Ed Borden's Blog : PWNING 9-5

Diablo 3 Gameplay Trailer = yes plz

2008-07-18T15:31:00.001-04:00

Have you seen this thing? Wow. This is not a quickie teaser -- this sucker is 20 minutes of polished, ready-to-ship, 'let me play this game right now' glory. I have no idea how the guys at Blizzard contain themselves long enough to get such an awesome game this far along and not leak it into the market. I mean: it's done! Ship it! It could be out before Starcraft 2, it looks that good. (If you haven't already seen this trailer, do yourself a favor and download the full 500MB 720p version. It's worth it.) Also, to all of the raging lunatics who are so mentally frustrated by the fact that the game looks so good but they can't play it yet that they need to find something to complain about: lol.

Does nVidia Have a Future Without a CPU?

2008-07-17T13:18:00.008-04:00

It's been a bad week or two for nVidia, with a string of negative developments around everything from Q2 earnings, under-performing products, defective products, and a lawsuit. It's amazing how quickly fortunes can change in this business, and I'm sure the guys over there are feeling the pressure right now. On the heels of all of that, out slips a release announcing that nVidia will enable SLI for Nehalem, and I guess that's news because Intel's CSI license is up in the air. I wonder, though, with nVidia being under the gun as they are right now, can they really afford to not make a full-out Nehalem chipset? When Nehalem hits the market and starts flying off the shelf, if nVidia isn't there with a chipset or the price/performance GPU leader, then that's not a good spot to be in. So, that makes me wonder about nVidia's future sans x86 CPU. How long can they really compete in a market where their products are the secondary buying decision and they're at the mercy of AMD or Intel to complete their platform?

Five or ten years down the line, platforms will drive the market, not processors. Can nVidia really compete in that environment with only a GPU? Even though AMD's business has gone down the toilet in the last few years, they've recently shown they still have the ability to step up (at least in the graphics sector), they've dumped their busted CEO -- and they've got a complete platform. Intel has shown a commitment to making a high-end graphics engine, in addition to what they've already got on the GPU side -- so their platform is only getting stronger. Where does that leave nVidia...

...In need of a CPU. There might not be anyone sitting out there they can snatch up that is ready to go toe to toe with the other players in the mainstream, but luckily nVidia has some time. They should look to merge with someone who's got the tech they need, work to grow that company's current business around their own platforms, while buckling down to project something out 5-10 years that they can bring to market for the mainstream that can compete with Intel. It's absolutely possible, but now's the time to pull the trigger.

Which Comes First in Tech: Solution or Problem?

2008-07-10T23:09:00.003-04:00

It's not just ray-tracing that's going to benefit from the "mass-core" -- Intel will make sure of that. A lot of the time public perception of the industry is that tech companies -- even monsters like Intel and nVidia -- create products and just "give" them to the market. Certainly, the advantage of the PC industry is that products are engineered to be able to be used in as wide a range of applications as possible, but that's not the end of it. Technology is nothing without a customer. The fact is that the competitive tech landscape isn't driven by a bunch of passive well-wishers, it's manhandled by aggressive corporate sales machines. That element is frequently overlooked by naysayers, and that's got to be considered when all of this speculation is flying around about the future of the industry and what will or will not happen.

Case in point: Dreamworks recent announcement that they're moving to Intel as their new provider for processors in their massive render farms. The point here is that a lot of people are trying to say that we've "got enough cores" in CPU's already. The claim is that software developers aren't going to be able to utilize an ever-increasing core count because they can't even keep up with 4 or 8 right now. Well, that's certainly the exact opposite of Intel's future roadmap, and Intel isn't even waiting until mass-core is physically realized before they start creating demand. They've got a vision, and they're going to see it realized. Dreamworks exec John Batter says that the key to the decision to dump AMD was that "Intel is rearchitecting [their] software tools... to take advantage of multicore and make [their] renderer highly scalable as well as making [their] character animation tools highly scalable." In short, Intel went in and invested resources to create the more advanced application to take advantage of their technology. Everyone wins (except for AMD).

nVidia does this, too, and that's why Gelsinger's recent poo-poo'ing on CUDA is misguided. He should know that better than anyone, because if Intel is going to make ray-tracing a real force, they'll eventually be doing the same thing there. Just like nVidia subsidizes games like Crysis to create demand for their high-end graphics solutions, Intel will have to do the same thing to not only prove ray-tracing's worth visually, but to give customers a reason to need it (ie, "I want to play that game and have it look like that, and I'll buy that new chip to do it").

This is how this stuff works. The solution and the demand never simultaneously appear in the tech industry. How many years has it been now since AMD produced the first 64-bit OS? We're only just starting to get there in the consumer space to where we're really starting to have realistic 64-bit solutions and we're even starting to turn that corner where the natural demand is starting to develop as a complete ecosystem evolves. But soon, 64-bit computing will be a given.

Consider even how many people snubbed their noses at the Personal Computer itself?! It'll be the same thing with any forward thinking technology, and any negative PR along the way is just hopeful wishes from the competition.

Intel to nVidia: "CUDA Sucks. It's An Orifice Problem."

2008-07-02T23:22:00.006-04:00

OMG! Intel Gelsinger's on a roll again and this time I probably wouldn't hold it against Jen-Hsun if he got loud about it. At a recent press conference for Intel's 40th anniversary, Gelsinger said CUDA would turn out to be nothing more than an "interesting footnote in the history of computing annals", and that the problem lies in the point that "you’ve just got to go through this little orifice called a new programming model" to use it. Good god, man, that is just too much! Is it really that bad or just a witty retort to Huang's "opening a can of whoop-ass" remark? On a roll, Gelsinger also decided to slam the Cell architecture (used in the PS3), saying years later that "application programmers have barely been able to comprehend how to write applications for it", citing that as an example of the barriers to entry for new core architectures for mainstream applications (like CUDA). Did the PR department give the OK on this? Damage control!

I'm no software developer, but if writing my code around a completely different architecture will provide me with huge leaps in performance, which has been proven for CUDA in certain cases, then I'm going to jump through a few orifices. That's what software developers do and that's how business works. It might be more expensive and harder to do, but the trade-off is higher performance, and that certainly might make sense for some people. So, giving the industry the option of developing under that scenario is better for everyone.

nVidia knows how to drive the development of products that monetize on their technology -- they've been doing it successfully for many years in the gaming industry and they can do it here, too. The only way CUDA will fail is if nVidia fails to continue innovating and pushing the bar. CUDA is just gravy on top of the massive success story of nVidia dominating the graphics industry. It's an interesting point in this drama where either side could make serious breakthroughs tipping the balance, and either side could make the mistake of underestimating their competition. Intel has got serious work to do if they want to make that future of "thousands of cores" running ray-tracing engines a reality, and nVidia has got the task of defending against the possibility of Intel's success there.

Regardless of what happens, though, someone's got to rein in all these silly men and their outbursts!

Oh Crap... You Mean AMD Had a Plan All Along?!

2008-06-30T12:34:00.001-04:00

One of my own personal business axioms has always been "Never underestimate your competition". One recurring theme in history is that the guy that looks like he's on top of the world always gets the rug pulled out from under him. Caesar, Attila, the Khans, Hitler -- they all eventually screwed up somewhere. Well, last week, AMD got to have their rare time in the sun as their 4850/4870 launch surprised the industry with a winning design, after what seems like years of being second best in a two-horse race.

It's funny because everyone is so used to AMD getting their butt kicked that it's become stylish to bash on them. One ZDNet blogger actually posted a scathing editorial claiming the 4850 was another failure! Embarrassingly for him, Hexus.net, the source for his data, pulled their benchmarks down after they were obviously far off of what the rest of the industry press was reporting. Who knows what happened there, but it seems to me that everyone was making assumptions based on past performance. No one thought AMD had the ability to do anything but suck.

Last month, in an interview with Brooke Crothers of the Nanotech blog, the GM for nVidia's GeForce line claimed AMD's strategy of concentrating on smaller GPU's as a business model was simply because they "don't have the money to invest" anymore. His inference is that AMD can't even afford to compete. Fast forward to now, and nVidia has tanked the price of their 9800GX and is now rushing a 9800GX+ to market to try to match AMD's price/performance offering, neither of which looks like it's entirely going to work.

The strong 4850/4870 launch hasn't actually changed anything for AMD yet -- it just made the point that it is very possible for AMD to come back. They've shown they do have the ability to produce a compelling product and that maybe, just maybe, they deserve a little more respect. Now, they've got to bring it market correctly, work out the driver support, and keep the lead long enough to sell the heck out of them, all while fixing the slew of other problems that have their company hemorrhaging into oblivion. Get to work!

I Watch John Shepherd, I AM Gordon Freeman

2008-06-27T15:48:00.006-04:00

On the heels of my review of Mass Effect, I have this slightly disturbed feeling over the fact that I really like the game, but have a whole lot of complaints too. One of the big things is the disconnection I felt from the main character, a situation that detracts from the overall experience significantly. Mass Effect is at heart an RPG, a role-playing game, and I think it could have done a good deal more to heighten the level of immersion.

PWNED by Cutscenes
Mass Effect is a beautifully rendered, gripping production, much like a mega box office piece of cinema. It's defined by a great script, moving characters, and lots of action, but along the way the designers lost their video game soul. One of the biggest culprits are the cut-scenes. I already talked a bit about this in my last post, but I want to stress here that the point is that cut-scenes are just a cop-out. You don't have to have cut-scenes. Case-in-point: Half Life. Brilliantly, you never lose the perspective of the first person view out of the eyes of Gordon Freeman. Instead of cut-scenes Half-Life injects intricate scripted events that happen within the game world while you have full control of your character. Mass Effect could also achieve this, but let's just say that they could at least strip out 3/4 of the cutscenes that are just talking or lead-ins to a battle, and keep just the big, dramatic, action cinematics that cover big events. It really would have been a better game for it.

Dialog is important... right?
Second, there's a key problem with the dialog. There's a lot of dialog in this game, which I honestly don't mind. However, there's also an attempt to involve you in the dialog, by giving you the ability to choose responses out of dialog trees. That's great, but Mass Effect falls into the same trap that many RPG's have in the past as well: What you choose to say doesn't really matter. It's tantamount to just choosing what order you want to have information given to you, and in the end, you're going to get to the same place. There are times that it moves beyond that and you can affect somewhat of an outcome, but those times are limited to just a handful of instances, and none of them affect the outcome of how the story plays out at all. This problem is compounded by a worthless alignment system in which making mean/evil choices has no effect on you or your party (something that was completely different in KOTOR). And if that wasn't enough, the disconnection is compounded even further by the dialog choices frequently not matching up to what your character is then scripted to say. How many times I said "Hey, I didn't want to say that!" is just too much. If you're going to give me the choice, at least follow through with it!

Contrast this with the fact that you never hear Gordon Freeman speak once! Now, Half Life is not an RPG and has very linear gameplay, however, I felt more connected to Gordon Freeman with nothing to say at all than I did in Mass Effect where I had this supposed wide range of choice. There's something to say for that! Execution makes all the difference between essentially watching a really long movie interspersed with gaming versus a real interactive experience.

A Broken Climax
This whole idea is perfectly illustrated by last scene of Mass Effect. [SEMI-SPOILER ALERT] Your character has just won this monumental battle and saved the galaxy, only to be supposedly buried and killed in falling debris as a result of the antagonist's last throws of death. Your party members who fought beside you look at each other with this look of great loss on their faces and give the "he didn't make it" head-shake to your mentor who comes running up to help. But, all of sudden as the music crescendos, John Shepherd comes running up over the debris pile, clutching his wounded side, with that look of "Yeah, I'm the freaking man, and I did my duty". It's a great ending, very well done, and even emotional. But then it occurred to me... I was the one who killed the bad guy, but the way the scene is presented makes you feel "proud" of John Shepherd! What the heck! Aren't I John Shepherd? I should be feeling that those people are proud of me.

That's when it really hit home. I was never John Shepherd. I was just watching him the whole time. I never felt like that as Gordon Freeman.

Does Mass Effect Live Up to BioWare's Legacy?

2008-06-26T13:00:00.004-04:00

A few years ago, I played through Knights of the Old Republic 2, glued to my computer for days . I am normally not a fan of RPG's, single player games, or long games in general... but KOTOR2 hooked me 100%. When I think of Bioware, I think of that experience. So, with their next huge release, Mass Effect, my expectations are high going in, and I'm ready for another monumental game that I'll remember years from now. Too high of a bar to set? Well, I'd hate to go into a game expecting worse!

I'm coming to Mass Effect at the tail end of the excitement, being that the game was released last year on the X-Box. Yes, the PC got the port on this one, but that's something I'm trying not to think about. Actually, according to reviewers, the PC version is better, and both versions netted AAA status. Metacritic's got the standard primer for more info.

Visually Stunning
First off, I think the game looks great. There are a few things that could have been tweaked graphically, some specific textures and shadow effects, but in general I love the visuals, style, and varied, detailed settings. The whole thing feels like a great sci-fi epic, and it's really a pleasure to experience because of that. There are these great big landscapes, alive with movement and activity, that give this awesome sense of scale which really impressed me. Whether it's walking on the outside of a massive space station with full scale war going on, or driving through the deserted ruins of an extinct alien race, I found myself stopping and just looking around quite frequently. I love it.

There's been better Sci-Fi...
The story is just about average. I'm not going to rave about a narrative that insists on using a standard RPG cliche (The Ancient Evil returns to savage the land every x years on the dot), but the characters and dialog at least tweaks enough emotion to keep a high level of interest. I'll be honest that they really could have done better with this, though. When you've got the basic outline of a plot that you know you've seen before layed out so obviously in the first few minutes of the game, one has to wonder what the guy who checked off on this was thinking. Luckily, there were some half-decent side plots that at least gave some satisfaction to such an interesting game universe.

Is it an RPG or a Shooter?
The gameplay is "OK". I found it a bit straightforward and easy, though, playing as a combat class. The control is good, but all I really have to do is bust out that assault rifle, hit the special ability that lets me fire non-stop for a good 30 seconds straight, and at the tail end of that everything is typically very dead. I wouldn't necessarily want to just have the game be harder, I guess I'd just rather a more tactical experience. On the flip side, I actually like that there is no ammo to worry about (a real problem for me with STALKER), and I'm warming up to the customization of armor and weapons. However, I find that it's not really necessary to pay too close of attention to any of it. Since the inventory is basically unlimited, I just checked every once in a while to make sure I was using the best equipment that I had available. All of this kind of makes me feel like the gameplay just could have been better.

Being that I played the pretty straightforward combat class, the only way I've got to experience the Biotic and Tech classes are through my AI-controlled party members. The problem, though, is that I felt like the AI was basically junk and the control over the squad is pretty bad. So, I'm really not able to experience the Biotic and Tech classes as I'd like and it actually makes me feel like I made the wrong choice just taking the default character build at the beginning of the game. However, that also makes me think I've got something to look forward to here as far as replayability. I probably will at least play through the first few chapters of the game with another class.

I want being evil to actually matter!
Another thing that's really bugging me is the alignment system. It seems like they really dropped the ball on this one, especially considering how integral to KOTOR alignment was. I remember I had chosen to bring my character in KOTOR down the extreme dark side path, and not only did the avatar slowly morph into this grotesque, horrific looking monstrosity, but my actions affected the alignment of my party members, my skills, and ultimately how the game played out in a very tangible way. In Mass Effect, it doesn't seem to matter at all. Bummer. Ultimately, it disconnects me from my character and the gameworld, because what I'm choosing to do doesn't really end up making a difference in the wide scheme of things.

It's no MSG4, but...
I want to also say something about cutscenes here. There are ALOT of cut scenes. Now, it's certainly not to the level of the MSG4 cutscene scandal -- in my opinion, that is so far removed from being fun that I won't even play it. The fact of the matter is that when I'm watching a cutscene, I'm not actually doing anything -- I'd rather be playing than be a passive observer. Sure, cutscenes can sometimes be necessary and relevant, but it's got to be done tactfully. I think that this game just had too many, and something wasn't done right. There's other ways to communicate information and plot than to have so much drawn out dialog.

Unfortunately, the cutscenes are just one of a string of annoying quirks that came across as agitating in this game. How about sitting there for 30 seconds or more watching your character stand in an elevator -- EVERY time you used an elevator? And there are alot of elevators! Hello?! And I can't even count how many times I've had to re-watch cutscenes or dialog because I died at a point where I couldn't save and had to go back and do it all again. This kind of stuff is just really annoying and has got to be mentioned.

I like this game, so why am I complaining so much?
Overall, it seems like I've got more bad than good to say, which is odd, because something in here had me flat out hooked and I knew I would be finishing it very shortly after I started. I definitely think there are things that could have been done better. In fact, not just a little bit better, a lot better. I'm actually going to take a swing at trying to describe what grabs me, though: I'm going to call it "flow". Even though combat is "meh" and the storyline isn't anything groundbreaking, the whole experience is in a constant forward state. I'm never bored. That's the key here. I notice that they achieve this by actually making the speed of the experience variable. If I want to move fast, I can -- they have methods of allowing me to quickly get from one place to another, maps to make sure I don't get lost, and a journal to make sure I always know what to do to move the plot forward. Also, everything I had to do to move the plot forward was fun and fulfilling. There was no forced fluff as is common in many RPG's. Also, someone who might want to move slower can mess around with the side quests if they choose to and explore areas in more depth. That makes this accessible for a range of audiences, and that's a good thing.

I'd definitely give Mass Effect my recommendation, regardless of everything I didn't like. I can't say I think it's better than KOTOR, unfortunately, but I enjoyed myself, and that's something that isn't always a given. There's more to this, though, and I'm going to come back soon with some thoughts I have about why Mass Effect needs to get put into that group of games that isn't paying attention to how the medium is evolving to connect more with the player.

I liked:
- Great voice acting
- Huge, living game world settings
- Fast-paced, gripping experience

I didn't like:
- Monotonous combat
- Unimpressive AI
- Disconnected feeling from characters
- Lots of little annoying quirks that should have been caught in gameplay testing

The Future of Digital Distribution for PC Gaming

2008-06-24T20:08:00.006-04:00

The discussion around digital distribution has been heating up in 2008 due to the flareup in the platform wars. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how I think the widespread adoption of digital distribution is inevitable. It's already happening, it's not a secret. However, move forward just a few years, extrapolating both the growth of the industry and the further penetration of digital distribution, and you can see that it's a business that is going to wield quite a bit of power in the industry. It's a big bucket of money that's just starting to fill up -- Who's bucket is it going to be?

The first obvious answer would be Steam, right? Valve was the pioneer for the technology and is clearly still the current leader. They recently announced their phenomenal traction in the industry with 15 million accounts and stated that their digital revenue will exceed their retail revenue any day now. They also launched Steamworks, a toolset aimed at game developers to further entice them to publish on their platform. However, Valve's motive for creating Steam in the first place was a proactive effort to combat the problems everyone in the PC gaming industry faces : piracy, inconsistent user experience, and the iron fist of the publishers. They've done very well for themselves by creating an ecosystem around their own titles to solve those problems, but as a small company who's main function is really to create video games, they're going to have to keep working to keep their edge and monetize the technology in a way that can spawn a whole new industry.

Valve's main asset right now is an active user base, so many competing publishers are using Steam as a method of getting their titles out there... but it's not the only way. Some publishers are creating their own infrastructures and at least getting their own titles up and accessible. For example, Blizzard recently announced an online store. I myself just a few months ago downloaded BF2142 through EA's store when I lost my license and media. Even nVidia has talked about getting into the action by incorporating selling games into their nZone website. Even though these distribution platforms aren't as feature-rich or robust as Steam, publishers can get up and running pretty easily. It's a trend that isn't going unnoticed.

As more and more digital distribution platforms are launched, new problems emerge. The ability to return products if there are technical issues or support licenses that may have been bought through a different distribution source are roadblocks for many consumers. Impulse, a new platform recently announced by Stardock, has made promises to address some of these issues. While still in the launch phase and not polished yet by any means, Impulse is showing the visionary drive that's going to be needed to be a serious player. You can see that their strategy is more consumer-centric, focusing on differentiation by addressing mass-market roadblocks. The whole thing looks very promising.

Penny Arcade and Hothead Games have also recently announced a new platform called Greenhouse. So far, they've got a downloader and one game. Not extremely impressive, but it makes sense that they aren't rushing to market with a wide library, as they've announced that they are focusing on indie games -- games that are "too niche or too risky" for other publishers to put money into. Not so much a platform as a way to circumvent publishers... great for small studios to get a shot at letting the market vote with their wallets! It actually could turn out to be huge.

Not much different than Greenhouse in function, but with bigtime backing and a variety of games, is Direct2Drive, a business unit of IGN/News Corp. Not much more than a glorified FilePlanet (a much slower one, at that), the service is notable in the fact that it's got a pretty competitive library of games. It's been around since 2004, but the business model is probably not a real big money-maker. If they're going to stay competitive, they'll need to add functionality or cut margins. Maybe being the cheap, feature-less alternative is what they're going for.

The last company on my radar is Digital Interactive/DISCover. They've been growing their Phoenix system over the past year, and have started marketing a service to allow web partners to leverage the system they've built to sell games through their own websites and businesses. They've still got a ways to go to gain some traction, but their unique strategy could end up being lucrative.

Somewhere in this list is one or even a few companies that are going to eventually own the consumer experience around how PC games are connected with the market. Maybe that company isn't even on this list, not even a twinkle in someone's eye yet. The point, though, is that a multi-billion dollar industry is being developed right now before our eyes.

The Race to Grab a Niche in the SSD Market

2008-06-23T22:59:00.000-04:00

Every day that goes by I get more and more tense thinking about the SSD market. When I consider what the landscape for storage is going to look like in 5 years, SSD is right there, on the tract for growth that is inevitable. Getting there is the mystery, obviously. Who's going to grab hold of the market in just the right way, at just the right time? Who's going to innovate and develop the industry busting tech that's going to break this wide open? I don't know -- but it's definitely going to happen and here are the companies that are on my radar right now:

MTron - They've been at the top of their game since they started bringing their high-performance products to market late last year. The problem is that they're a small Korean company without a solid US presence, and their IP is based on controller technology that they've got to keep pushing to keep on the very cutting edge. If a bigger company with a monster budget targets their niche, can they keep it together? MTron's future may very well be an acquisition, and maybe that's what they're looking for. Either way, they've got work to do.

Samsung - Here's that bigger company that's licking their lips ready to eat up that performance market. Samsung is a monster, and most importantly they control the IC's that are going into other companies' products. They recently put out an extremely aggressive SATA2 product that is both high-performance and well priced - directly competing with MTron's flagship. Then, they announced the market busting 256GB product that has the performance to dominate anything else out there. If they bring it all to market correctly, that's going to shake things up hardcore.

Intel - Whenever Intel eyes a market, whatever it is, you'd better pay attention. They've declared they're going after Samsung's product line, and if anyone's get the engineering capacity to do it, it's this company. They've also got the manufacturing backend and the sales channel to move the product, so if I was on the other end of that sledgehammer, I'd be sweating right now. They haven't done anything ground-breaking yet, but that can't stay true for long.

BiTMICRO - These guys have made a name for themselves by producing drives at massive capacities -- and equally massive price points. These guys will continue to push the bar and the effects will ripple down into the consumer lines.

SuperTalent - SuperTalent has been a memory OEM for quite a few years now, and their foray into the SSD market was early, strong, and broad. These guys have their finger on the pulse of the industry through their distribution business at MaLabs, so if anyone knows what to do to sell SSD now, it's them. When the price/GB eventually crosses with traditional HDD's, it's going to be at this company.

STALKER: Chernoble - A PC-Exclusive Benchmark Title?

2008-06-18T07:30:00.000-04:00

Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl, even being almost a year and a half old at this point, is an important game for the PC platform right now. This is a title that's still cited as one of the key PC exclusives that shows off everything the platform has to offer for the hardcore gamer: graphics, AI, gameplay -- it's all here. It's a MASSIVE game (30 square km sandbox game world!!), but is it big enough to fill the shoes it needs to? I recently read a blog post about this game that intrigued me so much that I just had to find out (don't read it, you won't be able to resist either).

The premise of STALKER is that a second nuclear disaster has occurred at Chernobyl, except this time at a much greater scale, blanketing the area in deadly radiation and causing mutations in humans, animals, flora, and even the laws of physics. The game takes place within the contaminated zone with a storyline that revolves around the different factions of people that still live there, which include military, bandits, and "freedom fighters". Sounds decent, right? Here's where the first strike against the game comes in though...

You're never told any of this! There's no backstory! I got most of my game info and backstory off of Wikipedia, because I was thoroughly confused when I started this game up and there was one not-so-high-quality cinematic as a lead-in and then I was thrown right into "missions". There is really just no connection at all as to who anyone is, what is going on, nothing. The effect is that I wasn't engaged at all -- I had no reason to care because I didn't know what was going on and therefore there's nothing to drive you forward. The whole beginning premise is that you have no memory (wow, that's original) and you have to find some guy who "might" be able to help you. In the mean time, everyone you run into and their mother needs you to find their lost coat or their family heirloom rifle... ?! Ugh. Contrast this with Portal, where you're gradually introduced to game and story elements in a way that draws you into the game, making the whole experience absolutely irresistible.

That aside, there is some killer gameplay in here. First thing, SICK AI. SICK. I don't even know how to explain this without just rambling on and on about all the different situations you'll run into that are just really cool. The place where it really shines, though, is in combat. Enemies are just seriously on their game. They hide, flank, work in teams, sneak around -- it puts Crysis' AI to shame. The whole thing is enhanced by realistic weapons, both in the way they handle and their effects. Damage feels realistic and takes into account not only where you hit, but what kind of weapon it is and the range. When you get hit pretty bad, you "bleed" (lose damage over time until you fix it), and as your health gets lower, you limp and swagger around. This was the shining aspect of this game and what it does is make it interestingly challenging, not just "hard", like in other games where the computer just cheats to make up for AI deficiencies. I guess it kind of makes up for the lack of a compelling story by making missions that would seem tedious otherwise enjoyable to play through.

STALKER is actually an FPS/RPG hybrid. It's got an inventory system like you'd find in any RPG, and uses gear and "artifacts" (basically magic rocks you hang on your belt...) to boost stats, instead of a typical experience/level/powers system you'd usually see. I wasn't a fan. Playing around with manually picking up a downed enemy's gun, having to unload it, store the ammo, blah blah just isn't fun to me. I don't really find enjoyment making sure I have enough Turkish Delight to restore my health after a battle and I don't like worrying about if the bullets I'm holding plus the bandages and anti-radiation meds I need are all too heavy to carry around. Fine, limit what I can carry to be realistic, just don't make me have to bother messing with an inventory every 30 seconds.

Another RPG throw-in is the conversation with NPC's. Another time waster, wasn't a fan. If someone's got something important to say to me, I just want to get it done. I don't find enjoyment from talking to every person I see to figure out if they've got something useful buried in their poorly written conversation tree. I eventually figured out, though, that the only people I need to talk to are the people along the path of the main storyline. Anyone else probably just has some lame side quest that I wasn't interested in. Hmmm... I guess this is why I play that many RPG's, huh?

Last thing I want to touch on is the engine and how the game looked and felt. The graphics are average. Nothing crazy special as far as the visual detail of people or objects. It's made up for by the sandbox open world, which actually gets a few points off also for not being completely open. What I mean is that you can't go anywhere you want; the game world is actually a string of smaller "levels" connected together, although they spread out in every direction. It still works, just not entirely perfect as far as open worlds go. The style, ambience, mood was another high point for this title. They really captured a post-apocalyptic setting, dark, gritty, lived-in -- reminded me very much of what Bioshock did. Sound and music were used superbly, and this sort of foreboding, tense, scary vibe is carried consistently throughout.

All in all, STALKER's a decent game. The combat and gameplay bring me back every once in a while to get a mission or two in, but I can tell you now that I won't finish this game. It just doesn't have the magical combination that makes it a must-play.

I liked:

Best enemy AI I've ever seen
Great weapons/combat
Sandbox game-world made some missions particularly interesting

I didn't like:

Horrible character and story development
RPG aspects weren't well done

More Shots Across nVidia's Bow

2008-06-15T22:47:00.002-04:00

As I'm mulling over the drama in the industry, I'm reminded of the balance of power struggle played out over the centuries in European history -- alliances and agendas shifting constantly to suit the shifting political landscape. In our raging tech battle of the silicon triumvirate, a few recent developments have Intel and AMD/ATI taking a few pot shots at nVidia.

First up is an interesting deal between Havok and AMD/ATI in that they will be working together moving forward to "optimize" Havok's physics engine for Phenom CPU's, as well as explore possibilities for the engine to "take advantage of" ATI video cards. This is obviously a reaction to nVidia's acquisition of Ageia and subsequent porting of the engine onto their GPU's via CUDA. It seems like a pretty clear validation that the move was a threat to both Intel and AMD/ATI's businesses. The intrigue is hilarious: Intel owns Havok, which although has much wider traction in the gaming market than Ageia, doesn't have a GPU to run it on (at least right now, the whole drama with Larrabee may change that). ATI has the only competing GPU, so they partner up to try get the engine running on Radeon, even though AMD benefits from it also. I guess Intel figures they've got AMD so far dominated that it won't make a difference. And voila -- now nVidia's got a competitor for physics on the GPU.

Next up is a few developments that I ran into that I think just illustrates that Intel is definitely taking "visual computing" seriously. I'm sure the future of ray-tracing will be on everyone's minds for a while, and it's going to be the elephant in the corner until its viability is known for sure. In the mean time, Intel is definitely posturing itself as a real player that knows about visual computing, via two new websites they've recently launched: Visual Computing Developer Community and a dedicated visual computing section on Gamasutra. Both sites feature blogs, news, articles, and more information, geared to engage the development community. It's just one small piece of a definite strategy of a movement into that market, and that's not good for nVidia or ATI.

Just for kicks, I'll throw this in the mix, too, just to show the fickleness of partners in this industry: nVidia and AMD, among others, are teaming up against Intel to try to bring to market a competing USB 3.0 spec.

None one of these developments are ground-breaking in themselves. Getting Havok on Radeon doesn't hurt nVidia if ATI doesn't have significant market share. Visual computing websites don't hurt anyone if Intel doesn't have real technology or products to back it up. All of that can certainly change though, and the threat for the landscape to change for the worse for nVidia is very real. I'll keep saying it every time I talk about them -- Keep Innovating!!

I Give Open-Source Gaming a Spin with Tremulous

2008-06-12T13:54:00.000-04:00

As a response to what I've felt like might be a bit of a stagnation by developers in being creative with game settings, I threw out some ideas in a recent post for some things I might like to see. One of the weaker ideas I had (I admit it) was for "bug wars". That might not come across perfectly well, but I assure you, in my mind, it looks like a fun game. Anyway, I had one commenter on that post suggest I look at "Tremulous", which is actually a free open source FPS game in which one faction are buggish aliens. Since I've actually had some interest in checking out some of the open source projects that are out there, I thought this would be a perfect opportunity.

The game itself can be downloaded right from the Tremulous website, and comes in a little under 100MB. They've got a hefty setup for distribution of this thing, because it took less than a minute to download and it was almost quicker to install. You can literally be up and running on a server in just a few short minutes, and I was happy to see that there were plenty of active, full games. That's actually a lot of the charm about open-source projects like this -- the community -- and Tremulous has got no shortage there.

According to the game's Wikipedia page (which has a ton of info, definitely check it out), Tremulous is running a modified Quake 3 Arena engine. Apparently, the engine was released into the public domain in 2006, so the developers were able to package the game as a stand-alone. I think that is just so cool - a great way to give back to the community.

On the other hand, that same engine is what makes the whole thing look obviously aged. Let's just get that out of the way -- these graphics are almost 10 years old. As a testament to id's tech, though, it's good enough I eventually forgot that I cared what it looked like. I guess that's what's cool about gaming; after you get into it, graphics don't end up mattering so much. You quickly fall into the rhythm of the action (a lesson Crytek obviously didn't catch onto). On the other hand, an old engine makes this accessible to any computer in existence right now, even the new emerging sub-notebook market. That's definitely worth something.

The gameplay is definitely interesting. The two "factions" are humans and aliens -- and the aliens are extremely "buggish", able to climb on walls and ceilings, super-fast, with lots of leaping at the humans' faces. A lot of the action also revolves around deployable buildings -- a pretty common feature in modern MP FPS's where certain classes can place turrets and the such. I, however, made the mistake of trying to just jump into a game and start fragging people. Not possible. You've got to take the time out to read the manual (located on the website), and learn about the intricacies of the sides and how it all works. It's complicated, and I really like that. It actually lends itself very well to clan-based matches, where teams can lay out specific roles and strategies.

Overall, it's a great little project, well worth the price and setup time for sure! This is one of the great strengths of the PC platform: community, modding, independent projects. Great job, and I'll definitely be jumping on every once in a while.

Looks Like HP Got the Short End of the Stick

2008-06-11T13:00:00.005-04:00

For quite a while now, Rahul's been talking up his company's next release. Today, it's finally here : the new Voodoo Envy and Omen. I have to admit, I think they've done a great job, and it's great to finally see some of that "HP R&D" coming through, which I've been less than impressed with in the past. That just leaves me to wonder what do you do with a Blackbird that pretty well pales in comparison?

It's a VooDoo Air -- I mean Envy!
The new Envy looks like a killer product, and it's actually pretty illustrative of how the notebook market is maturing. It's great to see someone other than Apple make some great designs... and it's even better to see Intel played ball and passed that "Apple-chip" around (the Intel SP7700 and SP7500 were seemingly created at Jobs' request for a smaller package and lower TDP). The new Omen is certainly impressive too, and I think some of its features are pretty compelling, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what I thought of the Blackbird. All in all, it's a strong launch, and since Rahul's saying it's the best day of his life as the culmination of a great partnership, I'd say he's right to be happy. Good work. Alienware can't touch it. (Except for the presentation in Berlin -- Wow, was Cherno Jobateya a mistake for an emcee.)

I'm curious now to see if these products can actually be brought to market in quantities that make sense and within a reasonable time frame before they're already out-dated -- a distinct issue with the Blackbird. And as far as the Omen being "invitation-only" ... I'm not really sure what kind of game that is, but it doesn't sound like a solid way to run a PC business to me. In fact, it seems to point more to production or support limitations. Why else would you ever do such a thing?

It's also interesting to me after all this to look at how both of the big acquisitions played out. Dell buys Alienware, keeps both brands separate, but after a few years, it's clear the XPS line apparently just doesn't seem viable in the States with Alienware onboard. HP reacts to Dell, buys VooDoo, and they integrate the businesses more closely, but again the HP side is lacking while the boutique brand prospers. It seems like the lesson here is clearly to consolidate and concentrate on one brand. Simplify and specialize, instead of just branching out.

I wonder if I'll get an invitation to buy an Omen....

Intel's Response to "Optimized PC" is Equally Worthless

2008-06-06T19:01:00.002-04:00

The Intel vs. nVidia drama, which I have nothing but bad things to say about, has cropped up again on my radar in the form of an Intel "response", distributed recently in a marketing deck. My opinion on the whole idea of "Optimized PC" can be summed up in the following: needless, confusing marketing speak in the form of flawed blanket statements. So, while I can't be disappointed with Intel for responding to a blatant attack by nVidia, I can hope that they'd keep it simple and straight-forward. What I got was neither.

Notice the majority of this is verging on flat-out silliness. The only meat here is in slide 3, 8, and 9 -- in other words, when they actually address the issue of when the CPU has an advantage over the GPU. Because, that's really what this nonsense revolves around isn't it? Intel really didn't need to play games "testing messaging" and "if users will pay more", and the fact that they felt the need to include what I'd consider flat-out misleading information is sad to me.

The only thing that matters here is this : Neither the CPU or the GPU is "more important" than the other, even in the "increasingly visual modern computing environment". Specific games and applications all leverage the CPU and GPU -- and even things like memory and hard drive performance -- differently than one another. You can't tell the market that putting more money into one or the other is going to give you a better experience.

This whole thing looks like an exploitive corporate marketing shinanigan to me. Let's do this -- Intel and nVidia both stick to making great products and let the system builders help consumers find the right mix of CPU/GPU for their applications. Isn't that novel?

How Will Digital Distribution Affect the B&M Workforce?

2008-06-02T19:49:00.003-04:00

I received a question today from Tom Valentino at The ECA which I think is a great conversation to have. He asks, "How many jobs would be lost if digital distribution hypothetically shut down brick and mortar stores?" At first glance, this certainly seems like a pretty loaded question, and coming from someone at the politically-oriented ECA, I just have to wonder. However, I don't think the answer is as combative as might be implied or expected. The fact is that digital distribution is 1) inevitable, 2) nothing new for the entertainment industry, and 3) not necessarily something that is going to replace retail. Is there even anything to worry about here?

First, digital distribution is 100% on the rise and is going to be a major force in the future. With Valve's recent announcement of their phenomenal traction in the industry with 15 million accounts and their statement that their digital revenue will exceed their retail revenue within the next 3 months, they've set the bar for what every publisher wishes they could have. For the publishers, even those who borrow existing infrastructures like Steam, digital distribution means more profit and more direct contact with their customers. For consumers, digital distribution is more convenient. There's a lot for the market to grab hold of here and there are many who welcome the movement, myself included.

However, consider the state of brick and mortar for the rest of entertainment industry, namely music and cinema. Where are the Sam Goody's and the Tower Records? Gone. The old guard of the 80's and 90's niche chains have been eclipsed by the monsters of new millennium. Now, it's Target, Wal-Mart and BestBuy, or iTunes, Amazon, and Netflix. Retail has always been tough, and being able to adapt to industry evolution is the only way for any business to stay alive.

The gaming industry has gone the same way with the smaller chains slowly being eclipsed, but generally retail is still hugely lucrative. Retail stores provide a service that a consumer driven country like ours shows no sign of getting tired of, regardless of the growth of internet shopping. Who can foresee the time when that would ever change, especially considering the fact that the casual entertainment consumer, who is most drawn to retail, will always be largest customer base by far.

So, what does all of this say for jobs? I'd say there is absolutely no indication of anything but growth. Brick and mortar retail stores aren't going anywhere, and those companies that currently service the market certainly don't depend on the entertainment media industry to stay alive.

And apparently the industry is so strong even GameSpot still holds some clout - there's nothing to worry about.

"Kane and Lynch: Dead Men" : Curiosity Compells Me

2008-06-01T20:10:00.000-04:00

The marketing blurb for this game reads, "A dark and gritty drama", "brutally realistic". Hey, that sounds pretty good... and although I wasn't a huge fan of the Hitman games (IO's claim to fame), I am a big fan of a good story. Since it's so fashionable these days to say Metacritic scores "aren't everything" -- certainly they can't tell the whole story after all! -- I threw caution to the wind and gave this title that netted an unimpressive 66 a run for its money.

Mistake. This game is worse than bad and a 66 is generous. It tries to be a hopeless, heart-wrenching tragedy about an anti-hero trying to protect his family yada yada (very similar in spirit and style to Max Payne), but just fails miserably.
Instead, it's the game equivalent of a cheesy summer action movie: repetitive, predictable, cheesy, and results in what can only be described as a waste of time. The engine is terrible: glitchy, unpolished, and has the worst AI I've ever seen in my life. The gameplay is atrocious, with guns that don't shoot straight and a useless cover system. I have unfortunately very little to talk about here except negatives, so I'm not going to beat this to death. Suffice to say that I don't think you can publish a game like this and have positive expectations with other shooters on the market, like Gears of War and Rainbow Six.

Here's what's worse: The conversation is raging across the internet about how console ports are "ruining PC gaming". Now, I don't buy into that, but this game could be used as a prime example of an obviously bad port. It uses not a single strength of the PC -- I've honestly never felt so much like I was sitting in front of a console in my life. Menus, interface, graphics... it's just obvious that the idea was to get this to market as cheaply as possible for PC, and it's a real shame. However, given the quality of the game itself, I guess I'm not surprised.

So, since IO is planning a sequel, I'm going to take just a second to be constructive to try to balance out my vicious ranting. I'd say the key here would be to concentrate on story and style, because those are going to be the strongest elements. This engine I just think is a lost cause -- fix the glitches and make it actually work, but it can never aspire to be anything more than mediocre. That might even be OK if the story and style can carry the whole title, which is definitely possible. This will be an uphill battle though.. Man, what a job they've got ahead of them.

What I liked:
- The two main characters make great stylized anti-heroes

What I didn't like:
- Everything else.

Okami Poses the Question: Do Gamers REALLY Want Innovation?

2008-05-28T22:32:00.006-04:00

Michael Abbot from The Brainy Gamer, one of my favorite gaming blogs, did a piece last month on a PS2/Wii title, Okami. It's an action/adventure game in which you play a wolf-god, awoken by an evil that is menacing the land, tasked with setting the world aright. The game features a truly different art style, almost like playing on a watercolor canvas instead of a TV, and a unique gameplay mechanic in which you use "special powers" by drawing with calligraphic-esque motions on the screen. Michael's review was great, as usual, but I was ever so slightly tickled by some of his comments about innovation. I think Okami is a great springboard to talk about what gamers really want and what role innovation takes in making a commercially successful game.

In the review, Michael says :

"...gamers often claim they want something different, but in reality they don't. What they really want is something almost the same. Too much innovation - especially stylistic innovation - is generally rejected."

He made these comments as a reaction to the fact that the game wasn't a huge commercial success, though it was obviously a game that pushed the bar in more than one way. I wondered, however, whether drawing that inference was entirely accurate. I responded on his blog with this:

"This might be taking it a bit too far. I understand you like the game, but simply because it's not attractive to a wide audience doesn't mean that wide audience doesn't want an innovative experience. It's just not THAT experience. I guess my point is : Innovation does not equal GOOD..."

So we went back and forth a few times about this, and he established that his goal was to pay homage to the fact that the developers succeeded in doing something very special with this title. They established an "aesthetic that communicates meaning to the player in ways [he's] never seen accomplished in any other game." As far as whether they succeeded or not, he made the suggestion that I have to play it myself. He offered to send me his copy (what a stand-up guy, right?) so I could take a look.

I gave Okami about 4 hours (about two play sessions for me). I was able to immediately connect with the artistry in the visuals and gameplay -- that's undoubtedly the title's cornerstone strong point and it showed through. But I also have to say that my time with it leaves me with no inclination to play any more. This game just doesn't have a "hardcore" appeal, and I think that's where it's lost on me. There is too much dialogue with not enough substance and I'd estimate that at least 2/3 of the playtime was spent reading. That might even be OK if it was fulfilling in some way, but the majority of it I'd have to label as juvenile. The second glaring problem was that I didn't feel challenged whatsoever. Both the fighting and "puzzles" were all very basic and I just wasn't stimulated at all there.

I could actually draw a really close parallel to my review of Bioshock. In short: a great premise for a storyline, an incredibly detailed and unique game world, and horrifically intense gameplay. About 1/3 of the way through the game, though, all of those things wore off, and I got bored and didn't finish it. And this was an FPS, a genre that I'm pretty into.

So, what does that say about innovation, and even specifically style innovation? I still think I'm right on by saying it's just not enough. Making a great game just has to have the right balance of all of the essential elements, and innovation probably isn't even the most important. But, I do think gamers want innovation. I liked Okami's innovative aspects, I just didn't connect with everything else. So, I don't think that developers need to be scared about being too innovative. I think they just need to make sure the innovative gets rounded out with everything else that matters, too.

I'd also like to point out that just because a game doesn't sell well, which was Michael's gauge for how well Okami was accepted by "the masses", doesn't mean it's not a great game. Robin Kaminsky, head of Global Brand Management for Activision, did a great presentation at DICE talking about how making a great game is only one piece of the puzzle of making games that sell. It's a science that everyone doesn't get right, and maybe that was what Okami lacked in the end. After all, it was well received by critics and looks like it achieved solid AAA status. Maybe the sales numbers were only indicative of a sub-par marketing and sales strategy.

In the end, Michael was right -- He said, "Play it, send it back, and let me know what you think. No risk, possible high reward." The visual experience and the discussion itself was well worth it.

PC Exclusive Games List (2007, 2008, current)

2008-05-28T09:58:00.012-04:00

In the PC vs. Console discussion that's raging across the internet, it seems like it would be helpful to have a solid list for current (2007 - current) PC exclusive AAA and AA games. I'll keep this list current as much as I'm able, but feel free to leave suggestions/updates in the comments and I'll update it.

2007

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Supreme Commander + Forged Alliance Expansion
S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl
World In Conflict
Crysis
The Orange Box
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade
Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar
RACE - The WTCC Game
Europa Universalis III
Flight Simulator X: Acceleration
The Witcher
Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword
The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar
Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened
Silent Hunter: Wolves of the Pacific
Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer
Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts
Medieval II: Total War Kingdoms
Guild Wars: Eye of the North
TrackMania United
Sam & Max
Baseball Mogul 2008

2008

Pirates of the Burning Sea
Penumbra: Black Plague
Sins of a Solar Empire

AAA Titles that were released simultaneously on the PC along with console versions that were NOT crappy ports and were just as good or better on the PC:
Bioshock
Call of Duty 4
Gears of War
Orange Box
Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars

Upcoming:

Starcraft 2
Empire: Total War
Disciples III: Renaissance
SPORE
Panzers: Cold War
Jagged Alliance 3
Demigod
Society
Cities Unlimited
Worldshift
Perimeter 2
Multiwinia
Europa Universalis Rome
Spaceforce : Captains
Jutland
Field Ops
Seven Kingdoms: Conquest
HistWar: Les Grognars
Sudden Strike 3
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Soulstorm
Vampyre Story
Nikopol: The Carnival of Immortals
Far Cry 2

Great resources in some threads at Gamespot and PS3Forums

Acer's Predator Gaming PC is a Big Mistake

2008-05-25T00:01:00.001-04:00

Acer, the Taiwanese PC manufacturing behemoth, recently announced it's entry into the gaming market with the launch of the "Predator", complete with hydraulic-action front bay door, bright orange finish, and lightning bolt photoshopped background. Not to be outdone by its rival Asus' Ares desktop, Acer is following their nemesis down the same inept path that embodies everything that is wrong with the industry today.

We need MORE COW BELL! No, Alienware and every other dragon case integrator out there certainly can't have tapped out the market for gaudy computer chassis. There's always room for one more. After all, it was marketing genius 10 years ago -- it's GOT to still be good now, too. Throwing a measly few $mill$ at an over-hyped marketing campaign and a new flash website is sure to snag someone.

Support? Acer? Huh? I think it's been pretty well established that monster companies just don't adjust real well to niche markets that require a very personal, direct support experience -- especially companies based in Taiwan trying to address US markets. Further, Acer is not exactly known as the high-end, quality brand around these parts. I've talked before about support being the real service an integrator provides... that'd just about make this a slam dunk, huh.

Here's the scary part: They'll figure out how to sell more than a few of these by the sheer weight of their company. So who's going to end up with them? Customers who either 1) don't know any better, or 2) don't care. Both will end up severely disappointed, and they might just end up with a PR incident around a support fiasco that they didn't foresee, making the whole thing probably end up as a pretty negative endeavor overall. So, why bother.

Acer, prove me wrong : Show me US-based support, staffed with people who specialize in this type of hardware, with the goal and authority to provide whatever it takes for the customers who buy this thing to have a luxury-level, 100% satisfying experience.