Daimon's Lair

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.