Games

Money, Money, Money!

2012-05-18T03:36:00.000-07:00

It’s been a while since I wrote something about Battlefield.. But here we are again.

In my opinion, since the last major patch came out, the game has become much more playable. Things are more balanced – M26 dart aside.. Oh and the M16A3 still having too lesser recoil.. Oh and the MP7 being ever so slightly overpowered for a PDW... and a couple of other minor things which need tweaking... But do you know what? I can and have started to enjoy the game much more lately.

So we’ve also had the news about 2 of the expansion packs. We’ve seen the trailer for Close Quarters and there’s been a lot of negativity and some positivity about it. My opinion on it is that yes, it looks like DICE are continuing with the pursuit of those pesky COD players (kidding!). But for all the ‘WTF is this rubbish?!’ I’d say that you don’t have to buy it. It’s entirely optional, if you dislike it that much, vote on your feet and don’t buy it, maybe email DICE or EA and make your voice heard.. People power and all that! – I feel the need at this moment in time to say that it doesn’t really seem like something I’d enjoy, being a lover of the more open, larger maps.. But that doesn’t mean other people will not like it.

But the real reason for me writing again is the almost confirmed ‘Battlefield Premium Service’. I’ve discussed DLC (Downloadable Content) before, linked here in case you want to have a read;

http://stateofgamestoday.blogspot.co.uk/

I’m basically saying the same things again, but WHY would people buy something that adds little to nothing new to the game apart from having the map packs a week early and having a couple of skins for your avatar and knife? May I remind you that you’ve already bought the game once, it maddens me to the point of.. Well slight annoyance I suppose, that publishers and developers feel the need to milk every single last penny out of their customers when an incredible amount of the customers are loyal fans, already familiar to the series because they’ve bought previous titles.

I mean, DLC is not a new thing; it’s been around since the Dreamcast, PS2 and Original XBOX days. You’d think I would be used to it by now, but when you say that BF3 was shipped with a 4 hour campaign and 9 multiplayer maps, it’s not outstanding. I mean SOCOM Navy Seals on the PS2 was released with a longer single player campaign and 10 multiplayer maps and that was released in 2003.. Fair enough, if you pre-ordered, you got the 4 Back to Karkand maps for ‘free’, but again these maps were being played on in 2005, ‘re-imagined’ or not.

I’m looking forward to seeing how much the ‘premium service’ will cost us down trodden, oppressed customers.. Back to Karkand is $15/£15 and that’s one of 4 packs. If all the DLC map packs cost $15/£15, by the time you will have bought them all individually and bought the original game you will have handed over $120/£120! Pure speculation, but not done without its homework, I assure you.

If you take into consideration that the Close Quarters map back will limit the player count to 16 due to the small size of the areas used to fighting then will it really be worth it? – We’ll have to see..

My final question is, when will it all stop? When will people realise that DLC is actually a bit of a con? How much more can they charge us in the future? How much smaller will the core games become? How much value for money are we actually getting? If a quarter of the 5 million people who bought the game pay $30/£30 then that’s a lot of moolah. Where is this money going? Back into developing a truly great sequel? Is it going back into the current game to finish it? I’m not so sure.. What I do know is, is that there are a lot of people who would pay for some - dare I say it - MODDING TOOLS (Come on DICE.. even if you wait until you've unloaded all your DLC on us.. give us something!).

But do you know what? If X million-amount of people offered to give me a lot of money for doing a little work and then gave me a lot more money for a little bit more work, I’d take it. The only way it can stop is to hit them where it hurts, by not handing over your pennies, or in this case dollars/pounds..

How many people will do this on my advice? NOONE, because I’m rubbish and microscopic in the grand scheme of things (Ouch.. My pride), hell, I might even buy it if it turns out to be really good, but from what I have seen so far, I’m not holding my breath. But for the time being, I’m going to enjoy what’s already on offer.

If you’ve read this far, I hope you have a great day and I hope you have fun on the Battlefield!

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

Mr. C.

Repairing the Battlefield

2012-02-20T10:31:00.000-08:00

Ok, before I jump straight into this, I feel compelled to write more about BF3 (see the acronyms starting to crawl into my work? Lazy, I know) due to the incredible feedback my last blog about it received. Honestly, it was really great and before I get into this, I wanted to thank all the people who left me feedback and read it all through. You may not know, but this blog stuff is new to me too.

I also feel the need to say this before I begin; I like Battlefield. I don’t wish to come across as ‘a hater’ or someone who is merely airing their rants through a blog. I just think that Battlefield – specifically Battlefield 3 and its successors – could learn a thing or two from the problems in the latest release.

The point in this blog I wish to tackle is, ‘is this game catering for the casual gamers, a little too much?’ In my opinion – and it is only my opinion – is yes it does. I am a casual gamer (playing around 10-20 hours a week) and even I am finding it a little frustrating at how many ‘mini systems’ are in place to help players out. By ‘mini systems’ I mean ways in which the game holds the hands of players in telling them things which, I believe should be figured out on their own. For instance, the mini-map, displayed in the bottom left hand corner of the screen, in-game, can disclose a little too much information.

Audio spotting is when an enemy shoots his weapon (it’s a gun game!) and is highlighted as a triangle on your map. Whilst I don’t think it’s particularly fair that an enemy should not only be able to see my position when I fire my weapon, but to see which direction I am also looking in, it gives my enemy a huge advantage. Don’t forget that this is meant to be a game involving a large amount of team work (which is great!) which can mean players move in unison, as a team. This gives the player who has been audio spotted a few potential problems; 1. He is visible to all the enemies around him; 2. It is likely there will be more than one enemy moving to his position and 3. It also means that due to the amount of bullets it takes to kill in this game (again, not a complaint), that it is highly unlikely that the audio spotted player will survive. I do appreciate however, that using the silencer attachment gets rid of this problem (after the patch fixed that bug anyway) by removing the audio spotting at the expense of a larger degree of bullet drop and more bullets required to kill an enemy (albeit 1 or 2 bullets difference). But I can’t help but feel it is still overpowered. This game mechanic didn’t exist in any of the previous titles, why this one?

3d spotting is also a mechanic which is arguably somewhat overpowered. 3d spotting is when an enemy is identified by your team mates and a button is pressed which then highlights that enemy on both your mini map and the actual game screen. Whilst I am of the opinion that is actually a good mechanic to encourage team work, giving the player who ‘spots’ points when that enemy is killed, the feature is often abused. What is to stop a player from repeatedly pressing the spot button? To spot an enemy, you don’t even have to aim down the scope, you can look around in a good vantage point and press the spot button and a swarm of enemies can light up like a party of dancing Doritos. Maybe if the mechanic was only assigned to the appropriately named Recon class, whose job is to scout areas from afar, using tools such as the MAV and TUGS, then maybe it would make their job a little more pronounced on the battlefield. As I pointed out with audio spotting, 3d spotting also shows your team mates which way your enemy is looking. In my opinion, even if the mechanic were to show you where the enemy was, without knowing which way he was facing (represented with a circle perhaps?) then it would be improved. It would certainly make the VOIP (If it worked) more important.

Also in the game, maybe a first for any game, come to think of it, is vehicle regeneration. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it seems very fair for vehicles to magically repair themselves if they are ‘out of action’ for 15 seconds. Again, this is a feature that wasn’t in other titles, why this one? Even transformers don’t have this luxury! They have to repair themselves if they get injured (fully aware they’re not real!). Engineers exist in the game; why not make them even more useful by forcing them to do their jobs of repairing damaged vehicles? It might also make people better at driving vehicles if they are forced to look after them.

Another game mechanic which irks me somewhat is downed allies being represented on the mini map as symbols. Again, I understand why they are there, but it reveals too much information. Firstly, it reveals that one of your teams mates is down and where on the map. Secondly, you know that if you have a downed ally, an enemy is nearby. This gives you the opportunity to be careful if you wouldn’t have been otherwise, the proverbial ‘heads-up’ as it were. I think this could be more balanced if they removed the symbol from the mini map and only showed a symbol on the screen if the downed ally is directly in your field of view. Another way of tackling the issue could be to tell medics through the games own audio, that there is an ally down, encouraging them to look for a body and reviving him.

Enemy equipment showing up on your mini map. Claymore mines, anti tank mines and enemy recon equipment show up on my mini map, why? Surely this makes most equipment a little useless, unless someone who isn’t very good at map reading plays the game? I hope this is a bug, but if it isn’t, it has to go...

Wall clipping is a bug, but it is also a big problem. Being able to go prone in the game is fine, hell, if someone was shooting at me, I’d hit the deck... But DICE need to fix wall clipping. Wall clipping is when your avatar goes through solid objects such as walls or map scenery. What it means is that if you go prone and ‘clip’ into a solid object, up to 50% of you – or your enemy – is invincible. Not too good in a competitive shooting game. I think Call of Duty got this right, because if there is a wall blocking you, you cannot go prone and are prompted with a ‘prone blocked’ message. Simple, yet effective and it stops from giving you an unfair advantage.

BUT! There is good news, a few leaked patch notes seem to making the right noises (Commo Rose update for PC!!). I doubt that those noises include any fixes of the above problems – that might be too little too late, but weapon balancing issues and attachment balancing is an important first step in repairing the games post-release frailties. As I have previously stated in my last BF3 blog, found here;

http://stateofgamestoday.blogspot.com/2012/02/full-and-very-comprehensive-critique-of.html

This is a very decent game. I feel as though I need to keep reiterating this point because I do enjoy it or at least, I want to enjoy it. My gripes with the game could be fixed with time, let’s hope they put that time into this game.

I think the biggest thing DICE can do is come out and say they know things aren’t 100% right. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Saying ‘We nailed it’ doesn’t fill the active community with much confidence because they know that is not the case. DICE releasing patches tells everyone that they haven’t ‘nailed it’. Patches are effectively fixing broken parts of the game.

So what can we expect in the future with DICE? Will there still be broken voice communications? Will there still be input lag on the PS3? Will there still be lock on, fire and forget weapons? Wall clipping? 3d and audio spotting? Will their telemetry – which they appear to put so much faith in – suggest to them that they include more maps like Operation Metro? Whilst there seems to be never ending servers filled to the brim with 24/7 Op-Metro games being played, is that due to players who are new to the game needing to play it to catch up with the higher levelled players who have unlocked the better weapons and equipment? Will they provide even more ‘mini systems’ to help players that are new to the franchise?

I hope not, I even have the hope that they get rid of a few in the next game, once the newer players feel at home. I cannot imagine they will be gotten rid of in this game, although they could, if they wanted to. Before I was introduced to the franchise, I, like many others, played games such as Call of Duty, Quake and Counter Strike. What drew me to this game was the fact it was that bit more ‘grown up’. It required more thinking. You couldn’t run around with any weapon, killing everything in your path, at any range. I remember the sheer terror at coming across tanks in BF2, finding myself out of reach from my squad mates, I had to lay low, wait for it to pass and hope it never saw me. It felt like a scene in Saving Private Ryan! Now, all you have to do is 3d spot it and wait for a jet, helicopter, a support with c4 or an engineer with a RPG to help you out. I feel as though the moments of suspense in this game are few and far between.

Maybe the next Battlefield will be released on the next generation of consoles (the ‘next, next gen?!’). How powerful will these consoles be? Will they be able to handle 64 players without having to push the machines to the extreme? If they can handle 64 players, will the latest PCs be able to handle 128 or even 256 players? Where will it end? As I have said in my previous blog, ideally they need to keep treating consoles and PCs as separate entities. But there is a lot more money to be made releasing games on consoles, so I cannot see separate games being released any more. It would mean creating two separate games, with twice as many programmers/work! Not really a viable business strategy.

Seems like I’ve been wittering on again doesn’t it? How about I end this now, let the game grow and mature and see where we are in another 6 months.. No game is released without bugs today, that’s the nature of the beast with the sheer amount of differing hardware/software available to people these days. I suppose only time will tell us if DICE leave this title as it is, essentially changing their values to cater for the more arcade friendly gamers. I just hope that I am made to look stupid in the next few months. I sincerely hope people can read this back when BF4 is released and sneer at my short-sightedness.

If you’ve made it this far, I hope you have a great day,

If you enjoyed my ramblings, please follow. Also feel free to leave any feedback; it’s all very much appreciated.

Mr. C

A full and very comprehensive critique of Battlefield 3

2012-02-14T10:28:00.001-08:00

EA and DICE’s’ jewel in the crown. This was their AAA hit, released in October 2011. It was released for all the major next generation platforms (PC, PS3, 360) and has sold fairly well (11 million). Its trailers created a big buzz in the gaming world; demonstrating large open maps, gun play which looked exciting and varied, vehicular combat including jets, helicopters, tanks, jeeps and the most awesome looking knifing action in any game to date.

The Battlefield community was extremely optimistic about the game, which is – or is meant to be - the true sequel to the PCs very own Battlefield 2, released in 2005. Console gamers were excited to hear they would also be able to lay their hands on BF3 which would be the first BF title since BF Bad Company 2 was released in 2010. DICE made a lot of promises to the community, some of which they didn’t and still haven’t deliver(ed).

The game was brought forward in time to compete with the upcoming Activision title; Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, which was guaranteed to be a monster hit like many of the other CoDs before it. This is the first thing I think EA (more so than the helpless DICE) called wrong. There was a limited Beta released on Console and a slightly more fulfilling one for PC (It gave them a 64 player conquest map to play with), but none of which gave DICE enough time to iron out all of the bugs/glitches in any version. The community knew this, and called out for DICE to loosen the leash a little more and give the community slightly more time/options to run the game through its paces. DICE didn’t listen – whether this is because of time constraints or because they flat out refused is something only they will ever know.

The game is finally released to the masses and sells well. Reviews are high, but not as high as they would be for the CoD which was being released a couple of weeks later. With the release, within hours the first problems were being reported. 360, PS3 and PC users were complaining of the game crashing their systems. Console users were complaining of the screen intermittently flashing blue when certain actions occurred. This was a problem which DICE ‘fixed’ whilst the game was in Beta. The PC users were complaining that even though their game supports 64 players (compared to the 24 of the consoles), that their maps were exactly the same size, thus making them small, tight, clogged up messes. There were still various bugs within the game; including dying for absolutely no reasons and it being labelled a ‘bad luck’ death. Certain guns were overpowered compared to others, making most of the guns completely redundant. Attachments were overpowered, such as the Infra Red Night Vision scope, which could see across the entire map, highlighting enemies like a firework in the pitch black sky. The community gave this feedback to DICE’s forums and were met with, ‘We’re patching the game soon’. This is all well and good, but when the patch came, all 2.5gb of it, it really made you wonder what they were actually patching..

The Bad Luck deaths were still occurring, the destruction had been toned down since the Beta (still is on the initial maps!), certain attachments were not only required, but essential to be on par with everyone else playing (Fore grip, silencer anyone?) and some guns were made unplayable (G3). Worse still was the VOIP (Voice Over IP) on all platforms still didn’t fully work (still doesn’t!) meaning you can’t really work as part of a team – something which DICE are adamant is the key to playing the game. PC users were/are still moaning about the map sizes often citing that BF3 ‘isn’t a true BF2 sequel – It’s Bad Company 2.5’ and they’re right. Modding tools will not be released for this game "for the foreseeable future"(??), which is a travesty in itself as many of the best BF2 maps were community or user created and are still being used.

I think we have to ask why they (the modding tools) are not being given to the community. I can understand their decision not to at the moment (money stupid!) – but to never give them out will really damage DICE’s reputation as being the good guys of the developing world – if – that is; they haven’t damaged their reputation enough since BF3’s release. The odd thing is, is that they built that reputation by listening and actively communicating with the BF community. They have listened and acted before, why not now?.. Oh hang on.. That’s right, EA own them now, silly me.

Giving the community these tools so soon after release would mean that EA wouldn’t earn any money from DLC (Downloadable Content). But I hear you say ‘They’ve already given us the "Back to Karkand" content for free!’ to which I reply ‘Yes, you’re right, but if rumour is anything to believe, those maps should have been released with the rest of the game in October..’ Again, we will never know the truth, but the Karkand content, which are re-mastered maps from BF2 do play very well. They are the first set of DLC for BF3, with gamers who pre-ordered the limited edition copy getting it for free. Those less fortunate, unfortunately have to pay for the 5 maps included within it.

Some of DICE’s’ staff have also left the company now, to work on other projects. It will be interesting to find out whether their successors are willing to take into account the communities pleas. It has to be said however, that some of these pleas’ do make you think they are just whingeing about not being very good, but that’s the potential difference a great community manager could make.

New patches are being worked on – albeit very slowly so far – but at least DICE haven’t given up on the game – yet. You see, the thing is, at the core of this game, it is a very good game. It could still be DICE's' best game, if they listen. What DICE need to do, is treat consoles and PC’s as separate entities. PC’s are much, much more powerful than the consoles, which are now 6/7 years old. It is not fair to give them the same product when the PC is capable of so much more. Yes, there are slight changes in the map sizes, flag counts etc, but even these aren’t enough. There are more than a few willing, intelligent people in the BF community that can give excellent advice. A few things such as; 6 man squads, larger maps, more player control, more options, the ability to mod the game (when it is appropriate), getting rid of client side hit detection and more (another blog perhaps?).

For consoles and other miscellaneous problems; dedicate a team to get rid of lag input (PS3 only), get rid of client side hit detection, let players go into empty servers to practice flying helicopters/jets, fix the VOIP, balance the guns, balance the attachments, let squads go into games together, even if it's an empty server - it will fill up, fix match making, fix people switching teams during the middle of the game, let us quit the game between rounds, increase destruction (enable ground deformation) and make it the best game this game could be.

As I have previously said, there are a lot of customers out there who want to like the game, but can’t. It’s close to being great, but DICE’s’ laziness and unwillingness to fix the core problems are holding this title back from being great.

Console users can understand having only 24 players and smaller maps, well some of us can.. But give PC gamers what they deserve, they’ve waited 7 years now for a ‘true’ BF2 sequel, they deserve it.

If you’ve got this far, thank you and I hope you have a great day,

Thanks for reading, any comments or feedback is appreciated,

Mr.C

A quick note before we get started.

2012-02-14T10:27:00.001-08:00

I only know what I know. You’re thinking ‘of course you idiot’, but just before you look at this blog, I need you to know that there are a few things I wouldn’t expect to see anytime soon. I am a casual gamer; I play for maybe 10/15 hours a week, mostly on the nights after work. I do not have any insider knowledge of the gaming world apart from what I see on gaming websites, official developer sites, what people tell me or my general opinion.

I am doing this blog purely for my own - and hopefully - your enjoyment. Whether you agree with me or not is beside the point, although if you do leave comments about what I write, everything and anything will be very much appreciated.

Now let’s have some fun and I’ll try and let my creative (and factual hopefully!) juices flow like...erm...like a bag of custard...erm....going through some...hmm.....very delicate and expensive computer equipment.. That’ll do.

The greatness of Rockstar

2012-02-11T03:25:00.000-08:00

So having looked at the negatives of Fifa 12 last week, I thought I would cast a positive eye over a company called Rockstar.

If you can, try and name a game which they have made which isn't at least "good"..

If you are thinking 'I don't really know any of their games apart from Grand Theft Autos' - then visit their game page:

http://www.rockstargames.com/games#/?page=1

Why am I pointing towards Rockstar as a company to lavish praise upon? Well let me quote Dan Houser, the vice president of the company:

"It's in our DNA to avoid doing what other companies are doing."

This sentence should be used by every single developer. At no point should a developer say 'hey, that model is doing well, we should use it as a template.'. It's perhaps a sad indictment of the games industry that this happens so often, even with already large, successful companies.

So, Rockstar.. Formed in 1998 by a few English developers (Sam Houser, Dan Houser, Terry Donovan, Jamie King and Gary Foreman) with the drive to do something a bit different.

Grand Theft Auto, the original game, released in 1997 for PC. Moderately successful, turned very successful thanks to a few nut cases who wanted it banned for it's over-the-top violence and gang land themes, essentially giving the game lots and lots of free publicity. From its top-down view it was a virtual world where criminal activity was actively encouraged, accepting missions from going to phone booths around the now very similar city of Liberty City. Breaking the law in ways such as running over pedestrians and cops, shooting innocent people or gang members or doing the missions, sparked a 'wanted level'. The wanted level was - and still is in my opinion - pretty revolutionary. The more crime you commit, the more stars are given to you, resulting in tougher forces clamouring for your head. The world itself was a sandbox, from the very first moments in Liberty City, you could travel anywhere within it. At the time, there were very few games which weren't 'off the rails' - a term given a game if you have very little choice in where you go or what you do. Just a few points on what separated this company from the rest of them..

What have they done since this 2D masterpiece? Well, it got a lot more exciting in 2001..

3D was the next wall they had to climb over in order to keep up with the new hardware out at the time - better PCs and consoles which were much more powerful than the last generation, the PS2 and the Xbox. They did it and it's still a game which sells buy the bucket load on the handhelds and smart phones. What's even more incredible is how good it still looks 11 years after being released.

How good was/is the game? According to Metacritic, this and 'Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3' are the 2 highest rated PS2 games of all time with a score of 97/100. The game shifted 12 million copies (2007) and is widely accepted as being far in front of the curve.

So, they've got the sandbox world pretty much perfected as much as the hardware would let them, did they stop? No, they didn't..

Manhunt, released in 2003, is nowhere near as popular as GTA, it sold 1.7 million copies, but what it did do is shock. The game is based on stealth and brutal murder, using pretty much anything you can find. The story is of a guy who's been given the death sentence, but gets freed by an unknown voice, coming into the room over the speakers. He gives you a 'second chance' but in order to survive, you must defend yourself against groups of people who would much prefer you to be dead. All this, whilst being filmed as a 'snuff movie' for the rich.

So what? - You're saying. Well whilst not being revolutionary, it did bring to the table a new level of violence and gore to the games industry. A level in which hasn't really been surpassed, even by its successor, Manhunt 2. Why didn't they try to reach new heights of goriness? They did, but censors turned the game into a hypnotic, twisting, twirling dance floor whenever you 'executed' someone, because it was so graphic..

So hopefully the last couple of paragraphs have shown that Rockstar are a company which try and break down walls which, until their games had come around, had not been broken. So, we get to the current generation of consoles and hardware. Are they resting on their laurels? Not really..

As well as one of the most realistic game world ever created (GTA IV), they go and develop a game set in the old west - Red Dead Redemption. Again, it's a huge, blockbuster hit with gamers, selling over 13 million copies and averaging 9/10 with reviewers. The Western genre until this point, had never really been done. There was 'GUN' on the PS2, which in my opinion, was a really solid game released at the end of the PS2s life cycle. So what set RDR apart? Is it the huge, sandbox world? The personality of locals which vary from town to town? The sheer amount of things to do within this often barren, yet beautiful world?

None of the above would be my answer. I found the most enjoyable thing to do on this game is to jump on a wild horse, tame it and look after that damn horse as though it was your own damn child. Now, I don't normally get sentimental about anything within a virtual world, but Rockstar being Rockstar, made the horses so realistic, with muscles popping in and out, depending on whether they're tensed or relaxed, that each horse has its own unique property and personality. It was as close to perfect as perfect could be. After playing the solo campaign and riding one horse through about 17 hours of it, it got killed by what I like to call 'an arsehole'. I was so sad my horse had been killed in such cold blood, I used every single round I had in my impressive arsenal, to shoot the guy over and over and over again.. Thankfully, I had the foresight to capture him with my trusty lasso and hog-tie him before doing this, taking him to the most remote part of the world and giving out my own rough justice... It's a cold place the west..

Next? L.A Noire, a game which again, has been hugely successful game, selling over 5 million copies on all formats. A detective game where you play an upcoming detective who works his way up the police ladder. Different in the way it's not about running and gunning. You have to search the crime scene for clues and interrogate potential criminals based on what you have found. What's so revolutionary? It's the faces!

Using revolutionary (I know, you're getting more bored reading that word than I am typing it!) face capturing technology, of real actors; you rely on reading the people rather than the game. No other game has used this and it tells. You have to rely on your intuition to determine whether the person you're questioning is telling the truth, or holding information back from you. For a game to demonstrate this level of the 'real world' is staggering and awesome, let's hope more developers use it in the future.

I think it's time to start wrapping this up..

So, Rockstar.. A company who I hope to have demonstrated do not rely on past glories to sell new games. A company who keep trying to push the boundaries of gaming, which is a good thing not only for themselves, but for us, the consumers. A company that will try and make a wide range of games, be it sandbox world games, racing games, shooters and action/adventures. But I think the most important part of their psyche is that they will not rush games. GTAIV - released 2008. Yes, they have released downloadable content, but it's still set within the same world.. The beautiful thing is the release of GTAV, which has just been announced for sale in.....

TBA
(To Be Announced)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, how refreshing. It's glorious, we don't know, which means they don't really know either..

Why is that so good? Because they're not rushing it. It will be done when it is done. Have you ever given someone a deadline which resulted in the final product being sub-standard? I bet at some point you have, I know companies such as Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Dice and EA Sports have. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make I think games today are suffering because of these silly deadlines.. Yearly versions which are basically 'tweaks' of last years game, but with small and often pointless alterations.

So let me say 'thank you Rockstar' - for being different.

Please, please, please, never change and keep pushing those boundaries.

If you got this far, have a great day and thanks very much for reading,

Mr.C

Games today.. I.e. Fifa.

2012-02-06T03:30:00.000-08:00

So I like playing games, not all games, but I play most types of games and often enjoy them.

Maybe it's my age (25) but lately, playing games just isn't as fun as it used to be. I have thought about why they aren't as fun before and I have come to the conclusion that it is the gaming companies not making as good-a-quality games as they used to.

Before I start, let me say that I use the Playstation 3. I have had an Xbox360 but it broke after playing far too much Gears of War 2. I like to think I am half-decent at playing games but I am not what I have come to accept 'l33t' at them... It's very much a spare time hobby to me.

Before the PS3 I had PS2 and PS1, before that I had a Mega Drive and a Master System, before that an Amstrad 229293923 (or something!) - a fair few generations of consoles I think you'll agree. Obviously being 25 I missed what I like to call the 'golden days' of gaming machines such as the Atari and Commodore 64 etc but I have played them by lending them from older friends' garages or lofts.

Oh, I also own a Wii...

So why have I -after 18 years of enjoying games when growing up - begun to question the enjoyment I am getting out of the newest iterations of the gaming universe? Is it because games are now released, without being released as full games? Is it that - as I mature - my tastes and opinions of what is good and what is bad differing? Or could it be that they are getting worse??

Well in my opinion - Some games are getting worse and it's mostly due to how successful they have become..

Let's look at a company called EA (Electronic Arts). They have produced a series of games since 1994 called FIFA (add number). I have owned every, single one since the first, I am a football (English to our American friends) fan, I am OK at playing it in the real world and I enjoy playing it in the virtual world. I have played the good versions and the bad versions but the latest couple of versions have been sub-standard.

Being a football game means that there is a new version released every single year. This is mostly because a lot of changes occur in football over a year, whether it be players moving clubs, new young players becoming professionals, older players retiring, changes in the kits or even rule changes. But these aren't the things that bother me, these things can't become worse, these things are sort of, set in stone as it were..

My gripe about FIFA is, the things that were bad in the older versions are still untouched in the new ones. For one example, FIFA Clubs - A mode in which you, along with other real people, play for one club as a single player - has had one or two fundamentally erronous flaws for about 2/3 years. Having browsed the 'official' forums of the game, I can safely say that I am not alone in thinking this but having a human controlled goalkeeper is often so overpowered, that he can make incredible - often impossible - saves by holding 1 or 2 buttons on the control pad.

Being a goalkeeper isn't a problem, some people actually do want to play as the goal keeper, but when there is a moving circle which indicates where you should stand and a button dedicated to keeping you within it, I can't help but feel it can be a little cheap when it is coupled with sub-fraction of a second reflexes and the ability to make the goalkeeper 6"7'ft - effectively 'filling' the goal.

I made a little mental tally of how many games my team (who don't use a goalkeeper) won against a team who play with a goalkeeper:

Played 9: Won 2, Drew 4, Lost 3

In 1 game out of those 9, my team scored more than 1 goal (2). This kind of makes the game boring and predictable. It also makes the games play out all the same because there are only a very few ways in which to score past a human controlled goalkeeper. One of these ways is to get free of the defence and pass sideways to a team mate when 2 on 1 against the goalkeeper. The problem is, is that scoring this way repeatedly is both 'cheap' and boring, not to mention it only works 6 times out of 10..

Another problem is the AI (artificial 'intelligence') doing incomprehensibly stupid things. The one thing which drives myself and the FIFA playing community crazy is the goal kick problem. This occurs when the AI goalkeeper (on your team) is about to take a goal kick and passes it along the ground to the first defender in front of him, despite there being an opposition player stood right in front of him. When the goalkeeper does pass it and the ball is inevitably intercepted it leaves the attacking player a simple 'tap in'.

As is the original point of this blog - these problems have been in the game since 2009 (not the human goalkeeper, that feature was only included in 2010 onwards) so why have they not been corrected? What are the millions of people who pay £40 a year actually paying for except new looking menus, updated teams and rosters and updated kits?

The newest game has been out since the end of October 2011, feedback to the company through the 'official' forums have been pleaded for since December but still, the requests of thousands fall on deaf ears..

No doubt that when the patch is released sometime in February that EA will claim to be the good guys in 'updating the teams for free' since the January transfer window has now closed.. My question is, 'why not fix the core of your game?'.

I would start on downloadable content, but I think that might well be saved for another day, this blog is already long enough and I've only just started on one or two of the games problems!

If you got this far, I hope you have a good week, thanks for reading,

Mr C.