back to business. Instead....

Because if I concentrate solely on tax law and the mental gymnastics needed to tame the various codes and regulations, and other stuff you should just know, my mind would turn to grey tapioca. Cheap grey tapioca. And because I'm on a budget. Well, I was always on a budget, now I'm on a tighter budget. My goal was to find something inexpensive as an occasional mental diversion, because given too much free time, I'd be mentally contemplating answers for questions my first year law professors asked. No seriously, I have done that.

Well, I did find something just like that. Free in fact. And now I have to figure out a way to stop.

It's a compter game called Dwarf Fortress. It's free to download, free to play, a product of one of those online labors of love that most users tinker with to while away a few hours and the builder uses as part of their resume to show somebody who writes paychecks they know what they're doing. I looked around online, and read in the NY Times that the creator of Dwarf Fortress has refused to sell the rights and gets by on donations from dedicated game players. Doing just this he only makes around $50,000 a year. But then he lives in a two bedroom apartment and enjoys a geek's paradise - waking at dark, living on chips and Mountain Dew and coding his masterwork until he decides he's done, then going back to sleep. Not a bad gig if that's what you like. And what's he's created....

I'm playing it, and it's scarily intricate.

It took me a while to make a fortress last longer than building a basic setup. I'd usually get killed early due to something - run out of water (or buckets) and everyone die of thirst, run out of food, we'd get attacked and every one gets slaughtered or they'd just go insane one by one due to something I failed to address. In any case, as my little settlers...er, dwarves, would start to check out, I would quit, like apparently most people who start. Until a wee bit frustrated, and and tired of going over whatever case I was reading, I went online for a few tips and to check out what the game was all about.

Sometimes, you're better off not knowing what is possible.

Online there is a whole community. A dedicated, hardcore, talking in terms of which I have no understanding while looking at the same thing I'm looking at type community. I am mystified. But then, a write up in the NY Times should have been a clue that something big was going on. Some of the fortress constructions are unbelievable. I get at best a few minutes a day trying to layout something that looks reasonable, you know, get my little dwarves arranged with a little atheistic appeal. But I look at some of the layouts, the designs, the constructions and it's obvious some of these guys spend months...real MONTHS... building structures that look like something out of Lord of the Rings. No, wait, they put the stuff Tolkein and the movie magic makers invented to shame.

My newly found and realized ego says you too must build a construct of great and ridiculous stature. My reasonableness says this ain't the time to pretend like you're not in law school. I read through some of the notes, and look at the depth of the message boards, and wonder if some of these people have sun sunlight lately. But then again, I haven't been getting out much myself, so I probably need to check myself.

So this is me? I do need to get out. Just as soon as build this meeting hall....

Barkeep. Something to get me out of the house. In a large glass. 

So I played this game...

Ramblings Post #153
I am multifaceted. I can engage in lively and spirited conversation that works the mind with its depth of field. I can hang out and make drinks, and idle with the best of them. I can find a tall glass of juice and some snacks, a good book and be satisfied for hours. And I can queue up a set of pixelated puzzles and ...well, read on.

What did I do on weeknights before law school? I wish I could remember, because right now it's like that two weeks after the football season ends where you try to remember what did instead of watch football. It's awkward because you have three to six hours blocked out mentally, and suddenly you DO have time to pull the weeds out of the garden and regrout the tile. Or I would if I had a garden, or tile to regrout. So, in this interim, instead of starting some huge project between summer and the fall classes and not getting done, I've cranked up the PS3 to high and taken the plunge.

FIRST...I play video games because I've played video games for a long as I can remember. We played Cannons in the lab back in high school, we had our baseball league on hidden drives on the school computers in college, and once I bought my own computer, it became a way to occasionally blur out the less than fair real world. And, since for $60 or so I can get a month or three out of the game play, it comes a very cost effective way to entertain myself and keep my brain functioning.

I bought some games last fall, and rather than try and play during school they've sat on my shelf just gathering dust. So, with no school and the newness of arriving at home at 6pm (a rarity) I went ahead and cracked open one of the dusty ones - Uncharted 2 : Among Thieves.

looks neat don't it?

Now, if you've never played video games, the first thing you need to realize is that most of them are just really fancy pixelated puzzles. You're given a task, say, find the magic jewel, and a playing space and much like a Soduku or you've got figure out how to get it done. A game of Modern Warfare is really nothing more than a maze with explosions and pretty backgrounds. The better games are the ones with multiple ways to figure things out, where you can either show up armed to the teeth or with nothing but a knife and play it your way.

Uncharted 2 is NOT one of those games.

The game I sat down to played through like a action movie script. The camera angles swung around so that things looked impressive and majestic, the cut scenes were long and full of exposition, the graphics were glorious. I was excited. Then, I started playing.... and there are few games I've played as completely singularly focused as Uncharted. Most games have the decency to hide the puzzle just a little. The makers of this weren't even subtle. Far too many times I surmised there was only one way, and one way only, to get through a sequence. Wait, let me rephrase. There was one way, and one way only to get through MOST of the sequences.

I don't know about anyone else, but this was annoying. I've played plenty games where you have to achieve X to get through a sequence, but most games give you some wiggle room. Some. Any. This game won awards. I'm still trying to figure out why. It's one thing to try it something one way, then try it from a different angle, or with different tools, and see what happens. This game boiled down to pressing the buttons fast enough. And until I pressed them at the right time, in the proper sequence, it keep repeating.

But it was semi-fun. And I'd already started. So I went on and kept playing.

Through the Parkour fetish, where every other two minutes involved a dive over a chasm or gap and a finger tip grasp on a ledge. Which every character appeared to be able to pull off with relative ease. And seemed to allow the programmers love for climbing street signs to re-emerge.

Through the maps so completely counter intuitive, that the game handed out hints like candy when you frequently got stuck looking for a way out of the little inescapable virtual play pit they'd conceived of for this part of the "game". Really. I was supposed to realize I was to throw the propane tank and shoot it in mid air to dislodge the car in the river to build the bridge? How was I supposed to even conceive of that when I'd never had any reason to shoot a propane tank before now?

The Ice caves were just stupid. There was absolutely no way that ...wait, I'm going to let that go.

It was the temple. Every search for the treasure game has a intact temple the size of a football stadium that the "ancients" built that still has working parts now, a thousand years later. Yeah. Right. But it's part of the story and I went along with it although it made no sense, until after jumping and spinning and diving all Parkour style over a virtual mile only to have the way blocked. On purpose. Then working my around to the point where, I tripped this switch...and I swear...a jungle gym arrangement rose out of the pixelated mist that had forced my earlier acrobatics. I waited a second then watched my virtual guide (who didn't speak English and had been "dead" ten minutes earlier) immediately swing around like an Olympic gymnast and turned that sorry piece of ...

...I turned the game off.

I can suspend disbelief. But I can't turn it off completely.

Barkeep. I wasted three days on this? If I ever get bored enough to finish....

Geek Moments

Ramblings Post #50
Every now and then, I geek out. I get into a Star Wars argument about story elements or rebel strategy, want to talk about holes in Star Trek story lines or go off on X-men, Spiderman or Batman tangents. If you have never caught yourself discussing the meaning of the gender roles in the New Battlestar Galactica, you have no idea what I'm talking about. And since I started messing with computers back when you had to bring your own DOS ( it's what makes the system work for you kiddies ), I get geeky about computers too.

I don't play a lot of video games because I don't have the time.

I bought the last Grand Theft Auto because I needed something to fill the time during Christmas break. It was enjoyable until you figured out it was really a large puzzle and not the sprawling free form do whatever game concept that online journalists touted. The two or three "decisions" merely added a tint to the already set color of the game.

From the Legend Series #5
By Patrick Brown

And so oddly when I do play a game over and over, the ones I play are sometimes years old.

For instance one of my favorite games is a little gem called Tropico. It must be a decade old, but the concept was simple. You're a ruler in charge of little island nation...go forth. Sure they have a few basic scenarios, such as get elected for 30 years without ballot stuffing, or build a tourist economy... but if you wanted they would just lean back and let you go forth. You could be the ruthless dictator keeping wages low while appeasing your pet faction, or you could be the happy ruler making sure everyone was well taken care of. Over the course of the game you could watch a child born, grow, take on a job, go back to school and start a family of their own. You could also bribe political rivals and build a police state that had to fight off insurgent attacks.

I shudder to think what this game could have been, or could be if someone put a little effort into an update. The game lacked a bit in that you had to build every structure yourself, and their were never any cars or trucks to speed up the process. A little more diversity of structures would have been nice too, but still...keeping a populace happy while trying to sell cigars and keep the Russians at bay and the religious faction happy is hard enough just the way it is. The update was introduce a pirate flair, which reduced the game from a new concept to a system simulator. Genius.

I won't go into how much better Alpha Centauri was compared to the newest iteration of Civilization. Someone needs to remind developers to put the money into the game play and not the graphics on occasion. If the customer isn't buying a shoot'em, you can skimp a little on the graphics, that isn't what they're paying for.

Case in point I purchased Total War: Empire to get through this little lull between summer school and the fall classes, and quickly found that the system requirements were so graphic intensive, the computer I bought last fall will barely play it. Supremely intense graphics....in a strategy game? What it took to get it loaded on my system aside, passwords and confirmations and all, just getting around to watching the waves undulate on the graphic sea, the smoke float from the plumes, wagon roll, and the little men representing armies marching about brought so much depth (insert sarcasm here). It might have helped a little to include a manual that actually taught you how to play....

Just once I want to see a game that devotes as much to the diplomacy side as the combat side of war.

As it is I won't have time for this nonsense in a matter of days as school looms. And I need to re-apply myself with a vengeance if on the other end of this process I'd like to be able to say I went to law school. I mean even now I can say I went, but I'd kinda like a degree on the other side. Ya' know.

So the basics...new games mostly suck because the designers are pushing the graphic element above game play, Han shot first, Grand Theft Auto games are really just big puzzles where you get to shoot, you don't need great visuals if you got a great game. Is that everything?

Barkeep. I need something to give me 50 manna points, the evil Lord Hukka's men approach! Huzzah!

The required Halo post (as required by Internet Rule #47854b-Halo)

I don't play Halo. Didn't get the first one, don't have the second one, sure as hell ain't gonna get the third.

For one, I do NOT own an X-Box.

For two, I have no desire to play a game online against someone who just might be so dedicated that in their living room they're actually in full battle dress. It's also why I don't play Warcraft, as an old coworker once told me that upon waking he kissed his wife then scurried off to his computer to see how his auction then went, and before he could control himself was scurrying off on a new quest...almost forgetting to come to work.

I've played GTA, Civ, Age and some of the others. I game regularly. I'm not a noob.

And now I just read what could be considered blasphemy...on online review calling Halo a sci-incarnation of a Madden.

Now I played Madden back when the game had one team's location listed as "Philly". I bought the old Sega system just so I could play. We held the 32 team round robin double elimination World Championship Tournament in my apartment over 3 days...15 years ago! We're talking ancient history here. I can be safely said, I've played a game or two.

I've seen Halo played. It's Doom in free form, Quake for teams, Duke Nuke'em out of development. It's kids stuff.

I know Madden, I've played Madden, I like Madden, and you sir are no Madden by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't know if I can even continue. I'm so hurt by even the comparison.

Barkeep. Evan Williams and branch water. Yeah, cheap ass Evan Ass Williams.