Strafed

Let's talk about Strafe for a moment.

Well it's here upon us. After a crowd-funding campaign and an advertising campaign we finally have it. And what do you know? It's getting a lot of bad press, what with glitches, stupid AI, restricting environments and presenting something different from the original promise. The latter in particular: It seems that when the trailer offered something along the lines of Doom or Quake, the finished product was more akin to a roguelike.

Not a good selling point eh?

Personally, looking back at the (in)famous advertising campaign, it seems more laughable than provocative. And therein lies the point where my interest dies down: Considering how much trouble the makers of this game, Bleeding Edge, went to with the adverting campaign, one can't help but feel that they put more effort into it than the actual game.
Personally, as someone who spent much of their teen years in the nineties, I am questioning whether Bleeding Edge really speak from experience. Did they really play the right games? Or are they selling a fantasy? You see, I can safely say that, back in 1996, whilst there was some strong interest in Doom and Quake, they weren't THE game. You know what I'm talking about: THE game that everyone had, and everyone was falling over themselves to get a hold of and play to death.

No, back in 1996, THE game was this:

Original video located here. Accessed 19th May 2017

Quaking in my boots

Another announcement emerging from this year's E3 is that the Quake IP is being dusted off and being revamped as a new game. I suppose all 90's IP's are having that done to them so such news shouldn't come as a surprise. But such news would be a good enough excuse to talk about my own experiences with Quake.

I will be blunt: When I first came across the first Quake in the mid-nineties I wasn't thrilled. Far from it: I HATED it. At the time, I played Doom a lot and was impressed by Duke Nukem 3d's pushing the envelope of what a 3d shooter could do. That being said, Quake looked old and tired.
Growing with games, I learned a vital lesson from a early age: Amazing graphics can't make a game on it's own, for it needs engaging gameplay to back it up. And that was the problem I had with Quake: It just looked like Doom but with a new coat of paint. But this new coat of paint wasn't that remarkable what with drab colors and an overdose of green. Furthermore, it was baffling as to why people talked up the graphics when the character designs looked dull and hideous. Therefore I never could grasp why people were ecstatic about this game.
Eventually my hostility towards Quake softened in three fronts: 1) I discovered the mod Navy Seals Quake and found it much more enjoyable, 2) I played Quake 2 a lot and found it a much more tense, exciting and satisfying experience next to it's predecessor and 3) One can't disagree with the thrill of playing Quake deathmatches on a LAN. Still, why people revere Quake like they do is something that still eludes me.

So unlike Doom or Duke 3d, I have no real attachment to Quake. Will I pay any attention to this new game? Well, I would be interested to see if something new will be done - if anything.
But most likely I will see this game becoming yet another faceless shooter in an ocean of them and dragging the name of a once glorious IP down with it.

To be brutality honest...

Much of the past week has been devoted to revisiting a classic in the form of Doom. So what's the occasion? Well, thanks to a certain game reviewer, I have been made aware of a mod called Brutal Doom. I've had a crack at it and have been significantly blown away by how dramatically Doom has been changed by this mod. Even more impressive is that it was the work of one guy.

But really I cannot emphasize how different Doom has become with this mod: Mouse aiming; Better weapons; the necessity of reloading; A jump function (A JUMP FUNCTION!!!); Marine NPCs; Finishing moves and so much more that talking about it seems awfully redundant.
Indeed it is fascinating on how this mod gives this a game twenty one years old a new lease of life.

Now whilst I have, over the past few months, been indulging in the miracles that the modding community can provide, this is however not the first time I've tried a FPS mod. That honor would go to Navy Seals Quake. Has anyone heard of this? I played this in high school - within a year of Quake's original release no less - and was impressed by the changes made. This involved the demons replaced with human enemies, a reload function and more emphasis on tactical action rather than brainless shooter action.

And much like Brutal Doom, I found Navy Seals Quake so much an improvement over the original game that it wasn't funny. You see, I was unimpressed with the original Quake - I saw it as Doom but with a new coat of paint what with the Demonic enemies, Hell motifs and puzzling level design. Thus I couldn't understand why many people at the time were turning cartwheels over it. Thus, coming across Navy Seals Quake I, and many of my friends at the time, found it far more appealing. Indeed, it should be noted that Navy Seals Quake eschewed the then mindless action trends of FPS and adopted a more realistic approach to the genre - well before Half Life took that concept and ran with it.

My general approach to mods is that they offer new content (but even that is a challenge trying to find some quality in amongst the mud) and they offer to correct 'mistakes' (if you can call it that) that hinder the original game. Indeed, having played Brutal Doom I'm now wondering how the hell I managed to get by on the original - which goes to show that sometimes a new coat of paint isn't enough and sometimes repairs made also be required to renew interest in an old game.
If anything I would rather play Brutal Doom than the latest incarnation of the Call of Duty series any day.

Steam Inaction

Here's a theory I came across: As Steam has so many games that are readily available and for real cheap, the Steam user would actually spend more time collecting games than actually playing them.
Put simply: The Steam user will always have 36% of the games in their library unplayed.

So how does my Steam library look next to this theory? Well, at time of writing, I have 40 games. Half of which are unplayed. While that is far from the proposed 36% it does raise the question of why some games are unplayed. Well takes a look at some the games I have in my Steam library and try find an explanation or two as to why they've gone untouched:

Analogue: a Hate Story
I was curious about this game largely to it's reputation in having a strong narrative. However after I made the purchase, I found out it was a game made by a lesbian for the LBGT community - which kinda made me situated outside the intended audience. Oh well...

Counter-Strike (with Condition Zero)
Purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have. At least I take comfort in knowing I got it on sale...

Enclave
Purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon.

Half Life (with Blue Shift and Opposing Force)
Purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have.

Hamilton's Great Adventure
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon (hey can you say no to a 90% discount?!).

Larva Mortus
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon

Left 4 Dead 2
In a case of being in the right place at the right time, I have those purely out of being offered as a freebie  one time

Papers Please
Heard it was awesome but have yet to get around to playing it...

Psychonauts
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon

Quake (with Ground Zero and The Reckoning)
Again, purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have. Mind you, i did play this a lot back in the day most likely I'll have a tough time taking it seriously now....

Sid Meier's Civilisation 4
Because when you buy the PC verison, for some reaosn you get the Mac version as well for some reason

Sid Meier's Civilisation 5
Unplayed largely due to it's reputation for being forever doomed to remain in it's predecessors' shadow

Looking back at what I've written, it seems a pattern has emerged: A large number of the games mentioned above have been purchased out of obligation. So is this is where gaming is headed? A sense of obligation? Where owning big library is more important than making use of it's contents? Where by making sure you use one product (however so) to a point where all else is of little consequence (World of Warcraft anyone?)?

Cooperation makes it happen

Today I want to talk about Co-op gaming.

Having lived through many years of gaming it’s been fascinating to see how co-op gaming has evolved. At first, co-op gaming was a popular idea: during the eighties to early nineties, co-op gaming was essential during the era of the arcade game. Having trouble trying to beat any particular game? Don’t worry, get a friend and the playing field is leveled! You’ve got someone to watch your back and to develop strategies with! This mentality then carried over into the consoles and computers people had at home. Indeed, it was certainly satisfying to struggle with one game – only to have a much easier time once you talked someone else into helping you out.
And better still, if you had two more friends you could form a team and go up against the computer – as the popularity of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade (and it’s successors) proved.
In retrospect the arcade era was co-op gaming at it’s finest.

But alas it couldn’t last forever: Because, according to history, the likes of Quake and Doom dominated the mid-to-late nineties era of gaming. Suddenly everyone can play games against each other over LANs and everyone has their own computer screen.
And it’s funny how the attitude towards co-op gaming not only turned around but so drastically: based on my own experiences, everyone loved playing against each other over LANs – to the point where the mere suggestion of a co-op game would result in being laughed out of the room.
Why is this so? Maybe because, following on from the arcade era, everyone realized arcade games are essentially a money thief and thus obsolete. Or maybe the computer AI wasn’t efficient enough to cater for more than one person. But the most likely reason is that there was a certain satisfaction in blowing away a human opponent – This was, after all, the era that spawned the term deathmatch.
During this era of gaming, I personally both tried co-op and deathmatch gaming. I found the former to be due and the latter to be trampled upon by someone who knew what they were doing (Stadium level of Duke Nukem 3D anyone?).

However in recent years  it seems that co-op gaming is enjoying something of a resurgence. Mostly due to online gaming where many people can come together and work together to achieve a goal. Of course deathmatches are still the sole domain of LAN parties, but it certainly is satisfying to see that people realizing, again, that to beat a game it helps to have someone watching your back. Indeed, it makes for an interest contrast where co-op gaming builds friendships while deathmatches wrecks friendships.

This presents an interesting question: is there a future for co-op gaming? It can be argued that once you beat a game, with or without help, there’s not much left to it. Indeed, with what could well be the king of gaming co-op, World of Warcraft, that has lasted so long through it being well-designed and having a stream of regular updates added to it. It is doubtful that there will ever be an end to co-op gaming in WoW considering the amount of quests available and the time it takes to get to (at time of writing) level 90. But ultimately World of Warcaft is a MMPORG: Which is more or less a complete genre where co-op gaming is a dominating force - much like how deathmatches dominate LAN parties. In a way it seems MMPORG gaming seems much like an evolution from the co-op gaming that was the arcade era.

I’ve seen certain games trying to carry the standard for co-op gaming in a different manner (Resident Evil 5 being one such example) but is there much point? For, as established above, the attention of the gamer can only last so long and the lasting power of a co-op game seems reliant on how much new material can be delivered. Furthermore, a co-op game truly works when the players have to work together and each player can provide something unique that contributes to victory. And to find examples of this, one has to look back to the arcade/early-nineties era. The best example of co-op done right is the Chaos Engine – for the unfamiliar, it was about guiding a two man team against a horde of mutants and really emphasized the co-op nature with each selectable character having unique weapons and abilities and both players being rated on how much they contributed to the objective.

Also noteworthy is the arcade game Crackdown where two players operated separately in laying bombs in a monster-filled maze before time ran out – it works because the two players were working for the same goal and could operate without being joined at the hip (something that should any potential co-op games should consider in their design scheme).

So it would seem co-op games can work – it just requires a lot of thought and some clever design. And as nay gamer will tell you any clever design will win anyone over. Even those who aren’t normally associated with any particular gaming genre.

Fun With LANs

Back in the mid-to-late-nineties I was in high school - back then many of my fellow students gathered in the computer labs and played deathmatches against each other.

Now, I'm studying a course in IT where many of my classmates are spending their lunch hours playing Quake 2 deathmatches against each other via Virtualbox.

Some things never change...