Are We There Yet?

Thanks to Ian for the heads up. From Shacknews.com:

The recent reaction to the upcoming Call of Duty demo has caught us here at Activision by surprise. We're appreciative and excited about of the high level of enthusiasm the game has received throughout the gaming community. Due to the tremendous demand for the demo we are answering the call by not only making the demo freely available to all gamers at the same time, but early This Friday Night - just in time for the long weekend.

What kind of marketing genius comes up with these types of ideas? Call of Duty is from a new development studio that is composed of the majority of developers and producers of the highly successful Medal of Honor: Allied Assault game. MOH:AA caught the gaming world mostly by surprise and it's continued success is evident in the number of expansion packs released and in the works for it. Activision need only remind everyone of who is making CoD to drum up excitement and publicity. They do NOT need to manage the distribution of the demo file with an iron fist that would der Führer beg for mercy.

So why did Activision think they could release it exclusively through a download portal known for its exorbitant wait times (unless you want to pay a monthly fee to get free downloads)? FilePlanet is one of the most HATED entities amongst gamers for their wait times. I recall the last demo that was released exclusively through FilePlanet (Rainbow 6: Raven Shield from UbiSoft). Yup, I recall the little window telling me I was #1500 in line and was going to wait 8 HOURS just to START downloading.

I can't think of a better way to motivate gamers to not buy (or even pirate) a game than make it harder for them to get the demo. Exclusive game play videos? Fine. Exclusive beta downloads? Fine. Exclusive demos? Not on your life. Hopefully, Activision and the rest of the industry has learned their lesson.

What is it with gaming companies making beta releases of their games that don't include uninstallations?

I try to beta test as many games as I can because I think it's exciting to try out games before anyone else and I enjoy trying to make a game I'm anticipating get released in the best playable state possible. As a Software Engineer, I take great pains in making my software as bug free as possible and I expect nothing less from others. But it really agitates me when companies put out a beta release of a game that has a complete installation function but lacks uninstallation features.

You took the time to make a fancy update/patch system. You installed a Start menu folder (without asking, another no-no). You added a desktop icon (see adding a Start menu folder). You filled my registry's HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE tree with entries up the wazoo. Why can't you undo it all?

Now, I understand it's a beta. Trust me. I understand betas better than most people. They're incomplete. They're buggy. Most of the time, the installation is just a stub since the final file structure isn't complete and the art for the installer is worthy of being attached to the refrigerator with a magnet. But the least you can do is help me keep my hard drive and registry clean. Windows doesn't always add that nifty item in the Add/Remove Programs dialog, ya know?

After my ordeal with irresponsible ISPs came to a close, I needed to vent some frustrations, so I started playing with the Jedi Academy demo. The web site is a marvelous piece of work. I highly recommend checking it out, if only to see what some great web designers are doing over at LucasArts.

I started playing the Jedi Academy demo several days ago and got frustrated with a certain part of it so I set it aside. I came away from my first hands-on experience with the game horribly underwhelmed by its implementation. I had seen the E3 video and some pre-release videos and was quite impressed by what they had put together. The first few moments with the demo were a mixture of euphoria and disappointment. I like the character creation aspect of the game. The character models are flawless and gorgeous. You can really customize your lightsaber as well. But the choices you get in customizing your character itself are incomplete to say the very least. There's a wide variety of species to choose from and you can be male or female, but the selection of torsos, clothing, and heads is severely limited.

However, that's just cosmetics. After an hour of playing a game, I would forget about the lack of character customization real fast. But in this case, that's not necessarily a good thing.

The first demo mission sends you to Tatooine with Kyle Katarn (hero of the Jedi Knight series) to check out some smuggling/mercenary activity. The first thing I notice is the TERRIBLE animations as you walk across the desert sand. Your character turns on their heels and literally glides as he or she moves. It's like they're not even walking on sand or any surface for that matter. Then, I notice that the "cut-scene" has a horribly repetitive pattern to it. Five seconds of animation, fade out, change camera angle, fade in, five seconds of animation, and so on.... It's like using one of those flip books you had when you were a kid to tell a story. Kyle then proceeds to lock himself in the cantina while you do all the leg work for the mission. And he's supposed to be "helping" you since you're just a Padawan!

Yeah, yeah, yeah...but it's all about the gameplay, right? Right. Let me just get this off my chest now: it falls short in a big way. I have the mouse sensitivity cranked all the way down and I still feel like Neo moving through the Matrix. It's virtually impossible to make your character move in a way that is different from a 6 year-old after discovering his teenage brother's stash of Jolt Cola. This makes for many flying leaps off of ledges when in lightsaber duels in the second demo mission. Save and save often.

Other rants about the Jedi Academy gameplay:

• If my Jedi swings over the head of a crouching enemy one more time, I'm gonna lop off her legs at the knees to ensure she can hit crouched enemies without having to stand still in front of their blasters.
• "New Objectives Added" - Where the hell is the objectives screen?? There's no key in the controls map for it! (A systematic search of the keyboard found it to be Tab)
• Terrible force power interface. You can map fast keys to force powers or you can scroll through a list and make one "active". Both options are too slow when in a frenzied lightsaber duel since you need both hands to move and fight.
• Certain areas of the game are designed to force you to put away your lightsaber and shoot a blaster. You're supposed to be a Jedi (well, a Padawan). When was the last time you saw Obi-Wan whip out a blaster to scare off some Sand People?
• Dark Jedi use Force Grip too much. You have two options to get out of it: Force Pull or Force Push (you better memorize the quick keys for them or you'll be as limp as a cooked noodle before you find it when SCROLLING through a list for it). Force Pull is suicidal since you'll yank them right at your hanging, defenseless body. Force Push it is.

Other things I liked about Jedi Academy:

• The sound and music are spectacular as all LucasArts published Star Wars games are known to have.
• Good and sometimes great graphics.
• Good mixture of RPG and action elements.

GameSpy is running a series for the week that lists their Top 25 overrated games of all time.

I'm a bit of a freak when it comes to "lists". In some instances, I think lists are God's answer to, well me. They say everything about a topic in a neat, organized, and concise manner that contradicts the verbal diarrhea usually spewing from my mouth when enumerating important points on a topic. On the other hand, lists are cruel, harsh, and have a penchant for showing writer bias better than a Kenneth Star investigation.

Naturally, GameSpy isn't even in to the top 10 yet and I already have issues with it. First, they attempt to categorize the things that made the game overrated - more hype than entertainment, done better before, complete letdown, and overpraised (GameSpy's attempt at being magnanimous). Somehow, GameSpy screwed up its application of categories on the first game, Neverwinter Nights. They say it was done better before. If they are speaking in terms of PC NWN vs. pen-and-paper RPG, then they are correct. However, this is all about video games. It's tough to claim NWN was done better before when there isn't another game that even comes close to offering up the ability for player-driven modules and DM'ing. Nice try, GameSpy.

Unfortunately, thus far, the entire list is rife with gross category misapplications such as these. Battle Arena Toshinden is pegged as overpraised and a total letdown (contradictory labels in their own right). While BAT may have been a shallow fighting game, it did showcase some stunning 3D graphics and straight-forward 3D gameply on a new platform (the PSX) that needed something to catch people's attention. For all intents and purposes, BAT performed exactly as Sony intended it to perform. Curiously, the GameSpy article spends as much time talking about the failure of the franchise (beyond the first game) as they do about the game itself. Sounds to me like the editors placed Toshinden in here based upon a comparison with the masterpiece that is Soul Calibur 2 and not on the game's own flaws and faults.

I could go on and on about this article (heck, I just quit complaining about #24). The placement of Battlecruiser: 3000AD at #19 before Super Mario Sunshine is an abomination itself. I cringe at the thought of what is to come. Will they end up placing Grand Theft Auto: Vice City at #1 because it was to GTA what X-Com: Terror from the Deep was to X-Com (e.g. more of the same)?

I went through the Homeworld 2 demo about a week or two ago. Back in college, I'd played the original Homeworld quite heavily. It's back drops were stunning, the story was incredible, and it was a fairly revolutionary game for the time. I don't recall ever completing the game as my addiction to Counter-Strike rapidly asserted its claim on my gaming time. But I do have fond memories of the original. When Sierra said they were publishing a sequel, I was almost giddy with anticipation.

I initially gave my impressions on this demo to Ian (click to check out his thoughts on the demo). I wrote him an email with my thoughts and impressions shortly after completing it, so here's what I thought:

• It will be worth reading the manual if you buy it. I forgot how complex Homeworld was. Staying to the original formula has made the sequel no different.
• The demo only has one tutorial that familiarizes you with movement, the camera, and sensors map (an important key to the game). Prior experience with Homeworld is very helpful
• The first mission is a bit of a tutorial as well.
• Graphics are really good again, although I'm not sure they're as stunning as the original. I recall being awed at the backdrops of the original. I'm not in awe with the sequel. They may have sacrificed some of this quality to keep the game running smoothly due to the increased polys on the ship and better ship effects.
• That being said, it ran pretty good on my machine with half the settings on medium quality and the other half on high quality (machine: P4 1.8 GHz, 512MB RAM, 64MB GF3).
• The added shadows and some other (particle) effects are really good.
• Panning the camera with the mouse at the default sensitivity is bad. Does no one pay attention to the default mouse sensitivity anymore? I like the mouse a little loose, but it is way too sensitive. It jumps all over the place. Make extensive use of the sensor map and center on active ship key (default is middle mouse button) to navigate quickly. Ship grouping hot keys are a must as well.
• Sound is excellent again.
• Biggest improvement I've seen in the limited amount of time you have with the demo is in cut scenes. They're fantastic. Some are in-game, others are aren't. Both are great.
• Voice acting is about a C+. Some characters are just ok and others do quite well

GameSpy continues their crusade to demonstrate just how retarded they truly are. In other words, GameSpy's countdown of the 25 most overrated games continues. Next up on their hit list? Halo.

Their commentary on Halo is one of the worst explanations I've ever read. The article contains references to Tribes 2 and Quake III - two games that have no business being in an article that was supposed to point out how much we were all duped by Halo (despite the fact that that is far from the truth). Halo sold Xbox's. Period. Overrated, been there done that games do NOT sell expensive consoles shortly after a launch with a small library and made by one of the most love/hate companies in the known universe.

The thing that ticks me off the most is how easily the writers brush off and understate the things that Halo did right while magnifying the things that it did wrong. This is not called pointing out hype; it's called digging for dirt. Their initial review of Halo (85/100) highlights the lack of true Internet multiplayer for 3 paragaphs while giving a passing remark to its included co-op mode, a rarity in FPS games to this very day that gamers are constantly demanding. The brilliance of certain Halo level designs is overshadowed by the repetitive ones. The inclusion of drivable vehicles and their brilliant implementation is merely checked off as just another feature, neglecting the fact that it was Halo which drove more game makers (PC developers!) to include player accessible vehicles in their games. And for the love of God, where is the mention of Halo's wondrous soundtrack? You know, the one that won several industry awards? The one that Bungie later released on CD because so many people demanded it?

Some of you might say, "Halo got an 85, that's pretty good so what's your problem??" To get some perspective, I looked at their entire list of Xbox reviews for titles rated higher than Halo. I found 36 titles above Halo's 85/100. Highlights of this list inlude ESPN Interational Winter Sports 2002 (87), Kelly Slater's Pro Surfing (88), Wakeboarding Unleashed (89), and Wreckless (86). Of the 36 titles, 22 were sports titles. None were FPS games (MechAssault and Steel Battallion coming the closest) and several were racers. I also considered their ratings on the Xbox's other launch titles (of which they reviewed 15). The highest rated launch title was Madden 2002 (90) and the lowest was Shrek (48). The mean (tossing out the highest and lowest) was 78, the median was 81, and the mode was 84. In other words, Halo was pretty much an average title right in line with the rest of the Xbox launch games in their eyes. Who can name 3 other titles available on launch day? Sorry, DOA3 wasn't available on launch day (and besides, it's on the list as well). We don't remember Halo because of the hype. We remember it because it was a fantastic work of art.

As if I needed more proof of the absurdity on display here, consider the fact that Halo is still being sold at full price despite its obvious place on the Xbox Platinum Hits list. Overrated games tend to be identified as such as time goes on. The only ones scoffing at what Halo has accomplished in terms of console FPS, indeed in the genre of FPS, are those of GameSpy. It'll be interesting to see how they rate the Halo PC release. I guarantee a rating no lower than 95 due to it's Internet multiplayer and the fact that its mouse and keyboard controlled, two things that every decent PC FPS game has had for years that no console FPS game had in 2001. So why is it held against Halo?

The boys of Penny-Arcade have taken the torch of my crusade against GameSpy's horrid list (a list so bad that it makes David Letterman's Top 10 look brilliant) right to the butt of GameSpy and lit them on fire. I look forward to every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to read what Tycho and Gabe have to say about an industry I love very much. It almost makes me and my teensy little site feel relevant to know that they think the very same about GameSpy's "expose" that I do. Tycho put his finger right on the heart of the matter:

You can go look at it if you want, I'm certainly not putting a link to it here - suffice it to say, where it is obvious it is obvious, and where they attempt to be brash and iconoclastic it's just insulting.

I've talked about the Call of Duty demo and raved about how much I loved Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. I just completed the expansion pack for MOHAA, Spearhead. I enjoyed it, although not near as much as the original. The ending of the expansion was just as gratifying as the original, which is to say that it was the equivalent of finding an apple in your Halloween bag when you were 12. Sadly, the Spearhead expansion pack was so short (probably about 5 hours worth of play time) that it doesn't surprise me that there is no ending to speak of really.

War games have become extremely popular in the gaming industry lately. Medal of Honor showed a level of realism and immersion not seen in war games of the past. Everyone grew up in a neighborhood containing at least one middle aged man obsessed with war history (I know I lived next to one for some time in Iowa). Games of their time usually consisted of little tokens representing the cavalry making a charge at Gettysburg. We are blessed with living in an age of gigahertz, more video RAM than we had system RAM not two years ago, and a rapidly advancing 3D graphics industry. With this comes the ability to bring to life more than ever the realities of the battlefield as millions of soldiers knew it 65 years ago.

It's very rare that I pause to contemplate the relationship between video games and reality. It's a rather clear cut division for me. No matter how immersive the music is or realistic the graphics are or interactive the environment is...it's still a game and nothing will ever change that for me. There is nothing to ponder or contemplate usually. My PC and Xbox have reset buttons. Reality does not. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate what games do; nothing could be further from the truth. However, the recent explosion of war games in our technology friendly world has given me pause on numerous occasions recently.

The first that I can recall is a level in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault that will go down in infamy, in my opinion. It is the Omaha Beach assault during the invasion of Normandy. Calling it a "level" is insulting in many ways as it actually took place, but this very fact is what will prove my point. I played this level for probably 30 minutes without ever leaving the beach. Sometimes, a shell landed outside the ramp of my landing craft and made my squad mates and me in to sand. Other times, I was cut down by machine gun fire from the German nests that surrounded the beach. Still other times, I ran myself through as I crawled too close to the barbed wire after taking a few too many bullets and pieces of shrapnel. I probably died on this part of the level 45 or more times.

I was just about to get frustrated with it and started thinking to myself, "Why oh why did the game designers DO THIS?". And then it occurred to me. The boys behind MOHAA had just succeeded in placing my pasty white, geeky skin on the beaches of Normandy. And I realized that for every time my meaningless binary character had died, 53+ real men died on the sands of Omaha Beach June 6, 1944.

It gave me the shivers. You could have sewn a blanket using one of the hairs on the back of my neck as a needle.

Spearhead didn't have any moments as stirring as this, however the commentary of "Private Jack Barnes" between missions with the photograhps depicting the actual events of the mission you had just carried out from the safety of your leather reclining computer chair fading in and out before your eyes still had a powerful effect. It's difficult for me to comprehend war and the magnitude of it in terms of manpower. I see pictures of endless fields with neverending parallel lines of white crosses and I can't comprehend the sheer numbers behind it all. I don't know that I really want to either. And it fills my heart with grief to think of the people for whom those numbers and those fields hold a memory and perhaps a loved one.

I don't feel as though the existence of these "games" should be insulting to those that actually served and lived the life we pretend to live for entertainment, but I can't speak for them. But I think it's important in cases like these to reflect on what's being represented by the flashing lights before your eyes because there's real meaning behind it.

It's been a busy time on the game demo front lately starting with the official release of Valve's Steam client. While the major download portals are still overloaded with people downloading Steam, game companies have decided to pile it on:

• Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - EA's 3rd installment in their cash cow (but lackluster) game trilogy based on the movies.
• Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring - an RTS game where you can play good or evil from the makers of Battle Realms. The graphical styles are very similar if you liked Battle Realms.
• Commandos 3: Destination Berlin - The latest in the Commandos series. I never played the second game (despite it's critical success), however I was a big fan of the original. Rumor is that gameplay has been tweaked quite a bit and stealth is a major factor in succeeding.

The video on my DVD demo disc for the Xbox looked intriguing and the demo is on my "list" (along with a million others) to check out. The only thing that disappointed me in the video is the sword fighting sequence they continually showed. Probably about half of the 5 minute video featured Robin Hood sword fighting against various kronies in a variety of locations, but each sequence of Robin Hood's defend and attack moves was identical. It was disgusting to see him perform the same attack combo over and over. I sure hope that this was just a limitation of the build that was used to create the video.

I've been thirsting for a decent sword fighting combat engine for quite some time. Why? Because then it would be possible to make Highlander online. What a fantastic license this would be for a MMO, no? Imagine the possiblities. The developer could set up two different "realms". In one realm is where you would spend the majority of your time learning, fighting, and role-playing as you fight to become the next legendary Highlander of MacLeod proportions. In the other realm would be the on-going "There can be only one" tournament free-for-all. This realm would be like Hardcore mode in Diablo 2. You only get one chance. Lose and you're done until the tournament is over. The developers could hold these tournaments twice a year with some nifty prizes for the people who make it to the "end". The very thought of this fills me with all sorts of warm and fluffy feelings.

The question is, who could do it right?

About a week ago, I ranted about Halo's placement on Gamespy's Top 25 most overrated games list. Halo came in at an astounding #10. In their explanation, GameSpy basically went on a tirade about how FPS games can't be fully enjoyed on consoles, the level design was reptitive, and it lacked true Internet multiplayer. I countered by pointing out that Halo was (and still is, in my opinion) the definitive FPS game on any console system. I also argued that the things they held against Halo weren't about the game, rather they were about the limitations the console placed on the game. Instead of focusing on the Xbox Halo experience, GameSpy focused on what was missing from their imaginitive PC Halo experience. If a review site can't focus on what is rather than what could have been, then how are we supposed to interpret their reviews?

I still feel that their Xbox rating of Halo (85/100) was extremely harsh and unfair. It was at that time that I guaranteed a Halo PC review of 95% or higher.

Well, GameSpy has recently changed their rating format from a percentage to stars (probably to give them more leeway in arguing the accuracy of their ratings). In any case, GameSpy has reviewed Halo PC and given it FIVE out of FIVE stars. Their reviewer (who also reviewed Halo Xbox) just about sums it up here:

I was maybe the only reviewer who wasn't totally smitten with Halo when it came out on the Xbox, and I'm sure there are people who would argue it was because I've spent too much time playing PC shooters, and have come to expect things like lightning-fast controls and Internet play. Whatever the reason, I've simply enjoyed Halo on the PC far more than I did on the Xbox -- when everything's clicking, it's the closest I've seen a shooter come to providing perfect combat -- and that's not something I say lightly.

The review admits that the greatest pitfall of Halo remains: it's somewhat reptitive level design. How this doesn't account for a half-star missing from their rating doesn't add up to me - level design is extremely integral to the FPS experience. He also raves (and I do mean RAVES) about how much better Halo is with a keyboard and mouse combination than a controller. Apparently the Internet multiplayer is also implemented in a first-class fashion. It really bugs me however, that he also glazes over the fact that in order to crank up the features and run in a higher resolution, you'll need a hefty PC. Laughably, he also argues that Halo is the type of game that will make you want to upgrade your PC to play it. Funny how this argument wasn't also used in pointing out that it also made people want to buy Xbox's two years ago!

It's nice to see Halo get the accolades from GameSpy that it's always deserved. It's a fantastic game that deserves a spot amongst the best FPS games ever. The fact that GameSpy can drag Halo's name through the mud one week and then turn around and praise it to high heaven the next merely points out how laughable their overrated list was in the first place. I guess the concept of context is lost on their writers.

Ian clued me in on the Law & Order 2 game demo not too long ago. The first game based on the popular television series recieved pretty good reviews according to GameRankings.com, especially considering the flop that usually follows licensing television and movie programs such as this one. Anyway, the demo caught my eye because it looks like it takes you back to the good ole days of adventure gaming a la Sierra's many famous Quest games.

You spend half your time as Detective Briscoe's partner collecting evidence on the crime. All of the demo takes place with you playing this role. All in all, it lasted about 15-20 minutes. I don't think there'll be much freedom in terms of what you do, however it seems to have a pretty good depth to the game. You have the ability to put people under surveillance and get psychiatric evaluations. You can send evidence items off to the lab for analysis or research department for more information. Interviews are structured with you picking from a list of questions to ask. Your line of questioning determines how much and the type of information you get from the person. Ask the wrong questions and you'll get nowhere.

The other half of your time is supposed to be spent teaming up with Assistant District Attorney Serena Southerlyn. As the demo doesn't allow you to try out this part of the game, I don't know how it works or have any impressions on it. The web site has some screens and info on this portion of the game.

The sound is average. I think they could have done more with the ambient sound in the demo to immerse you in the case a bit more. The first time you step in to the car where a murder took place, they could certainly do a few things. Perhaps they tried and it sounded cheesy so it was removed. The voice acting is quite good as the actors and actresses supply their voices for the game. The graphics are average. I like the stylization of the graphics. The characters are portrayed in a way that almost borders on a caricature, but not to an extreme that you would laugh at it. Just enough to highlight facial features that distinguish the actors and actresses. I like it. On the flip-side, the graphics could use more polish. They're very fuzzy in many areas and are a bit too similar to those of the Sierra Quest series of games in ways that a game of this age has no business being like. There's also some amateurish graphical artifacts that disappoint me. During the demo when you're in the car at the crime scene, it's obvious that they use a cube-map to create the 360 degree environment that you are able to rotate yourself within to view and manipulate the scene. Why is it so obvious? Because the borders of the images used to create the cube map are visible as you rotate. Kind of annoying to say the least and kills the immersion factor.

I have two major concerns with this game. The first is the length of the game. A game like this will have no replay value whatsoever. It's like a mystery book. Once you know the butler did it, it's not worth doing again (unless Tim Curry is the butler). When gamers can't have replay value, they demand a superior first-time experience to compensate. Longevity plays a big role in this case in creating that superior experience. In about 15 minutes, I discovered the victim's name, company and job title, interviewed his wife, and interviewed the only eye witness, and submitted several key case items to the lab and research departments. My fear is that this game will be over in an hour or two. After all, how much can you milk a single case that could be probably be wrapped up in the one hour show slot?

My second concern is how much of the game will be thinking and acting versus simply "doing" everything that's possibly available to you until you're told you have all the pieces to proceed. What kind of checks and balances are there? One of the things I was able to do in the game was search a trash bin next to the car where the murder took place. Inside, I found a half-eaten donut, a paper plate, and a crushed soda can. Can I send all these things to the lab for analysis and "accidently" discover a case-cracking clue simply because I was sending EVERYTHING to the lab just because I can? I'd like to be rewarded for thinking things through in this game and would hate to have to employ the dreaded brute force approach to move forward with the case.

As an occasionally self-professed Law & Order junkie guilty of watching too many episodes of the classic series as well as the SVU series, I'd love for this game to succeed and take off. The adventure gaming genre has received a distinct lack of attention for what seems a decade. I think a license of this kind of popularity could do the genre good.

A co-worker sent me a link to the new Bard's Tale game coming out. It's being made by a company founded by the original founder of Interplay (Baldur's Gate, Descent, Fallout). They've assembled quite the team of people including programmer's from Shiny (MDK, Earthworm Jim) and artists and level designers from Blizzard (WarCraft, Diablo, StarCraft).

Taking a cue from Blizzard and their hilarious character dialogue when incessantly clicking on units in game, I highly recommend spending some time mousing over the various characters on the Bard's Tale front page.

Dear Microsoft,

You don't know me and you never will, but as a born and raised American capitalist, I already expect that. I have no ill-will towards your company that would be considered unhealthy or irregular. Indeed, I have been guilty on occasion of participating in the fruitless effort that is an "Internet argument" when attempting to point out to otherwise intelligent and rational people how immature and stupid their posts sound when referring to your company as "M$". And while I have been known to curse your very existence when attempting to understand why MFC or Visual Studio do something so inexplicably stupid when all I want to do is get rid of a simple dialog, I understand that your company is the foundation upon which my very job, and subsequently my family, survives.

I say all this to point out that I am not an irrational individual owning a gun loaded with a bullet scribed with the name of Bill Gates or other such nonsense. My involvement with your company is one based purely upon need. That need has always been one confined to the realm of PC's until recently.

The first console I remember playing regularly was a family owned Nintendo Entertainment System, although I have vague memories of playing River Raid on an Atari. The Nintendo was so fantastic that when I was 13 and had a paper route, I saved up to purchase a Super Nintendo. My love affair with console systems declined after that as I became involved in the tumultuous soap opera known as the personal computer industry. Despite playing on the consoles of my friends through the days of the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation (college is a great place for doing this), I never broke down and bought another console, even after donating the SNES to my older brother some years ago.

That is, until the Xbox came along. I will admit that my infatuation with the Xbox was predictable at the very least considering my involvement in the computer industry. The Xbox spoke to that part of my mind which believed the only thing that could understand it was my computer. It became a 3-way telephone call of love at first byte. Some of the most beautiful graphics seen on a television mixed with a broad vision for online play created by an industry juggernaut with more ties than an S&M parlor all supported by the deep pockets of the richest man since the last ruler of the Roman Empire is the recipe for success. Graciously, my wife was even open to the possiblity of owning an Xbox once I convinced her that the DVD add-on gave us a viable alternative to plopping down the cash for a separate DVD player when we could get so much more for a little more money. Even though I knew the price of a console rapidly declines after its release, especially in a market of 3 heavy hitters, we procured an Xbox for our house not two weeks after its release to the general public.

That is why I have read recent reports on your plans for making Xbox2 with a sour taste in my mouth. I accept the decision to go with ATI over NVIDIA for the graphics of Xbox2. Even though I have a good friend who works for NVIDIA, I'm no slouch to the business world and can make my own conclusions about what led to this decision, despite the pomp and circumstance contained in press releases regarding "shared vision", "passion", and other such nonsense that conveniently ignores the power of the almighty dollar. At the very least, I can expect the superior graphics of the Xbox to be continued as ATI's resurgence in the graphics market gives me confidence they will do no wrong with such a juicy contract. I even have hope that on a fixed, closed platform that they won't screw up the drivers. Besides, your influx of cash in to the coffers of NVIDIA provided the computer industry with the venerable nForce platform for which we are all grateful (especially the boys at AMD).

The latest news is that you have chosen IBM as a partner in "a semiconductor technology agreement" that leads most to believe IBM will be providing the brains of the next Xbox. Choosing IBM over Intel has led many to believe that the x86 platform will see the boot as well.

Let's recap for a just a moment here: new graphics, new processor, new architecture. All of these do not bode well towards the prospect of backwards compatibility that Sony used as a spring board for the wildfire success of the PS2.

Let me be the first to say to you, Microsoft, that without backwards compatibility, I will not be purchasing an Xbox2. I spend my money very carefully when it comes to Xbox because I don't have the money to waste. That means that buying another console to replace my current one with no hope of compatibility is unacceptable until the day comes when I can afford a room dedicated towards my gaming addiction. The latest mathematical estimates tell me to work harder rather than buying more lottery tickets, so I don't see a gaming room in the forseeable future.

That places my future plans regarding consoles squarely in your lap. I know that I am not the only gamer with these same worries. The broken promises Nintendo made over the years regarding backwards compatibility as they leapfrogged from one cartridge technology to the next shattered the hearts of many a gamer. Wired reports that I should have no worries stating that "Microsoft will use the Virtual PC technology it acquired from Connectix last year to provide backward-compatibility with the current generation of Xbox games." As encouraging and logical as this sounds, until I see that statement in an official capacity or with some sort of reliable citation, I will continue to wonder and worry.

One of the most anticipated games of the past few years is about to enter the open beta phase. I am sooooo keyed up for this one. Blizzard announced that beta signups for World of Warcraft will open tomorrow (January 28th) at 8pm CST. The signups will last a week and are NOT first-come, first-served. So everyone who signs up has an "equal" chance at getting in.

There's no word yet on how many testers Blizzard will accept for WoW, but one can safely assume that it should be their largest beta test ever considering that it's their first MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game). As some food for thought, consider that the beta test for Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne exceeded 30,000 people. The last large MMORPG that had an open beta was the disappointing Star Wars Galaxies. Sony/Verant claims that stage 3 of the beta contained more than 50,000 people. There's no word yet either on how the beta will be conducted (e.g. in stages or not). WoW has been in the "Friends & Family" alpha stage for a while now. I haven't seen any numbers on how many people this includes, but reading the variety of hands-on previews that have popped up lately would lead me to believe that it's somewhere in the 200-500 range.

Sadly, I fear that my luck with Blizzard beta tests has already been drained. I was selected for the Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction beta test, much to my surprise when the CD arrived to my apartment one afternoon. In some kind of sick twist of fate, the beta test took place over the final week of a trimester in college, which left me little time to test the game after studying for and completing end of trimester tests and exams. I was able to partake in a little bit of WarCraft III beta testing through a bit of sheer luck as well, although I wasn't selected as a tester for that one.

Throughout the years, I've participated in a huge selection of massive online games. The first for me was Ultima Online. I was 17 at the time and had to give my Mom the money to write a check to cover the cost of printing and shipping of the beta CD. My love affair with beta testing massive online games continued from there. I never partook in the phenomenom that is EverCrack....eerrr, EverQuest, although from what I can tell, I don't know that I would have enjoyed it much. The recent popularity of MMORPG games has given me plenty of games to test ranging from EVE Online and Savage: The Battle for Newerth to The Sims Online and Star Wars Galaxies. EVE Online was the most boring for me, but SWG was by far the most disappointing. None of the games has attracted my interest enough to get a monthly check from me, but I have my own jaded opinions on the economics of MMORPG's that will have to wait for another post.

World of Warcraft is bucking the trend of MMORPG's in many ways and I like that. A lot of previews of the game point out that Blizzard is creating content and purpose for the game and its players rather than just creating a virtual sandbox in which everyone will have to create their own experiences and purpose. I like that. I think MMORPG's could be successful as a virtual sandbox style of play, but not until one is created that gives players enough control and tools in which they can actually the experience they want. The Sims Online came close, but the fact that it's a virtual chatroom hindered its ability to fulfill this objective. SWG is still too restrictive to even come close. Thus, we have Blizzard going in a direction that is all of their own creation.

Can you tell I'm excited? Here's some great WoW information for those thirsting for more:

• World of Warcraft Official Site
• WorldofWar.net Visits Blizzard 2004
• GameSpy's Recent WoW Preview article series

So I'm taking a break from some assembly coding and I decide to troll through my blog a bit and kind of review where it was 6 months ago (frequent posts) as opposed to where it is now (barren wasteland) and maybe think about what I can/should do to make it better.

What's that you say? Free time to read your own archived posts, but no time to post anything new, you lazy bum? Shaddup. It's my domain and I'll procrastinate if I want to.

Anyway, so I'm reading through some old posts of mine (yes, yes, I know it's vane) and I come upon my rant on GameSpy ranking Halo (Xbox) as the 10th most overrated game of all time. In my rant I declared that:

It'll be interesting to see how they rate the Halo PC release. I guarantee a rating no lower than 95 due to it's Internet multiplayer and the fact that its mouse and keyboard controlled, two things that every decent PC FPS game has had for years that no console FPS game had in 2001. So why is it held against Halo?

While an 85% for the Xbox review mathematically translates in to 4.25 stars, I just can't help but feel that the PC version of Halo got the better review simply because it was a PC game and not an Xbox game. You could argue that the PC version received the higher score due to the Internet multiplayer factor, which was unavailable on the Xbox since Xbox Live was nowhere to be found. But then you'd have to give extra props to Xbox Halo for split screen action, system link capabilities, and (most importantly) Halo Co-op, which is missing on the PC version.

All that is, of course, besides the point. The 10th most overrated game of all time, if that is to be believed, has no business receiving a 5-star review. I always enjoyed the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books when I was a child and I'm now confident that they are the reason I was a great multiple choice test-taker in school. By now, you should know that I'm a big fan of letting people draw their own conclusions, so here's one for everyone:

The 10th most overrated game of all time (according to GameSpy) receives a perfect 5/5 star review (from GameSpy). From this we can conclude:

• Said game is not, in fact, overrated.
• Said review site is guilty of overrating.
• FVO is a raving lunatic with nothing better to do.
• All of the above.

AWTY™ Things You Should Know #1: I have a hard time letting things go...

I was just updating my left sidebar a few moments ago with the latest in "What I'm Playing" as I listed that I was awaiting my Auth code for the World of WarCraft Beta (Phase 2).

What a kwinky-dink.

My "What am I Playing" sidebar has remained relatively static since April of last year when I was randomly selected to participate in the closed beta of World of Warcraft. My thoughts on MMORPGs and the economics of playing one are a well-known book of rants to my circle of friends. I won't bore you with them here as they are hardly unique in their perspective.

However, after playing WoW for 7 months during the beta before it hit retail shelves, I was completely incapable of denying the game my 16-digit credit card. Blizzard is like a drug; I haven't said no to one of their games since WarCraft II. For those of you keeping track, that's WarCraft II, StarCraft, StarCraft: Brood Wars, WarCraft III (*cough* $80 collector's edition), and WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne. It was once a dream of this young programmer to work for the well-respected company that brought worlds to life with beautiful artwork, meticulously balanced and varied gameplay, with a healthy dose of humor and wit added to keep things fresh and entertaining at all times.

It is with great relief that I look at my life today and give thanks that it was never more than a pipe dream. I pity Blizzard's programmers today.

With apologies to guitar god Slash, I have an obsession confession to make. You see, as a self-professed geek, I deal with the occasional fit of desire for a new device or gadget. This by itself can be all the persuasion required by many individuals to translate their indulgence in to a purchase. However, my circumstances are complicated by a streak of frugality that would embarrass most people. I'm told that many years ago when I had attained a constant level of income through my paper route such that I could afford to purchase Christmas presents for my family members, I planned out presents for everyone to limit my expenditures to no more than $10. If I recall correctly, a pack of bubblegum was involved for one of my lucky siblings.

In other words, I rarely cave in to my obsessions. My approach has always been to deny myself the latest gadget or gizmo when the urge strikes. If, after a sufficient quantity of time has passed, the urge continues to surface and cannot be ignored, I begin to entertain the idea of the purchase and determine whether or not it makes fiscal and functional sense. Is it affordable? Will it do something for me from an entertainment or usefulness standpoint that can be easily justified? Are those reasons sufficiently persuasive that they can sway the keeper of the bank accounts?

I had a chance to play a co-worker's Nintendo Wii after work this evening (if you're giggling, please leave now). It's the first time I've ever played with it, much less seen one in person. By all accounts, the Wii is still incredibly hard to find. One of my co-workers happened to get lucky one morning waiting for a Target store to open and was able to snag one from their limited shipment.

There were some problems getting the remotes to function properly at first, which I was told was very odd considering that no problems of that sort had been encountered for the past couple weeks. I seem to have this kind of effect on hardware of all sorts. Monitors wear out prematurely when it's my desk they call home. Removable DVD drives refuse to be recognized when notebooks are booted up in my docking station. Devices that work flawlessly 99.9% of the time refuse to function as intended in my presence.

It's a gift; what else can I say?