A Clash of Genre - RTS versus RTT

An aspect of gaming that I have been wondering about for a while now, is how real-time strategy games have been categorized and developed. The main point of my thread of thought was Real-Time “Strategy” versus Real-Time “Tactics”. I believe there should be a big distinction between the two, as most games that do not incorporate long term strategy are still labeled as an RTS and vice versa.

To quote wikipedia on Strategy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy ) :

“Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked.”

This quote draws a distinction between strategy and tactics and their relationship from a military perspective which I feel could be applied to other domains as well such as economics. I guess you could view strategy as a meta-tactic or a super tactic. Many tactics contribute towards the goals stipulated by the strategy.

This aspect to the RTS game genre has become more prominent since I played Dawn of War 2 and more recently World In Conflict which have a dominating focus on small scale tactics within the battle arena which are more tactically orientated. The goals are pre-stipulated by the game and you simply need to execute tactics to support that goal. That being the tactical side of it, the opposite side being the strategic, with games such Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire. Both of these games require a broader perspective before making long term decisions if the players plans on succeeding. The tactical side however requires more intimate knowledge of the small scale scenario to make decisions in terms of advancement and manipulating the lay of the terrain (for example). Another major aspect to Real-Time War games is resource management. RTT scenario resources should be static and “pre-allocated” in that the strategic plan has allocated as much resources as it can allow without compromising other tactical scenarios within the strategic scenario. World In Conflict’s resource management structure is so far the most ideal in terms of RTT games in my opinion. Essentially allocated by a commander, finite, and no way to indefinitely gather more. Strategic games need to have resource collection/management that is dynamic and subject to a global economy of sorts, with collection as well as allocation and spending.

I guess to bring a point to my thoughts here, I would prefer if a new genre was introduced to gaming called Real-Time Tactics (RTT) to distinguish between the game styles. As a side note to that, I wish there were more RTS games out there. The games classified as RTS out there are great, but sometimes they lack the depth that I would personally prefer.

Just a mini gripe there.. I have no doubt that there is a myriad of opinions out there on the matter..

My Two Cents - Starcraft 2

A game franchise which name precedes itself. Starcraft has always had a hefty reputation in the RTS community and as a RTS gamer I find it strange that I just never crossed paths with it in the nineties. I played my fair share of Red Alert 1, Command and Conquer 1,  and even Dune 2, but I never actually saw Starcraft 1, merely heard of it in passing. Only in the last two years preceding the launch of Starcraft 2 did I come across it more personally. So I had relatively low expectations for SC2 (Starcraft 2) despite the reviews and its reputation.

Despite being a sucker for a great, well told storyline and visual effects. It is the game play and game design that make or break a release of a game and possibly a franchise. This game hasn’t revolutionized the RTS genre by any means. It has however re-used a tried and true formula and polished it well incorporating not only storyline and visual effects, but also keeping to the original game’s strengths in level design and game play ( I ended up buying the original and expansion in a bargain bin ). If anything, I feel the game’s storyline is told a bit better with the style of cinematics and dialogue even casually between missions. There is also a hint of RPG similar to Mass Effect in the way you can move about the ship (however streamlined) to talk to various characters and also research and manage your upgrades.

The meat of the game is actually in the levels themselves and the combat around the objectives. This might sound like a stereotypical approach to a campaign in an RTS, but the Blizzard folks have done this well. The objectives are very well balanced and conform well to the map style (such as holding out for x amount of time). Even the “Escort the Civilian” type missions which I have a personal distaste for were somewhat engaging. Just to detail the extent of polish applied to the story telling, even the in-game dialogue between characters gives detail to the mission and its context. I will say that finishing the original might give value to playing the SC2 as there are aspects to the story which could be missed ( such as the differences between the dominion and the confederation ). This might seem like a subtle point but it could really add up down the line in the franchise.

I will say with all the hype that I found the graphics to be a let down. The game’s graphics isn’t a discredit to the game, but I did find it lacklustre considering the caliber of the game. There are aspects to the detail put into the game that I appreciated, like the dialogue of the units. Such as Thor which has a distinct “Arnold Schwarzenegger” sound and accent to him.

On the multiplayer front, my opinion is quite opposite to other people that I have spoken to. I feel the game has been drastically nerfed here compared to the single player game. The number of upgrades, structures and units has been significantly reduced. Now the SC2 players that I have spoken to so far have been relatively happy with this cause they recognize that it was probably done to enforce balancing in the game. Looking at the success worldwide of the multiplayer, obviously it has been well done. I still feel however that the game should’ve have been balanced with all of the single player bell’s and whistles.

Despite the questions raised while playing, I finished the game with little effort in terms of motivation which is a great credit to a game. I generally have no qualms stopping a game if it no longer engages me.

That’s my two cents on Starcraft 2. I’m looking forward to the expansion, Heart of the Swarm :-)

Adios Everyone :-)

My Two Cents - World In Conflict

I saw World In Conflict ( with the Soviet Assault Expansion ) in a bargain bin recently and decided to give it a try. I originally ignored this game despite enjoying Ground Control 1, which was a great game also done by Massive Entertainment. To put this game in a nutshell, it is a great game. I have thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaign and I have not yet tried the multiplayer. The expansion pack essentially merges a set of missions in-between the original set of missions to bulk up the storyline.

One of the biggest detractors for me originally when considering this game was the lack of base building and traditional resource management. Call me old school but I like my strategy games to involve base building and resource management. Although I sometimes wonder if I’m in the minority, seeing as though more and more games are streamlining that part of RTS games (Dawn of War 2; Command and Conquer 4). With that said, I think the design decision to use squads/regiments only has worked well with the game style and how it is meant to be played. The game’s focus is entirely around management of troops and there interaction/support of each other within a relatively small battlefield.

The game’s central storyline revolves around the Cold War between the United States and the USSR break out into a full invasion initiated by the USSR. An interesting use case for me personally. I can’t help but imagine what fears the US people had regarding a full invasion in the eighties. The storytelling is done well with the missions bouncing between the US and USSR characters. Although the cinematics could have benefited from a little work in terms of graphics, it told the story very well. I also had to bear in mind how old this game is when playing it. I also found constantly playing missions between the different sides gives a broader perspective on the conflict that goes on between nations and the people leading the fight on the ground which kept me engaged in the game as well.

When I said earlier that there was no resource management, I meant only in the traditional sense. In WiC you do have the concept of resource points which are allocated based on performance but also seem to be subject to the nature of the mission and are not given out purely based on kills or objectives. These resource points can essentially be used either to get reinforcements ( such as troops or vehicles/helicopters ) or the points can be used to access various types of artillery which can be a lot of fun and even crucial for tactical management of the battle at hand.

The gameplay mechanics turned out very well and feels fluid without dragging on. With that said, my personal highlight for the game is the graphics which is quite often a make or break deal for me. The game feels deep and the scale of the environment and its objects feel real as well. There is ample use of decent particle systems with the best application being to no surprise, a nuclear detonation which is so far my favourite to date.

All in all I think the game is worth the buy, and should be playable even for the non-RTS gamers. It is rare when I lose track of time while playing a game, but this is one of those games which made keeping track of time more difficult :-)

My two cents,

Ciao all :-)

Blogging Review

As it turns out, I've managed to play some new games over the last while amidst the chaos. Some of them good, some of them less so, but none of them bad. My current problem is should I bother blogging about them in any detail. My ultimate question when doing something is do the blog posts add value to myself or anyone else. Is the format of my reviews perhaps to formal. As I'm not a trained/professional/hobbyist journalist, a less formal "this is what I liked/disliked" paragraph might be of more value without taking chunks of time out to write. But as I've said before, there is something therapeutic about the writing process. I guess on the plus side I don't even need to make an urgent decision so there's no need to stress about it. Another plus side to the blogging though is just to keep a historical record. I tend to find personal experience over the years are never as you remember them simply because your own perspective changes. Whether my perspective on that will change over time, who knows ;-)

I guess time will reveal all :-)

Joining the herd ..

So recently I joined Twitter just as an experiment.. And all in all it is not bad. More streamlined with more informative posts with the added benefit of wasting less time. So I thought with the experimental spree that I was on, I would join linkedin. I will see if posting on this experiment is worth it though. Twitter has been interesting and is less privacy invasive so speaking to people you don't know is more acceptable. At the moment I think of it as a giant chat room on steroids :D

I'm generally a little anti-conformist, but I've found the sheep mentality to sometimes be helpful.

Just for interests sake:
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/MSchlebusch
LinkedIn: http://za.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-schlebusch/38/934/580

Ciao

The Technology Evolution

A paradox.


As a correspondence student I find myself in the "business" of learning how to learn as well. Not to mention my day job as a business systems programmer forces me to learn new information, bad and good. I've come to realize though that our understanding of the learning process, and my practices of learning are fundamentally flawed.

Our current process of education (atleast from my point of view) still relies heavily on memorizing facts because looking them up became industrially impractical.

Here is an article worth reading just to get a different perspective : http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/study-why-bother-to-remember-when-you-can-just-use-google.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

I've come to the conclusion that our education system needs a revamp. Our issue is no longer about memorizing applicable facts, its about applying applicable facts. This creates a bit of a problem in that knowing where and how to look for information does require some understanding of the problem domain. I can hear the hardcore academics screaming murder simply cause they've worked hard to get the natural depth of knowledge. Now while understanding is important, being able to apply meta-concepts could potentially be far more useful. Imagine a two or three people replacing a team of twenty five diverse specialists (such as physicists and engineers) simply because they had access to twenty five people's knowledge, but enough core knowledge to apply it all. I doubt in practice that it will be that simple. But our education methodology will clearly need to change with the incredible availability of information.

Anyway, I'm still trying to work out what the best direction would be for our education system. I hate bringing up a problem without atleast ONE suggestion for a solution.

Hmmmm.....

Risky Media

Hmmm..

I originally started blogging just as a means of expression and somewhat accountability. An online journal of sorts. I believe in introspective reflection just as a means of keeping track of what I am doing, how I am spending my time etc. After pre-writing a number of articles across various blog-like channels, I realize it can be somewhat fickle when your standards are too high while your time is stretched too thin. I guess I need to re-think how I go about managing my online presence. My latest experiment of sorts has been Google+ and Twitter, all in one week. Social networks generally irritate me cause they are the black hole of time managers. But they also seem to be a part of life.

Ponder on this, I will.

Game Review : Medal of Honor ( PC )

Intro :

In one sentence.. This is a remarkable game from a large historical franchise that I would recommend. My comments for the moment refer specifically to the Single Player, as that has been my point of encounter so far. The multi-player is still definitely on my to-do list provided I can find regular, decent, local servers.

There seemed to be a considerable issue around there being a Taliban faction that consumers were allowed to side with on the multiplayer. I have not tried the multiplayer so it might not be fair for me to comment, but purely from an artistic stand point I feel that is was blown a little out of proportion. Playing as a taliban member does NOT represent the player’s beliefs or plans in my opinion. As with all arts, media and entertainment, it serves only as a form of expression of a singular point of view. The interpretation ( not the truth ) is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless, here is a quick breakdown of my view of Medal of Honor ( 2010 ) :

Game Play :

Apart from a system crash initially, this game was smooth and immersive. If this game was developed for console originally, it did not feel like it. The PC version had all the decent bells and whistles such as configurable graphics and controls ( that might sound like a given, but its a luxury for PC releases these days ).

The game serves as a linear first person shooter and you play as multiple characters. This among other features seem to be borrowed (atleast in style) from the Call of Duty game style. But it has taken and used the game style well. Elements such as playing with team members  feels real and fluid and their is a decent amount of character that adds to the game-play experience. I would almost describe this as an interactive movie more than a simulated environment. The game is extremely linear which is not necessarily a bad thing if done right.

There are some minor bugs which do unfortunately detract from the realism, such as a grenade behaving like a sticky mine instead of rolling or bouncing down a hill. But the DICE team got the average game play very very right.

The game rules are usually very clear although execution is not always clear. And for a game style that lends itself to shooting skills over problem solving, I find this undesirable. This is however not a frequent occurrence.

The artificial intelligence is largely what I would expect from this game style. Not incredible but I might dare say it was sufficient. There were certain stages where the AI should have responded more realistically ( certain times they should have responded to your sneaking around and didn’t ). But there was a degree of adaptivity and variation in the gun fights which I did enjoy.

Score : 8.5

Effects :
Visual :
Although probably not the best release out of the 2010 first person shooters, the graphics was outstanding and fun. Out of all the game elements, I think graphics is very high up on my importance list and there were many times I noticed the visuals and thought “awesome”.

Unfortunately there was a great deal of tearing in the cinematic sequences that are extremely distracting. But I never noticed them when I was in control which on the whole is preferable. Certain blurring of the faces of team mates and one or two lighting bugs which were intermittent at best still aren’t enough to discredit this game’s value.

Audio:
The sound is spot on. I found it to be accurate and well synchronized ( on the whole ). With that said, I didn’t notice the sound much. Which I think is a good thing. It should contribute to the enbironement and it should not break you out of the immersive atmosphere you are in. The sound track was also clean and well rounded giving a serious tone to the game.

Score : 8.0

Story Line :

I think this part of the game’s design and implementation is by far its strong point. I completely got into the game’s vibe and atmosphere because of a well written story line. Some of the missions do seem to detract from the core story line with out really giving away a decent sub-plot, but not one part of the game could be cut out without removing some of the end result in terms of story completeness.

You basically play two characters involved in various battles as part of the 2nd Middle East conflict. Despite the world view of the conflicts in the region, war can never be a great experience and you can’t help but feel sorry for the protagonists. An interesting point of view where you take part in the plight of the conflict and struggle that these soldiers go through is clear and engaging.

Its clear that DICE went through a fair deal of effort to put a story together worth watching.

Score : 8.0


Miscellany :

Considering the price of this game genre as of late, the game was reasonably priced considering the scope and quality that you get. I only wish all publishers\developers took the moral high ground in terms of value-for-money.

Multiplayer :

I regrettably never put a whole lot of effort into the multiplayer. I tried to get into multiplayer sessions on a few occasions and regrettably I just couldn’t find a decent local server, and the international servers have ping times of ATLEAST 220ms which is just too high for me personally to even try ( I try aim for atleast <100ms ).

The Sum of All Parts :

I would have to say this game is smooth, the story line is serious, and the faults are faint if at all noticeable. The game meets a AAA standard and it was tough to stop playing. My only regret is the FPS culture as of late, is to have a game under 10 hours.

Last Thoughts :

Although this post is very late after its release, if you have not played it yet and are looking for a shooter that is meaty and fun, give it a try. I doubt you’ll be disappointed. Also note I have not included an average score. It just didn’t feel right to make an average out of criteria that are not easy to establish a relative value to the whole.

Ciao :-)

Blogging - A Randomly Periodic Event

When I originally started blogging it was with the hope that I would be able to do it regularly, say around two to three times a month. Obviously looking at my first volley this is not the case. Life often dictates the circumstances and when life gets insanely busy then obviously you begin to prioritize and blogging for me personally is not THAT important.

Another thread of thought connected with the blogging process is that I was never really completely happy with the general layout of the blogger pages. I have been considering WordPress as a replacement as it gives a bit more flexibility in terms of page layout, such as the abililty to use tabs without needing mess with the markup of the site. I want to have different categories for blogging and unfortunately blogger is just too restrictive. So I thought I would look at WordPress, but it turns out it is more of a deployment tool, and does not include the hosted environment such as blogger. Hosted servers etc. don’t grow on trees. So I will need to think about this a bit.

Regardless, I have some very small programming projects I will do my best to post on here and hopefully have a download for the completed versions of the project within the next two weeks or so, and some rough game reviews even sooner ( HOPEFULLY ).

Ciao All

A Means to Learning

Game Development - A Means to Learning Graphics and Physics

I have always been naturally curious in many different ways, technically and creatively. But I have often found in the past that a learning context or basis rapidly helps the learning process. You learn arithmetic before Trigonometry, you learn to use a mouse and keyboard before learning Computer Systems administration. This order of precedence is also important for information and concepts to be retained and understood. But informational order of precedence is already well applied in the educational process.

Life however often requires the opposite of us. To learn retroactively. I find in many technical fields especially, that this is required. If I look at students that get manufactured out of Java schools, they are especially under the whip in this regard. There are huge gaps of knowledge in terms of data structures, design patterns and API familiarity. I very often get the feeling this has come about as a result of the RAD software development trend that has come about over the last decade or two ( depending on your point of view ). This development style allowed for skills and paradigms to be learned on the fly as they were needed and with the Internet, this was easy and legal (for the most part). The depth of the knowledge that was acquired in a full degree( bachelor of computer sciences to stick with cliche ) was not a requirement from a business stand point for a myriad of rationalized reasons. A rant in this particular arena is due in a series of blog entries on its own but let me just state ( as a Java School “graduate” ), that I find this approach to the industry poor and short sighted. There is a place for this approach in software development in business, but it has been abused. The lack of educational context leads to an incomplete educational cycle... which leads largely to my next point...

I guess my understanding of the brain and its wiring s negligible but my I’ve found me ability to learn on any level requires a context and a clear goal in mind to be able to try remember, understand, and one day apply a concept. I’m not sure if there is a nature versus nurture argument here, but I get the feeling that this is dependent on an individuals mental wiring. I’ve seen a reasonable number of developers able to learn, memorize AND apply certain concepts ( whether it be raw idioms or complex APIs and their affiliated design structures ). This is just downright unfair, but at the end of you play the cards you’re given. I’m sure this could be found in any mathematical, logic based paradigm. So why the long winded introduction..

Two of my more core interests ( speaking strictly under the Logic heading, lets leave Creative Arts for another time shall we? ) is computer graphics ( not as in animation, but as in what makes animation possible, and look good ) as well as computational physics to some degree. Why? Its very hard for me to pinpoint but for the time being I can narrow it down to two possibilities. Firstly, I find problem solving in complex arenas very rewarding on many levels. Not to mention that seeing other people’s implemented solutions can be pieces of art in their own right, comparable to an impressive martial art, an elaborate display of colour, or a symphony of musicians in perfect unison. An addendum to this reason is that a given solution often gives an insight into a persons nature which I also find interesting. The second reason that stands out to me is that these two arenas once understood allow for creative thinking in a logical domain. A contradiction in terms perhaps, but that only provokes my curiosity further. Now perhaps from an extremism point of view these core interests are not the pinnacle of complexity, but there is definitely enough there to keep the mind busy. I’ve spent some time being a student and I’ve found myself a part of the group that requires context BEFORE complex concepts will make sense, never mind actually sticking in memory for any reasonable amount of time. When I speak about context here I am referring specifically to the basis of the concept ( the starting point ) up to and including the conclusion and summary ( the objective and goal ).

I can’t help but wonder though how the great minds of our time explored the depths of revelation and realization. Did it come simply for observation( passive ), or exploration( active )? I very rarely believe there is an absolute in life, and there is most likely a gray-scale of sorts. Which begs the question, where is the balance? I imagine differential psycho-analysis based on the individuals psyche would eventually give the answer, but I doubt whether we ( as a culture\society\civilization ) have the insight into the mind and character to evaluate this completely yet. If there are psychologists screaming blue murder out there after me saying that, please prove me wrong. To make a point from the babble here, I believe feeling your way through your own balances individually is very important before spending time in thought on external knowledge. The process of meta-exploration is important if not crucial for an individual that truly wishes to nurture the natural potential available. This is why I believe reflection is so important and why I started this blog. I find writing my thoughts allowed and even forces me to evaluate not only WHAT I think about, but HOW I think about it? And if I’m feeling particularly energetic, I’ll even think about the WHY of my thoughts. I digress though...

This might seem like an incredibly verbose means to something as simple as education. But society is engineered to be rushed and this nurtures a culture which does not evaluate and think choices and activities through. My opinion on why society has developed in this direction is topic for another philosophical ( and perhaps offensive ) blog post.

This is why game development ( personally speaking ) is such a good way to be introduced to complex concepts. The context is simple and the goal is clear, yet the implementation introduces the student to all the basic details used for fields of Physics, Computer Sciences, and even Engineering. Perhaps the education system is still adapting to the development of technology and all the sub-cultures and concepts affiliated with it, but I find it frustrating how games weren’t used as a method to education on a school level. Why should traditional school concepts be learned first BEFORE leading to more complex varsity concepts. When the applications introduced in varsity can actually aid the education process. Personally if game development had been used as a medium to education when being introduced to Trigonometry and Classical Mechanics, it would have been far easier not only to motivate myself, but to grasp the concepts in the long term simply because I had a frame of reference to latch on to.

To try summarise this long post, I feel it is important to emphasize the goal in education to aid the student’s path. Impossible to choose a road without knowing where you are headed. This has turned largely into a rant at the educational system, but I hope I got my point across. I also considered splitting this into two articles but that would’ve blown up an already bloated topic.

Ciao All :-)

Game Review Primer

Game Review Primer :

Introduction :

The purpose of this entry is give an outline into how I intend to review games and what I base my choices on. I’ll say this now and probably again and again, that art is an entirely subjective domain. I’ve seen some review sites say that the media review process is not just an opinion, and with good criteria and a solid review process you can achieve a good and solid conclusion. I disagree. However with that said, I do hope to achieve a common ground with readers so that they themselves can take the opinion I present and draw a preliminary conclusion themselves. For whatever purpose that may be, be it looking at new\old games to play or simply to get a feel for the public opinion on a game the reader may have finished already.

Game Review Criteria :

After spending some time with my head buried in game reviews, and speaking to some of my gamer friends lately, I realized that most gaming reviews cater for certain gamer groups and although there is a fair amount of criteria that the reviewers follow, they still often mis-represent the game, unintentionally I think. Even with that taken into account, reviews of games ( or any other media for that matter ) are helpful and informative, especially for the legal gamers out there. Sure you could argue that trying the demos are a viable way of testing a game before buying, but demos are less common now amongst new releases and even the demos that are available still take more time to try out than reading a review or two. Lets face it, there are a lot of good games out there, and filtering out the games you are most likely to enjoy is an important part of gaming.

Another side of the review process is not actually giving away too much detail. I will do my best to find the balance between a review, and an outright spoiler. No guarantees though, because this is again a very subjective domain.

I’m going to try set up a list of review criteria here ( which I will also continue to review ) that will try and encompass as many dimensions of a good game as possible. I’ve always liked a scoring system of sorts to allow essentially for a feel for the game at a glance. A score out of ten gives enough flexibility to give a really bad to really good score while allowing for in-between.

Here is a basic list of criteria that I will add to as time\research allows :

Game Play :

- Game Play Style : See the Wikipedia Article on Gameplay for a thorough explanation.
- How interactive is the game to your input?
- How intuitive\clear are the game objectives? Are they meant to be clear?
- Do you feel like you’re taking part in the atmosphere\story?
- Are the game rules made clear and consistent?
- Are the controls and in game interfaces fluid and effortless?
- Artificial Intelligence
* Scalability
* Creative
* Adaptive

Effects :
Visual :
- Are the graphics out-dated? ( Release Date Contingent )
- Do the system specs correspond to the quality of graphics?
- How stable are the visuals? ( Does a single detonating grenade kill the frame rate noticably? )

Audio :
- Are the sound effects appropriate?
- Does the music suit the game style and is it applied appropriately?
- Are the cut-scene visuals synchronized with the speech?

Story Line :
- Is there a story line?
- Does the story style fit the setting of the game?
- Is the story line coherent?

- Is the story line dynamic or fixed? (Decent fixed story line, or well implemented dynamic story line?)

Miscellany :

- Was the game originally developed for the review target platform?

- Was the original release buggy? Were follow up patches released? Follow up DLC?

- Game worth the money spent?

- Single Player VS Multi-Player VS Co-op?

* This is particularly broad element in modern gaming and should be covered thoroughly and objectively.

The Sum of All Parts

At the end of a review you should help the reader make a decision as to whether to get it or not. For any reader that has already tried the game, it should serve only as some entertainment value. For the rest it should be a brief summary, a bottom line if you like as to whether the game is worth spending the time or money on.

Last Thoughts :

These topics are just a general outline as to what to look at to try evaluate its game and its value. Even with thorough criteria, as with any piece of art ( meaning anything under media and entertainment as well ), they can be viewed subjectively. With art, the truth really is in the eye of the beholder. What I aim to achieve however is common grounds so that people can recognize characteristics that I mention in a clear context so they can decide for themselves whether they should try the game or not. That’s not to say that game reviews are exclusively for people looking to buy\try games, but I’m sure a great deal of gamers rely on reviews to lay out a game plan ( pardon the pun ).

One additional area that I want to mention and define to some degree is spoilers. The wikipedia definition of spoilers in media refers specifically to storyline and conclusion of the game. I would like to add that revealing certain game-play or functional features may also reveal\spoil the conclusion on some level. The best way I can describe this is with an example of Deus Ex. If a review was written mentioning the nano-mods and listing all the details of the mods that were available, that review could potentially devalue the gaming experience ( for atleast some ). Part of the value is exploring game-play as well as story. The balancing act of any review is revealing just enough information about the game to describe the scope, depth, and sophistication of a game with out ruining the gaming experience.

Conclusion :

The irony of publishing game reviews is the catch-22 of consumer opinion and how broad those opinions are. Regardless, I hope there is some value found in whatever may come about from these reviews.
Ciao

The Reason for Blogging

After doing a reasonable amount of reading online and enjoying people’s opinions, I have grown a little curious myself as to what publishing some of my experiences and perspectives online would be like. I guess you could call it an experiment of sorts from many angles.

Firstly I would have to say that writing a journal has always had me interested to some degree. I’m sure that if you look at a lot of successful people in Earth’s history, that you would find most if not all of them kept a journal. Why? Well I think reflection is a very important part of growth in life on the whole and keeping a journal forces an individual to reflect on a day’s events and to learn from them, and if necessary initiate change. A subject of research one day perhaps.

Secondly, a medium of communication. With the invention of the Internet, the boundaries between people were reduced from weeks to seconds. I find that incredible. Do we capitalize on this power? I’m not so sure. I truly hope this becomes a constructive method for growth. Not only for myself, but for anyone reading as well.

Finally, as also a means to constructively manage my time and efforts in life on the whole. Whether it be from a recreational stand-point, or a productive\intellectual one ( not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive ).

These are the atleast the motivations behind blogging at the time of my initial attempts to blog. Whether they are still relevant, or the only relevant factors in the future? I can’t say.

For those asking whether I had a plan or not ( in terms of blogging content ), I think I’ve narrowed them down to two in particular :

- Reviews of arts, media and entertainment
- Technical Tutorials of sorts

Those being my two primary “planned” topics, I do not consider myself a hardcore gamer or technical\scientific\engineering guru of any kind really. But these two areas are not only interesting ( being gaming; and programming more specifically ), but they are broad and constantly developing.

Anything outside of this arena of subjects ( which is in itself a huge spectrum of topics already ) such as spiritual or socio-political opinions aren’t really on the cards for me at the moment. Perhaps one day if a reason\motivation for it does arise.

These were just my initial feelings and impressions around my reasons for starting a blog.

Ciao