Imperium

30 August, 2007

Obfustat

Filed under: General Post

Yesterday, Bioshock malfunctioned. I’ve only had it for a few days now, since its release on the 24th, and I’m totally hooked, so I wasn’t pleasantly surprised when AVG (my anti-virus software) flagged my Bioshock executable as a virus, prompting me to quarantine it. After the file was quarantined, Bioshock naturally failed to run. I naively attempted a reinstall, thinking that perhaps my installation had become corrupted in some way. I was halted near the end of the installation by an error, preventing the process from completing. Through browsing forums I discovered that the problem was not mine alone, and that many other AVG users were having it as well. Many of them suggested a workaround: disable certain features of AVG, or indeed disable AVG altogether.

I chose to wait until this morning for the next AVG update, which, in accordance with my hopes, has eleviated the problem.

It is now time for me to return to Rapture.

- Chris

28 August, 2007

1v1 dammit!

Filed under: General Post

Hi,

I had an interesting argument over IM with a friend of mine this morning. It was on the subject of Quake 4. Specifically, the legitimacy of free-for-all mode as a test of skill. Here it is:

Chris: If there’s a particularly weak player in the game, then a stronger player might choose to focus attacks on him and rack up cheap kills, rather than facing off against an equally strong or stronger player. Thus, the result of a FFA match doesn’t necessarily indicate the most skilled player.
Tom: Well yeah there is always that. I never do that though. If I kill a weaker player then it’s because I have happened to meet him more than a stronger player.
Chris: Even in that case the same problem arises, if one player happens to be playing worse than another. In a 1v1 there’s no escaping the pure test of skill.
Tom: Yeah, but I wouldn’t deliberately attack that person. Also, you would have the same advantage as well, so it’s still fair. You would have as much time as I do to attack and kill the weaker player, so it doesn’t really matter.
Chris: My point is, who wants to find out who’s best at getting loads of cheap kills, rather than who’s best at at a true face-off? The latter is what I play Quake for.
Tom: I don’t play games to be the best. I play to have fun. The journey of getting better and improving is always fun, which is why I get good at games. I don’t get much from 1v1.
Chris: 1v1 will definitely improve skill faster than FFA. It’s far more intense.
Tom: I wouldnt say so. I would say the opposite. It’s less intense. It’s 1v1 rather than 1v3, therefore there’s less to watch out for.
Chris: More often than not it breaks the intensity, because you’re in the middle of a face-off against one player, rocket-to-rocket, or rail-to-rail, and then another player saunters in and fires a couple of rockets, killing both. It shits all over the two having a face-off, and it doesn’t reflect well or badly on the player that got the cheap kills. 2v2 is fine. FFA is never played at the tournaments.
Tom: Well, nothing is more intense than facing off against 1 person and another turning up and killing both. You feel like a god if you manage to fend-off the guy you’re dueling and the new attacker. Dodging the fire of one guy to kill the second, and then finishing off the first; it takes quick thinking, a bit of luck and lots of concentration. I prefer FFA to all other modes.
Chris: But it’s not a fair fight from the outset.
Tom: Who cares if it’s fair? Be better than them and kill the shit for trying to sneak kill!
Chris: Certainly, if you manage to pull through those situations it feels good, but it so rarely happens because the advantage is so massively in the encroacher’s favour. You just want a bit of fun, whereas I’m interested in the fairness, because without fairness you can’t have a meaningful match. It just comes down to what you want from deathmatch I suppose.
Tom: In an FFA, everyone starts off on a level playing ground and everyone has the same opportunities. Over time, the best players will still win, even if on the odd occasion they are beaten by someone getting lucky kills or preying on people already dueling.
Chris: It depends on what you mean by ‘best players’. Certainly, the players that are best at getting kills of opportunity will stand a much better chance at coming first in an FFA. The players who are best at raw 1v1, which involves the most demand on skill, might fall short in an FFA. what gets you ahead in FFA is not necessarily what gets you ahead in 1v1, and vice-versa. Same goes for TDM. Different gametypes require different sets of skills.
Tom: Yes, each require different skills. I wouldn’t say that one was more demanding though. They’re just different demands, both of which are difficult to meet. I can do 1v1 and do fine but I don’t enjoy it as it’s too start, stop, and spectate. It ruins your flow.
Chris: There’s the potential for a truly skilled player to win an FFA by being so utterly superior that he can consistently survive incursions from one player whilst dueling another; but most of the time it’s more likely that the player who wins an FFA will be the best at sneaking up on two players fighting and landing a couple of easy rocket-shots. If there are easy rocket-shots in 1v1 it’s because the one player is just better than the other.
Tom: The ultimate fighter is always the way to go. A martial-arts film would be dull if every fight was 1v1. The best films are watching multiple on 1 and the 1 winning. Same in FFA
Chris: The problem is that no one among us us is ‘the ultimate fighter’ compared to the others. So your argument is no good. I suggest you adjust your attitude!
Tom: I suggest you do the same.

- BREAK -

Tom: Like in Super Smash Bros, 1v1 is great, but the most fun comes from fighting multiples at the same time and still winning.
Chris: I maintain the same argument for SSB. 1v1 Link vs Link was always my favourite. FFA was just crazy bullshit, good for a laugh but nothing else.
Tom: I play games for a laugh. I think it requires just as much skill, if not more, to be the best at FFA as it does on 1v1.
Chris: Well you’re wrong as I’ve just argued. My conclusion was that, more often than not, the best at FFA (i.e. first place) will be the best at getting cheap kills, not an ‘ultimate fighter’.
Tom: I wouldn’t say that’s how I won the other day, so its not always the case!
Chris: Oh really? Think a lot of yourself eh?
Tom: I beat you 1v1 previously, and then beat you both on FFA.
Chris: You beat me 1v1 on vanilla Quake. We will settle this tonight!

- Chris

24 August, 2007

Now that’s better!

Filed under: General Post

Hi,

Well, I found some Quake 4 deathmatch replays of much higher quality streamed by much faster servers here.

That’s actually a link to one of the many replays on the site, and the site isn’t devoted to Quake 4 or even to games. From what I can tell it’s another video-dumping site in the vein of youtube.

Some of the replays have commentary; some don’t. They’re all much easier to watch than the ones on the WCG site though.

Take a look,

Chris

14 August, 2007

I want more replays!

Filed under: General Post

Hi,

Recently I’ve been recording my Quake 4 deathmatches, and watching them afterwards to examine tactics. After I’d watched all of my own replays, I decided that I’d like to watch replays of other players. So, I went in search of a site with demos on it. Eventually, after a great deal of scrounging around on Quake 4 sites, I came across the World Cybergames. They have replays, with commentaries, of some of the matches from the 2006 games.

Apart from the repeated mispronounciation of socrates (one of the top Quake 4 players in the world), the commentaries are very professional and informative, especially when there are two commentators exchanging banter back and forth. The matches wouldn’t be hard to watch without the commentators, but I think they make them much more exciting, and they occasionally give some insights into the tactics of the game.

Unfortunately the server that streams the videos seems to be excruciatingly slow, and as far as I can tell there’s no option to just download the replays, which means that often there’s a lot of stuttering. The 800k high quality option is even worse than the 200k one which I use, the 200k being pretty bad quality, to the extent that I rely heavily on the commentary to keep track of what’s going on.

Problems aside, I think it’s very positive to see this kind of thing happening. I didn’t really have any perception of the level of professionalism that’s packaged with the sport now. I have no doubt that this progression into the mainstream will continue, but for now I’d just like to see a live web service with better quality and a better server for the 2007 games.

Take a look if you’re interested.

- Chris

10 August, 2007

Peggle

Filed under: General Post

Hi,

I did a review of Peggle that’s much more compact than the one for Quake 4. Here it is:

__________

Peggle Deluxe

The first time I heard the word Peggle was when I was listening to an episode of the PCGamer (US) podcast. One of the writers had discovered it, and his appraisal consisted of a Homer Simpson-esque drool of “mmm…peggle…”. Naturally, the other writers were intrigued, and now, after having played it, they speak of it either with reverance or hatred.

There are, as far as I am aware, four attitudes that people have toward Peggle. The first is the ignorant dismissal that I get from those of my friends who simply refuse to play it, and instead mock my obsession. The second is the dismissal and mockery that I get from those who have played it, and found it to be sorely lacking. The third attitude is the one that I see in the majority of those that have played the game: unhealthy fixation.

I count myself amongst those with the fourth attitude. I have played Peggle. I have come close to becoming a Peggle grandmaster, and I have seen the game for what it is. It is a husk; a bottomless pit of inanity.

At first, Peggle seems too simple to be worth spending time on. You are asked to participate in a fantasy: that you have applied to The Peggle Insitute, and that to become a Peggle master, you must complete a set of challenges. In each challenge you are presented with a screen populated with pegs and blocks, arranged in various pretty patterns. The pegs and blocks come in three flavours. The blue ones just give you points, the orange ones give you more points than the blues, and the solitary pink one multiplies your points.

In the standard gametype the goal is to eliminate all of the orange pegs. In other gametypes you’re required to achieve a certain score, or eliminate all the pegs (not just the orange ones), or, in dual mode (against an AI, or another human sitting at your computer with you), beat your opponent’s score. This simplistic gameplay was enough to divert me from playing Oblivion for a month.

What I now realise is that the reason Peggle consumed so much of my time is that it masterfully combines two elements. The first element; spectacle. The spectacle of a glistening ball bouncing from peg to peg, each bounce producing a satisfying note, the notes gradually building in pitch, and finally the possibility of a smooth landing in the elusive free-ball bucket to finish. The second element; trickery. Peggle tricks you and those watching into thinking that you are the mastermind behind the spectacle; that by means of your previously unknown (even to yourself) genius, you are able to, with a single click, conjure magic. Out of this combination there emerges an insidious, addictive, chimera.

Realising the structure of Peggle was my first step toward ending my obsession. Once I came to see the truth – that I was not actually the architect of all the splendour, and that a high score is much more a product of luck than skill – I became disillusioned with the whole thing. I look back on my time playing Peggle in bitterness, not with a warm, fuzzy feeling that ‘it was fun while it lasted’. Peggle is evil, plain and simple. Don’t waste your time with it.

✓ Extremely entertaining for a while
✗ No network or internet multiplayer
✗ Evil

50%

__________

Well, that’s Peggle for you.

- Chris

8 August, 2007

Quake 4

Filed under: General Post

Hi,

I said I was writing a review of Dark Messiah, but I finished Quake 4 and for some reason it felt easier writing a review for that instead. Here it is:

Oh, by the way…*SPOILERS*.

__________

Quake 4

I’ve played at least a little of all the Quake games. I played a few levels of Quake 1 and Quake 2, and I’ve played Quake 3 extensively, coming back to it from time to time. I’ve avoided buying Quake 4 for quite a while now, for whatever reason. Perhaps I skipped buying it on release because I had other FPS games like F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2 and the almighty Half-Life 2 to contend with. But now I’ve bought it and played both the single-player and the multiplayer, and I’m glad I did.

For me, Quake 3 was always the connoisseur’s choice for an unadulterated deathmatch experience. If you want to settle a grudge, or just test pure gaming skill, Quake 3 was the only choice, leagues apart from any other FPS out there (any of the UT games included). I can now say that Quake 4 has taken up the baton left by Quake 3, because there’s nothing that Quake 4’s multiplayer doesn’t have that Quake 3 did, and it looks and feels suitably improved.

There are certainly some changes that have been made. You get the new nailgun from the single-player, as well as the dark matter gun in place of the BFG. The flamethrower, another newcomer, is a truly odd weapon; instead of pouring flame outward in a spray, it flings a ball of fire a short distance at high speed that then lingers as a hot-spot on the ground, waiting for any poor soul to come near it. There’s also a new range of maps to play on, and some updates of oldies from Quake 3. The map q3dm17, known as ‘The Longest Yard’ was always a favourite of mine from Quake 3, and it’s reborn as ‘The Longest Day’ in Quake 4. All of these changes are minor ones though. What really sets Quake 4 apart from its predecessor is its single player mode.

The premise of Quake 4’s single-player is a fairly simple one. You play Corporal Kane, the classic generic tough-guy, as he fights against the Strogg enemy alongside his marine comrades. Kane is a member of Rhino squad, one of many squads based on-board the Hannibal, a space ship and the marines’ headquarters for the duration of the game. The events of Quake 4 are all set on Stroggos, the Strogg’s home planet. In this case the marines are the aggressors, and their overriding goal throughout is to disrupt the Strogg’s operations enough that they’re fatally crippled.

The game is split up into several distinct missions with clearly defined objectives. The missions are invariably ambitious, and typically involve Rhino squad and a few others heading straight into the heart – or indeed bowels – of a Strogg installation and disabling some sort of device that’s crucially tied-in to the Strogg’s strategic capability. What also almost always happens is that the majority of the marines sent on the mission are killed off and Kane is left to finish the job.

I’d say there’s roughly a 70%/30% split between you being on your own on the one hand and fighting alongside marines on the other. This is perhaps a shame, because the sections where you form part of a squad, or indeed part of a multi-squad operation, are really quite entertaining. The experience you get when your squad members are moving through a room or down a corridor, taking up covering positions and helping each other out is generally much richer than the one you get in solitary play.

Aside from the feeling of being part of a team that you get when you’re with your squad, they can also, as they should do, make fighting the Strogg considerably easier. The AI governing your squad members is consistently competent at taking down enemies, and when you’re in a squad with technicians or medics, you can charge insanely into the line of fire and get your health and armour immediately replenished once the fight is over.

This has been done before – in Half-Life 2 for instance – but the implementation of it in Quake 4 has a little more polish. I remember that in Half-Life 2 the medics would often ignore you when you were standing in front of them, and that it would take a few moments for them to register your presence. I never had that problem in Quake 4, and what was additionally refreshing was how quickly my health or armour got refilled once the techs or medics started work on me.

Being on your own isn’t so bad though. In fact, it’s damned fun. One of the most striking things about Quake 4 is the weapons that you get to use. They all have their own unique flavour, and perhaps more importantly, they’re fun. You begin with the blaster (a pistol) and shortly pick up the machine gun and shotgun. These are your only weapons in the early game until you get access to the more advanced hyperblaster (the successor to Quake 3’s plasma rifle), the nailgun, and the grenade launcher. Later on you come across the rocket launcher, the railgun, the dark matter gun, and my personal favourite, the lightning gun.

What’s great about the weapons in Quake 4, apart from their uniqueness, is that they are all (with the possible exception of the blaster) useful throughout. The shotgun and the machine gun are fantastic in the early game, and they never stop being fantastic later on. The shotgun still packs the massive punch in the late game that it does in the early game, and as for the machine gun, I found that as the game went on, it became less of a close-combat tool for laying down suppressing fire, and became more of a long-range sniper rifle.

Another great aspect to the weapons is the way that several of them get upgraded as you progress through the game. The nailgun is lethal in its original dumb-fire form; but later on in the game a tech marine offers to attach a scope to it. With the scope attached, the nailgun can lock-on to any target with a hold-down of the right mouse button, and then guide all subsequent nails to that target. I was still using the nailgun right up until the final boss fight. The nailgun isn’t the only weapon that gets an upgrade either. For instance, the rocket launcher gets a guidance system, so you can steer rockets that you’ve fired wherever you want them to go, and whereas for the first half of the game you have to hold down the reload button to load shells into the shotgun; later on it gets changed to accommodate a clip of shells instead.

The stunning quality of design isn’t exclusive to the weapons either. The levels in Quake 4 are very cleverly laid-out, and often quite beautiful, which is rare to see in such a gritty shooter (I’m thinking of Doom 3, which I can’t remember being what I would call beautiful). Certainly, you spend a lot of time fighting in fairly samey corridors, but these sections are regularly interrupted by distinctive set-pieces. I never felt that I was in a ‘fake’ environment, or that the environments were built just so that they could be populated with bad-guys; rather, I felt that I was travelling through a fully-fledged, structured installation that was serving a purpose.

There are a few usable vehicles throughout the game. You have the opportunity to drive a hover tank and a walker, and there’s also a tram-ride stage. What all the vehicle stages share is that they put you in charge of devastating weaponry. The hover tank has a hugely powerful main cannon, the walker comes with a heavy machine gun and a rocket launcher, and the tram has a hefty machine gun mounted on the rear. All these weapons absolutely tear apart Strogg footsoldiers of all kinds, and it only takes a modicum of skill to master taking down the bigger targets that are thrown at you. They may be simple and easy, but what the vehicle stages do well is break up the gameplay and give you something different to do, which is always welcome.

Between missions you’re required to attend briefings on-board the Hannibal. The briefings themselves are cut scenes – in the game engine, but scripted. Before the briefings begin you get a chance to explore the Hannibal and chat with some of the marines on station. I use the word ‘chat’ in the most limited possible sense, because essentially all you get to do is click on a marine and receive a comment, insult, or just a polite refusal to speak, depending on the mood of the marine in question. After the briefing some of the marines that you spoke to before will have gone off on missions, new marines will have arrived, and those that stayed will have new comments or insults for you.

The Hannibal sections are very reminiscent of the between-mission sections in an older game, Voyager: Elite Force, where you were allowed to have a similarly limited ‘chat’ with the likes of Harry Kim, Tuvok, and last and certainly least, Voyager’s own loveable head chef, Neelix. There’s no real wow factor here, but just as with the vehicle stages, the Hannibal sections serve a purpose. They provide a change of pace, and they advance the main storyline

So, the environments all range from decent to great, and the weapons are fantastic to use, but what do you get to use them on? The Strogg are composed of a myriad of wildly different creatures, each of which is (as you later learn) linked to a single commanding overmind, the ‘nexus’. Although they’re all commanded by a single entity, each variety of Strogg has its own unique weaponry and attack pattern, which you’re forced to adapt to.

For instance, there’s the Big Lumbering Bastard with a shoulder-mounted railgun and a giant energy shield (of course I don’t know their real names, give me a break!), or BLB for short. The BLB presents you with an interesting dilemma. He’s in possession of one of the most deadly single-shot weapons in the game, and between shots he’s nearly impossible to hit from the front. You have to either attempt to snipe him from the front by hitting one of the few areas of his body that isn’t shielded, or flank him and hit him hard before he turns around, or use explosive damage from the grenade launcher or the rocket launcher to shake him up for the final killing shot.

There’s also the rocket-launching, teleporting mega bitch, who deploys from a pod set into a wall, and floats toward you with rockets primed. You have to hit her with some serious damage very quickly, before she gets to teleport; and if she gets to teleport, you have to be quick on your feet and have your gun aimed at her face as soon as she re-materialises. Believe me when I say that you don’t want to get hit by her too many times.

It’s not all good news though, I’m afraid. Having said that the Strogg present a challenge, and that you get to use some awesome weapons against them; it is certainly not the case that the combat in Quake 4 is, when taken as a whole, top quality. With the notable exception of the Strogg marines (again, this is just my name for them), who work in teams and move from cover-to-cover, leaning around corners, and firing with a variety of weapons, all of the Strogg pursue the often effective but basic strategy of charging like a crazy maniac.

It’s also a bit of a piss-take when you see the Strogg marines leaning and yet you’re unable to follow suit. Nowadays, it should be a matter of course for there to be a lean function in an FPS. All too often I found myself taking far too much damage from incoming enemy fire simply because I was forced to come out of cover more than I’m accustomed to, coming from games like Far Cry – released more than a year earlier than Quake 4, I might add – and, more recently, F.E.A.R..

Apart from the lean function, there are other innovations that have been made in the FPS genre that Quake 4 would have benefited substantially from. F.E.A.R truly raised the bar in the rapidly advancing area of AI, to the extent that surviving for any length of time would have been made utterly impossible without the added slow-time. The AI in Quake 4 – even that of the strogg marines – doesn’t really compare.

Something that F.E.A.R. shares with other FPS games – both of the Call of Duty games, for instance – is a commitment to realism. Limiting the player so that they can only carry a small set of weapons is critical to achieving this goal. In Quake 4 the player is fully capable of carrying all of the weapons in the game at once; not excluding the rocket launcher and the grenade launcher, which I would have thought would be fairly weighty. Furthermore, you get to carry around a significant stock of ammunition for all of these weapons. Imagine the burden of a backpack of rockets, a satchel of grenades, another of shotgun shells, and dozens of clips for the machine gun and the nailgun!

Limiting the player’s capacity for absorbing damage is also crucial, because it forces her to make tactical decisions; not to mention the fear of getting hit that it creates. Kane is quite comfortable taking a couple of rockets to the face in Quake 4. Well, maybe not comfortable; he feels the hurt, but it’s nothing like Call of Duty, or Call of Duty 2, where a grenade going off in the room that you’re in kills you instantly.

I realise that all of this might not matter to those among you that prefer a simpler, more back to basics FPS experience, but I’m not one of you. I really feel like all of these innovations represent a larger advance in the genre, and that we shouldn’t be tempted to applaud a game because it sticks to the hallmarks of the previous generation. The more realistic the genre becomes; the more immersive it becomes. When you’re made to feel like you have limits, that you’re vulnerable, that you can’t behave like a terminator and survive, you start to become the player character in a way that is, I think, crucial to distinguishing the computer game from the movie, or the book, in terms of its potential.

I have some minor quibbles with other aspects of Quake 4 as well. First, as an aside, the load times for each level in the single-player are consistently extensive. The load times are, I think, longer than those in Far Cry, which I remember being particularly long.

Second, although Corporal Kane is the protagonist, and is spoken to all the time by the NPCs, he never gets to speak himself. There were moments when I wished that Kane had been given some lines, like when you get back to the Hannibal after being partially stroggified (turned into a Strogg) and some of the marines say things like “what’s that doing here?” and “god damn squibby!”; I felt like Kane should really have given some back. I don’t feel like deducting too many points for this one, because it’s actually very rare to find an FPS that has a speaking player character, but I can’t help thinking that a Kane with a personality would have added a lot to the story.

It’s not just a lack of a Strogg attitude in Kane that’s lacking either; the whole stroggification process, and the aftermath of it, was very underwhelming. Being partially stroggified means that your HUD is changed to look more Strogg-like, you get more health and armour, the ability to understand Strogg language and use Strogg technology, and you can run slightly faster.

There are some plot implications too. Once or twice, Kane is ordered to bypass Strogg security measures because his implants allow him to pass through them without setting them off, or he’s told that he alone can reach certain areas of a Strogg installation and achieve a crucial objective. But this didn’t impress me; instead, it struck me as an attempt by ID at offering an in-game justification for a gameplay mechanic that was already in effect before stroggification – that Kane has to go ahead and save the day when no other marines can assist him.

Furthermore, so much more could have been made of stroggification. Kane could have had the occasional order slip through from Strogg-command, telling him to work against his comrades, and if he’d had some dialogue in the first place, that dialogue could have changed to reflect an altered personality. Also I think that Kane could have been far more enhanced in terms of running speed and reflexes, to the extent that a slow-time mode could have been added.

Taken as a whole, Quake 4 is simply old school. That’s both good and bad depending on what aspect of the game you look at. If you look at the multiplayer, it’s all good, because what’s old school in Quake multiplayer is an incredibly refined test of FPS skill. If you look at the single-player, a lot of the elements that ID have chosen to keep old school are bad old school, not good old school. I’m glad that they left the multiplayer more or less unchanged, but I’m not glad that they didn’t draw some inspiration from more recent FPS efforts in crafting their single-player.

✓ Very cool weapons
✓ Intelligent level design
✓ Solid squad gameplay
✓ Decent vehicle stages
✓ Fantastic multiplayer
✗ Long load times
✗ Basic, uninspired combat
✗ Poorly implemented stroggification
✗ Kane has no personality

80%

__________

The Dark Messiah review will be along soon. I still haven’t finished Oblivion but I will eventually. I’m just into the age of gunpowder in Medieval II, and enjoying my conquest of France. The Pope is giving me a really hard time.

Thanks for reading,

Chris

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here