To quote my predictions for the year:
3. "the game that shall not be named" will have a tough year, but will survive. The argument to take the game Free 2 Play will begin around July.Next time, I'm putting money down in Vegas.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
This Was Predicted
"The game that shall not be named" is going free 2 play.
To quote my predictions for the year:
To quote my predictions for the year:
Sunday, July 15, 2012
DOTA2: Single Draft
I've felt lost lately in DOTA2 playing against heroes that I have never seen in a game before. At the same time I was getting frustrated playing the same heroes over and over because I felt comfortable with them and ending up with completely different results. One game I will dominate as Viper and the next one I can't even scratch my laning opponent. To force myself to expand a bit and help learn about the numerous heroes in DOTA2 I have switched to playing Single Draft mode. Each player is randomly given a choice of three heroes to choose from (one hero per main attribute type: intelligence, agility, or strength).
Since this change I have played games as Phantom Lancer, Nightstalker, Omniknight, and a few others I have almost never seen in pub games before. I found myself doing well with some such as Phantom Lancer, but not feeling like I really knew why I was doing well. That forced me to research the heroes a bit and actually learn something (like how to control illusion minions!).
Out of all the things I've done in DOTA2, this is easily the change that has resulted in the most knowledge gained on my part. It has also wisened me up to some intricacies of DOTA2 which I can explore more as I find heroes I enjoy playing. My end goal is to have at least ten heroes I feel comfortable playing in a pub game, which is about where I was with League of Legends (though in LoL I felt like I could far more easily pick up new heroes).
For anyone playing DOTA2, I highly recommend some time in Single Draft mode to open your opportunities to try and learn other heroes. Its a surprise each time you load up a game and if you care about team composition, single draft's randomness can land you some wonderful learning opportunities.
NOTE: Yes, I understand this makes some players angry as they don't want "scrubs" using Single Draft as a sort of testing bed. However, the fact that the picks are random, there is always the chance of a team being shafted. This makes the match all the more fun in my opinion.
Since this change I have played games as Phantom Lancer, Nightstalker, Omniknight, and a few others I have almost never seen in pub games before. I found myself doing well with some such as Phantom Lancer, but not feeling like I really knew why I was doing well. That forced me to research the heroes a bit and actually learn something (like how to control illusion minions!).
Out of all the things I've done in DOTA2, this is easily the change that has resulted in the most knowledge gained on my part. It has also wisened me up to some intricacies of DOTA2 which I can explore more as I find heroes I enjoy playing. My end goal is to have at least ten heroes I feel comfortable playing in a pub game, which is about where I was with League of Legends (though in LoL I felt like I could far more easily pick up new heroes).
For anyone playing DOTA2, I highly recommend some time in Single Draft mode to open your opportunities to try and learn other heroes. Its a surprise each time you load up a game and if you care about team composition, single draft's randomness can land you some wonderful learning opportunities.
NOTE: Yes, I understand this makes some players angry as they don't want "scrubs" using Single Draft as a sort of testing bed. However, the fact that the picks are random, there is always the chance of a team being shafted. This makes the match all the more fun in my opinion.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
PC Upgrade
My PC died two weeks ago, so its upgrade time:
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/bJFA
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/bJFA/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/bJFA/benchmarks/
CPU: AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor
Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($48.99 @ Amazon)
Hard Drive: Samsung 830 Series 256GB 2.5" Solid State Disk
Case: Antec One ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: OCZ 650W ATX12V Power Supply ($92.65 @ Amazon)
Total: $276.62
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Too Many Assumptions: EU Court Ruling Allows for Re-sale of Used Digital Games by End-Users
There is a stir in the online PC gaming community today over a EU court ruling that allows for the resale of digital licenses. Read up here. The important part of the ruling is: "Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy." This is big news. HUGE news for software copyright. The immediate Internet conclusion is that Steam or any other digital distribution platform for games will have to allow end users to resell their games for profit. However, its all being taken too far in regards to digital distribution. This will not and cannot change anything with digital distribution.
I won't claim to be an expert in copyright law, but I do consider myself a logical thinker. Thinking this out a bit, I don't see anything in the ruling that forces a digital distribution platform to allow another user access to a game license bought by one of its other users. The license to a game can be transferred to another user, but access via a digital distribution platform is under a completely different license. The ruling may force the likes of Steam to allow user account sales, but it does not in any way look like it forces Steam to allow a different user access to a license you've resold. Theoretically, as you no longer own the license, Steam could deactivate your access to the game while the new owner is forced to procure the game files and installation methods independent of Steam.
In fact, it would be like buying a new game from Walmart and then having a law forcing Walmart to resell that game for the purchaser, deliver it to the new owners house, set it up for them and ensure it is in brand new cloned working order, and then provide all the monies to the original purchaser. It makes zero sense. Walmart sold you the game and if you resell it, it is up to you to figure out how to get it to the new owner and its then up to the new owner to have a method to use it.
Oh and there is a little United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling (basically then upheld by the Supreme Court) for Vernor v Autodesk in the good ole' US of A which pretty much puts the kibosh on the reselling of software licenses.
Even if we were in fairy-tale land and the resale of used digital games was allowed, I wouldn't want it. The sale of used physical copies of games already forced developers into the models we currently have. Downloadable content (DLC) and the piecemeal sale of games is a direct result of developers looking at ways to get around used game sales. Every developer now is building or has built online service platforms around their game franchises to lock features behind pay walls.
I much prefer the path the PC gaming industry is actually on: free 2 play (F2P). Players want to pay for games and are more than willing to happily spend away on games that keep them engaged. The F2P model allows them to try before they buy and then show the developer in a tangible way what they like about the game.
There is so much doom-casting about the current gaming industry that we are all missing the fact that the PC gaming industry has completely transformed itself over the past two years. Reselling of digital licenses for digital games would be a huge derailment.
I won't claim to be an expert in copyright law, but I do consider myself a logical thinker. Thinking this out a bit, I don't see anything in the ruling that forces a digital distribution platform to allow another user access to a game license bought by one of its other users. The license to a game can be transferred to another user, but access via a digital distribution platform is under a completely different license. The ruling may force the likes of Steam to allow user account sales, but it does not in any way look like it forces Steam to allow a different user access to a license you've resold. Theoretically, as you no longer own the license, Steam could deactivate your access to the game while the new owner is forced to procure the game files and installation methods independent of Steam.
In fact, it would be like buying a new game from Walmart and then having a law forcing Walmart to resell that game for the purchaser, deliver it to the new owners house, set it up for them and ensure it is in brand new cloned working order, and then provide all the monies to the original purchaser. It makes zero sense. Walmart sold you the game and if you resell it, it is up to you to figure out how to get it to the new owner and its then up to the new owner to have a method to use it.
Oh and there is a little United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling (basically then upheld by the Supreme Court) for Vernor v Autodesk in the good ole' US of A which pretty much puts the kibosh on the reselling of software licenses.
Even if we were in fairy-tale land and the resale of used digital games was allowed, I wouldn't want it. The sale of used physical copies of games already forced developers into the models we currently have. Downloadable content (DLC) and the piecemeal sale of games is a direct result of developers looking at ways to get around used game sales. Every developer now is building or has built online service platforms around their game franchises to lock features behind pay walls.
I much prefer the path the PC gaming industry is actually on: free 2 play (F2P). Players want to pay for games and are more than willing to happily spend away on games that keep them engaged. The F2P model allows them to try before they buy and then show the developer in a tangible way what they like about the game.
There is so much doom-casting about the current gaming industry that we are all missing the fact that the PC gaming industry has completely transformed itself over the past two years. Reselling of digital licenses for digital games would be a huge derailment.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Friday, June 08, 2012
Rift is World of Warcraft
There has been a long running discussion that World of Warcraft just copied Everquest which just copied DIKU MUD and therefore the current flood of WoW clones is expected. I disagree with this line of thinking. Everquest's biggest achievement is that it brought the DIKU MUD to 3D graphics. Other than that, I would argue Everquest was a pretty terrible game. World of Warcraft's biggest achievement was that it refined the DIKU model into something that made sense with a massively online game that is beyond a doubt one of the best games ever released. Secondly, WoW brought MMO to the mainstream.
These other games: Rift, Aion, etc. They are all clones; none of them bringing anything significant to the genre. They aren't even trying to bring something to the genre. They are all fighting to carve out a piece of the table scraps of players that Blizzard ends up shoving off the table where they keep the money hats.
Does this make these games bad? Not really, but after an hour of playing Aion I was done; having decided if I wanted this experience I would just go back to play World of Warcraft. Rift? Same story.
Yet, the worst part is each and every game tries to sell itself as though its the "next big thing". That its ONE THING IT WILL DO DIFFERENTLY is the NEXT PILLAR OF WHAT IS GOOD IN GAMES. It's annoying. These developer's need to just shut up and tell gamers that they really liked World of Warcraft and wanted to make a game that emulates it. I would be far less pissed off about the state of the MMO industry if the big players would just come out and admit they are riding WoW's coattails
Rift is World of Warcraft. I don't care if the game gets better in the later levels or has some whiz-bang new idea that you get to enjoy at some point. Give me something different that as soon as I start playing the LAST thing I think of is the other game I played before it. When I played DOTA 2, I didn't think "oh man, this is League of Legends". DOTA 2 is it's own game. It defines itself as something unique. AND DOTA 2 IS A LITERAL CLONE OF ANOTHER GAME!
Fuck it, Valve make me a god damned MMO already.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Silent on Guild Wars 2
While I don't believe I ever blindly bought into the hype of Warhammer Online, I am certainly a victim of foolishly believing the game was more finished than it turned out to be. I still maintain to this day that Warhammer Online put all the pieces together for a great MMO, but forgot to add the glue and nails that would keep it all together. Band aids could only hold that sinking ship together for so long (surprisingly it's still not Free 2 Play).
Warhammer's failures put GW2's features into perspective. Simple things such as allowing instant access to end-game PvP zones, PvE content in the PvP zones, and having PvP objectives outside of just killing other players would not mean as much (to me) had it not been for Warhammer Online's complete opposites. Warhammer Online allows me to smile a little bit inside every time I watch or read a new bit of information about GW2.
Another small area of pleasure is looking at GW2's World vs World (WvW), most directly comparable to Realm vs Realm from Warhammer Online. Unlike Warhammer Online; GW2 took an interesting path to get to its WvW system. Instead of distinct races/areas dividing the "teams", GW2 simply pits server against server. Each server has the exact same world, characters, and classes that the other servers have. This instantly strikes a balance and the conflict comes down to numbers and grand strategy to decide the victors. Throw in a bit of match making to re-balance equally skilled servers together and the forumla looks solid.
Matter of fact, GW2 looks solid as a whole (even in it's beta stage). And this is why I am silent. This is why I've stopped clawing to watch every new video or story that is released. I have yet to even pre-order the game. I want as much of GW2 to be fresh to me as possible. Hopefully that will limit the butt hurt this time around on another promising MMO.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Initial Impressions: Salem
I've gotten about an hour to click around in the Salem beta. There is something to be said for games that offer no hand holding and require their users to look up a guide just to create a character. I'm not talking about a guide for figuring out what the best stats are; I'm talking about a guide that explains on what and where to click so the player can even get to the point where they get to make a decision. Salem is more of an idea than a game currently, but hot damn, what a brilliant idea it is.
The first thought that hit me when starting off in Salem (aside from trying to figure out why someone would want to sell me crickets in Boston) was that Salem is Ultima Online (UO) set in Massachusetts. I was immediately brought back to my early days of UO: no idea what I'm doing, no idea where to go, random wandering in the countryside clicking on every object I can interact with, stumbling over other player's homes and settlements, and a constant fear the next person I see on screen is going to lead to my death at the hands of a murderer. All of these elements are present in Salem.
The only problem is, unlike UO, there isn't really a clear "this does this and that does that". UO was a fantasy game and it was easy to piece together that a sword slashed and a fireball was flung. In Salem, the setting is colonial Boston (aka the New World) and the associated lore may as well be a foreign language. Salem makes no attempt (that I could find) to explain anything. A player that is unwilling to venture to the beta forums or a spoiler website is in for a rough experience.
To make matters worse the UI is terrible. Nothing works as expected outside of the grid-based inventory and character portrait. Skills aren't explained and accidental clicks result into investment into skills which may or may not be implemented yet. The mini map does not seem to rotate with the player's positioning and direction making guided travel a lesson in frustration. Fortunately, the UI is open to modders and there are already some decent UI mods out there (which I've yet to try out).
Add into the mix some bugs such as maple leaves not re-spawning and the inexperienced player is quickly lost on what they are expected to do. Then Joe Blow shows up and murders them, permanantly killing the player's character.
This all should add up to a giant pile of rage-quit, but for some reason the more I clicked around the more I became intrigued. The overall puzzle of "what the fuck am I supposed to do!" wasn't unraveling, but I found myself setting goals for myself. For example, I found I could harvest branches which I could then use to build piles of logs which I could then use my tinder box on to start a fire (though the whole build process is a mystery to me).
I'm very curious about Salem now. With a better UI and some effort invested in explaining the game to players, it has potential. I'd also add in that Salem is clearly in an alpha stage, not a beta stage. Its very difficult to test something that doesn't seem to be anywhere near finished.
The first thought that hit me when starting off in Salem (aside from trying to figure out why someone would want to sell me crickets in Boston) was that Salem is Ultima Online (UO) set in Massachusetts. I was immediately brought back to my early days of UO: no idea what I'm doing, no idea where to go, random wandering in the countryside clicking on every object I can interact with, stumbling over other player's homes and settlements, and a constant fear the next person I see on screen is going to lead to my death at the hands of a murderer. All of these elements are present in Salem.
The only problem is, unlike UO, there isn't really a clear "this does this and that does that". UO was a fantasy game and it was easy to piece together that a sword slashed and a fireball was flung. In Salem, the setting is colonial Boston (aka the New World) and the associated lore may as well be a foreign language. Salem makes no attempt (that I could find) to explain anything. A player that is unwilling to venture to the beta forums or a spoiler website is in for a rough experience.
To make matters worse the UI is terrible. Nothing works as expected outside of the grid-based inventory and character portrait. Skills aren't explained and accidental clicks result into investment into skills which may or may not be implemented yet. The mini map does not seem to rotate with the player's positioning and direction making guided travel a lesson in frustration. Fortunately, the UI is open to modders and there are already some decent UI mods out there (which I've yet to try out).
Add into the mix some bugs such as maple leaves not re-spawning and the inexperienced player is quickly lost on what they are expected to do. Then Joe Blow shows up and murders them, permanantly killing the player's character.
This all should add up to a giant pile of rage-quit, but for some reason the more I clicked around the more I became intrigued. The overall puzzle of "what the fuck am I supposed to do!" wasn't unraveling, but I found myself setting goals for myself. For example, I found I could harvest branches which I could then use to build piles of logs which I could then use my tinder box on to start a fire (though the whole build process is a mystery to me).
I'm very curious about Salem now. With a better UI and some effort invested in explaining the game to players, it has potential. I'd also add in that Salem is clearly in an alpha stage, not a beta stage. Its very difficult to test something that doesn't seem to be anywhere near finished.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I am not dead and I am not playing Diablo 3
So quit asking unless you are going to buy me a copy of Diablo 3.
And seriously, as I've tweeted, my garden is taking up a lot of time this year. Outside of my family, my interests are Green Bay Packers > Gaming > Gardening. Spring is a busy time for the latter and I've up-scaled my gardening this year (pretend I have like maxed my farming skill in the MMO known as RL).
And seriously, as I've tweeted, my garden is taking up a lot of time this year. Outside of my family, my interests are Green Bay Packers > Gaming > Gardening. Spring is a busy time for the latter and I've up-scaled my gardening this year (pretend I have like maxed my farming skill in the MMO known as RL).
Saturday, May 05, 2012
DOTA2 vs League of Legends
For a bit of background, I have a few hundred League of Legends games under my level 27 summoner's belt on both the classic (DOTA-like) map and the new Dominion (capture the flag) map. I have about 20 games under my belt in DOTA 2. I do not play ranked matches in either game and mainly rely on public match-making via the solo queues. As fair warning, I am not a DOTA 2 or LoL expert. These are my observations from the view of a casual player.
Graphics:
LoL offers stylized (aka cartoony) graphics which hold up over time. DOTA 2 features more "realistic" fantasy visuals. If I had subcategories, I would give DOTA 2 the nod for excellent attack/spell animations. LoL would get a bonus for it's cleaner graphical play which makes spectating games easier.
Game Client:
DOTA 2's client is a glorious thing to behold. It is a one stop shop for the digital DOTA 2 consumer featuring games to jump into and spectate, player profiles, news, hero information, and more. LoL's game client is serviceable, but is split from the actual game. It is based on Adobe Air which I've found to be less than reliable. However, Riot Games has continued to improve the LoL client.
User Interface:
The UI of each game is almost the same. Both work equally well. I'm a bit disapointed that neither game has opened their UIs up to modders, but I suspect that is in an attempt to keep UI mods from giving unfair advantages.
Customization:
While LoL's user interface is perfectly serviceable and almost identical to that of DOTA 2, there are far, far more customizations that can be made to DOTA 2. DOTA 2 player's can save their configurations instead of having to set them by hand each game as is needed in LoL.
Map(s) and Game Types:
LoL offers three different maps with three game types to DOTA 2's single map and game type. One of LoL's maps, The Crystal Scar, offers completely new game play mode with a capture point game type (the other two LoL maps are still Defense of the Ancient (DOTA) ). Some may say DOTA-like games do not need any more maps, but I would strongly disagree with that after having played many games on The Crystal Scar in LoL.
Heroes:
While I like a lot of LoL's hero designs, I can't help but gawk at DOTA 2 for the sheer audacity with which some of the heroes are designed. There is completely broken-in-normal-game heroes in DOTA 2 and it's all part of the design. DOTA 2 features a lot more unique and definitive play mechanics and the attack animations are much better.
At the same time, LoL has a much better grip on balance for the casual player. It is much clearer why a player or team is dominating a match with a certain hero. The hero designs are also much closer to one another making it easier to cross over and play something else.
Items:
I think LoL's items are a) simple to understand and b) in the same shop. DOTA 2 may have great items, but its daunting for a casual player to keep track of some of the more intrinsic items. DOTA 2 also has regular and secret shops, with recipes to make items and couriers to bring items from the shops to the players. This all leads to making DOTA 2's items a very frustrating experience at times.
Overall Game Play:
LoL offers more variety than DOTA 2 in regards to game play experiences. The multiple maps are the start, but Riot Games has also pushed to open up all aspects of the game for the majority of their heroes. Jungling is a real possibility with almost any LoL hero these days. LoL also stepped away from some things such as the secret shop and denying, both of which still don't make much sense to me in DOTA 2.
DOTA 2 is still a very, very solid game. It's distinct enough to offer a separate play experience from that of LoL. However, Valve is clearly leaning towards the hardcore players and sticking to the true DOTA experience for DOTA 2.
From a casual perspective, LoL is the better option. From a "complete package" perspective, DOTA 2 has the better shot and it's still in BETA! Interestingly, LoL can fix its "not a complete package" problem where as Valve has all but stated that DOTA 2 isn't going to relent on the design aspects that make it less-than-ideal for casual players.
At the end of the day both games still offer a hell of an experience and both are Free 2 Play. I recommend anyone interested check out both before making a decision on which one to commit to (well that is if you can get into the DOTA 2 beta).
Graphics:
LoL offers stylized (aka cartoony) graphics which hold up over time. DOTA 2 features more "realistic" fantasy visuals. If I had subcategories, I would give DOTA 2 the nod for excellent attack/spell animations. LoL would get a bonus for it's cleaner graphical play which makes spectating games easier.
Game Client:
DOTA 2's client is a glorious thing to behold. It is a one stop shop for the digital DOTA 2 consumer featuring games to jump into and spectate, player profiles, news, hero information, and more. LoL's game client is serviceable, but is split from the actual game. It is based on Adobe Air which I've found to be less than reliable. However, Riot Games has continued to improve the LoL client.
User Interface:
The UI of each game is almost the same. Both work equally well. I'm a bit disapointed that neither game has opened their UIs up to modders, but I suspect that is in an attempt to keep UI mods from giving unfair advantages.
Customization:
While LoL's user interface is perfectly serviceable and almost identical to that of DOTA 2, there are far, far more customizations that can be made to DOTA 2. DOTA 2 player's can save their configurations instead of having to set them by hand each game as is needed in LoL.
Map(s) and Game Types:
LoL offers three different maps with three game types to DOTA 2's single map and game type. One of LoL's maps, The Crystal Scar, offers completely new game play mode with a capture point game type (the other two LoL maps are still Defense of the Ancient (DOTA) ). Some may say DOTA-like games do not need any more maps, but I would strongly disagree with that after having played many games on The Crystal Scar in LoL.
Heroes:
While I like a lot of LoL's hero designs, I can't help but gawk at DOTA 2 for the sheer audacity with which some of the heroes are designed. There is completely broken-in-normal-game heroes in DOTA 2 and it's all part of the design. DOTA 2 features a lot more unique and definitive play mechanics and the attack animations are much better.
At the same time, LoL has a much better grip on balance for the casual player. It is much clearer why a player or team is dominating a match with a certain hero. The hero designs are also much closer to one another making it easier to cross over and play something else.
Items:
I think LoL's items are a) simple to understand and b) in the same shop. DOTA 2 may have great items, but its daunting for a casual player to keep track of some of the more intrinsic items. DOTA 2 also has regular and secret shops, with recipes to make items and couriers to bring items from the shops to the players. This all leads to making DOTA 2's items a very frustrating experience at times.
Overall Game Play:
LoL offers more variety than DOTA 2 in regards to game play experiences. The multiple maps are the start, but Riot Games has also pushed to open up all aspects of the game for the majority of their heroes. Jungling is a real possibility with almost any LoL hero these days. LoL also stepped away from some things such as the secret shop and denying, both of which still don't make much sense to me in DOTA 2.
DOTA 2 is still a very, very solid game. It's distinct enough to offer a separate play experience from that of LoL. However, Valve is clearly leaning towards the hardcore players and sticking to the true DOTA experience for DOTA 2.
From a casual perspective, LoL is the better option. From a "complete package" perspective, DOTA 2 has the better shot and it's still in BETA! Interestingly, LoL can fix its "not a complete package" problem where as Valve has all but stated that DOTA 2 isn't going to relent on the design aspects that make it less-than-ideal for casual players.
At the end of the day both games still offer a hell of an experience and both are Free 2 Play. I recommend anyone interested check out both before making a decision on which one to commit to (well that is if you can get into the DOTA 2 beta).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)