The Beta Critic

Star Wars Episode VII: Jump of the Shark

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:56:00 +0000

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away... the most famous franchise in the universe had finally jumped the shark.

Just look at this:

And my reaction is something like that: http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I'm not a Star Wars purist but I could never imagine that Lucas Arts could come this far. It's ok to milk your intellectual property as much as you want but this?

I mean... there must be a limit, there must be some dignity left in the heart of George Lucas. I can even come to accept Jar Jar Binks... but not this... that's too much... I can't handle it.

The clip is a livestream of the Star Wars Kinect videogame that beyond other features has a dance mode where you can performs in the role of your favourite characters of the original trilogy.

There's even Princess Leia with her slave outfit that dances the tunes of Cristina Aguilera and Britney Spears in front of Jabba the Hut... Fast forward to minute 2.00:

I guess I finally find an objective reason to be against motion controls... and to move on beyond Star Wars (yes, I know: about time!).

Metacritic is a joke!

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:43:00 +0000

The first time I logged to metacritic, I thought that it was a wonderful idea. A place where you could find links, datas and all kind of stuff about game's and movie's reviews. With a fancy user based score added to the mix, intended as a mean to balance the critics and a nice overall score as an economic index about the trends of the game in the critical world. I know that the metacritic score was not meant to be taken literally. I hoped that everyone would realize that the metacritic score lacked scientific value. I laughed at the fears of the people who believed that the metacritic score would have influenced creative and business decision in a negative way. I was so wrong...

Metacritic is one of the best example of what moral philosophers call the heterogenesis of intents. Some unnamed guys start a cross-reference site with the hope to help customers, reviewers, developers and publishers, giving them a place to share resources. Their idea is so brilliant, so poignant, so perfect for its times and so successful that everyone starts to take it very seriously.... sadly, too seriously. And as a result, everyone is equally harmed. You do not see the harm? Follow me and reach your own conclusion.

For first, let me back up my rant with some facts. Metacritic score is taken very seriously by the industry. There are publishers that are using the score as a clause to establish if a developer deserve a bonus or not for its work. For example, it is known that Obsidian has not received the bonus for Fallout New Vegas only because the game has reached a metacritic score of 84 instead of 85. For one meager metapoint, Bethesda refused to pay the bonus when F:NW is considered one of the best role-playing game of the last years.

I assume that most publisher-developer contracts in the gaming business use similar clauses and that's simply crazy: I cannot believe that business man are seriously using such a faulty and deceptive instrument to make calls about their money and the future of developers and game series alike. I mean, we are talking of million of dollars here and most importantly we are talking of countless hours of fun. The metacritic score can't be taken literally: it's not an objective report on the value of a game. It's just the media between the votes given at the end of every review that's listed on the metacritic site. I know, it's self-evident but it need to be repeated when everyone in the web use it to support these or that position, these or that scenario.

There are many reasons why the metacritic score is just a joke. For first, each reviewer in every site or magazine uses a different scoring system with different priorities and approaches (and most of the times, each reviewer interprets the same system in a personal way), then the whole idea of the media does not make a lot of sense. Second: not every magazine, site or journalist has the same ethical and professional standards. Third: reviews are just personal opinions and should be considered more a work of fiction in itself than a paper with scientific value. Fourth: the few features of a game that can be judged on an objective level are the least relevant. And last but not least, most game journalist are just over glorified gamers that do not know anything about the reality of game development.

I guess that most game journalists must be very afraid when they have to score a game. Especially when a AAA title finish in their hands. Those kind of games involve big teams, big budgets and big audiences and even a mediocre review can ruin the career of many workers in the industry (just look at all the layoffs that are hitting Obsidian as I'm speaking). Not to talk about the fans of each franchise that go crazy and stalk reviewers with the worst insults and attitudes when their favourite game receive a score that "ruins the metacritic" (I've seen fans going crazy for a 8 out of 10!).

As a result, we are arrived to a point where in a spectrum that ranges from 0 to 100, most AAA games will fall in the 80+ category. The difference between a mediocre game and a very good one is just a matter of few points. Every value below 80 is not even considered seriously, especially at release: bad reviews cannot kill the marketing campaign, especially when the advertisement are published in the same places that should review those hyped games in the first place. That alone destroys the whole point of Metacritic: what's the usefulness if journalists have to pump their reviews just to reach an expected value and if their career could be at risk whenever they speak their mind freely and go against the grain?

Not to say that thanks to the excessive visibility of the metacritic score, anytime a big and hyped release hits the market, you will see a bunch of organized and determined trolls that for whatever silly reason will flood the user score with terrible reviews. You will never know if the game is actually bad or if its score is low just because someone with a lot of free time to kill is masking behind anonimity to ruin it for the lulz. I mean, even Portal 2 had a negative user score after release. I can understand everything but Portal 2? You cannot be serious.

I know: I'm ranting but I cannot suffer a system that rewards cowardice, safety and lack of critical thinking when gaming is first and foremost about boldness and creativity. So, please everyone: stop giving credit to the metacritic score. Take it with a grain of salt: it's not meant to be serious business. And please Metacritic, whoever is playing with us behind that friendly interface: do something to change for the better. There are a lot of measures that can be taken to improve: moderate user reviews, use strict methods to distinguish who's reliable or not, set critical and professional standards for the press and the industry as a whole. Just do something. Or die.

Long live the king!

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:00 +0000

If I could only travel back in time to the middle of the 90's what kind of result would I get from googling the RPG's acronym? I'm not sure off course but I guess that most hits would have been about pen & paper games: Dungeons and Dragons, World of Darkness, Call of Chtuluh and the other traditional role-playing games. Just try now and most result will be about computer and console role-playing games: for most people in the world, RPGs are just a videogame's genre.

I'm not an expert in semantic but I know that the meaning and the use of words is important. It's hard to deny that the shift in significance of the role-playing game's term on the costumer level reflects the respective popularity of both forms of entertainment. While the traditional RPG market is becoming smaller and smaller, MMO and single player RPGs are thriving.

The future of the traditional RPG's industry looks bleak. Dungeons & Dragons is in bad shape, Whitewolf's World of Darkenss has become a legacy business and it's hard to find an RPG with a follower base that's strong enough to support a dedicated team of designers. The problem with pen&paper games is that their real value in the market lies not in the quality of the rule and setting books but in the gaming web they create. The bigger is this web, the stronger the sales are going to be.

If the RPG's web fractures in many little autharchic nodes that plays a different game, all those fine books becomes nothing more than fan-fiction. Thats' why the third edition of D&D was so popular in term of sales and that's why Pathfinder is the only RPG who's thriving after the "post OGL schism", since it's the game who have inherited what's left of the d20's follower base, when Wizard of The Coast decided to turn D&D in a laptop/boardgame hybrid with the 4th edition, splitting his fans in two opposite sides in the process.

On the other hand console and computer RPGs represents one of the driving forces of the videogaming industry. Their influence on the media is getting stronger and stronger to the point where most AAA games are starting to use classical RPG features like levels, quests and branching storyline to appeal more players. The MMO phenomenon in itself speaks volumes about the health and the growth of the genre: World of Warcraft is probably the most successfull game in the history of the media.

Is it the end of the world? Well, no. At the end there are still a lot of players who enjoy pen & paper games more than their computer counterpart. Maybe the industry will fall and the good old days of D&D are forever gone, but there will always be a market for niche or indie titles. Moreover, the health of a player base is not defined by the state of the industry behind it. There's a lot more than consumerism in the gaming world. There's not a chess industry as far as I can see, but chess is still one of the most popular game in the world.

And most of all, there's something in the traditional RPG experience that's irreducible to its computer counterpart. It's the quid that can only spring from the spontaneous and direct interaction of real people in real time, without software moderation or hardware limitation. There's no graphical simulation or advanced AI that can hope to match the creativity of a bunch of friends who meets to play a traditional role-playing session.

Maybe, the decline of the pen & paper RPG industry is for their greater good and will help them to advance in a direction that enhances what's special in the experience they can offer instead of competing with what a computer game is bound to do in a better and more convenient way. In the meantime, computer and console games are developing their own version of role-playing and there's a lot of interesting things that are happening. But time is short and I already talked more than a bit: I will return on those arguments in the future.

So, there's no reason to be conservative or afraid. Traditional RPGs aren't going anywhere and will always have a place in the gaming world. They can only benefit from the absence of marketeers, brand managers and CEOs. It's a good thing that gamers are taking back the hobby, no matter the cause. The king is dead. Long live the king!

Review - Rome: Total War

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:53:00 +0000

Rome: Total War (PC)

Gameplay: 18/25
Art: 15/25
Story: 20/25
Ho. Value: 18/25
Overall Score: 71/100

Rome: Total War is the third title in the franchise developed by The Creative Assembly and was published in the September of 2004. It's the first Total War's game I've played and in many ways it's my favourite strategy game of all time. It's strange to recall the memories of Rome: Total War now that I've finished a couple of campaigns with Total War: Shogun 2. Rome: Total War's is inferior to his younger cousin on a technical and design level and the game looks objectively dated. But I know that I will never fall in love with TW:S2 the way I've done with R:TW and that I will never invest in the newer game the stupid amount of time I spent playing its older counterpart. Yes, even in 2012 I would choose Rome over Shogun any day of the week.

I don't know, maybe it's just rose colored glasses on my part, a side effect of the nostalgia I feel for memories of fun and involvement. Total War's gameplay has not changed a lot over time so I guess that most features have lost their charm during the years on a personal level. The Creative Assembly tried something new with Empire: Total War and to put it kindly I prefer to fake that this game never happened: what an utter failure and what a disappointment! I'm not implying that the series is getting stale (am I?) and I will never say anything bad about a project based on the practice of polish and good holistic design like Shogun 2. Still, I can't deny the fact that the first time I've kept my eyes and hands on Rome: Total War, everything looked new, interesting and deep and sadly that feeling is gone.

In retrospect, it's hard to miss all the shortcomings of R:TW. The gameplay feels arcade-ish at times, the real-time battles AI is stupid and predictable, there are tons of historical inaccuracies, the map is unbalanced and the roman armies are vastly overpowered. But Rome: Total War has still something special to offer to its players, something that Shogun 2 won't deliver on purpose: variety. The word of R:TW is rich in differences and singularities, while playing TW: S2 you feel like you're always following the same steps, with flavour nuances caused by difficulty and luck. Playing a campaign with the Roman or the Greeks is vastly different and requests a dissimilar set of skills and strategies. Instead, the Japanese clans differs mostly in aesthetics. I know that's the main reason why Shogun 2 is so polished while Rome's not that much. Polish has its cost and polish was what we requested to The Creative Assembly. They delivered sacrificing variety and in the end it's all good and fine: I won't complain for getting what I've asked for. I'm simply ambivalent about the trade off in terms of pure fun.

On a more personal level, I must admit that roman history is one of my biggest passions. I love to read books and essays about the rise and fall of Rome: I live in Italy and it's our history. Gaming or not, the experience is bound to feel more real than the distant saga of the Sengoku Jidai period. That explains even why I felt that Rome is better than Shogun in terms of emergent storytelling. But I guess that the epicness of the roman world compared to the insulate nature of Japan's history and culture is a good and more objective explanation as well.

So, that's why I still love Rome: Total War that much. I hope that in their next project, The Creative Assembly will be able to use all the technical and design achievements of their last title in a bigger and more varied environment to deliver us the definitive Total War game. Maybe it will be just Rome 2: rose colored glasses or not, a gamer can dream.

Review - Total War: Shogun 2

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:45:00 +0000

Total War: Shogun 2 (PC)

Gameplay: 23/25
Art: 18/25
Story: 18/25
Ho. Value: 23/25
Overall Score: 82/100

Shogun 2 is the sixth title of the Total War franchise. It has been published in March of 2011 and it features a return of the setting that started the series: the civil wars of feudal japan during the 16th century. I am a big fan of the franchise since Rome: Total War and bought the game at release. But unfortunately I never had the time or will to play Shogun 2 until recently. Maybe I was just burned by the utter failure called Empire: Total War or maybe I wasn't in the right mood for a strategy game. Ultimately, I don't know: I'm just glad I gave Shogun 2 a try since it's the best title in the series. A true return to form for the guys at Creative Assembly.

Gameplay: TW:S2's gameplay is not revolutionary. If you ever played a title in the franchise, you already know the drill. Turn based strategy, real time tactics, factions, units, economy and a never ending series of merciless land grabs. Creative Assemby hasn't done anything new with Shogun 2: there are little changes and add-ons, but the nature of the experience is almost intact. Most of the work has been put in to polish and as a result the game show his true potential. Everything work as intended, game balance has improoved substantially and the stupid and passive AI of the previous titles has been replaced with a smarter and aggressive one. The new AI is a masterpiece and you have to play the game on hard with Oda or Tokugawa to get what I mean. It's like seeing Homer Simpson turning into Albert Einstein.

So, if the gameplay is that good, why I'm not giving the game a perfect score? Well economy is a little bit stale and there is only one and true winning strategy which is conquering trade nodes. Agents are overpowered. The real time part of the game could use somme innovation in order to became more intuitive and friendly: there were times when I felt like I was fighting the control scheme and not the enemy AI and that's especially true when you have supporting armies in the field (it will happen a lot in the mid-late game). Sea battles and sieges are still a chore (I always used auto-resolve in those instances). Diplomacy is not consistent and feels too limited in term of options. The late game is not as enjoyable as its early-mid counterpart. Don't get me wrong: the gameplay is as good as it can be. It just needs some innovation and tweaks here and there to reach perfection.

Art: It's hard to judge the art of a strategy game since it's not a relevant asset. And it pains me to see the overall score I've given to the game dumbed down because of it. Still, games are a visual media and Creative Assembly have still a lot of room for improvements on that field. I mean, there are no excuses for the quality of the ingame trailers and videos. I'm not talking of graphics: I mean lack of style and artistry. I would have liked better some cartoon in the vein of japanese 16th century's art than those boring and pointless 3D videos. Such an immersion breaker... For the rest, the game looks quite good (especially the turn based map) and there is a lot of attention to the little details. The view of your army deployed in the battle field is breath taking at times.

Story: Before you start to complain: I know that strategy games do not use traditional storytelling. Still, every game worth playing have to tell some kind of story, otherwise it turns into a dry exercise in min-maxing and number crunching. Strategy game does not mix well with story-driven narratives but they are great to experience some kind of emergent storytelling. So, what's the deal with Shogun 2? TW:S2 recount the rise to power of a sengoku jidai era's japanese clan, from humble and precarious origins to the Shogun's seat itself. It's a wonderful story of friendship, betrayal and revenge. Does the game do a good job at storytelling? It's not perfect but it's the best game to date in the series under that aspect. There is a rhythm to your journey in feudal japan and the RPG elements introduced in the character department with levelling and personality traits are a great addition to the series. Sadly, it all comes down to nothing the moment you occupy the shogunate. The late game looses momentum and the whole experience became flat and even a little boring at times. It's a shame that Creative Assembly could not put anything together to keep the experience as lively as it is during the early and mid game.

Ho. Value: TW:S2 is a well designed game. Every feature helps the other in a positive loop. I think that the only gameplay feature that needs a serious overhaul in holistic sense is the technology tree. In the early game the tech tree fits the strategic and historical feel of the game really well, but down the line it became less interesting and not poignant, which sadly is a tendency of the whole game experience.

Final Words: If you are a Total War's fan then you'd probably already own the game. If you like strategic games or if you're open minded and would like to give the genre a try, you won't find a better game than TW:S2. Just go and get it.

Let's F.A.Q. Addendum: Show your specs!

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:12:00 +0000

I think that the readers of my blog could find useful to know the specs of the rig where I run the games I review (beside my 120 GB PS3):

CPU: Intel Core i7-CPU 920 2.67GHz

RAM: 6.0 GB
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Edition
Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 1 GB
HD: 465 GB

Let's F.A.Q. Part 4: Introducing you Ho.R.G.A.S.M.

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:48:00 +0000

4.1 Introducing HORGASM... is it some sad joke about gamers not having enough sex?

Yup!

4.2 Are you in a position to make those kind of jokes?

No... I mean, yes! I'm a gamer after all and I know those things first hand...

4.3 So what's HORGASM?

Ho.R.G.A.S.M. is the acronym for Holistic Review Gameplay Art Story Metrics. It's the name of the system I will use to review and rate games.

4.4 You know, it's really an idiotic name for a rating system. It suits you well!

Thanks, you're too kind. I know: it's a stupid name. But that's exactly the point: I've already said that I find Metacritic score a complete joke. But the gaming community takes it very seriously and I'm talking of all the parties involved: gamers, press, developers and even the people in charge of the business. I don't want people taking the ratings too seriously while reading my reviews. I want them more focused on the text and less on the numbers. I bet no one will take an Ho.R.G.A.S.M.rating seriously! At least I hope so.

4.5 So, you do not appreciate numerical rating. Why use them in the first place?

That's a good question. Well, numerical rating are a convenient and economic way to sort things. There are times when you do not want to read an entire review to know what the critic thinks, for many different reasons (like fear of a spoiler, lack of time or lack of real interest for the subject). I have no problem with numerical ratings in themselves. I simply despise the way ratings are used by the gaming business and the lack of proper critical standards showed by the gaming press. Having said that, I stand by my position: the heart of a review lies in the text and not in the rating.

4.6 Ok, I'm not sure you convinced me but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

Thanks... I guess.

4.7 What about the holistic thing? Are you some kind of hipster who believes in alternative stuff?

LOL, no! Holism is the idea that systems and their properties should be considered as wholes and not as collection of parts. In my opinion, videogames are holistic in the sense that the experience of the player taken as a whole, matters more than the experience of the isolated features that frame a videogame. In the best games I've played, each feature flowed in to the other seamlessly, creating a sense of immersion, a suspension of disbilief and ultimately an experience of value, care and pleasure. So, the rating is holistic because that's my general position regarding good videogame design and good videogames reviews.

4.8 Gameplay, Art, Story... what's the business with them?

Gameplay, Art and Story are the three pillars that frame a videogame. Gameplay is the system of tools and rules that enable the interaction between the player and the game. Art is the visual and sonic representation of the game. Story is the narrative told by the videogame. Now, due to the holisitc nature of videogames, the border between gameplay, art and story are pretty muddled. For example, the dialogue system of an RPG belongs to the story or the gameplay? The design of an ambient in an action game belongs to the art or to the story? It's really hard if not impossible to draw a definite line. All we can do is to use those terms with a grain of salt, knowing that each element of a videogame is strictly connected to the others.

4.9 Nice speech.. so, how do the rating system works in practice?

Well, the Ho.R.G.A.S.M. rating is a scale from 0 to 100 that results from the sum of four different scores: gameplay, art, story and the holistic value of the game (called Ho Value for brevity's sake). Each category ranges from 0 to 25: 0-5: Terrible. 6-10: Bad. 11-15: Mediocre. 16-20: Good. 20-25: Brilliant. Easier said than done!

4.10 Great, I think there's nothing left to ask.

Are you sure? Last minute questions? No? Then I guess it's time to start with the goddamn reviews!

Lots of speculation for everyone!

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:38:00 +0000

If you don't live under a rock and are remotely interested in gaming you should already know everything about Mass Effect 3 ending's controversy. I've finished the game last week and there's very little to add to all the articles, blog entries and forum discussions that have covered the argument in one way or the other. So, let me just say one thing: the fans are right!

ME3's ending sucks... it definitely does: it does not make a lot of sense, it has not a lot to do with the themes that the trilogy has developed up until that point and overall looks very cheap and rushed. It's even a failure on a gaming level, since it completely miss the opportunity to acknowledge in a significant way all the choices and the "work" that the player has done during the entire trilogy. It's really painful since the game is damn good before the ending. If you take out that sequence, Mass Effect 3 is truly a brilliant videogame and a worthy closure to the best trilogy we have ever experienced in the media. And the sheer goodness of most content that we experienced playing that series, is clearly the main reason for the reaction of the disheartened fans who are requesting Bioware to scrap what they have done and release a new ending.

Now, let's try to look more closely at all that mess since nothing is that black and white. If we think at most fiction out there, it's really hard to find a good and satisfying ending. In the case of videogames, the situation is even worst: we should admit that most endings in the media suck badly. And very few ending in genre's fiction could survive the kind of in depth scrutiny that ME3's fans have expressed in the last weeks. I mean, how many Lost do we get for the few Lord of the Rings? In that sense, even ME3's ending could have been at least average if Bioware had used the proper storytelling tools to mask the nonsensical nature of the final passage of the trilogy. The real problem is just of lack of good storytelling and clever design. Smoke and mirrors, my friends: the difference between a good ending and a bad ending has a lot to do with the illusion of sense, choice and value and not so much with the reality of them.

I cannot believe that a company who is known in the industry for the quality of his writing and storytelling would make such a mistake without taking notice. If Ray Muzyka felt the need to spend his precious time doing public relations to apologize with the angry fans, it means that Bioware knows that the final moments of the game are not that good and do not live up to the quality you would expect from such a game. So, why ME3 ending suck? The answer is quite sad: it's the money, stupid! And the time, off course. Bioware has not put the proper amount of resources on the ending. The reason is simple and it's a common trend: the endings to most videogames get done in a rush in the very last phases of development, when the team is in a crunch to meet the release date and most of the money has already been spent (even for fancy stuff like multyplayer and kinect controls...).

When you look at things from a business point of view, it does make sense. Only a tiny segment of players finish the games they begin. It's really sad but there are many researches that show how only 10/20% of gamers actually finish the videogames they buy. In this case, we have the luxury to know the stats directly from Bioware: only 50% of the players who have begun Mass Effect 2 have actually finished it and reasonably the numbers will be similar for ME3. Why invest a lot of resources on a feature that in a best case scenario will be experienced only by half of your customer base? That's why most games show a drop in quality near the end. The money is gone, the time is short and for the developer and the publisher it ain't really worth the trouble. For a business like EA and Bioware, is smarter to release the ending as good as it can possibly be with the available resources. Then, there's always the possibility to publish an optional ending DLC for the few hardcore fans who are still interested. We have already seen ending DLCs and we will probably see more of them in the next years. Stop with the "game as art" crap, please. We know that it's always about the money. Our money.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Bioware has done a shitty ending on purpose. I'm not saying that EA wanted the fans to anger and organize in protest. The situation has clearly slipped out of their hands. They were not expecting such a loud, creative and stubborn reaction. But if Bioware will indeed publish an alternative ending DLC in the coming months you will know that I'm right. Why? Because everything in the gaming business is planned months and even years ahead release. If we will see an ending DLC in 2012, it means that Bioware have started to work on it in 2011 at the very least.

I know, it all seems like a tragedy... or a comedy of sort if you're a cynic like me. But there's something positive and not necessarily bad that the gaming community as a whole can learn from the ME3's ending debacle. First: gamers need to be treated with more respect. The ending of the story should be a priority in the development schedule and not an afterthought. Second: players should learn to finish their games if they want to be respected. It's really important to fight the "hype machine" and tell our fellow gamers that they have to finish what they start. Gamers should not to act like brainless consumerist monkeys who skips from one big thing to the next only because of adds. Third: if you design games on metrics and think too much about marketing plans, you will likely destroy the relation of trust between players and developers. And in the age of social networks and instant communication, things can snowball in no time.

Let's F.A.Q. Part 3: The Beta Critic

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:35:00 +0000

3.1 We should talk a bit about your blog.

But off course, you're welcome to ask!

I was getting tired to talk about myself even if it's such an interesting topic.

3.2 A simple one for starter: what is The Beta Critic?

Have you read the About the Blog in the footer? No? You lazy sucker... let me just copy and paste:

The Beta Critic is a blog devoted to videogames: here you will read honest and outspoken reviews, thoughts and theories about game design and even some good old fashioned rant about the gaming community and all that revolves around it.

Did you see what I did there?

3.3 What does The Beta Critic mean?

My blog's name is a simple worldplay with a couple of senses.

First, on a more personal and auto-ironic level, it means that I always felt like the beta version of a professional critic: you know, the kind of respected guy who reviews last Cormac Mc Carthy's respected novel on a respected magazine. Only, I want to review games and I'm not that respected to begin with. I must admit that from time to time I even ask myself if I enjoy more to play games or to discuss about them...

Secondly, the Beta Critic is a joke about metacritic and today's obsession with its scores. In fact, I firmly believe that metacritic scores are a farcical and deceptive joke. Pro or user: it does not make any difference to me. To put it bluntly: it would be a pleasure for all mankind if we flush it all away... and see you darlin' in Arizona Bay.

I know, I know: a controversial opinion needs some support in term of facts and arguments, but it would be beyond the scope of the F.A.Q. So, for now take it at face value: I will cover the topic very soon on the blog.

3.4 So... ok... I guess... but... yet another videogames blog? Are you for real?

Yep, I am for real. That's the only honest answer I can give you. But wait: I have plans. And if my resolve keep up while I put them in to practice, I hope that The Beta Critic will look different from your average gamers blog at the end of the process. Mind, there's nothing bad with the average gamer blog: I simply want to find a way to stand out... or die in the process.

Then, only time will tell, che serà serà and all the stuff that we say when we are afraid to fail.

3.5 You just talked about plans. I would like to know more about them (you mad!).

I guess you are trolling again, right? No? Ok, but don't get your hopes too high: it's not rocket science. I simply want to structure my blog like a magazine, with recurring colums committed to different topics.

3.6 Do I have to make all the work? Decribe those colums already!

Ok, ok... but calm yourself! Those youngsters are so impatient... well, how to put it: do you see the menu bar of my blog? Those are the columns I was speaking about:

Beta Critics: The chore of the blog where you'll find reviews of old and new games alike. That's the deal: I usually play one game a month. Once I finished it, I will publish its review on The Beta Critic. If there's some game I've played in the last years that is connected to the new one in some way or the other, I will add a "vintage" review based solely on my recollection of that game. All games will be reviewed using the same rating system.

Thoughts & Theories: Seriouz articles about game design stuff. Nothing too technical but since my background is rooted deeply on pen & paper roleplaying games and genre fiction, the focus of that section will be based mostly around my opinions on the techniques and the systems that videogames could use to improve in the RPG and Storytelling department.

The Monthly Rant: The title says it all. Here you will read my opinionated and vocal reports about what annoys me most in the gaming world.

Finally, in the Beta: Live! section you will find what games I'm playing at the current moment with a brief first impression review... kind of.

3.7 Yawn... sorry, I nearly felt asleep. Interesting! But... no news? Why?

No news. There are many blogs and site in the Internet with plenty of news and all the hype you may need to keep your excitement at stable levels. You can find a link to the ones I check regularly in the News Link section of The Beta Critic. I could make a brief comment about the news I'm really interested about but that's all you'll get from me.

Graphical Lifting!

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:34:00 +0000

Sorry for the short hiatus but I was busy with a graphical overhaul of the blog. Blogger's default templates are fine but they all look like some sort of diary. I wanted something more flashy and zinelike...

So I customized the GameFusion template but it was not easy task for me since the whole process requested many little fixes to the HTML code of the blog. I knew nothing about those things before I started The Beta Critic. I mean, even the bloody pics in the slider are coded and they do not even resize automatically!

But I've learned something new and that's always a good thing. Let me know if you like the new layout but keep it to yourself if you don't...

By the way, I want to say thanks to Darthoons for the custom graphics and to AleV for the counselling and the moral support. Most of all, I want to thank God for Firebug!

In the next few days I'll finish the Let's F.A.Q. series where I will explain the point of the various sections of The Beta Critic.

Then, I guess I should start to blog properly...

Let's F.A.Q. Part 2: Life is a game

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:19:00 +0000

2.1 You said that your blog is about videogames but you've only talked about yourself...

Indeed: enough with the personal crap. Let's talk about games. And me...

2.2 What's your background as a gamer?

I've been a gamer for most of my life. While my first gaming memories are about Pong and Space Invaders, during the years I've tried all kind of stuff beside videgoames (with the exception of bondage, drugs and cosplay). Board games, card games, war games, browser games, roleplaying games (pen and paper and live-action)... you name it! Only in the last years videogames have taken over my game-related hobbies.

2.3 What are your favourite genres?

Well, for starter I do not believe too much in rigid genre segregation. In many ways, every single videogame creates a genre in its own right. But like every label, genres are so damn useful to understand each other in a glance: you've just to use them with a little bit of common sense.

So, in strict order of preference, the genres that I love most are: roleplaying, action, grand strategy and adventure. I have a soft spot for "artsy" indie games, no matter the genre. I feel nothing special for real time strategy and sport games. I do not like pure shooters a lot (especially first-person's ones). I hate simulations, driving games and the like.

2.4 Single-player, Multy-player or MMO?

Single-player, period. In my view, single-player is the purest form of gaming, the one that allows more immersion, more storytelling and especially more fun. I've never been interested in multy-player and maybe that explains my aversion for the shooter genre. But while I do not see the point of the whole "let's kill each other online" business, I must admit that I'm very intrigued by the potential of MMOs: persistent worlds, emergent gameplay and player driven narratives could represent the way of the future. Actually, I've never subscribed to an MMO and I've never been able to touch those issues at first hand because I fear that the experience would obliterate my private life once and for all.

2.5 PC or Consoles?

PC, mostly: you know, I'm an old fart after all. But I own a PS3 for the few titles I'm interested about that do not get a PC port. And I play a lot of games with the gamepad too (if they are developed with that device in mind). I'm not THAT old. So, I'm not a PC integralist: I just think that PC is the most convenient and confortable gaming platform.

2.6 What do you think about the Wii? What about Kinect?

I think nothing about them because I found the whole concept of motion control to be unintuitive and somewhat ridiculous. But I concede that the Wii is great to have some mindless hours of fun with your friends and relatives.

2.7 Handhelds? I-phone? I-pad? I-anything?

There are some brilliant games for those platforms. Smart, intuitive and deep. Unfortunately, time and money are limited and I prefer to concentrate on the kind of games that I like most, considering that the offer is big enough for a lifetime or two.

2.8 What do you think about games as art?

Now you're trolling me, right?

2.9 Are you going to talk about the things you like?

Oh yes! Shocking, I know! But I guess that's the whole point of the post above. Off course, I will not say only positive things (far from that!) and I could use a diversion from time to time, but I'm going to talk mostly about the games that could interest me more.

Let's F.A.Q. Part 1: Personality disorder

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:17:00 +0000

1.1 Who is The Beta Critic?

Who am I? What do you see? You must tell me what do you see!

(+10 in charisma for whoever catches the quote).

The Beta Critic is a 36 old guy who's been a gamer to various degree for the better (or worse?) part of his life. During the day, he is the typical white-collar focused on productivity but when the night comes he transforms in to some sort of Super Geek who spends his time playing games, reading fiction and watching a lot of sport, movies and TV series. The Beta Critic has even have some sort of life beside his hobbies but he will never speak about it here. You know, privacy, family and all that kind of stuff...

1.2 Are you going to play "let's pretend" for long?

You're smart, ain't you? There's no way to trick the internet. No, I'm not going to play let's pretend anymore. From now on it will be all in first person, just like a damn hardcore shooter bro'.

1.3 Ok, thanks. Are you 36? Maybe you are too old for videogames...

I'm not old, I just get better with time like good wines. Seriously, yes, I know that maybe I'm too old for this but that's precisely one of the reasons I started this blog. I'm just trying to make something positive and productive out of my addiction to videogames, something that remains and that can be shared with other people.

1.3 Where do you come from? I guess you are not a native english speaker...

I was born and raised in Italy. I studied a bit of english at school but I'm mostly self-taught. I've never been in a foreign country for a long period and I never took part to courses or masters. As a teenager, I learned most of my english trying to translate the lyrics of my favourite rock and metal bands.

Some years later, I needed to improve my english because I was tired to wait for the italian translations of George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire novels (the wait for the regular books is long enough, if you know what I mean). So, I started to read the ASoIaF series in the original language. The next step felt natural and I've begun to read most fantasy and science-fiction books in english.

Then, I tried to write in english forums, blogs and boards and my errors caused the hilarity of many native speakers during the years. But I never surrendered to my shame, to the merriment of the global internet. Now I'm here and that's all you ever need to know about my english résumé.

1.4 Why don't you just write in italian? Your english sucks!

Fair question.

First of all, I must repeat that one of the point of The Beta Critic is to make something productive out of my addictions. Writing is the best form of exercise. And writing about things I'm interested about is easier.

Secondly, english is the language of the gaming community. Since I hope to reach someone else beside the restricted circle of my family, friends and cat, I believe that using english will help The Beta Critic to expand and reach a wider audience.

Last but not least, in my humble opinion there is no point writing a blog about videogames in italian. Why? Because the videogames culture in Italy is way behind its current status in most civilized countries. Writing in italian could mean irrelevance and I'm betting for something more.

So, please, be patient with me. I already know that I will make a lot of errors of grammar and syntax. I know that the pacing of my periods will raise your eyebrows. I apologize in advance for all of that. I can only say that I will always try to get better and to learn from my errors.

Let's F.A.Q.: Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:58:00 +0000

I know that FAQ means "frequently asked questions". Logically, a blogger should start to write the FAQ when there's hundreds of followers who ask the same questions over and over again.

At the current moment, the only follower of my "work" is the cat: he is lying in the bed and he's watching me lazily while I type nonsense at the keyboard. He has no questions but "when do we eat?" (by the way, say "hi" to Otto, aka the red fat cat).

Point is, if logic was a factor, I should not have even started The Beta Critic. If logic was a factor, I probably should be done with gaming.

So, why start with the FAQ? Well, for first because I like to write introductions. Then, because I hope that those FAQ will help me as much as you in the unlikely case my blog find some way to thrive: I'll consider them my personal game manual.

And most importantly, I want to begin with the FAQ because I think that I owe some explanations to any potential reader. Maybe, even to myself.

Welcome!

noreply@blogger.com (The Beta Critic) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:00 +0000

First post. Blank page. Do you know how it feels, don't you? Rule number one: best keep it short and simple.

Welcome to "The Beta Critic", yet another blog devoted to videogames reviews, thoughts about game design and good old fashioned rants.

More to come in the next few days: I hope you'll enjoy the stay.

Cheers,

The Beta Critic.