The Common Sense Gamer Putting some sense in the insane world of gaming.

With some convincing from some work people as well as some readers (…filthy enablers…) I did go out to Best Buy and grabbed a copy of Star Craft 2….and I’m glad I did.

Right off the bat…Evil Korean Theory is partially proven correct in that Blizzard did not really change much in the way Star Craft plays. They certainly had their main target audience in mind when they made the game. That being said, the way they’ve delivered the single player experience is totally different. The delivery of it all took me totally off guard. The single player “lobby” aspect where you interact with various characters and items to get story elements is quite brilliant. The achievement system is a nice touch, although not surprising. The cut scenes and story itself is vintage Blizzard and very well done. I realized something about the whole atmosphere of the game in that it totally has a Firefly feel to it. There is an Old West element that is completely charming.

The actual gameplay has not really changed since SC1. I went through the tutorials just to make sure I was up to speed and everything is where it needs to be. Resource management, combat, all of it is pretty much on par with the game you know from 12 years ago. If you’re expecting no changes in combat, then you’re good to go. What kind of bugged me about combat was the apparent inability for my troops to form up in any organized way. I guess I have the Total War series to thank for that expectation. In SC2, it seems like your units like to bunch up together into one big, inefficient blob. Would it have really pissed off the Koreans that much if you had some semblance of a Line Formation? I’m finding that I cannot maximize my firepower on the bad guys…which is frustrating. If I overlooked that, the gameplay is quite good and…again…vintage Blizzard.

There is now a whole “social” aspect to the game now as well. The backbone is all about Battlenet and social networking. Links to Facebook, friends lists, etc etc. Blizzard is totally in line with the current “social” trend, so buckle up for all of the goodness that it brings to your lives. No…I didn’t get to try out the multiplayer yet but will get there soon once I finish up the campaign.

D out.

I played plenty of StarCraft back in the day. Finished the game and it was quite a bit of fun…but that was 11-ish years ago and a lot has changed in the world of strategy gaming. To say my tastes in strategy games has remained the same would be incredibly inaccurate considering I love playing games like AACW. You can see where I’m going here…building a case against me walking into an EB Games and grabing a copy…or worse…downloading it right from Battlenet.

Then there is the Korean issue. We all know Darren hates Korean (…or Japanese…) made games. It’s nothing personal…I just think they’re are terrible. To much repetition to be considered unique. The rumor going around is that Blizzard has ignored the last 12 years of strategy gaming when making SC2. My current theory on why they did this is because they would have the entire Asian peninsula screaming for their heads if anything but the graphics were changed. We will call this theory, “The Evil Korean Theory”. If true, then SC2 has brought nothing new to the table and it’s all Korea’s fault…which makes me grumpy since Korea thinks it’s just not enough to make games that are terrible, they have to get other companies to pander to their vision what gaming should be as well, i.e. the same game over an over and over.

But this is Blizzard and they make good games…typically. So, how accurate can my Evil Korean Theory be if Blizzard sticks to its usual modus operandi. Is the ignoring of the last 12 years of strategy gaming justified by the fact that reports of SC2′s level of…./gulp….polish is just superb? Dunno. I just get the feeling that this game is just not made for me. I get the feeling that games that measure success in “clicks per second” is not my cup of tea. I’m thinking that in the last 12 years I’ve turned more into a grognard and that games like SC2 are just too quick for my tastes.

I would love to hear from any wargamers out there on how they feel about SC2. Should I get it or should I just leave it to the Koreans

D out.

A couple things to go over this morning. I was going to talk about how ludicrous the idea of 3D gaming/TV is, but I’ll save that for another day.

First up is an “old school” game called Eschalon Book 2. I saw this game in passing during one of the Steam sales and I immediately passed it over for a number of reasons. First, the graphics. The screenshots were really not that good and it really looked like something from 1998. Second is the resolution….it’s stuck at 1024 by 768 which usually is an automatic “no buy” for me as I have a wide screen monitor and most times that resolution looks like ass. So I went on my merry way during that Steam sale not giving this game a second thought. Fast forward to the past couple of weeks when I started hearing about this game on various podcasts and other gamers. The terms “old school” and “really great” were thrown around. It’s also an indie title, which as you know I have a soft spot for. Being an indie developer gives you all sorts of wiggle room in my head for how the graphics are and what you’re resolution is set at. So, it turns out that the game has a demo and I finally had a chance to try it out last night…and yeah, VERY old school. Surprisingly, I ended up really not caring about the graphics or resolution issues because the game actually looks really, really good. I was shocked actually. The world is sharp and very well put together as is the characters and monsters. I think anyone who has loved Buldar’s Gate should certainly give this one a try if they are looking to recapture gaming days past. I’m going to be trying out the demo some more tonight and more than likely I’ll be adding it to my Steam collection.

Second is a game called Crusader Kings. To be honest, I’m not too sure about this one. It’s made by Paradox, so it’s a very solid strategy game…but with a bit of a twist:

While the game has historically accurate scenarios to start from, featuring interesting personages such as William the Conqueror, Robert Guiscard, Alexius Comnenus, El Cid, Friedrich Barbarossa and Edward III, a significant part of the game’s charm is that from that point on, a new alternate history always starts building. Unlike past Paradox titles, there are very few predetermined historical events and no predetermined historical personages that would always appear after game start. Twists to the story are created by simulating the lives of tens of thousands of individuals of note (courtiers and nobles), intermarrying, having children, moving, inheriting, plotting, accumulating wealth and titles etc. Each is at birth assigned a number of inherited scores (‘DNA’) that determine health and fertility as well as administrative and military capabilities and the characters will, through the course of their lives, usually add a few noninherited traits that alter the scores. The qualifications and relations of individuals will highly influence their fate and is therefore of great interest to their player. This all makes for highly unpredictable game dynamics as the state of affairs on the ‘world stage’ is the product of the interplay of myriad events on the micro level.

…so essentially it’s a big strategic/political sandbox that you get to play in and I have absolutely no clue on how to proceed even after about a week of play. It’s a somewhat frustrating place to be as a gamer. Playing a game where you know that there is something great on the other side but not knowing how to get there. The game seems to be designed in a way that makes it hard to know what to do with yourself. The AARs (…how I learn most strategy games…) on the forums aren’t much help because most seem to be in story telling format instead of a blow-by-blow account on how things work. Oy. Going to keep grinding away but this one might not work out for me.

..oh yeah…I really wish I was at Comic Con.

D out.

Fascinating read regarding how EA’s Peter Moore thinks that metacritic scores are a bit of a slippery slope:

“Here in the US Robin Hood just come out and it has been ripped apart by the critics, but it made $40m in the first weekend. There is a bunch of games that sell millions of units that only get a mid-70s Metacritic.

“You can break Metacritic down and say ‘We can get two extra points by doing this’ but it may not actually enhance the gamers’ experience, and that is where there is a line we have to be careful we don’t cross. It is a bit of a slippery slope if you focus everything on Metacritic.”

But funny enough…and strangely…the peeps who worked on FIFA 10 had metacritic objectives to meet for that game:

Metacritic scores were worked into the development teams’ objectives, and the hardest task fell to the FIFA crew, who were challenged by EA Sports president Peter Moore to go out and win a 90 Metacritic rating on their next game.

Although the effectiveness of Metacritic is open for debate, using it has paid dividends for EA. But now Moore feels that as the quality has been nailed down it’s time to move beyond the score aggregation website.

“I’ve taken the entire FIFA team out for dinner for a tremendous celebration for what they did on FIFA 10, because they not only delivered a 90 they delivered a 91,” continues Moore.

Uhhhhh huh. You know what I find weird about this? Is that Moore seems to be concerned about what the game “journalists” think about their games, not what the average gamer does. If he cared about that, he would be talking about user scores…which tend to be a bit more reflective of what fans think of a particular game. Looking at FIFA 10 for the XBOX360, you indeed do have a 90; however, the user score is a 77. Got to wonder why there is a 13 point difference between what gamers say and what game “journalists” think. Tell you what Pete…why don’t you take them all out to dinner when you get that score up to 90. If you’re so worried about the “player’s experience”, why aren’t you looking at scores that players actually give you instead of the ones that you essentially buy in order to get said metacritic score up. OK…I’m going over the top with the whole “buying reviews” thing cause we all know that never happens

lol…good read, but Pete doesn’t get it.

D out.

Yayyy…DCUO pre-order and beta sign ups are out there for you to enjoy.

Beta sign up is here. Pre-order information is here. The collectors edition includes the following:

DC UNIVERSE™ ONLINE Collector’s Edition for the PC offers the collector, the fan and the avid gamer the ultimate DCUO collection.

- A DCUO limited edition Batman figure from DC DIRECT, based on Executive Creative Director and legendary comic book artist Jim Lee’s concept art for the game
- A DCUO prestige comic of the game’s back-story as written by Geoff Johns
- The Art of DC UNIVERSE™ ONLINE art book showcasing the stunning art from Jim Lee and the team at DC COMIC’S WILDSTORM Productions
- The brand new DC Universe™ Online comic book, Legends Issue#0, with an original cover by Jim Lee

That’s not a bad deal for the collectors edition; however, it’s a bit on the pricey side for $99. Will have to ponder this one as I tend to be a sucker for the MMO collectors editions.

D out.