Daimon's Lair

Okay, Mr. Marston, I know it's a little late in the game to really call these my 'first' impressions. Granted, it's the first time I've written about the game here, I've already sunk 10+ hours over the past week into the game. But here goes.

I was somewhat skeptical about the game given my (still) mixed feelings about Grand Theft Auto IV. As a pure game, sure, GTA IV is well done to the point I've played (about 10 hours as well) but it also failed as an open world game. The NPCs didn't allow you to be your own character. Content was NOT at your own pace--at least without them grumbling about you 'ignoring' them, failing to help against gangster attacks and whatnot.


Red Dead Redemption fixes that glaring design problem. Missions are strictly at your own pace. Heck, if you wanted to explore "Oblivion" style for twenty hours, you could. I'd get a little bored just doing that, because the NPCs outside of the storyline (main and side quests) are really just scenery--albeit scenery you can shoot. Similar to GTA IV, missions are themed around certain main characters and are triggered by coming to designated locations. But, unless you specifically trigger a mission, the plot will not advance. Period.

After all, what's the point of having an open world game without giving the player the freedom to explore and consume content at their own pace? I've really enjoyed having that freedom, especially since the game allows you to be distracted by just about anything unless a mission is in progress or you've taken on a bounty. Shoot animals, ride all over the wilderness, trigger 'mysterious stranger' side quests, etc. Defend yourself against seeming endless supplies of bandits every time you take down a bounty target.

There are a lot of things I could write about, but mission control was my number one concern going into the game--and Rockstar has finally restored the 'open' to their brand of open-world gaming.

Disclaimer: This is, in a sense, what I personally believe--and yet in another sense, what I will be examining here is something I have very real hesitations about. Think of it, perhaps, as a (hopefully) interesting thought experiment in how to change American foreign policy.

Defining Our Terms

A quick visit to Wikipedia reveals that the term 'manifest destiny' can be used in a variety of ways, not all of them mutually compatible. In order to have a productive discussion, it's in our best interest to clearly delineate exactly what I'm referring to when I use it.

When I say 'manifest destiny', I mean the idea that America--in her particular brand of republican democracy--has something to offer the rest of the world. Many things could be changed, including a return to better economic freedom, less progressivism in the tax code, etc. I have no interest in whitewashing or idealizing the United States in actua.

Which, of course, is part of my interest in defining the term. 'Manifest Destiny' was the guiding principle behind much of early American expansionism, but there's little virtue to be found in historical episodes like the Indian Wars. I recognize that any talk of expansionism--particularly via military means--must be very carefully considered. The reality of unintended consequences demands that the proven benefits to be gained vastly outweigh the foreseen costs in lives, money, and temporary degrading of conditions in the acquired territory.

But decades down the road, who can deny that the American Southwest is far better off being a part of the United States than Mexico? It is possible, of course, that if Mexico retained the Southwest it could be a better place, but I'm not holding my breath for a successful historical revision to be written.

Change isn't always for the better. And war is a last, worst, alternative. But the success of the United States has to amount to more than a historical and geographic accident. The expansion of borders is something that should and must occur.

Tensions in Foreign Policy


The United States, especially since the turn of the 20th century, has struggled between the poles of isolationism and interventionism.

The isolationist tendency can be summed up as follows: given that republican democracy is essentially about self-determination, who are we to interfere in other sovereign nations' affairs? We certainly don't want them meddling in ours--and of course, treat that as the only true justification for action. Live and let live, so to speak.

The interventionist tendency views self-determination through some form of democratic representation as the ideal government for every geo-political instance. Countries who do not possess such regimes, particularly those who are oppressive rather than pseudo-benevolent, are targets for intervention. These targets can be prioritized in a variety of ways, but all must eventually be dealt with--and by military force, if necessary.

Strictly speaking, interventionism requires action in the face of any human rights issue. The problem is that many such issues remain internal to the given country (and thus action technically requires violating the sovereignty of another nation, something which the isolationist tendency resists) or do not directly impact the national interest of the United States. The horrible genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda are two such examples.

Any reasonable person regards these tragedies as horrible examples of human depravity. Yet few people argued for American intervention unilaterally, instead content to let the toothless UN put both countries on a further nosedive. This is because even the strongest interventionist must be pragmatic. We are one of the few free countries--and have finite resources. As much as American force could have helped, I totally agree that--in current terms--we can't be the world's policeman.

Policing the world--in a world populated by numerous sovereign entities--is a non-starter. The best argument for this is the current status of Europe. These countries were free to bankrupt themselves with incredible social expenditures--and comparatively little on defense--because they have been protected by America's defense umbrella, both strategic and conventional.

Moreover, even wars fought out of a desire for national security (however debatable) like Iraq and Afghanistan, increasingly become difficult to justify because there is little tangible return on our investment. We have spent incredible amounts of money and lives--and on what? The world is nominally safer, I would argue, but these countries have no geographic nor natural economic ties with our own. We're promoting freedom, and that's never a bad thing, but the maintenance required taxes our resources--and weakens us for the sake of strengthening another sovereign entity.

This self-sacrifice is effect out of a (current) desire to not appear 'imperialistic'. Frankly, though, the more I think about it, why is that such an argument? Now, I'm not going to be advocating actual raw conquest, but why shouldn't we get something tangible out of our toils? Isolationism, given a global economy and the increasingly long reach of 'rogue' states, is untenable. Interventionism becomes increasingly difficult because it represents a constant net drain on resources, both material and personal. There has to be a third way.

A Model for Justified Expansionism

This article has gotten long enough, so I'll try to conclude with reasonable brevity. The model I have in mind envisions a sort of commonwealth. The interchange of citizens, economy, and culture would entail the inevitable absorption into the original country--and the making of many sovereigns into one. Here interventionism can actually pay off, in new blood, new natural resources, etc. Not that it would be easy--after all, look at the drain the former East Germany was (still is?) on the re-unified German state.

Several simple reforms would likely make this easier. For one, I strongly advocate a simplified tax code analogous to Paul Ryan's proposal in his Roadmap for America's Future. A possible structure would be as follows:

• Abolish the corporate income tax. Corporations are legal fictions and cannot, ultimately, pay anything. All corporate taxation is taxation on a combination of: employees wages and compensation, shareholders, and customers. It's a double tax that only hurts the economy--especially one that is trying to aggressively expand.
• The remaining personal tax should either be completely equal (a flat tax) or as un-progressive as is reasonably possible. An example would be, say, 10% up to $100,000; 25% on anything beyond that.
• New members of the commonwealth would only be taxed at the 10% rate--no cap. This would encourage the entrepreneurial members of society to move from the states to the new territories most in need of development.

A commonwealth agreement would be the next logical step of free-trade agreements in the North American region, especially with countries like Columbia, where we also have some limited sharing of military resources. The benefits would run both ways. America gains new territory, citizens, and resources. The member entities (no longer sovereigns, but not yet states) would gain a unified economy and legal code, the benefit of a sponsor aggressively improving infrastructure and military assets, and many other things.

Eventually these members could be absorbed as full states, though that part of the process would be a long ways down the road.

What do you think about this? I know it's a little (a lot?) wild, but do you see the point about isolationism and interventionism?

Please comment!

This is just a brief observation I wanted to get down while I was thinking about it. . . .

I've been playing a lot of Fallout 3 lately, but just tonight I noticed a couple really interesting details that really bring the world home to me. One (and for those of you who've played, it's at the raider outpost in Cliffside Caverns) was after fighting my way through a raider-infested series of caverns, only to discover these caverns abut a series of caves home to Yao Guai. On both sides of the door leading to the new set of caves there were frag mines placed.

This really humanized the rather faceless (and voiceless) antagonists of the Capital Wasteland. Yeah, raiders are a real pain-in-the-ass, but they're people too. And they sure as hell don't want to be eaten by the Yao Guai.

The RPG genre in video-gaming is very often a love-hate thing. The purpose of this article is not to examine the genre itself or laud any of its components. Rather, I want to look at an often over-looked aspect of RPG design: the in-game economy.

An essential feature of an RPG is its leveling system, and part of that system is the continued upgrading of the player's equipment and, depending on the game, the equipment of the party members. Given the length and depth of most RPGs, the economy in the game is a crucial design element--tying in to its accessibility to new players, its fun-to-play factor, and quite possibly its replay value. I'm going to try and make a brief survey of some basic types, their pros and cons, and then leave it open for you the reader to fill in what I know are many blanks in my knowledge.

Speaking of blanks, I'm going to make the first category one that I admit I have little direct experience with:

Loot Drop

When I think of loot drop in games, I instantly think of the Diablo series. I enjoy the games, but I have wrists that are irritated by excessive mouse-clicking, so I haven't exactly been able to really get into the game. But the sheer depth (yet deliciously semi-random) nature of the weapons and other items that drop from dead enemies fuels the addiction of the dungeon-crawling game.

From a totally different angle, there's the recent game Too Human. I played the demo, and, well, there were a lot of things I could criticize about the game. But here the 'loot drop' model is very poorly constructed. Erik Brudvig in his review for IGN begins by saying that "if you love collecting random loot drops, you'll find a lot to like here." He then adds later: "the game puts a big emphasis on leveling your character and outfitting him with better equipment, but then scales enemies and loot drops to you. The thrill of finding a sweet weapon is nearly lost -- you're stronger but soon enough the enemies are too." I seem to remember another reviewer (but I can't find the article) also commenting that, since many weapons are class-specific, you can have a 'supreme sword of ass-kicking' drop, only to find out that you can't equip it because you're not the right class.


I enjoy loot dropping and foraging in RPGs, but the design mistakes in implementing this particular in-game economy turned me off.


Finite Leveling

To a certain extent, everything is derivative (or somehow similar) to the loot drop model. One way, however, this model changes is when leveling is capped--not via a hard cap--by a 'soft' or 'hidden' cap. This hidden cap comes into play in games that literally have only so much experience to be earned, usually by having a finite number of enemies--and enemies that, once cleared, never respawn. First in my mind when it comes to this model are two games from the same company: BioWare's Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect.


Let's take the classic first. There are many things to laud KOTOR about, but it's economy is more of a mixed bag. There are definitely items worth having--especially armor--at high-dollar amounts that are unique to certain vendors. At the same time, the tuning is way off.


**SPOILER**
During the fight through the final planet before the Star Forge, my inventory was filled--FILLED--to the brim with countless blasters, low-level lightsabers/crystals, and other miscellanous items. But no opportunity to cash in for credits, because, well, the endgame had already begun. So I finished the game incredibly rich, but to no use. Yes, it's more of an annoyance, but every time I've played the game I always think it's kind of odd. Sure, there are plenty of useful items like health packs, but. . . .


One thing I have to praise, however, is a side story many players probably never uncovered. One of the locations you can visit in the game is a space station orbiting Yavin. It's relatively unremarkable, though a decent place to stock up for supplies. But if you visit enough (I believe three or four times, if I remember) you get drawn into defending the proprietor from an especially nasty cadre of thugs.


This is a HARD fight--easily the hardest fight in the game. What's your reward? I forget if there's anything you get outright, because that's not the biggie. The owner gives you the opportunity to brows his 'special' stock: the two best lightsaber crystals in the game. They're not cheap (20,000 credits a pop) but well worth it. I love the optional nature of the fight, and the fact that the reward is something more than worthwhile.


In many ways, the later Mass Effect went the wrong direction. Salvage and loot drop in KOTOR is occasionally rewarding, but mostly to build up credits through re-sale. The balance here is almost entirely reversed. I've played the game front to back twice, but several partial starts as well. Even with combat kicked up to the hardest difficult level available, I found items worth purchasing on (at best) an occasional basis. There are tons of vendors--even a quartermaster aboard your own ship!--and almost nothing that was worth buying. The equipment I gained by looting was always better, and I ended each playthrough with an absolutely ridiculous amount of credits. And, honestly, I stopped picked up items towards the end unless they were actually better than my current loadout.


Foraging Realism
Several games could fit the bill here, but my main experience is with the Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and Fallout 3. How different could these games get from those above?


All three, but especially Oblivion and Fallout 3, have hard level caps with essentially infinite enemies. It's not so much that areas re-populate with enemies (though many do) or that there are random battles (a la JRPGs like Final Fantasy games), but that your character is maxed out long before you've seen and done everything. These are 'completionist' games--games that take serious addiction/love to actually exhaust the content.


That's one difference. But how does that affect the economy? The sheer expansiveness of the world allows for some interesting design decisions. For one, all three games are filled with essentially useless items. Some are genuinely useless, while others weigh far too much (compared to their value) to make them worth carrying back to a store for re-sale.


Weight of items in an inventory. I didn't really mention this concerning the games above, but this is the only model that makes sense. Certain items weigh more--in a quite realistic progression--and your character can only carry so much. This restricts the foraging and makes it more purposeful. *I realize Diablo could fit in here, but it's not quite the same. Feel free to prove me wrong, though!*



In contrast, games in the previous category either have no cap on inventory or a sheerly arbitrary one (Mass Effect is capped at 200 items, irregardless of item type). That just doesn't make sense, especially the arbitrary caps. It's more realistic, and from a design perspective, it creates a nice rhythm of 'explore, gather loot, visit town, resell, repeat'.


And, if that's not enough realism for you, another element comes in. Your weapons and armor degrade and require repairs. The games from the Elder Scrolls series and Fallout 3 different slightly in terms of mechanics, but the central feature is attrition. Especially in Fallout 3, it's sometimes difficult to survive--simply because, you need more money to buy x, but to buy x you need to explore for loot. And looting wears out your equipment, and usually means getting injured fighting enemies, and that requires expensive medical treatment.


I recently restarted Fallout 3 with combat kicked to the hardest level, and it's a struggle to have enough ammo on hand and stimpaks to heal myself for certain combat situations. This makes the game that much more addictive.


So What's the Point?

Like with anything, there's no absolute right answer, but the foraging realism model seems superior to me. Maybe it's just because I'm a fan of the particular games in question, but it allows the game to fall into a natural rhythm similar to the FPS genre's "30-seconds of fun" model executed so well by the folks at Bungie.

First Impressions
Bioware (for me) is the RPG to Bungie's FPS. So far, they can do no wrong. And, though some of the comments I read in reviews of the game about a lack of originality to the world (which I address here) I've been impressed with all of the aspects an RPG has to capture: world, characters, plot, and gameplay.


Pacing
My experience with BioWare began with the classic Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for PC (played on several friends' computers). Anyone who's played that game will recognize the basic structure. The main plotline requires finishing several rather lengthy quests (which all, of course, spawn their own sub-quests) in no particular order. Even though you're *encouraged* to go to Redcliffe first, you do any of the other main quests first.

That said, this isn't an open-world RPG in the vein of the Elder Scrolls series or Fallout 3. In fact, while the environments are all well-done and have good variety, my favorite parts of the game involve Orzammar--especially the forays into the Deep Roads--that are semi-linear in progression. Perhaps because the constrained level design is compatible with an underground environment. Artificially inducing corridors in a forest just makes it feel artificially structured--which in turn breaks immersion.

Another criticism is something inherent to the plot design of the game. The opening battle against the darkspawn is a huge moment. But until the very end of the game, there's no more big battles. Did the darkspawn decided to take a vacation?

I know the PC has to run around recruiting allies, but it would have made for somewhat better pacing if there were smaller battles before the incredibly challenging battle in Denerim. This would also highlight the optional sequence of recruitment--i.e., having to face an early battle with just mages in one playthrough, and the same battle with just dwarves in another.

Incidentally, this was one of my critiques of Awakening--the full expansion pack that I've finished but still need to review as well.

Game Mechanics
The primary feature of Dragon Age is the radial menu--which controls everything from potions, poisons, a 'quick heal' command, sustained spells/talents, activated spells/talents, and even some 'advanced' functions which appear during certain quest-specific times. It sounds like a lot, but it's really a pretty intuitive system--and your most commonly-used spells/talents can be mapped to a dual-layer face-button hotkey system.

The radial menu itself is similiar to anyone who played Mass Effect--with one particular advantage. Instead of having to hold down a button while scrolling through, you can set the menu to toggle open-closed. I found this a great feature for my own physical limitations.

Balance
The default difficulty level is pretty good, though there are battles--especially the final fight against the archdemon--that can turn downright frustrating. Part of it is the default AI. Maybe I could have spent more time tweaking the combat mechanics system (which was a nice addition but tiresome to update every time one of your party members got a cool ability), but during boss fights and other difficult battles I found myself constantly in 'pause' mode via the radial menu. Hmm, that reminds me of KOTOR. . . .

Another balance issue (though realistic) is that some boss fights that *should* be hard come off as wars of attrition because it's just 4 on 1. Keep everyone healed and its just a matter of time before you can plunder their corpse. I'm thinking of a couple battles here that I won't name because it would spoil plot. At least the hardest 'bosses' are purely optional. The main quest is somewhat more even until the archdemon--here we have an incredibly hard single enemy matched with large numbers of weaker enemies. I was stuck here longer than any other part of the game.

Imitation is the Highest Form of Flattery
I have little to no hope of Fable III fixing many of my issues with that frachise's utterly shallow relationship system. But Peter Molnyeux should really take a look at the like/dislike relationship system in Dragon Age. Some characters I never really interacted with--so I could never even talk with them about their back-stories. Others (e.g. Morrigan) I was fascinated with, and wished there was more to discover. And the twist at the end of our romance. . . wow.

This takes a really simple system that Obsidian introduced in KOTOR II and really fleshed it out. I still crave more back-story or companion-specific quests, but there's only so much content you can put in an RPG and still make money on it. I spent (including time in pause screens dealing with crying kids) close to 90 hours on my first play-through). Considering that the politics, world, and NPCs are much more deeply developed than more massive games like Oblivion, I'm content with the content provided.

Nitpicks
Every game has its glitches, but two complaints stick with me:

(1) Certain quests never showed up as complete, even though I had completed them. This is really annoying when you like a game so much that you're tempted towards completionist status.

(2) The in-game economy still isn't quite right. It's probably one of the better of the BioWare games, but by the end I have a boatload of money and not much to spend it on. Certainly nowhere near as bad as Mass Effect, where there's almost nothing worth buying and all the good weapons come via questing, but it's still annoying. I also hate having an inventory cap that's totally unrealistic. I like the weight system used in Oblivion, not the arbitrary 'number of items, except duplicates' that BioWare uses here.

Would You Do it All Again?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, I think I'm going to start a new origin story tonight (or play my new start of Fallout 3). Which is, of course, the primary way BioWare sought to provide incredibly replay value. The six separate origin stories are brief (1-3 hours of gameplay) but set the stage for how people in Ferelden view you. Granted, I have yet to play more than my first character, but I can think of dozens of ways the experience will change the second time through. Even changing class radically changes gameplay for the main character.


Also, I'm going to try nightmare mode this time through (the highest difficulty level). Partly it has to do with the fact that I'm curious to see how hard it is in the first game--Awakening is way too easy as the levels increase--and also to keep the combat from getting too repetitious a second time through.

I almost wish I'd pre-ordered this game rather than wait longer. It's good. Really good. And the DLC (I've played everything except The Darkspawn Chronicles) is excellent. In fact, other than the Halo 3 map packs, probably the best DLC content I've purchased to date.

I've heard that smell is the sense most closely tied with memory. That may be, but from the opening menu screen on, the (admittedly cheezy) sounds of Perfect Dark bring back heavenly memories from my college days playing split-screen multiplayer on a 13'' TV. The re-release of the original game, with polished graphics and framerate, is something I wish more people would do. This is an awesome blast from the past!

The Highs: The textures and models are awful compared to modern games, but the graphics engine has clearly been overhauled--I'm now playing it on a 46'' with surround sound. Running on modern hardware probably doesn't hurt, either. I still listen to the soundtrack off my computer on occasion, so I knew the music would hold up well.

The combat is fun, even with the ridicilous auto-aiming that was a necessary element on the single-analog stick N64. That said, the controls are incredibly clunky compared to modern shooters. This is an iconic FPS, a must-play for anyone, but the $10 price tag is just right. As much as I love this game, I wouldn't pay any more unless it really was a re-make. And, please, don't mention the prequel--though I will have to dust that off now and give it another chance.

The Lows: Did I mention the controls? Also, there are two things that scream out after an hour or so with the full game. A great aspect of Perfect Dark is that you could still play multiplayer-style matches even when your friends weren't around. Why don't more developers put AI bots into their local multiplayer? But, while that feature is still in the game, I remember (rather mindless) nights of fun with my roommate destroying hordes of 'meat sims', only occasionally being overrun by sheer numbers. I want to say that the original game allowed something like 99 bots (whatever it was, it was a lot), but the 'new' game only allows 4. 4?!!! Come on!

Yet, something I wish they HAD changed was the relatively poorly balanced default weapon sets in the multiplayer. Probably 99% of the time I used custom sets, because the default weapon spawns are pretty atrocious. How do poison knives and timed mines balance with a crossbow that can kill you with a single shot?

AND WHERE'S MY LAPTOP GUN? Maybe I just haven't gotten to it yet, but I haven't seen my favorite weapon yet.

Cool news: I decided to try getting more exposure by also posting some of my more thought-provoking articles on a Gamasutra member blog. My previous post about Conquest v. Domination--the first one I posted--got highlighted as one of the outstanding posts of the week! For proof, head here (mine's number three on the list).

Playstation 3
I got unstuck in the campaign of BC2, but it's hard to play multiplayer matches with the way my kids have been. They're just a bit too long, and inevitably my three-month old wakes up and starts crying before I can finish. The story is starting to unravel a bit. Crash-landing a sattelite within miles of your current location, then saving it from RPG-wielding Russians? And a helicopter? The Uncharted-ish WWII prequel level had me sucked in, but now I'm not so sure about the campaign. . . .

At least a fictional American-Russian war is presented much more plausibly than the out-of-left-field war in MW2. Cool set-pieces, but that's a game whose story really doesn't hold water. . . .

Xbox 360
My wife's playing a ton of Dragon Age lately, and she finally got me back in the mood. Currently doing the Brecilian Forest quest. I really like how the designers have varied the main quest locations (Orzammar, Circle of Magi, and now the Dalish enclave. I've been trying to keep abreast of coverage about the expansions without ruining (too much) of the original storyline. So far I think it's one of Bioware's most successful titles when it comes to character development and story immersion.

And I've been heading a little old school as well: Perhaps it was the coverage at Shacknews of the match-making system overhaul in Halo: Reach or my apparent predilection to ultimately go back to Bungie's addictive multiplayer, but I've been playing a fair amount of Halo 3 lately. I think it's partly the shorter match times jive with my kids acting up :P.

And I'm about to go even more old school. The re-release of Perfect Dark has me totally psyched. I dl'ed the trial version today, but I picked up a points card on Amazon which will go towards that, plus the expansions for DA.

I'll keep you updated!

On the surface, Battlefield: Bad Company 2's Conquest mode and Modern Warfare 2's Domination mode are similar. Both are 2-team game-types with the emphasis placed on the control of three (sometimes 4 in the larger Conquest maps) points. Once captured, these points stay in the control of the capturing team until the other takes it away. Both are my favorites (currently, at least) in each game's multiplayer suite. So what makes Conquest so much better than Domination?


The Premise

Domination involves the same maps used in MW2's Team Deathmatch modes, but the conditions for victory are that teams gain points for the amount of time certain points on the map are 'controlled'. These points are, of course, multiplicative--the more points controlled, the faster the points rack up. Capturing (and re-capturing) involves camping within about five meters of the designated point unopposed for a few seconds.



Individual XP is racked up via kills (as in Team Deathmatch) with triple points (150 v. 50), but the sole condition of victory for the team are the points racked up by holding the capture locations.


Conquest has points that are captured using the same basic premise, but the prime difference are the victory conditions. Each time, not counting the initial spawns, has 100 'reinforcements'. Every time a team member dies, the re-spawn uses up one of those reinforcements. In this sense, Conquest is more akin to Team Deathmatches than Domination--despite the initial similarity.


Superiority and Incentivization

Anyone who's played both can feel the difference in gameplay, yet it's a justified comparison. Is the difference just in the victory conditions? Let's dig a little deeper.


I'm a decent MW2 player in terms of deathmatches, but I probably fall into the bottom third of global players (and where I normally place in the lobby. Yet when it comes to Domination, I'm normally in the top third--if not consistently the top two in the lobby. Because capturing a point is worth three times what a kill is--so my kill/death ratio can actually be worse and I still earn better XP if my primary focus is on capturing points.


Likewise the victory conditions. K/D ratio isn't as important as where the killing is done. It's a singular emphasis put on control, but the way it skews gameplay is interesting. Normally I'm a pretty cautious player, slinking around the edges with a silenced assault rifle. Yet Domination turns me into a constantly sprinting, grenade-launcher wielding, throw caution-into-the-wind animal. The ebb-and-flow is nearly always chaotic.


In contrast, Conquest's ebb-and-flow is more balanced. The key to understanding it lies beyond the difference in victory conditions, but also in the difference in player motivations. Like Domination, player incentive is skewed in favor of capturing (and defending), but nowhere nearly as much. Capturing a firebase gains 80 points versus 50 for a kill--much less of a difference in incentive. This, especially when combined with the victory conditions, gives players the incentive to be a lot more cautious.


Capturing bases is worth more, yes, but all it really does in terms of the match as a whole is give your team a tactical advantage. That has to do with another interesting aspect of Conquest. Whereas in Domination, players spawn at random points using (to the player, at least) the same basic logic as in a deathmatch, players can choose their spawn point using the following criteria:

• the initial base, or "deployment" area
• if you chose to join a sqaud, you can spawn on any of your living squadmates
• you can spawn in the vicinity of any currently controlled firebase

So, not only do the victory conditions contribute to gameplay that is more balanced between offense and defense, but spawning mechanics encourage teamwork. In fact, the only time I ever spawn at the original deployment base (which is usually pretty far from the action, at least by foot) is if a new vehicle has spawned to replace those destroyed in the opening minutes of battle. Otherwise, I spawn on top of my squadmates, or wherever the action is hottest.


I can understand Infinity Ward's motivations in designing Domination the way they did. Faced with the prospect of self-interested players, how do you encourage teamwork? You make helping the team worth more than simply keeping your kill/death ration up.


But DICE's concept with Conquest is a much more fulfilling experience, and makes you feel like you're on a real-life battlefield. This is a combination of having a shared pool of lives, the spawning mechanism, and individual incentives. The Frostbite engine doesn't hurt either. In MW2, sightlines are always the same, but capturing a firebase that's been shelled to pieces late in a Conquest match is sometimes a fun proposition--there's nowhere left to hide.

Since the last update, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has taken the lead in my gaming attentions. I haven't experienced that many of the exploits in Modern Warfare 2, but rather significant imbalances still remain. So why not play a better-conceived, more 'intelligent' shooter?

Playstation 3

As mentioned above, BC2 has (quite addictively) captured my attentions. The tactical gameplay (especially the 'Conquest' game-mode) have sucked me in. Plus, even though there are fewer unlocks and slower level progression, and longer matches, something about the gameplay is superior to MW2. I think it has to do with the fact that actual tactics come into play. Especially now that I've gotten used to the vehicle controls. So, if you were on Atacama Desert in Conquest mode and were being pwned by someone in an Abrams. . . yeah, probably me :P.

The campaign is pretty good too. The first level functions as a sort of 'prequel' to establish the premise, taking place in WW2. This sucked me in and established the game as an FPS with a unique plot--its flavor somewhere between the Modern Warfare series and Uncharted. Not having played the first game, the characters are ok--the comic nature is intended--but the story is linear and actually comprehensible. Not something which can honestly be said about MW2. But I'm only two levels or so in, so we'll see.

One (minor) gripe with the campaign is that when given the opportunity to pick up new weapons, the game merely shows a picture--no name or description--so sometimes I pick up an AR with a red-dot sight when really I wanted one with a 4x scope (BC2's equivalent to MW2's ACOG scope).

Certain things, though, that were initially negatives are now positives. My gripe about vehicle handling is pretty much gone--I've gotten pretty good with IFV's, but especially with MBT's. Also, the Frostbite engine is freakin' awesome! Sure, I've noticed weird edges, object pass-throughs and screen-tearing, but the destructibility aspect is simply amazing. This combined with the level design as a whole makes you feel like you're actually on a battlefield, not being funneled through corridors and shooting galleries.

Xbox 360

Surprisingly, no activity. But I plan on firing up Halo 3: ODST today. Something's been giving me the urge to replay the campaign. Maybe on Legendary?

PC

I installed the first Baldur's Gate, but haven't had time to do anything other than watch the opening cinematic. I've also re-'acquired' the first Deus Ex. We'll see if I have better luck running it than I have in the past (more so than other games, I've had compatibility issues with modern hardware). Too bad it's not old enough for the guys at GOG.com to get their hands on it.

This will NEVER happen. But, as an interesting thought experiment, here we go.

What are the fundamentals of government? If you strip government down to the 'bare essentials', what items could you not remove?

In no particular order, here's a candidate list:

• Secure defined borders and protect national interests from foreign aggressors.
• Immigration control.
• Defense against foreign threats (reactionary)
• Intelligence gathering (pro-active defense)
• Offensive operations against select threats to the national interest (e.g., the current 'War on Terror')
• Supply the conditions for the free exercise of citizens' rights and pursuit of mutual prosperity
• Law and order--the prevention of citizens infringing on the rights of other citizens, both personal and property rights.
• Appropriate yet minimal regulation to ensure an open yet fair marketplace.
• Maintenance of roads and other infrastructure necessary for common welfare.
• Provide oversight for citizen safety which individual citizens cannot within reason provide for themselves
• Consumer product safety
• Oversight of food supply / Enforcement of established 'good practices

The item on this list which particularly frosts me is the maintenance of infrastructure. I live in a community where new programs and spending (currently the biggest boondoggle is a proposed passenger rail line of incredibly questionable value) are constantly being proposed, yet the streets and facilities fall into increasingly bad repair. There is a base line of government services. Until that base-line is satisfied, NO spending should be allowed.

Here's where the thought experiment comes in. Government exists to provide a free environment for the exercising of citizens' economic and personal pursuits. This necessitates the provision of certain basic services. Yet it has morphed vastly beyond anything which could ever be termed a 'basic' service.

In private enterprise, numerous businesses have tiered service structures. Why not government? Taxes are already high, but the answer to fixing failing government services isn't raising taxes. It's making sure the government takes care of the priorities FIRST.

Here's my proposal: Everyone pays taxes. Taxes are X percentage of income, but that percentage is a composite.

Some people could opt for the so-called 'basic' plan. Their taxation would be the base-line percentage of what it takes to fund the core services.

Everything else is an opt-in. Want to enroll in Social Security? Medicare? Support funding of x,y, z? Add incremental percentages to that taxation. In some ways, this would be a flexible flat-tax. Pay for what you use, not for what you don't.

And that's why we'll have to wait until pigs fly. Not only would it create citizens semi-direct control over government spending (if everyone opts down to the basic tier, funding for the unnecessary bloat dries up) but it would require an unprecedented level of transparency of how our money is spent. Which would be great, but it'll also never happen.

I'm not interested in discussing a realistic implementation--I know this is fantasy. But what do you think of my thought experiment?

Fired up the PS3 and popped my brand-new game in. So, what's the scoop? Is this a Modern Warfare killer?

Short answer: way too early to tell.

Yeah, yeah, that's kind of a cop-out. But it's the truth. And here's why:


Tanks handle, well, like tanks. The Scorpion MBT in Halo 3 is maneuverable, powerful, yet always balanced by the superb about of power weapons. But, while a n00b will easily get pwnd by the spartan laser or missile pod, at least he can jump in and drive without looking like a total fool.

In the last few days I've been branching out in my MW2 action. Deathmatches are fun, but I decided to try the playlist Domination. For those not familiar with the game, the basic concept is  that there are three points on the map that you must control. You 'capture' these points by being within several yards of the flag for a few seconds (the more team members at the spot, the faster the capture). Once captured, the team gets points for how long the point stays captured.

Of course, it only stays captured if the enemy lets you have it. They can steal it from you via the same process. A nice touch, though, is that you don't have to have someone inside the zone to maintain control. Once captured, you can retreat to some other point of cover to guard it, or go on the offensive--chancing that the enemy won't get past your flank.

In general each team spawns near one point, with the third in a difficult to guard central location of the map. This creates an interesting ebb-and-flow to the gameplay. Of course, if neither team is particularly interested in defense the matches get chaotic really quickly.

This is a lot of fun! Personal XP is doled out just like in a regular match, but capturing a point is worth 150 versus the standard 50 for a kill. This can really add up. I'm ok in deathmatches, but I'm usually in the top half of lobby members in domination matches. One match last night I racked up 3500+ points, with the nearest down around 2000. Not to be arrogant, but I was impressed with myself :P.

Good teamwork can really devastate an uncoordinated team (I'm usually on the latter :P), and its difficult to make up ground once you're down. But it's added some additional spice to my play sessions. Stealth loses out to running around like a crazy man. Ok, not really crazy, but Marathon (unlimited sprinting) does come in handy.

One frustrating thing was that I had 3 matches almost in a row end early (and thus no XP earned) when the 'server timed out'. WTF? Everyone goes on about the exploits and other balancing glitches, but so far I've been impressed with the network coding versus Halo 3. Bungie's product works well in 4v4, but anything more than that it loses stability--and if a player leaves early, latency rears its ugly head in vicious fashion.

And I'm not even going to mention Gears of War 2. That game should never have been released when it did. The campaign was great, but the multi-player was so bad--and it took Epic so long to fix the coding issues--that I wrote it off. Whenever GoW3 comes out, I'll treat any reviews of its multiplayer with a heavy grain of salt.

No, it's not a new survival-horror game :P. Battlefield did come today, but my insomniac little son won't let me play :(. Ah, such are the joys of being a parent!

I'm addicted to Modern Warfare 2.

But, wait, didn't I just write a short novel about why Bungie is the be-all and end-all of FPS developers? Yes, but, as they say. . .  that's not the whole story.

 The first thing I have to say will soon become a video-game critic's cliche: No one can argue with the commercial success of Infinity Ward's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. That said, I find it hard to remember a blockbuster game having so many things to nitpick about. This isn't another article about the numerous exploits and glitches that have been exposed in the months since MW2's release, nor even the (slightly less numerous) patches IW has pushed out in an attempt to correct them.

Rather, these are my thoughts after having spent nearly an entire day online with MW2, comparing it to my other favorite adversarial multi-player shooter: Bungie's Halo 3. I don't have exact sales figures, but I believe the newer game has already outsold Halo 3--despite the games having been released two years apart. Yet there is something special about Halo 3 two-plus years later that IW has failed to capture with MW2 and its predecessor.

Xbox 360

I had been playing Mass Effect 2 somewhat, but lately Dragon Age: Origins has been getting the vast bulk of my time. Orzammar is essentially finished--and is easily my favorite part of the game so far. The Deep Roads are (mostly) hack-and-slash, but something about the environment really works for me. Between the ruined architecture and the twists concerning Shale, Branka, and Caridin I really enjoyed those hours of the game.

From there I went to tackle the Circle of Magi main quest--another excellent storyline, especially the rather involved puzzle at its end. Without revealing plot, it's difficult to describe it. I guess I'll call it an 'environmental' puzzle, but it's a lot more involved (in time) than something from an adventure game like Uncharted.

And then there's the discovery I made about Morrighan and her mother. . . . Wow. Great little quest if you picked up the grimoire and you're ready for a tough grind of a boss battle. Almost makes me wonder if I'm ready for the 'high dragon' back in the Andraste's Ashes quest.

As you can see, I've spent quite a bit of time in DA. My play-time is skewed because the clock runs even when you're in a pause screen (and my kids ensure there's a lot of pauses :P), but it says I'm pushing 50 hours now. ^.^

Other than that, my time on the 360 has involved a return to adversarial multi-player in the form of Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2. Not much of note there except that one match in Halo I was totally pwning-- I accounted for 24 out of my team's 50 kills. The next two matches proceeded to see my team lose 50-15 and 50-10. The Bungie gods keep f***ing with me :P

Playstation 3

No activity.

I'm discovering more and more that I love my kids--and I love the days when I am the stay-at-home dad. I work part-time and it is nice to be out of the house, but I'd much rather not work. And that's not just because I hate my job (though it does play a role).

With my two-month old (two months already!) loving the front pack, adjustments are necessary. For instance, I'm writing this standing up with the laptop sitting on the dishwasher (just the right height). But I enjoy it. My wrists need breaks every so often anyways :P

Sure, it seems like I'm pulling hair to write or game as much as I'd like. But I love it. No regrets :)

My current WIP is another backstory chapter--this time exploring the past of Nerana, one of my most enigmatic characters. Also perhaps the character who's undergone the most evolutions (especially since she's appeared as a side character in many of my stories). It's been really fun, and it makes this picture even more appropriate as a model for her character:

Quick update: I've already used the sniper rifle more in the sequel than I did in three play-throughs of the first game!



And that, to me, is a good sign. My favorite shooters are ones that use their weapons like a tool-box. Different situations call for different tools. . . and one thing I've used twice already are staircases that allow you to get into an overwatch position and provide sniper support for the rest of your team. Already a huge tactical improvement over the original.

And while we're on the topic of sniper rifles, I saw this and thought it was funny:

My six-week old son gave me a nice long nap yesterday, which allowed me to finish the first Mass Effect. I like my character build (both being a soldier and the aesthetics of his appearance), so I wanted to re-use it in the sequel. Plus I want the whole 'personal' angle that BioWare's been selling up. It's ingenious, really, but we'll see just how deeply it affects gameplay.

On a side note, I know I reviewed the first game a while back. I of course lost that save data when my 360 was stolen last summer, so that (among other reasons) is why I've been replaying it. I'd forgotten just how much I loved the design of the Ilos ruins. What is it with me and ruins? I swear my wife is rubbing off on me. . . :P

• A cover system that might as well have not existed. Yes, by pressing Shepard up against an object, he would (occasionally) switch to cover mode. But it was glitchy and, to be honest, really didn't help much. More often than not I played the game Halo-style--strafe behind cover, occasionally crouch, and take advantage of generous shields (and powers that made those even stronger). Solution: In ME2, BioWare becomes yet another company to adopt a Gears of War style cover system, though (so far) without all of the expert moves like SWAT turns, etc.
• Weapon options that really weren't ever used. Non-soldiers were stuck with pistols (which could actually become pretty potent towards the end) and as a soldier I could use everything. But, except for an occasional (maybe five times in twenty-plus hours of gameplay) use of the sniper rifle, I stuck with the AR. Solution: So far, the addition of heavy weapons is already a huge tool. The other classes, from what I understand, also get sub-machine guns and other cool tricks. It remains to be seen if I'll ever need that sniper rifle, though.
• Optional worlds that were essentially cut-and-paste. How many times did BioWare use the same template for enemy bases? That galactic steel-building contractor must have one hell of a market share. . . . Solution: More inventive level-design. Reviews suggest that this is a lot better. So far, the Lazarus Project is decent evidence of more thought going into that--especially since it's clear that BioWare wanted to nail the shooter aspect of the sequel (the RPG elements of the original, after all, were what everyone raved about). The second environment (a human colony) also looks more inventive. I only just landed, but from the cut-scene it looks like the designers are trying to give each place a more unique architectural feel.
• Creepy subplots that were never really fleshed out. Most of the side quests in the original game involved going after two corporations-- Cerberus and ExoGeni. However, they essentially become a shooter-RPG equivalent of the classic fetch quest: land on X planet, go into cookie-cutter base, kill all enemies, and get a text message on-screen. That's it--no story, no cut-scenes, nothing. Now, cut-scenes can be over-done, but a text message isn't a great way to reveal plot. The only real reason to do side quests was to level up and get weapons that were usually a lot more powerful than those available in stores. Solution: It remains to be seen, but since you're now working for Cerberus, I have a feeling the creepy subplots are going to be well-done in the sequel.

I decided to play through on Veteran (now actually the second-hardest difficulty level). It seems challenging, but I'm still getting used to the new HUD, so I can't honestly say if I've gotten close to dying yet. One thing I wish they had done was allow you to toggle the radial menus open-closed rather than always holding down the bumpers. I just discovered when perusing the menu, though, that powers can be given hotkeys.

Two things I just have to mention:

Just read this great article on Gamasutra that rips the single-player narrative to shreds:
Single-Player/Multi-Player Conundrum

In fact, the more I think about it, the more the author nails a lot of my thoughts on MW2. I found the multi-player fun, but I'm still not sold on exp progression based play. I'd much rather have Bungie's mostly excellent social AND ranked playlists that work so well for Halo 3.

But maybe it's just me. I simply don't feel like putting a bunch of time into a multi-player game right now. Instead, Dragon Age and Mass Effect (yes, I'm finishing up my second run through ME so I can use this character build for ME2 that just arrived) have me loving RPGs. Why play with a bunch of immature teenagers when I can have fun with well-designed characters and evocative worlds?

That's why I love Bioshock so much. It was an awesome FPS with a unique and quirky design and an unbelievably good story. If I was a designer, that would be the game I'd make. I love shooters, but I'd rather have one (or two) occasional standbys when I want a death-match. The other ten-plus games in my library might as well just be single-player.

Author's aside: this is the 50th post on my blog! I think I'll make it to 100 a lot faster than I did 50. I'm having fun blending all of the things I do on here, so here's hoping. . . .

My current WIP (which is all but done) is a chapter delving into the backstory of my novel's central character, Azriah Shepard. In this scene he's a young lieutenant tasked with a mission to investigate a rebel arm's cache. Before the mission, he meets an important side character for the first time: his new executive officer, Katerina Jensen.

My wife's been helping me find better models than Anna Paquin. This one is Sarah Chalke, of Scrubs and HIMYM fame:
 She's a fun character to write, because she doesn't take crap from Azriah--and in general they have a very casual relationship for a superior-inferior in the military. Cf scenes like this:

 Azriah’s fruitless exploration brought him back to where Katerina continued her own hunt, all attention fixed on her datapad. He snuck up on her from behind, masking his footfalls, a smile on his face as he relished the idea of scaring her. He made it within two meters of her when she suddenly spoke: “tickle me and I’ll kick you in the balls.”

The suddeness of her comment took him back, but then he had to chuckle. She turned around and looked up from her pad with a slightly irritated look on her face, but his persistent laughter eventually won him a smile.

“What the hell have you been working on, brainiac?”

“Solved the maze yet, genius?”

Both Imperial soldiers, they possess numerous advantages over the rebels--save numerical superiority. Azriah observes the rebels' tactical incompetence rather acidly:

Not like he was complaining. When the Empire faced competent enemies, that resulted in the near total destruction of the Eastern seaboard—and the desecration of the District of Columbia. A cultural memory now seared in every citizen of the Empire, a fury that allowed them to annihilate inferior foes. As they now did.

The notion of an 'American' Empire is a fascinating one to me, not because I'm some sort of megalomaniac. It's the notion that a descendant America (which I believe we are already) will eventually be faced with a military crisis that will either break the country permanently or break it, but then allow it to be reborn with a new governmental structure. The root cause could be many things, and I won't go into too much detail because, well, it's my story--and a lot of the detail still needs elaborating.

The heart of the target conceals something Azriah couldn't possibly have expected, which acts as the catalyst for the next phase of his career: a military commander tasked with ascertaining to what depth alien technology has infiltrated the core of the rebellion (with the even greater fear that it has also made its way to the Empire's chief rival, the UEF).

I'm not sure exactly what role I'm going to give Atelia's Fire. I think, in fact, it calls for another backstory chapter :).

No, unlike my father-in-law, I'm not talking about 'little green men'. The possibility of intelligent life in the universe is real but I have extreme doubts as to whether we'll encounter it anytime in the remote future. As to the question of whether we have already, well, conspiracy theories are not one of my interests.

I'm talking about using aliens in fiction, something I'm having fun with in my story. And I'm increasingly realizing that the alien race which is influencing me the most are the 'Ancients' or 'Lantians' from the Stargate TV shows. Almost identical to humans, they are mysterious, hyper-technological, and essentially a fallen society. Yet their ruins abound throughout the fictional Milky Way and Pegasus Galaxies.