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 :-)