I've been experiencing a new addiciton lately.  Despite having DNF sitting unfinished on my mantelpiece, next to LA. Noire - which I've barely scratched the surface of... I've been reading.  I've been reading the Phillip Pullman, Dark Materials Trilogy; The Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and the Amber Spyglass... And I haven't been able to put them down I read the Amber Spy Glass in less than a week...
 
The thing is there is something special about the idea of alternate realities, other worlds.  We as a species have always had a fascination with exploring and seeing new places - otherwise Star Trek wouldn't have been running in one form or another for over 5 decades!  Even in the days of wooden sailing ships, when most people probably didn't leave their village - India, China, the America's must have seemed like strange alien worlds.  Even now, who wouldn't like to set foot on Mars?  Even knowing that in reality there's probably not a great deal there apart from erm, rocks and dust... 
 
His Dark Materials reminds me most of a medium budget character driven sci-fi series that has long been cancelled, called 'Sliders' it works on the same principle, that there are various realities and as you read you marvel at the wonder of being able to jump into another world.  I won't spoil it by telling you too much, you really SHOULD read it - but there comes a point where the protagonists cannot jump between worlds in the way that they could.... And at this point in the story, you really empathize with them, you can imagine the great sorrow that you would feel if you were unable to explore anymore.
 
Whether there truly are multiple dimensions is something of a mystery, quantum theory suggests it's possible, or so I believe, but to be able to test the theory and travel to an alternate reality is a further leap from where we are now, than the caveman making fire to the Space Shuttle and the Internet.  The closest we have to this are games... Artificial realities that you can travel to at will.
 
Some of you may have watched Red Dwarf, and seen the episode 'Better Than Life' it's basically an artificial reality game, which plumbs straight into your head so you feel like, 'You're really, really there...' to quote David Lister.  This particular game is unusual in that it doesn't simulate war or sport of anything like that - it just works out what you want to happen and makes it happen.  All goes well in the episode until Rimmer's mind revolts and starts wishing bad things upon himself.  In the novelisation this theme is expanded greatly, and it seems that people get trapped in the game, unwilling to leave and end up dying because their immobile body starves to death, while they refuse to leave the sanctuary of the paradise 'Better Than Life'.
 
It makes you wonder whether this sort of technology will ever become available?   And if so would it be a good thing?  People can get addicted to altnerate reality games in their current crude form  - who hasn't heard of the people quitting their jobs, divorcing their wives and abandonning their kids to play World of Warcraft?   And in some ways it's understandable, the uber irritating, ugly as sin, morbidly obsese dude who sits in his bedroom for 10 hours a day playing WoW because he has no real friends, can choose his appearance, and due to ingame time being greater than his popular peers, who actually socialize in the real world... He can become more powerful and more knowledgeable of the game - he becomes the guy you want leading your raid.  And why shouldn't be prefer being the level 85 Death Knight with his epic flying mount and what equates to a group of followers and psuedo friends?  It must be better than being Ryan Smith, the friend-less dole dosser who has zero percent chance of attracting a mate in the real world?  There've been cases where people have met in world, online and have ended up getting married!  Sometimes emmigrating half way across the world to do so... I can only imagine the joy they must have of sitting alongside each other, 'raiding together'... Erm....
 
Still - imagine how it could be if we had a better technology, which did make you feel like you were there rather than watching a screen?  It would only become easier to get hooked on it so much that you don't want to return to reality.  At this level, maybe gaming would become akin to Heroin addiction?   Heroin is a drug which makes a human feel happier and more content than their mind will normally allow - the rest of life seems rather rubbish once you've experienced that, so you can understand people becoming addicted.  And with this logic in mind, you can imagine people who aren't content with their real lives being happier in a game.
 
But does that mean the industry shouldn't strive towards making game technology better?  No, I have to say, the simple act of exploring and building in an alternate reality doesn't need probes inserted into  your brain and for you to feel like you are really there - WoW is a testament to that.  Me?  I've been enjoying Minecraft lately, it's buggy - it crashes all the time, but there's something magical about entering a new world... and making your mark upon it!

First of all don't get me wrong - I am thoroughly enjoying LA Noire... But I am feeling inclined to dedicate my next short gaming session to DNF again... (Duke Nukem Forever)
 
LA Noire is a great experience, I've just got to part where you have to investigate the car crashed into the billboard across the street from the police station.  I suppose the thing that appears to be annoying me - is the fact that I seem to suck at the game... I don't know how, but the core mechanics seem to conspire against me.  I don't want to riddle this post with spoilers so I'm not going to be specific, but basically every case I've tackled so far, I've very quickly worked out exactly what is going on - and the investigation has been there simply to confirm my suspicions.  However, when it comes to the interrogation questions, I seem to generally do pretty woefully...
 
After having finished the interrogation, I think I realise where I went wrong too, the trouble is I don't really agree with the game on what evidence proves a lie to the suspect/witness.  There may be an element of luck in this, maybe I should be spending more intuition points?
 
I don't know, I'll plough on see if I get the hang of it.
 
To the people who are criticising the story, well, I suppose whether a story is any good is open to conjecture... Personally I'm enjoying the story, the cases are interesting, and the military flash-backs are intriguing.  I'ts a fairly laid back game to play, but it's fun and it works with the story.  It does feel quite alien to early Rockstar games, you don't seem to find yourself in a position where you have the time and the inclination to explore the city.  I think this subtly, negatively influences the feeling of freedom compared to the GTA Series, Bully and Red Dead.  I suppose it sort of makes sense - technically Cole is working, so he shouldn't be driving around town at his liesure and I'm not sure giving a day off to get his groceries and what not would add to the game.  It might be that as the cases get more complex there is more need to explore.  
 
I don't know why I'm griping at this really - in some respects its the developers loss if I don't see all the content, after all they are ones who wasted time and money beautifully rendering a part of the city I might never see... But then at the same time, LA Noire appears to have very little occasion to allow you interract with the environment - doors you go through appear to be more or less exclusively the ones you SHOULD go through, this spoils the sense of freedom and the immersion a little - but at the same time, rendering the interior of thousands of buildings you might never enter would be a waste so maybe this concession is a neccesary evil?  
 
I suppose in a game like LA Noire it's difficult to get the balance of 'feeling of freedom' vs 'no wasted content' exactly right... I think if you are playing it for the story and you don't mind restricting your actions to exactly what you 'think' you SHOULD do... You might never notice an issue, but if the wild, wide-eyed excitement of exploration that grabs you in games like Red Dead or GTA then... Well - I suppose this is another clear indicator that although the controls and the engine appear to be very similar - if albeit with 1940's assets and actors... LA Noire is a ver different game!

Well, it had to happen eventually.  I was still feeling pretty torn, and part of me could have happily stayed up another 2 hours for some post-LA Noire Duke related fun... But still, I went to bed at a reasonable time so my wifes happy... Meh!
 
So how does LA Noire compare to Duke Nukem Forever?  From a basic first impressions point of view?  Well, I can't make a direct comparison, Duke is a very old school FPS shooter with some tongue in cheek humor and interesting mini-games.  LA Noire plays rather like an interractive crime thriller.  
 
They're both games though so comparisons can be made.  The first thing that strike you is that LA Noire comes on two disks and has a chunky, thick instruction manual - and Duke come on one DVD and has a thin, explains the controls manual.  I know it's subtle and not something to make a judgement on - but it sets the scene it gives you an idea of what to expect.  DNF - Pick up and play fun, LA Noire - more depth and content.  
 
So I dived into LA Noire and two games immediately sprang to mind, The Sabotuer by Pandemic and Rockstar's famous 'Red Dead Redemption' but without the horses.  The driving mechanics are classic Rockstar open world, but that's really where the similarities start to end... The typical Rockstar gameplay model is blown apart, no longer are we grabbing missions, killing people and blowing things up, rinse and repeat... The first sequence you are thrown into is a crime scene investigation.  I have to say at this point, I can imagine the typical Rockstar player, even the typical Duke Nukem Player might get a little frustrated.  It's a slower pace, it isn't so much exciting as 'interesting'.  IT's enjoyable, but you get a different flavour of flow from playing it - more the sort of flow you get from watching a detective programme on the television or reading a novel... Rather than the intense 'Guitar Hero' style of flow you get from fast paced FPS.  
 
I have to say I enjoyed the change of pace, it feels like a game you can play over a cup of coffee while other people are in the room, and you can chat and socialise while playing - it's not that intense for the most part, but really - that makes a nice change.  Once you start moving around town and investigating cases, you pick up on another difference - you can't injure people it seems by crashing into them - and you are penalised for harming civilians if you do... To me this is a sense of Rockstar growing up a bit and trying use their classic open-world model in a new way.   Let's face it - being able to do anything, was something of a novelty, but I think we've all grown up a bit now and having to drive carefully keeps you more in character.  You can't pull your gun out and start shooting people at random either - again a good thing... Even when I rescued some woman from a man with a gun - the fact that I killed him, rather than disarmed him... This gave the mission comeplte points, but it showed a rather solemn cut scene and suggested that a more successful outcome would have been if you had arrested him.
 
Before long, you're a detective and it's starting to feel like a real who-dunnit, the cases are interesting and the aesthetics have a real cinematic quality to them everything feels very polished and well thought out - although I wonder whether the investigating items parts and questioning people might becmoe tedious... but then they might introduce more elements of complexity to it, so it's hard to say.
 
All in all, I love both DNF and LA Noire - but part of me wonders it I'm in something of a minority - I can see LA Noire not really apealing to the the DNF 'Kick ass and chew bubblegum' player... Possibly not even the classic GTA / Red Dead player either... It's a thinkers game, it's interesting, fun even - but it's slower paced and more cinematic.  It's absorbing in the same way a novel is.   Duke however is fast paced, a little mindless at times and although it's polished, I think LA Noire has more than a clear edge in production terms - but then I think it needs it because of the type of experience Rockstar are trying to give the player with LA Noire.
 
I think LA Noire feels more 21st century too, it feels like the developers are really trying to do something new with the game, with Duke I think the developers are trying to bring an existing game format fowards with new elements of gameplay - but essentially it's a tried and tested formula.  Some of the early parts of DNF seem quite old school from a gameplay point of view.  There are times when if you forgot about the graphics and audio you could actually be playing Duke Nukem 3D or even Wolfenstein... That's no bad thing of course.  I like both titles, both are good at what they do, but they do different things...

First of all, I have to say I am enjoying DNF thoroughly - so much so that after three days of owning LA Noire and Duke, LA Noire is still sitting on the shelf, even though I'm desperate to play it.  Really I ought to load up DOS Box and play good ole' fashioned Duke Nukem 3D as a comparator - or one of the recent methods for playing it on later machines... 
 
The fact is, no it's not the most amazing game ever to grace the XBOX, but the long development cycle probably harmed the game more than helped it as I've discussed before, plus the hype over it - partly due to the eon long development cycle hasn't done it any favors.  However if pressed I could come up with some criticisms, based on two hours of play.
 
1. The plot isn't going to win any Oscars.
 
2. The voice acting in places isn't amazing, it serves it's purpose - but it's not genre defining.
 
3. The levels up to the Pit Lord achievement can seem very restrictive.  There are a lot of blocked pathways and locked doors, They try to give you a feeling of a broad, large open city - but you are very limited as to where you can explore.  So far it's been fairly linear with some back-tracking.
 
4. The Load Times... Numerous times you find yourself watching a loading screen printing hints at the bottom with the level title at the top.   Some times you seem to be staring at this screen for far too long...
 
5. The enemies, they aren't that varied so far, there are essentially melee enemies, shooters and shooters who can teleport up to this point in the game.  I expect more will appear but hey - I'm trying to give game play criticism.
 
6. The weapons, You really only have had access to less than half a dozen weapons by the end of the pitlord achievement.  Most are effective enough, but there's not a great deal of variation between their strengths and weaknesses - although there is some so... The fun things, pipe bombs and trip mines are just starting to appear by this stage.
 
7. The environment interactions are great, but giving you a few makes you want to try to interact with everything... Which you can't, which can get frustrating...
 
All this aside - it's fun!  I like it, I find it very accessible.   I wouldn't like to give it a rating out 100 yet, but I certainly think it works well as a game.  I don't share the view that the graphics are awful and the frame rate sucks... Maybe it's because I'm not a Call of Honour or Battlefield of Duty or whatever fanboi - maybe they do graphics better than Duke?  I don't know... Could it be because when I started playing games in about 1982 we didn't really have anything you could describe as graphics and audio... More like sprites and beeps... I grew up being eternally more interested in game play than the cinematic properties of games... I agree that these things are important now, but at the same time I can't help but think, beyond a certain level - they don't actually matter.  As long as these things are not so bad that they negatively affect immersion then I genuinely think game play is far more important.  Game play is what makes or breaks a game in my opinion, the rest is icing on the cake, and that's why small independent developers can sometimes succeed, because innovative core mechanics although harder to develop, are not always expensive...
 
Some people might think Duke Nukem Forever should have shown more innovation... But to that I disagree also, games are like any technology - there's only so much innovation people can take at a time.  People want a product they are generally familiar with, but which provides additional elements.  Whenever something completely off-wall comes out, that pushes every boundary - it often fails.  Not always - Minecraft is a recent example, Populous is an older example, both do something quite unfamiliar and offer a fairly new experience in terms of game play.  I think with FPS it's harder to push a great deal of innovation to an FPS audience, because it's such a saturated genre... It has been since Wolfenstein 3D... There was a new one every week it seemed at one stage, what with Wolfenstein, Doom, Heretic, Rise of the Triad, Tech Wars... They were spilling out of studios at a rate of knots... 
 
And we have some very high quality titles in the genre at the moment.   People expectations for FPS are probably higher than most other genre.  I think it's probably a very unforgiving genre to develop in.  DNF brings a little to the table I think, with the mini-game style distractions and environment interaction... I'll probably have formed a more detailed opinion when I've finished it.

Well, I've ploughed away at DNF for a second hour - am I still not blown away?  Well, to be honest, no I'm not blown away... But at the same time, I have LA Noire sitting on the shelf begging to be played, I mean BEGGING... I'm desperate to play LA Noire, it has some really interesting core mechanics and technologies in it which I can't wait to have a go of... 
 
But I can't drag myself away from DNF?  Tonight I played from the first boss - the weird helicopter like floaty dude who shoots rockets at you to the guy who gives you the pit lord achievement, the massive thing that fires bizarre homing rockets or something - just before you go into the sewers... And no there's not that much stuff that's really ground-breaking... Okay the environment interaction and the 'Ego Meter' are interesting mechanics, but in reality - as with most of these kind of games there are far more things you can't interact with than things you can, and sometimes that's annoying.  I can't put my finger on one, but from time to time you want to use something, but it's just decor... 
 
That aside though, it really is a fun game... I mean the graphics are nice, but they probably aren't going to win any awards... The Gameplay feels fun, especially with the humor thrown in, but it feels a little bit old school somehow... Like a more polished Unreal with modern graphics and more production dollars thrown at it.  However it's kept more interesting by the little 'different' bits, the RC cars, the turret battles, the bosses, the 'shrunk' sections... It all breaks up the monotony.  The humiliation you can inflict on the boss characters after beating them, it's fun, it's not going to win any awards but it's good old fashioned fun. 
 
I am ready to throw my hands up in the air and shout, 'I like Duke Nukem Forever!' against what a lot of the media are saying about the game... But I dunno - is it the hype?  The bitterness at having to wait 12 years to play it?  I suspect it's a bit of a Gran Turismo 5... That had a 5 year development cycle or something similar, and the tie taken built the hype... The trouble is you cannot take that long to make a game - by the time you've finished, the technology you built it on is out of date and your game looks dated and doesn't do as well as games which took less time.  Duke Nukem's developers tried to resolve this by porting to more modern engines, both game and physics engines... 
 
I don't know what state it was in when Gearbox took over, or what they had to do it to make a game, but I think it needed a new set of heads to make it happen.  It had to be finished quickly so that it actually ended up being released on a modern engine and looking up to date! 
 
The moral of the story, forget the cynical reviews, good/bad - I'm not 100% sure on DNF yet, but it IS fun, and if you give it a chance it will be hard to put down... For developers the moral is simple - don't take too long to develop the game... There are a myriad of reasons for this - but trust me, don't take too long!

Well, first of all Duke Nukem Forever's development cycle was epic, truly epic... 
 
But I've talked about that last post - I actually got to sit down and play it for the first time last night.  I'm not going to go too into depth here, I'm not going to debate whether it was worth the wait or anything like that - I'm just going to state how it felt to play through the first hour, as a game on it's own merits.  
 
I won't do the spoilers either...
 
Duke Nukem Forever essentially plays as a solid, fun FPS with reasonable level design and a generally very polished feel.  It has elements of that classic 'Duke Humor' and the interactiveness with the environment is impressive at times - although because of this you often find yourself wanting to interact with things which you can't interact with.  They've also made it worth interacting with things although it's a strange concept as a core mechanic it works - your health is called your ego and interacting boosts it - doing big things like beating a boss increase your max ego so.... Meh!  Wierd, but it works...
 
There's a little bit where you have to drive a remote controlled toy car using a classic RC controller - then there's a section where you have to man a turret... These sections are a break from the humdrum of FPS, work well and feel very 'Duke'esque' 
 
Graphically and from an audio point of view it seems fine, I wasn't blown away by anything, but it felt right - and looked good... While retaining something of the feel of the classic Duke Nukem 3D - which was nice... 
 
I have to say, there are times when you really want to be able to pickup more than two weapons, and found myself wondering where to go on the odd occasion... But it's fun, it's enjoyable and if the rest of the game is as good - then the single player campaign should be a fun experience to play through at least once... Did it blow me away?  No... Not yet - I'll have to play a bit more perhaps...

I've heard a hint that I might be getting Duke Nukem Forever for my birthday... Now some people think I should be excited about this - some people think I should try make some effort to get this gift changed for a voucher so I can get a 'good' game later in the year... Gears 3 would be a contender (I'm supposed to be getting LA Noire so....)
 
But anyway Duke Nukem Forever, what's the score?  Well, at the very least it will be interesting from an academic point to play if nothing else.  This is a game which has been in development for fourteen years... More or less.  This sequel to the successful 'Duke Nukem 3D' was announced in 1997, to be developed by 3D Realms.  The stage was set, the game announced 3D Realms rushed out and bought a licence for id softwares Quake 2 engine.  There was some conjecture even from the start that it was having a difficult development cycle - with some pundits suggesting that early screenshots and gameplay video's were simply mock-ups made using the old engine...
 
It wasn't until E3'1998 that a demo running on the Quake 2 Engine was shown.
 
June 1998 it was announced that the game was going to be ported to the Unreal Engine... Taking up to six weeks and retaining all the features shown at E3... 1999 it was announced that it was being ported to the newer Unreal Tournament Engine and another demo, of the game running on the Unreal Engine was shown.. Release supposedly delayed until 2000...
 
A change of publisher in 2000 pushed release back further... Suggesting 2001... In 2001, a promising demo was shown... But the publisher who had taken over responsibility for release (Gathering of Developers), shut down and Take two interractive took over - pushing back release...
 
During the 2002 - 2004 period, the Unreal 2 Engine was released, and in order to keep up with competition it was decided to port the game to the newer engine, taking on more staff to help make this fast and smooth.  In September 2004 the migration from the Karma physics engine to a new one caused a further delay.
 
The development being taken over by Gearbox was only actually announced in 2010... After legel battles, internet leaks, studio closures.... 
 
There was some irony in the abbreviation of the game DNF... Often a racing abbreviation for 'Did not finish' there were other joke names for the game too, 'Duke Nukem Never'. 'Duke Nukem Taking Forever'...
 
Yet finally we have it - is this the Unreal 2 Engine version that 3D Realms started on Quake 2 then continually ported and changed publishers and physics engines?  Or is it a total new Core with the existing assets, actors, levels and textures ported in?  I don't know... It'll be interesting to play though.  The fact was Duke Nukem 3D was a bold step forward at it's time.  Prior to D3D we were really playing Doom and Doom 2 by id Software,  which despite looking like a 3D game was not in fact in 3 Dimensions, the game itself only recognized x and y co-ordinates for location of things, there was esssentially no such thing as up and down.  Now you're thinking, hang on - what about all those lifts and raised platforms?!  Well, there were two properties, floor height and ceiling height which altered how the first person perspective looked to create the illusion of 3 Dimensions.  However you could never go under something or over it, if you lined a shot up with an enemy on a high platform - if it was in line you hit them, if not you hit the wall underneath them.  I spent hours working with DoomEd and similar making levels, many people won't believe me, but trust me, the 3D in Doom is an illusion, it's even more obvious in Wolfenstein 3D because there is never an attempt in that game to pretend to be able to go up and down, the levels are essentially played on a 2 dimensional playing field, presented in a first person perspective with the illusion of 3 dimensions.
 
So how was D3D different?  In Duke Nukem 3D we actually suddenly had the real ability to go up  and down, you could get a jet pack, use lifts, go over things and under things and had to aim up and down to shoot up and down!  The actors and assets were not rendered in 3D and were traditional 2D sprites superimposed at the correct point, like Doom they had different sprites for the angle at which you saw them - except for things like guns and power-ups, so whatever angle you approached it from it looked the same. 
 
I'm guessing rendereding full 3D actors was too processor intensive for the time, and that the compromise was in order to keep the gameplay aspects of a genuinely 3D environment to explore, but to keep the graphics processing down to a sensible level.  With the tongue and cheek humour and good level design, although it looks a bit dated now, it was a very playable game... I'll never forget the first time I met the end-game boss and heard Duke tell it, 'I'm going to rip off your head and sh*& down your neck!'.... Then after completing the battle... Low and behold you get a rendered 3D cutscene of Duke ripping the head off this thing... Getting some bog-roll out and then pulling his pants down, sitting on the hole where the head was and starts reading a newspaper and whistling...
 
I'm don't have high hopes for Duke Nukem Forever to be the most innovative game I play this year, I don't expect it to be the amazing experience that you might think a 14 year development cycle might give... After all - who wants to play 14 year old code?  That's bordering on retro gaming!
 
I expect a solid FPS shooter, with some humorous moments... Will I get that?  I'll just have to wait and see....

I've just been listening to Aoife Wilson and Julia Hardy's debrief on the conferences they've been to...
 
I have to say I am mainly disheartened by what I am hearing.  Microsoft is supposedly really trying to push kinnect forwards and get people to put down their controllers, I believe the exact quote was, 'If you like your controller... Well, tough luck! '
 
I want to be 100% clear about this I genuinely hate Kinnect, with a vengence.  I suppose I can see the reason for it - pressure on the games industry for making kids fat, ho hum, well fair enough... I can't see why kids can't go and play outside for a bit, then have a game before bed?  Or when it's raining?  This idea that everyone should be firing up their console, then leaping about the living room knocking ornaments and drinks off causing havoc every time they want to game - I find frankly stupid.  Due to time constraints, I currently tend to find my game time is restricted to 'the witching hour' when wife and two kids are fast asleep and I feel like chancing the fact that my 2 month old son might wake me up in only 2 hours time...
 
I like to sit down in front of the XBOX 360 with a glass of beer, and sit quietly with my headphones on... And I can do that!  What I couldn't do was start throwing myself around the living room, leaping over the coffee table and waking the entire house up!  I also have serious reservations about the accessibility of Kinnect.   The trouble with Kinnect is you need a lot of space to play it.  Okay, games have moved from the bedroom into the living room, but anyone living in a terraced house will only have a 12' x 12' living room... I built my own house and the living room is about 11' x 19' and I don't think there's really enough room to play Kinnect in my living room... So is gaming going to become a luxury for people who can strip a room of furniture and make it into a gaming room or who have 15' x 24' living rooms?  I can see Kinnect might be popular with some people, kids, non-gamers, casual gamers... But I suspect many of these people will eventually want to progress to a gaming with more substance and depth - and at the moment that isn't something covered by Kinnect, and I'd like to think I'll still be able to sit down at night for a game in 5 years time... These elements of the gaming demographic may also get to a stage when the kids have gone to bed, and there's nothing on the television, so they feel like a game - if all that's available is Kinnect games then that might not be possible.
 
So what do I do make the switch and go Sony?  Thanks, but no thanks, this idea that everything has to be 3D is stupid... I really think it needs re-thinking.  I don't want to put some stupid glasses is on to play a game, 3D environments is fine for me... I don't want to have to take two Nurofen before every gaming session to pre-emptively attack the bouts of headaches and nausea...
 
I'm all for innovation and experimentation, but these things can go too far - who can remember the runaway success of the Nintendo Power Glove and Virtual Boy? 
 
What happened to sitting down and making a cracking game?  That's it - no stupid, pointless bizarre way of controlling the action, no really clever new way of presenting the graphics (Anyone remember those Virtual Reality Arcade Games that popped in the 90's?  They stood the test of time...) just a damn good game, with decent graphics, an absorbing story and interesting and solid core mechanics?
 
I suppose it could be that the big companies are going where the money is, or where they percieve it to be.  However I think that's a dangerous move.  The casual gamer, doesn't want to spend part of their regular incomes on games, it's more likely the hobby or hardcore gamer who will pre-order a new release during the middle of the year because they're excited about it - the casual gamer will tend to wait for Christmas or a Birthday, and if they don't get drawn into gaming so they evolve into something of a hobby gamer - then interest tends to wane.  Alot of the casual games and innovation control systems seem to rely on the novelty factor, and novelty wears off.
 
I used to like the SNES, but I really don't like the direction Nintendo took, it followed the money I suppose... And did very well out of it - but I still don't think it's sustainable... Unless I'm wrong and that is the direction that gaming can go in - but it feels like the big three are getting ready to shove us there whether we want it or not.  As the casual game model rises in popularity, complex, in depth lengthy games might become less commercially viable, and where will we be left then?  And sometimes, chasing the money can alienate your customerbase so much it kills your product.
 
I've brought it up time and time again, but I think this is partly what happened with the original Star Wars Galaxies, they wanted the success of WoW (World of Warcraft), they thought they should have more subscribers so they WoW'ified the game.  Nobody left WoW to play Star Wars Galaxies, all that happened was a lot of people left Star Wars Galaxies to play WoW.  How Sony Online Entertainment thought this would work is beyond me, to rush out a more or less entire new game using the old games graphics in six weeks or so - to try and take on a game which was developed over a period of over two years by a company (Blizzard) who basically only release something if it's polished, bug-free and guarunteed to get a metascore of over 85%... 

So I've ranted and bitched about what the big three are doing, what I haven't done is offered an alternative.   I could say I'd like bigger, more complex games with more depth and with branching and fold-back narrative structures - but these are going to be more time-consuming to develop than some stupid 3 screen, motion controlled bowling simulator that is less accurate than telling the time by licking your finger and holding it in the air... But both games will retail at £39.99... If you were developing a game which do you think would be easier to make money with?
 
Really, I'd like to see Video Games seen as a serious art form, and they can be to a degree, Limbo by Playdead is a work of art, you might even argue games like Modern Warfare or LA Noire constitute art in a different way.  
 
Something like 'Kinnect Rafting Adventures' is NOT art... It's a stupid interractive exercise routine that you might enjoy if you are five or don't have all your faculties...
 
We'll see how the rest of the show shapes up, it's my birthday later this week, and I suspect I'm getting LA Noire and Duke Nukem Forever so I should have a good taste of where the games industry is at from that... I'm particularly interested in DNF for the fact that it took so long to develop and it has been ported across about six different 3D engines... LA Noire, I think represents Rockstar maturing and taking things to a new level, at least from what I know about the game - I'm really excited to play both of these titles.... What I'm not excited about is finding out about the latest releases for Kinnect or Wii, if I wanted to jump around the living room,  flailing my arms and legs about, I'd take a few Ecstacy tabs and some LSD, then put some Techno on in the living room and get someone to flick the lightswitch off and on really quickly... And that'd probably be a 'more fun' option...

I've been experiencing an unusual amount of 'gaming frustration' lately... Now what I'm not referring to is the classic frustration of getting stuck at a certain part of a game or being 'fragged into oblivion' on some multiplayer online FPS... Even though that is frustrating as hell... I still remember trying to play Unreal Tournement online for the first time back when that was released... 
 
No, that's not what bothers me.  I don't know why it is, but for me - the act of simply playing games is no longer that appealing.   If it's a very good game, then I can sit and play it - but I tend to very quickly start analysing games without thinking, the core mechanics, the level design, the story-telling engine, the narrative structure, what innovative elements the game has brought to the industry... And then thinking how it could have been made better and what the developers right that made it good.
 
Now normally if you are a gamer, and you like to game - you can go work 9 am - 5pm come home, have some dinner, do your chores, pop out for a pint if you're so inclined then get back in time for a 3 hour gaming session every night and that will probably satisfy you - particularly if there's nothing happening at the weekend, it's tipping it down outside and you end up on an 8 hour extended gaming session on Sunday afternoon... 
 
That's not really floating my boat though... I've been feeling increasingly desperate not just to play, but to critique, create and write about games, gaming and video game culture... I've been following the inception of the Ginx TV channel with interest lately too - I think it's a positive sign of the times that a TV channel dedicated to gaming is even being considered.  The difficulty for Ginx is that their primary demographic of viewers is probably a bunch of people who have a TV, but use it for playing on their XBOX or PS3 more than watching Jeremy Kyle or Eastenders... You've got to produce a content that will lure people away from the activity your giving media coverage.  If it's sports or similar then it's easier - you can't really do sport all the time, most sports require going somewhere to do them, and there tends to be appropriate times, or you need a large group of people organised to do them... Gaming doesn't have that issue, got a console, got a TV, got electricity?  Then you can game.
 
I've been following the presenters competition with interest too, I've even entered myself, even though I'll openly admit I think mine is probably the weakest entry there... The trouble is speaking to a camera and coming across in the right 'positive' way while talking fluidly and naturally is a skill, and it's probably a skill that has to be nurtured.  Unfortunately this is also a skill which I don't have... 
 
Having said that, I don't particularly aspire to be 'face-on-camera' famous... For me, having to stand there and talk to a camera presents a small element of challenge.   I recently did some recording work for a website talking about games development, and that wasn't the easiest thing in the world today - to sound right and pace your speech so it's easy to listen to, to pitch your tone correctly so that you sound enthusiastic but serious enough that you sound like you know what you are talking about... Having said that - it was fun, although the half slot I talked for wasn't really long enough for the game I was talking about.  I didn't script it at all either, and in retrospect I could have maybe organised the talk better if I'd written a simple list of topics to cover in what order - then elaborated on the fly...
 
Some of the entries for the Presenters Competition are now very, very good... And the entrants have an air of professionalism and experience which I'm confident I could never emulate... Similarly some of the other entrants have shown some very impressive video editing skills and production abilities - for my poor entry I had to find some free software I could use and learn it on the fly... I might have another go... But probably not - I'm now finding the quality of certain entries to be too disheartening to think it's worth entering again...
 
In some respects I should be relatively happy, I have what most people would consider an interesting, well paid job, a secure career, wife, two kids, I built my own house... I earn enough money that my wife doesn't have to work... When I have a bit more time I could even venture back to my old pastime of Tae Kwon Do and try to earn that elusive 3rd Dan... Maybe even build a kit car (I want to Build a 600 BHP Ultima Can-Am) once I've built a garage to build it in...  Perhaps try to finish my OU degree ( I guess I'll do that whatever happens.)
 
Life should be good...
 
The trouble is I cannot feel content no matter how hard I would like to, to sit down and play games made by others, complete them, then play another one.  I'm passionate about game development, and I desperately want to influence the way games are created and percieved by the mainstream media.... However I'd have more chance of re-forming 'The Liability Crisis' and taking the Christmas No 1 slot with '2 Girls 1 Bed'than actually getting into a position where this is possible.  
 
The gaming industry is a fickle one to work in, Universities are now offering games development degrees and game design degrees, but these courses are NOT industry recognised.  The only real benefit you get from doing them that I can see is that you will build a portfolio of work that might prove you have some ability, possibly to the point where you can get an internship.
 
The trouble is, lots of young people want to work in games development these days, it's becoming a 'rock-star' job... And despite the fact that games are created to serve peoples desire for fun, they are probably the most difficult applications to develop. If a piece of office software does an invaluable task and there is only one piece of software available to do it, you will sell it en-mass regardless of bugs, glitches and poor graphics, people will tolerate a lot of issues for the right functionality.  A game has to be spot on, and even then it will get slated for the area's where it isn't spot on.  Unless you are massive, well respected games company like Blizzard, Bioware, Valve or similar... You are really going to have to produce something special to get back your development costs.  
 
Due to the current complexity of games, developing games is actually a lot more technically challenging than other types of software.  You can't develop a commercial game in Visual Basic or Java.  It need to run fast or it won't be tolerated - so you have to write it in something like C+ or C# if you are developing with Microsoft XNA for XBOX Live... You have to use the principles of object orientated programming and you need very polished, high quality character models, textures and sounds...  It really can't be buggy, if you write a game that has a bug that prevents people completing it and you don't patch it - then that game is going down in history...  You might need to buy a licence for a physics engine unless you intend to spend even more hours building your own... And that can cost a fortune...
 
Matt Smith coded Manic Miner and Jet Set Willy in his bedroom, on his own, drawing his own sprites... The guy who wrote the Atari 2600 version of ET the Extra Terrestrial was given 6 weeks to complete it from a concept and he worked on it alone (Possibly partly why it's broadly regarded as the worst game of all time.)
 
Games development has changed, and becoming a part of it, getting into such a position where you can influence it is becoming increasingly difficult.  It's maybe partly a good thing, it may improve the respectability and media presence of gaming - and the UK is a big exporter of games, if coding the next blockbuster game was outsourced to development teams in India or China then that would be another industry we've lost to a cheaper labour force and difficulty is one factor that keeps the UK ahead of the game...
 
Aspiring to be in a position where you can even have a voice, and influence games development is just frustrating... More frustrating than trying to beat 'Through the Fire and Flames' on Expert and probably more difficult...

Continuing on the theme of Star Wars Galaxies, just in case I haven't bored you to death enough yet...

I've been having a riot playing SWG EMU on Liberator (Trandoshan called Rissk if you want to hook up.)

The thing is, I'm finding myself doing different things than when I played before.  Back in the day, I had a few alts, Rissk used to be Master Carbineer / Creature Handler, I had a Teras Kasi Master as an alt and a Master Dancer/Musician.

I never really got into the whole 'crafting' thing...

To be honest having started dabbling again, I'm starting to think that was a mistake.  My current plan is to go Master Rifleman/Master Weaponsmith.  I started crafting due to a lack of decent starter weapons and figured I could make some better ones.  I'm at Artisan 3 x x x now and I can make a CDEF Pistol 22 - 45 damage far better than the paltry 9 - 18 you get as a starter.  And there's something very satisfying about experimenting and finding ingredients, then branding and selling your wares to people... The idea that there's little virtual people running about shooting things with virtual weapons, virtually made by your little virtual crafter... 

I'm thinking - find a plot, buy a building and open up shop, stick a few vendors in and advertise it's location.

The thing is, I'm actually involved in a real life business, I design products, market them, sell them hire people, pay wages... And that sort of stuff is kind of neat as it means I can afford to live - but I wouldn't call it fun... Not in the long shot...

So why is this?  How can it be fun to open a virtual business in SWG EMU, when it isn't in real life?

I think the answer is in how easy and accessible it is in a game.  Crafting is very easy, if you have ingredients, you open up the crafting tool and within 8 mouse clicks you've experimented and built a working example.  To do so in real life would take a long time, require the use of tools and be quite physically and mentally demanding.  I wonder in ways if this is what made rythym games like Guitar Hero fun, playing a Guitar is fun to a degree - I used to be in a rock band called the 'Liability Crisis' (Cue embaressing 'Gig video': - Silcon & Soda ) There are more songs but I doubt you'll spend too much time looking for them, even the iconic 'Two Girls One Bed' song... After having heard one...

But playing guitar hero is more fun... I think again it's because it isn't as taxing, it isn't as hard work.

There's maybe an element of risk in business, and that might be a factor, when you've got cash flow issues and sales are down - things might be out of your control and it may have a major impact on your standard of living.  That might also apply to other games, for example FPS war simulations.  We all find the likes of Call of Honour, Medal of Duty and Battlefield Company fun... But would it really be that much run running into a rebel town in the middle of the desert with an SA80 and a few rounds of ammunition - and Taliban guerilla's emerging and raining fire down upon you, injuring you... Possibly forcing you to watch someone you consider a friend die in front of you?

I suppose there's an arguement that making something which simulates this quite macabre and a little vulgar... That's probably why some people are overly sensitive to video game violence, because they don't understand 'the magic circle'.

The subject matter of the game does not matter within the magic circle, within a framework of rules which have no bearing on the real world, the real world shouldn't have any bearing on the game-world.  In the game world you respawn and go frag the person who sniped you... And that's the reality of world in which you play.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's an arguement against making gratuitously violent games, partly because it harms the legitimacy and respect of the video games industry and partly because - let's face it, it can't be that healthy to be simulating certain things even 'within the magic circle' some contenders would be the Manhunt games possibly?  Definately that bizarre Japanese 'Go out and Rape girls' RPG simulator... Whose name eludes me - I find it disturbing that such a game exists.  Is this a double standard?  Maybe it is a little.

I suppose it can be considered in other media too - for example films.  I find the existance of the 'Torture Porn' genre disturbing (Saw Series anyone? Hostel?) but fascinating at the same time... Fascinating not just that these things exist - but they are so inexplicably popular.  I've seen 'The Human Centipede' in some ways it's an awful film, but it's also mesmerising at times...

I believe this is partly why humans take harmful recreational drugs, do extreme sports and play games... It's a scientific fact that humans crave new, exciting experiences...

And that makes sense, a philosopher once said, you can't aspire to have a happy life - but you can aspire to have an interesting one....

I suppose the trick is moderating yourself and making sure it doesn't get out of hand.