Egge

@ahoodedfigure: The soft, smooth precision of analog sticks on a gamepad really does come in handy when carefully navigating your character through Dark Souls' frequently treacherous environments. The binary harshness of keyboard inputs notwithstanding, I'm sure a good port can make M&K controls at least decent (regardless of whether the UI is adapted properly, something I'm far less confident of).

@TheHT:Oh, had completely forgotten about Dragon's Dogma. Given its obvious inspiration from Western action RPGs it's definitely going to be interesting to see if that curious game ends up on PC as well.

@mosdl:I'm no tech wizard, but it's my understanding that at least some form of modding/custom alterations/unofficial compatibility upgrading is almost always a case of being more or less difficult, never completely impossible. Obviously, there's always going to be a vast gulf between eminently moddable titles such as Skyrim and more notoriously closed systems such as Mass Effect 2 (the latter nonetheless has got some noteworthy graphical mods etc.). However, the basic point is precisely that developers can in principle abandon the game without that necessarily spelling the end of the game's life cycle (as it would in the console world), provided that the game in question has enough of a dedicated fan base (something Dark Souls should not have a problem amassing...).

By now the unofficial confirmations regarding a possible upcoming PC port of From Software's unapologetically hardcore action RPG Dark Souls are numerous enough that it's no longer meaningful to file this in the "rumors and wishful thinking" category. With that in mind, here are the top three reasons why I personally think having this game on PC is such a great idea;

1) Ensuring the long-term preservation (as well as incremental enhancement) of a truly great game.

Being able to play old games can be a hassle regardless of platform but console hardware developers such as Microsoft and Sony aren't exactly helping by severely limiting or even going so far as to actively strip out backward compatibility from their dedicated gaming systems, and the infamously subpar quality of (some) so-called "HD" re-releases of late don't inspire much confidence in the motivation of publishers to keep their older console games fully and faithfully playable on future entertainment rigs. Now, the PC platform has its own share of problems - enough of them, in fact, that entire commercial services (such as The Artist Formerly Known as Good Old Games) have sprung up to deal specifically with an increasing demand for easily playable classics patched up to work well with modern computers and OS setups. But the operative term here is "patched", since the inherent flexibility of the PC platform obviously allows both commercial and non-commercial actors to tinker directly with the game files and develop workarounds which adapts or even tricks the product in question to function properly on current operative systems and hardware configurations. An added bonus in this respect is modability, but at least in the case of Dark Souls I have a feeling that the focused design of the game in question makes modding a comparatively superfluous activity. User-made high-res textures, custom shaders etc. make a certain amount of sense but I'd probably put such efforts in the "modern compatibility" column since they don't directly influence gameplay.

It goes without saying that none of this perhaps needlessly pedantic concern with preservation would mean much if the actual product we're concerned with here wasn't worth saving from the slings and arrows of outrageous backward incompatibility in the first place. But despite not actually having played much of Dark Souls myself (I own PS3 copies of both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls but have only played the former game extensively), judging from what has already been written about the grim brilliance of From Software's latest RPG I think it's already fair to say that it's one of the finest releases in its genre during the current hardware generation. Whether or not the cool but not altogether essential online functionality is switched off at some point - and here the PC as a platform could presumably make unofficial networking solutions a viable option - the mere thought of having this challenging, lengthy, multi-layered and extremely replayable RPG experience readily available on digital distribution networks such as Steam etc. for many years to come is enough to warm my old school heart.

2) Increasing the likelihood of more frequent console-to-PC ports of high-quality niche titles.

Provided that all those petition writers and forumites who have expressed their strong desire for a computer version of Dark Souls manage to put their money where their mouths are and actually support this PC release the game could do very well indeed; both immediately at launch and during a longer time frame which includes the inevitable price drops and Steam sales etc. In turn, that would make it somewhat more likely that the recent bout of more or less unexpected PC announcements (including Warren Spector'sEpic Mickey 2 and Yakuza developer Toshihiro Nagoshi'sBinary Domain) might become a real trend and carry over into the next console era, during which increased technological parity between consoles and PCs should at least in theory make the business of porting a less jarring "oh shit, this looks awful in 1080p"-kind experience.

More specifically, Dark Souls is probably the one big test case in terms of an almost universally acclaimed but still relatively niche title, which in all likelihood would never have been ported if there hadn't been a very vocal demand for it among both ordinary gamers and more professional journalists and media content producers alike. The broadly Westernized aesthetics might seem to make this is a somewhat special case, but I personally doubt that since one would have expected to see a lot more of, say, King's Field on PC if this line of reasoning was correct. Thus, a successful PC port of Dark Souls potentially could play a significant role for future PC releases of previously console-exclusive Japanese games.

3) Promoting a cease-fire in the unhelpful console/PC culture wars.

This third point is rather speculative, and there have admittedly been some not entirely unreasonable arguments made for why Dark Souls - with its' gamepad-oriented control scheme and resolute lack of quickload functions - could very well end up alienating at least those exceedingly dogmatic PC players who conflate platform standards with design imperatives (which even otherwise well-meaning enthusiasts sometimes do). If that indeed turns out to be the case, it's their loss.

However, I do believe that Dark Souls represents a golden opportunity for those often uninformed skeptics who mostly associate console gaming in general with, say, Gears of War and Final Fantasy to discover the rich Japanese subculture of challenging and often surprisingly Western- and/or PC-influenced console titles. Indeed, apart from their most recent titles Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, it's not hard to see why From Software's focused gameplay and understated art design have enabled them to make a breakthrough of sorts in the West at the exact same time that some of the Eastern heavyweights such as Square-Enix are disappearing further down the rabbit holeof tired JRPG conventions. Ideally, Dark Souls could serve as a rebuttal both to the notion that all Japanese games are messy, impenetrable and influenced by the least tasteful anime imaginable as well as the embarrassingly wide-spread idea that console games by definition are dumbed-down and shallow compared to PC games.

But, yeah, all I really wanted to say with this is that it sure is nice to know that there's going to be at least one version of this game without the much-discussed frame rate issues in Blight Town...

Glad påsk! Never played Dungeon Master 1 much, but I can highly recommend the somewhat underrated sequel Dungeon Master 2: Legend of Skulkeep. It's one of the most atmospheric RPGs I know, and very similar gameplay-wise (even when it comes to minor UI details etc.) to its suprisingly streamlined and accessible 1987 predecessor, except updated with nice mid-90s graphics and a charmingly somber soundtrack. If nothing else, the game inspired me to create this little video (which, it should be said, adds a layer of Shakespearian gloom not present in the actual game) a few years ago;

@YoThatLimp: As with most indie titles, provided that you're interested in the actual gameplay the production values only really stand out when watching brief YouTube clips and any such initial impressions fade into the background after an hour or two with the game. Personally I really like the look of the topdown sprites (which were much more simplistic in earlier version of the AoF, by the way), and the "sound design" of chirping birds has a very relaxing effect on me which I wouldn't trade for the intrusive bombastic music that even similarily slow-paced turn-based strategy games tend to include.

Gallery

Some of you might remember Age of Fear: The Undead King, a turn-based wargame with strong RPG elements I briefly mentioned on this blog about a year ago now. Well, since then developer Leszek Sliwko has released tons of free updates adding more detailed graphics, multiplayer options, new units, extra upgrades, balance tweaks, code optimizations, camera options and much more to make an already rock solid tactical game bigger and better.

While the first few battles of Age of Fear include a very small number of units on screen at any given time, the scale of the skirmishes quickly ramps up. Holding the line is crucial in this game, since the AI will immediately seize on any opportunity to go after the player's archers, mages and monks. There are often distinct groups of enemies on the map, and it soon becomes clear that the different parts of the enemy force perform their own unique tactical functions on the battlefield. The gameplay does not include height variations to consider but as there's no grid-based movement in AoF the positioning of units requires a bit more thought than in most turn-based strategy games. In particular, it's easy (perhaps a bit too easy) to create bottlenecks in the battle line which limit your own attack abilities more than it protects your weaker units.

The game's campaigns are broken up into self-contained missions but the player gets to keep surviving troops from the previous battle; an interesting gameplay mechanic which always reminds me of Homeworld. The persistent unit economy is a crucial factor since soldiers gain XP on an individual basis and recruiting advanced versions is costly compared to making low-level units more experienced by having them kill enemies on the battlefield and then get out alive. Gold is awarded between missions and spent on buying and upgrading units, and any remaining gold likewise carries over to the next army-building session. The inherent risk with such a system is of course that, unlike in most games, Pyrrhic victories are quite possible; i.e. you can win battles with heavy losses and still make progress in the game but sooner or later find yourself unable to proceed because you simply don't have enough good units or money to stay ahead of the difficulty curve. Thankfully, AoF allows unlimited saves both during and between battles (and even includes autosaves during each turn of the current battle); making it easy to return to an earlier stage in the game if things get rough.

Considering the two full campaigns included and extensive support for stand-alone skirmishes I can think of few better ways to spend $15 for fans of serious turn-based combat. Most important of all, though, is that Mr Sliwko is currently hard at work on a sequel called Age of Fear 2: The Chaos Lords which will include a total of 70+ unique units, a completely new faction, fearsome boss creatures and even smarter AI. Any additional AoF copies sold will surely help the development of AoF2...

Official web site: http://www.age-of-fear.net/

@Brodehouse: It's a single-character RPG, and definitely built around some of the philosophies you seem, eh, not to be a big fan of. In general, I think locking the player out of content can be entirely legitimate from a design perspective (if done right) but when it comes to Age of Decadence specifically it seems that (the slightly less demanding term) "specialization" is a more appropriate description than "min-maxing". You apparently don't need to focus exclusively on a particular ability - and it's certainly possible to combine social skills with combat skills to some extent - but specializing in a few key areas is nonetheless highly recommended.

I've been following the development of indie studio Iron Tower Studio's Age of Decadence for several years now, and it's no exaggeration to say that it's one of the most promising hardcore PC RPGs in a long time. The game is nothing short of a Fallout-inspired isometric/turn-based RPG set in a rich pseudo-historical setting (strongly resembling late Antiquity/early Middle Ages) built from the ground up to support player choice, with lots of non-combat skills which have a major impact on the overall gameplay experience. Combat has intentionally been made the most difficult approach to finishing quests (rather than the default option, as in most RPGs), since you don't start out as a particularly capable warrior at all and going up against a numerically superior enemy is supposed to be as bad an idea in AoD as it is in real life...

The first time I took part in spreading the word about this game was way back in 2008 (when it was also mentioned on RPS), and even then the project had been going on for quite some time already. There have been significant delays along the way but unlike a few other implausible ambitious RPG projects out there (Grimoire, anyone?), AoD is not some vaporware threatening to dissolve into mere rumors; this is very much a real thing and a tremendous amount of work has already been put into everything from the graphics engine to the skill system, dialogue and quest design. None of the developers work on this full time, though, and given the sheer scope and scale of the project progress is understandably slow.

A short (and in my view somewhat underwhelming) combat teaser was released a while back, but now all fans of serious RPGs have a great opportunity to finally check out a much larger and more refined chunk (called "public beta") of the game, experiment with different character builds and experience how the chosen character class affects both the story and the gameplay options. It's not a game for everyone, though, and during my brief time with the new demo so far I've had some amount of trouble figuring out where to go and what to do despite some reasonably clear quest introductions, a seemingly helpful journal and many ways to go about solving a particular problem. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention or maybe the available options will be better telegraphed in the final game, but in either case it's fair to say that careful attention to dialogue, thorough exploration of the environments and a knack for specializing characters properly (jack of all trades need not bother; AoD's skill system is all about making uncomfortable choices) are all necessary to get something out of this purposefully methodical RPG.

Download the public beta for free at:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/

The Kickstarter project for Wasteland 2 has exceeded $1,000,000 in just over 2 days time. That's already a pretty remarkable achievement, but I really hope the donations keep trickling in during the entire month (!) remaining until the project is finished and our credit cards actually get charged. From reading the official Kickstarter page, one certainly gets the sense that there's a lot of room for the scope and scale of the game to grow incrementally with each additional donation beyond the bare minimum which was required to ensure that the development and release of Wasteland 2 is practically possible. I for one threw in an additional $50 as soon as it became bleedingly obvious that the project was going to reach and exceed it's intended goal of 900K, and even for more cautious and sensible people than me there's obviously always the option to add an extra $5 or $10 to their existing $15-50 pledge. Indeed, especially for small donors the deal has been sweetened now that the project is getting bigger than was initially planned and they're going to get an (increasingly) ambitious game for a very reasonable price which even most truly independent RPG developers can't compete with.

With so much money already being pledged, it's easy to see that a lot of different hopes and dreams are being involved here. Some players probably just want a cool new post-apocalyptic game which isn't structured quite the same way that Bethesda's Fallout titles were. Others may care deeply about the choices and consequences and difficult moral choices which are often associated with older and less linear RPGs. As has been previously mentioned, what's most important for me personally is the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of actual turn-based combat combined with a freely customizable party of characters and a reasonably deep stats system to go with it. If former Interplay overseer Brian Fargo had sought funding for, say, an Infinity Engine-like game with pause-and-play combat I would have been much less interested in contributing (a lot of) money no matter what cool settings, good writing or fancy plot devices it might have been associated with.

In either case, I think all of our expectations for Wasteland 2 actually says a lot more about how incredibly narrow the publisher-driven mainstream RPG market has become recently than it does about the supposed fluidity of Fargo's fan-funded and to some extent fan-directed project. After all, you don't get a whole lot more specific than "party-based Western roleplaying game with turn-based combat and a post-apocalyptic, Mad Max-inspired setting". That specificity was undeniably one of the major stumbling blocks for publishers, but it's just as clearly one of the current project's real strengths. Like others have said before me, beyond my own narrow concerns I really hope the video game industry is willing to learn some lessons from the Kickstarter phenomena; especially in terms of what medium-sized developers with clearly defined goals and a very loyal audience can accomplish.