So I bought Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar this past week. I don’t really know why I didn’t buy it at release, other than that I was busy playing Wii and finishing up with the semester right as it came out.

My first impressions of the game are very positive; I’m not really noticing anything particularly new or groundbreaking at this point, but the things they’ve decided to do, they’ve done well. The graphics and gameplay feel comfortable; I like the combat system as well as the variety of mobs to fight as a newbie. The quests seem to be very coherent, leading the player from one area to another seamlessly. I started as human, so I’ve gotten to know Archet pretty well (mostly since I rerolled at 10 to join a friend on another server).

One thing I’m really liking about the game so far is the Deeds system. It’s really a good way to keep mundane grinds as fresh as possible, rewarding the player for killing 30 of a certain kind of mob, then 60 more of the same mob. The ability to earn titles is one of my favorite aspects of RPGs and one of the things that I absolutely hated about World of Warcraft. What better way to immediately differentiate yourself from your fellow players than by having a little something extra in your name? I find it works especially well at higher levels when the titles are excessively hard to earn.

The graphics of this game are a huge selling point to me. Not necessarily because they’re the best or the most realistic, but because the theme of the game fits with the graphics so well. One peeve I have regarding EverQuest II is that the character model graphics are good, the world graphics are good, but they’re both good in different ways. It’s totally incoherent to play under those conditions, so it’s a big breath of fresh air to be in an online world where everything meshes so well. The close-up graphics are very good as well, giving it the edge over World of Warcraft and Guild Wars.

One interesting thing that took me by surprise during the character creation process was the lack of caster classes - it makes sense, because there is not much lore in Tolkien’s work to make a basis for spellcasting, at least at the beginning of the game.

These are just my first impressions of the game. I’m still waiting to see how I like the development of my character, the progress of the quests, and the difficulty and stickiness of the game in general. I’m still in the first area finishing up all of the deeds I can, but after that, things are looking pretty bright from here!

I’m on Nimrodel, playing as a Champion named Maegoth if you want to look me up!

To start this one off, I’d like to just apologize for the lack of updates this week, as I was at a friend’s house at Flathead Lake celebrating the fourth of July! There should be more continuity in the articles to come.

I’ve been thinking about cross-system gaming lately after seeing some perky advertisements for games for PC that you can play against people on consoles. The whole idea of playing on a computer with a keyboard and mouse against someone with only a controller has been bugging me all week; I’ve come up with a couple points I’d like to share, as well as a couple of questions I’d like to get feedback on.

First of all: Is playing a game with a keyboard and mouse versus someone with only a controller fair?

I think this is one of the most important things about this question is the hidden one which lies underneath: which genre of game are we talking about? For example:

Playing an RPG without a keyboard isn’t really as “unfair” as it is “inconvenient”; you can move the similarly (if not more naturally) with a typical current-generation controller than with a mouse, but your communication options are severely limited. Since a big part (the biggest, if you ask me) of the online RPG experience is the community and your place within it, not being able to express your thoughts and ideas to others in an efficient way is a big deterrent. To give an example of the console/computer contrast, consider this: I used to love playing Phantasy Star Online for my Dreamcast. Before I bought a keyboard to go with it, communication was barely in real-time (canned phrases and a completely horrendous keyboard “thing” were available). Politeness, courtesy, and casual conversation were generally not possible, as they were regarded as a waste of precious play time. Getting a keyboard changed the entire game in this respect; it took the game to a whole new level socially.

To compare, playing a first-person shooter without a keyboard and mouse against others with them, in my opinion, could never really be fair or convenient. There are so many different key combinations on the keyboard for hot keys and the mouse is so conducive to aiming that even newer players could take out skilled console-FPS players with relative ease. Maybe adding things like auto-aim and the ability to adjust the sensitivity on the control stick can bring the playing field to a more equitable equilibrium, but I think the overarching benefits of keyboard and mouse FPS gaming outweigh any that the console could dish out. Anyone who’s played an FPS with a tightly-tuned sensitivity setting on their mouse will tell you about how fast they can spin 180 degrees by flicking their mouse, a luxury not really possible on the stiff control stick of the console.

Having said all of that, I realize that there are keyboard and mouse controllers available for many of today’s consoles. Going back to the Dreamcast: if I remember correctly, Quake III included the ability to play on non-Dreamcast servers, meaning that Dreamcast players could play against people with keyboards and mice on PCs. Of course, Dreamcast had a special mouse and keyboard which could be bought, and after that the game was bearable and even fun at times.

To be sure, there are many other genres to be considered here, but since I have a preference for the two listed above, I’ll keep the discussion focused there for now (in the interest of time!).

Second: Even if both parties have access to the equipment, are there any benefits to playing on a specific system?

This is where the issue hits home: if you own both a decent gaming computer and a current-gen console and the game is available for both systems, which one do you buy, assuming you’ve got the keyboard, mouse, and any other relevant peripherals? If there were no obvious benefits either way, it seems like we could expect a 50/50 split between what people buy. For 100 people in this situation, the company will sell 50 games for the console, and 50 games for the PC.

So what’s the result? What are the differences, if any, that would change it from a 50/50 split? Apart from the “I’ve already bought the keyboard, mouse, and all of these other relevant peripherals, so I may as well buy the console version” logic, what drives this decision? The longevity of the console versus the PC? What do you think?

Most importantly: what does the convergence of gaming equipment between the console and the PC mean for the future of each? (That is, if we all have keyboards, mice, and everything else on our computers and our consoles, what does it mean to be playing on a console versus playing on a PC?)

Many of my favorite memories from my Nintendo 64-playing days come from that land of Hyrule made so masterfully into 3-D in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. I remember stepping into Hyrule field for the first time, thinking how amazingly vast the plain before me was. It was the first time that Hyrule had been cast into the third dimension, and the result was stunning. I still remember how “realistic” I thought everything was back then (and, really, compared to all that had come before, it was realistic). Many gamers can probably relate to all of the possible nostalgic sensations I could describe when I talk about this game, but that’s not the point of this discussion. The fact that Ocarina of Time was such a break-away hit and left such a good taste in so many gamer’s mouths was what I had in mind when I recently sat down and bought all of the Zelda games for sale in my Wii’s virtual console. Reality, however, had other plans.

I ended up buying The Legend of Zelda, Zelda II: Adventure of Link, and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. When I first sat down with Zelda and Zelda II, I had forgotten how hideous the games on NES really were. The Wiimote bears a striking resemblance to the old NES squared-off controller once you turn it sideways, which was a nice treat for the eyes, but actually playing the games was a different story. I was quickly reminded why all of the old Nintendo consoles had “select” as a button on their controllers: you had to use it, and often. I’ll admit my attention span only lasted for about 30 minutes on each of the two NES games, but that was all I needed to remind myself that sometimes it’s better to let the past be past, and realize that the reason people play games on consoles like the Wii and the PS2 is because they’ve made so many improvements along the way. People don’t like pressing select, they’d rather use the arrow keys: thus, newer games use the arrow keys. OK, fine, $10 is an acceptable loss in this case. At least the logo channels will look good on my Wii’s dashboard.

Before I began playing Ocarina, I wondered if I would have a similar experience: maybe after having played Twilight Princess and Wind Waker, Ocarina of Time wouldn’t be very fun. With this in mind, I clicked the OoT channel with the Wiimote and began to play. Of course, with all Nintendo 64 games on the Virtual Console, you’ve got to use the “Classic” controller as they’ve labeled it; some kind of bastard child cross-breed of a nintendo 64 controller and a gamecube controller. It fits in the hand well, yes, but the controls are different enough from the original game to merit 10 to 20 minutes just to retrain your brain. It was amazingly hard to adjust to the new buttons, but the real test came with the movement of the character using the Classic Controller’s left thumbstick. The right thumbstick replaces the yellow ‘c’ buttons on the Nintendo 64 controller, and the change is nice. It makes it very easy to slide between any two of the yellow buttons, which is useful in some situations for the game.

The left thumbstick, the one which controls the movement of Link, is way too fast compared to the Nintendo 64 version. I don’t know what they did, or what they were thinking, but there is a subtle change here (I plugged in my Nintendo 64 and popped OoT into the cartridge slot just to be sure) and the stick is far more sensitive than the N64’s ever was. I suppose, if I had to, I would attribute the new sensitivity to the fact that the technology in the controller mechanism itself has greatly improve, and the controller I used to play OoT 10 years ago was probably a little worn out itself (not to mention that I’d spent so many hours playing on that thing that it seemed like second nature).

The game itself is exactly the same (so are the original NES versions), but this time we have a wireless controller (the classic controller plugs into the bottom of the Wiimote, and the Wiimote is wireless), some extra buttons on the classic controller itself, and the benefit of a “Home” button that we can use to get back to the Wii dashboard (N64 didn’t have a dashboard, so turning the console off after saving was the next best thing).

To be sure, I’m still making my way through the vast expanses of Hyrule to defeat Ganondorf (if only so I can then play Majora’s when it comes out on the console, and then wind waker, and then twilight princess with some continuity), but it’s going a touch slower than it went when I played the first time through. The magic is still there, but it’s harder to get into the game when the graphics aren’t so cutting-edge. For $10 (1000 Wii points), the game is a worthwhile investment, since it’s held to be one of the best games ever made by many authorities.

So, while Nintendo has done an excellent job recapturing the Ocarina in this case (the smoothness of play on the Wii is notable) with their new controller, they’ve missed something in terms of capturing the time that the game first came out. That exact magic felt when first entering the game may be elusive, but playing the game through once more on your Wii will feel a hell of a lot better than simply dwelling on it.

A recent recommendation from a friend has led to some fun-filled nights since I’ve downloaded and started playing Dofus, an MMORPG created by Ankama Games which is based on the fundamentals of play that make this genre so popular. The game is made entirely in Flash, but don’t let that fact scare you away! The game must be downloaded to your computer, and will run regardless of whether you’ve got the Macromedia Flash plugin installed for your browsers (it’s bundled with it’s own). The game itself has an impressively large download size (measuring in at over 100Mb, more than 5 times larger than Second Life, which I found interesting). I would imagine that the large download size comes from the fact that the game includes so much static art rather than textures which are simply applied to geometry. More on that later.

From the beginning, I was taken aback by how well-done the art in the game is. The game itself uses a viewpoint system similar to Diablo, except that the camera remains fixed at the center of the current map zone. The character is able to move to any point in the current zone, and can pick any of the exit points to move to another area. All of the enemies and NPCs in the world are 2-D sprites with extremely colorful and artistic textures and animations. The entire game feels like being stuck in one of the happiest episodes of Pokemon you’ve ever seen. Art seems to be a big part (and a major selling point) of this game, and the designers clearly have no qualms about showing off their artistry whenever they can.

The entire user interface is very playful, and doesn’t merit even the slightest bit of tweaking (which is good, because no tweaking is allowed). The spell effects, map, battle sequences, spell book, inventory, and pretty much any other facet of the user interface or noticeable gameplay features are brilliantly illustrated. Though it’s 2-D and may not have the latest pixel shaders and per-pixel lighting, this game does not leave one wanting graphically.

The music in the game is very pleasing to the ear, if somewhat repetitive. Truth be told, I have been standing around quite often, taking notes in my trusty black journal, which causes me to be in one place longer than an average player would likely stay, so that could be the cause. The music fits the light-hearted theme of the game very well, but the combat music is almost too friendly. Even in a happy game, I believe, the music should be somewhat nefarious. You are, after all, battling some hideously evil creature who is threatening your cheerful, carefree way of life!

The game starts off gently with an introduction to combat without the risk of being eaten alive on the first encounter. It’s very good that they give you this opportunity to the learn the basics of the combat system, otherwise one would likely be slaughtered by the smallest of animals while facing the clock in a first “for real” battle. In combat, players are positioned randomly relative to their enemy, and are given a small intermediate period before combat begins to move to a more desirable position. After clicking ‘ready’, the turns alternate between the player and the enemy (and whoever else happens to be in the battle), continuing until either the friendly or the opposing team is eliminated.

In the first levels of the game, the player and the enemy are allowed to move 3 squares, using up what the game has called “Movement Points” as they do. The point of this is to get closer to (or farther from) an enemy in order to use certain abilities. All abilities have a range, and are useless against a foe unless they are within this range. During this same turn, the new player is allotted 6 AP (Ability Points), which can be used in varying combinations to deliver an attack sequence to the enemy. After all MP (Movement Points) and AP are used up, it’s time to “Skip turn” and let the enemy have his.

Out of combat, lost health can be recovered very quickly by sitting down. Health will not regenerate while standing or moving, so it’s a good idea to relax, sit down, and maybe chat a couple of friends while you’re waiting for your next battle. You know, the kind of thing you’d be expected to do in such a carefree place even in real life.

While I won’t claim much knowledge about the grouping system itself, there is an interesting aspect of social battle that is worth mentioning: you can join other people’s battles yourself, and there is no noticeable experience reduction for doing so. I joined a few people during their battles, and it was an interesting experience. While I like this feature of the game, it seems as if it could get very annoying very quickly. Having random people join your battles and then having them stand around and not click “Skip turn” when they’re doing very little (or, worse yet, not doing anything at all) would be frustrating. Luckily, all turns are timed, and I believe the longest you ever have to wait for a single person is 30 seconds.

All in all, this game is fun and I’m excited to play it a bit further and see where my character goes. I’ve left the newbie zone and have entered what appears to be the main map, which is an excruciating 64×119 grid, meaning that plenty of adventure, humor, and intrigue is waiting my online appearance tonight.

Citing an increasingly complex economy as well as the wants of major in-game corporations and the need for growth and long-term prosperity for all within the game world, CCP (the company who produces EVE Online) has recently hired a full-time in-game economist.

The mission of this economist, a one Dr. Eyjólfur Guðmundsson of the University of Akureyri, Iceland, is to implement his talents as an experimental economist and provide the gaming community at large with economic reports on such factors as inflation, economic growth, and price trends.

In the real world, economic information is the cornerstone for our daily business; everyone takes note when news on inflation, production and interest rates are announced and traders try to predict beforehand what the news will be. There is a constant game between the market and authorities on predicting each other’s move and for that everyone needs information. Though EVE is a virtual world, the basic needs are the same. Players, designers and the company leaders at CCP will all benefit from having a central figure to monitor inflation and trends and provide a focused insight into what is happening within that virtual world so that everyone can make better decisions.

Furthermore, EVE’s economist lists among his duties “coordinating research cooperation with academic institutions as the academic world has expressed quite an interest in doing research on this phenomenon.”

So, he’s there to provide services analogous to those of the Chairman of the Board of Governers of the United States Federal Reserve. It seems like this is a very good indication of what we can expect to see of MMO producers in the future. Listing a full-time or on-board economist in the credits of your next favorite MMO doesn’t seem to be a very far-fetched notion any longer.

EVE has a larger persistent world, often housing over 25 thousand players at a time on one server, but would other games with many servers and smaller populations on each find need for a person specializing in providing information services regarding the state of monetary affairs within the game’s economy? This is a question that will have to be left for time to tell.

CPP Dr. EyjoG’s first blog entry on the EVE Online website can be read here.

I started talking yesterday about dying in today’s MMO games. I labeled it as “Part 1″, though I wasn’t really sure what I would write for the second part. I knew, however, that writing the first article would get me thinking about it, and I would probably have at least something more to add later on. Well, after stewing on the issue for a little while yesterday and this morning, I have that little extra something to add: Part 2!

I made an effort yesterday to point out why I don’t believe that a death penalty exists to “add playtime” to the game, for any reason. I’d like to clarify this point and, at the same time, chance my stand on the issue a bit. I said yesterday that there are plenty of ways to force (whatever it means to be “forced” in an online world) players to play a bit longer and thus increase your subscription, but I don’t believe that death is one of them. I still believe this. However, coupled with a larger world, longer quests, a more detailed and consistent set of background lore to fulfill, and longer battles, a death penalty could serve to increase the playtime of many people. The glory of the MMO generation is that if your game has even a slightly large population, having this increase in playtime applied to everyone uniformly would add up to a very respectable total. So, to be sure, I don’t believe that death on its own is more than a negligible contribution to additional playtime (at least for the majority of a given playerbase, who will quit the game after reaching the cap level).

If not to benefit the greedy capitalists, what are death penalties for, anyway?

Well, to answer this, I think it’s good to start with some of the responses from the original mmorpg.com forum thread that started this whole discussion in the first place.

First idea, put forth by an mmorpg.com user:

I don’t know about most people but I like death penelty because of the feeling that if I lose I’ll actually lose which makes me play better and actually gives me a bit of a rush when pvp as apposed to other games were I lose nothing so theirs no reason for me to feel like I need to stay alive Hope thats clear

First of all, that sentence is so long that I drifted off in the middle of it. I started watching this video, which, as bad as the video was, was a better investment of time than trying to decipher that sentence.

First idea:

For many folks the thrill in the game comes from the risk of loss….the great the loss, the more fun they have….

This is an idea that was brought up many times during this discussion, and I feel it’s a very important point to consider in its various forms. MMO and RPG developers were once (or are still) MMO and RPG players themselves. Wouldn’t that somehow imply, then, that they are putting their ideas and visions of the perfect MMO or RPG into play during the game’s creation? Vanguard may not have been the best game ever*, it was Brad McQuaid’s ultimate vision, and for him, probably one of the best RPGs he’ll ever play (err, that’s up for debate).

If we know this, then we can surmise that the reason for a death penalty at all (and the reason your character doesn’t simply stand up again after death) may be to impose some kind of heightened sense of accomplishment for not dying. It’s a simple concept, really. You’re in a battle that will push the limits of your level and your skill. If you die, you know you are going to lose your last hour or so of work, and you’re going to have to run back and perhaps brave this area again. If you die, you’re going to be very unhappy, and perhaps even frustrated with the game or with your course of actions. However, if you live, you’re going to be equally as happy, your body will release those lovable endorphins, and you’ll become even further drawn into the world of psychological addiction** and intrigue that is MMO gaming. So yes, the original idea is a good one, and could perhaps be a compelling reason for a death penalty. As anyone in economics, finance, or gaming will tell you: with no risk comes no reward (except, as pointed out to me by a friend, in riskless money markets, where the reward is ~5% APY).

Second idea, not really an idea, but I’ll talk about it anyway:

Losing exp is no fun […] Losing gear? I can’t get down with that. […] Running back to my corpse isnt really much of a penalty. Neither is paying for armor repairs, even though it could get expensive after many deaths.

Ah, this person touches on something that many MMO players, especially new ones and those in “denial” (they won’t acknowledge that an online society is just as complex as a “real” life one, whatever that even means) don’t realize. Time is money, so losing experience and having to pay for repairs are fundamentally one and the same. However, and I think many people will agree with me on this, I think that repair costs are far less psychologically and emotionally taxing on a player than an experience loss. Experience loss is one of the most horrific things that can happen to you as a player. There’s some big, evil hang that reaches into your character and takes what you’ve earned. Not fun. Paying repairs, however, can be normalized to the point where, at least when the servers are new, the time it takes to make the money to repair is the same as the amount of time it takes to earn back that lost XP. Of course, in a game like WoW, where there’s only repair costs and no experience loss, the effect diminishes greatly for alts, wherein the player’s main can fund almost unlimited repairs for the alt with only a nominal time investment.

Maybe EQ2 hit the nail on the head with their system: repairs, which are expensive but not horrendously so, and a system of experience “debt” wherein the player earns only half of their regular experience. That way, nothing is taken from the player directly, and the time investment can be smoothed out over hours of play. There’s no interruption of the “moving forward” aspect of the game that most people are so fond of.

Third idea:

It keeps people from being complete idiots in groups.

This is a good one — imposing a penalty for death means that, in a group, imposing your lack of skills on your teammates will result in not only wasting your time, but their’s as well. No one likes the guy in the group who keeps wiping them. In all fairness, there are more situations in a group in which people are likely to die, but the cause is usually reasonably transparent. To me, this is one of the most compelling reasons for a death penalty. With an online society like is present in most MMOs, getting a name for yourself as being bad in a group is not the kind of reputation you want. This is more of a “social darwinist” perspective on the situation, but I think that, out of the reasons outlined in Part 1 and Part 2, this is the most fundamental to the online experience.

Anyway, this post is dragging on somewhat, so I’ll gather my thoughts and maybe there’ll be a part 3 that’s actually interesting!

*millions agree
**not scientifically proven… yet

There’s was an interesting discussion a few days back in the MMORPG.com forums called “why death penalty?“, and it started quite a long discussion regarding what death and the death penalties in RPGs are meant to do.

Among some straight-up idiotic answers were a few gems interspersed throughout the 4 pages of the thread, and they were summarized in this community spotlight at the same site.

One interesting thing to note about popular reaction to this question was the common occurrence of the (in my opinion) “cop out” answer of “it makes you play longer so the developers get more money”. Well, I personally think that’s complete garbage. First, if you die, let’s assume it takes one hour to get back to where you were before it happened (in my experiences, that’s a generously large number for a player with any skill or focus at all). This could be corpse retrieval, regrinding to recoup an experience loss, or myriad other things. Now, assume that a player dies once every 5 hours of play. That means, then, that they’re accomplishing 4 hours of leveling for every 5 hours of play. I think that’s another reasonable number for a moderate player (the kind developers would so easily trick). Now, if it takes 10 days to reach the maximum level, that’s 240 hours of play time, or 288 hours (accounting for the time lost to death (240/5) + 240). A moderate player could be assumed to play 3 hours per day. That means it takes him 80 days of playing to get to cap, and 16 days of playing to recoup his losses from death. What subscriptions do you know of where a developer would be willing to implement a system as complex as a balanced death penalty for an additional amount of time that won’t even have the person buying an additional month of play? (Even if they died twice as often, it would amount to 32 days, which would yield them only an additional $15 per player… or none at all if you consider today’s free-to-play and box-to-play games).

As far as I’m concerned, there are better ways to make the player use those extra 48 hours over the course of their entire game lifetime. Writing 20 new quests would probably take a staff member (who is probably paid less than a developer anyway) less time than implementing a system like this, and I think many would agree that spending 48 hours doing 20 quests would be far more fun than spending 48 hours trying to get back to where they were.

Now, this isn’t to say that I’m not a supporter of the death penalty (*insert comedy track*), but I think that we as gamers can come up with better reasons than this.

One of my favorite answers (or, justifications if you will) is the concept of risk versus reward. If there’s no death penalty, then, to some degree, loot becomes meaningless. If you are able to zerg the same area with one person, with two people (with 40 people?) then eventually, by chance, we should expect something good out of it. How many times have you seen that sad sorry sole grinding on mobs that are 15 levels higher than him, dying every few minutes, but coming out better in the long haul because he’s getting bigger experience hits and a tad more loot per mob than his more reasonable counterparts. If there were no death penalty, this person would be able to do this all the time, without worrying about having to spend the little extra money he’s gaining or losing some other, more permanent aspect of his game experience (maybe his time).

With a death penalty, however, this situation becomes less and less believable. One of the common implementations of death penalty is some version of “losing your stats temporarily”. This happens on timers in some games (WoW), conditions in others (EQ2, getting your shard), and in other games you simply have to deal with it and earn the stats back through mob killing (Guild Wars). Well, if little johnny adventurous was having trouble killing that mob 15 levels higher than him when he was at full stats, then killing it with a big debuff is not going to be an option. So, in that regard, death penalty is a good way to implement further balance controls.

Another reason for the death penalty is the one I like to call the “Darnwinian Death Penalty Theory” and it goes something like this:

Be honest with yourself and decide, is it better to be a high level character that anyone can create and achieve (even the stupid and inept) or high level in a system where it takes strategy, planning and skill to get there.

.

Like most, the theory is good, but doesn’t really have as big a place in the real world as it should. How many truly inept people and poor players are still able to get to the level caps and into the bigger end-game guilds? If a player dies more, and it takes a little more time to get back to where they were, all they have to do is play that much more every day in order to keep up with the big dogs. They’ll get to cap just the same as everyone else, it just might take them a bit longer. Anyone who’s ever been in a raiding guild will tell you about the completely inept people who somehow wormed their way through the system.

So, I don’t agree with this theory. Maybe we could rephrase it as:

Be honest with yourself and decide, is it better to have a high level character quickly that anyone can create and achieve (even the stupid and inept) or high level quickly in a system where it takes strategy, planning and skill to get there.

Only to the first wave of people in a given game will the death penalty really matter in this context.

This discussion isn’t over! Stick around for the next part of the extremely engaging series: Death in the RPG!

While Resident Evil: 4 is not a new game by any stretch of the imagination (released originally in 2005 for the Gamecube), it’s recent release for the Nintendo Wii has stirred up fans and newcomers alike, putting it at the top of sales charts everywhere its opening weekend. We got hold of a copy, sat down and played it, and were just as amazed as everyone else at how good this game is after 2 years.

This isn’t a full review, as the game is aging by all standards; instead, it focuses on the differences between the Gamecube and Wii versions of the game, commenting on the strengths of the wiimote as a complement to the already-engaging gameplay. The graphics and sound in the game have remained constant to the Gamecube version, which is kind of a bummer. At the same time, it means that this title is available for a cool $29.99 from most retailers, making it a great snag and a completely worthwhile addition to any Wii collection. Think of it as buying a better controller for your Gamecube version!

Without any introduction, the game starts out on the menu screen, with a noted lack of crosshair that we’re used to controlling in most Wii menus. Selection is made either with the thumb pad or with the nunchuck control stick, and confirmation is made, of course, with A.

The game itself starts out with Leon investigating a small, worn-down house in the middle of nowhere in Spain. Control is given to the player without any introduction, a strange move considering that most games coddle through the use of the controller, especially on the Wii.

The controls feel extremely natural, and the trade-off between the ability to move and the ability to shoot doesn’t seem nearly as restrictive on the Wii as it did on the Gamecube. The fluidity of the aim is another solid point: it really gives the effect of aim-and-shoot, rather than “hit the control stick and pray”. The one part of the game that I am still having trouble controlling fully is the “auto”-knife ability that is also exclusive to the Wii version. Regularly, one must press the c button on the nunchuck in order to equip the knife. The Wii edition includes the option to simply swing the Wiimote back and forth, simulating a slashing motion, which will cause Leon to perform the same move in the game. This is a very good way to do things, in my opinion; however, my problem is always that I’ve got the B button pressed down to aim, and swinging the Wiimote around in such a fashion causes my camera to look either sharply down or sharply up. Again, this is player error, but I would suspect that other people have this problem. I think I’m just a little too trigger happy.

Firing is acheived by pressing down B to aim, and then hitting A when desired. Reloading is implemented very skillfully by Nintendo: simply hold down B to aim and shake the Wiimote. Impressive.

Movement is performed using the control stick of the nunchuck, and is extremely fluid. One aspect of movement that the game (much to my dismay) does not include is the ability to sidestep, or strafe. I’ve grown rather accustomed to this type of movement during my time playing any game involving a gun, so it was sorely missed during the first hour or so of play. The Z button of the nunchuck can be used to perform a quick 180 degree turn, a complete lifesaver throughout the game, and one of the quickest ways to cover a lot of real estate with your crosshair in a short amount of time.

The inventory is accessed by hitting -, and the items within can be manipulated by pressing + and moving them around with the control stick on the nunchuck. Items can be rotated using the c button.

One important thing to note (and one of my favorite parts of the game) is the use of the Wiimote in a context-sensitive setting during cutscenes and boss fights. This is one of the things, in my opinion, that makes the game so fun and interesting. It’s like watching a movie. However, during the movie, when something is about to happen to the main character, there will be a hint displayed on screen as to the action you’re expected to perform with the Wiimote. Shaking side to side and pressing A and B at the same time are very common combinations. Successful completion of one of these combinations will result in the continuation of the scene, or maybe even the death of a boss!

Resident Evil 4 is still, in my opinion, a moderately difficult game. Much of the difficulty still comes from approaching situations in the game incorrectly, or not utilizing the world around you in your defense (or even offense). It’s intense realism will be too much for some to handle, but will keep many more engaged for the long-haul. The learning curve would be hard if it were expected to be mastered all at once, but the game does an extremely good job of easing you into character over the course of the first couple hours of gameplay.

For anyone who’s played Resident Evil before, I would recommend trying this game on the Wii. Like many other reviewers have said, and as this review hinted, the Wiimote does serve to soften the difficulty level somewhat, but it takes nothing away from the fun, and even serves to keep the player engaged. For those new to the Resident Evil franchise, don’t worry: you may be confused in the beginning, but the game will be no less engaging as you fill in the missing pieces for yourself.

Graphics: 8/10
Sound: 9/10
Gameplay: 10/10
Re-playability: 9/10
Value: 10/10
Overall: 9.2

Note: The overall score is not calculated as an average of the component parts. See our review calculation section for more information.

Funcom, the creater of the renowned Anarchy Online, is at the helm of one of the most anticipated games of the year (if not the most anticipated in the realm of massively-multiplayer online games). However, there is a veil of mist surrounding exactly what it is that Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures actually consists of. Is it an MMORPG? What makes it different from the big players in the field right now? Is it going to be full of little kids, or can we expect a more mature audience given the subject matter?

We won’t know about the playerbase until the game actually hits, but we can at least try to tackle those first two questions.

continue reading "Step into the Age of Conan (Hyborian Adventures)"

With the recent explosion of new MMO’s that has occured in the last few years, the trends in the genre have certainly gone through changes. One of these fluctuations, although maybe not quite as obviously, has been the way in which these titles handle subscription fees; whether it be a controversially hefty one, or a complete lack thereof.

Take for instance data as posted on MMOGdata, a site dedicated to gathering up to date information regarding subscribers and accounts of most current MMO’s. One table lists exactly 122 games, and what their subscription plans are like: either free to play, pay to play (As in a recurring subscription), or box to play (corresponding to games that only require you purchase the box to play). When these three categories are compared, though close in numbers, the number of games that are free to play actually exceed those that require a subscription. Out of the 122, a total of 60, nearly half, are free to play, while 58 require a fee, and only 4 just a box price. So what makes companies decide to charge the players more for the game than others?

With the massive increase of MMO’s available to play, this gives the players an incredible chance to look through many different games to find the one that appeals to them the most. While a subscription cost may deter away a few customers, it may in fact grab many more. This is due to the fact that a company whose game requires a monthly fee undoubtedly exudes a certain kind of confidence that someone looking for a quality game can’t ignore. Obviously, this company must have more to offer me, the searching player might say. But is this really the case? In fact, in many ways it is. One can argue that by requiring a subscription, the company is entering a sort of ‘pact’ with the player; you keep paying, and we’ll keep producing. While this may make the game appear stronger, the company is also required to do just as it says (which, in some cases, the company seems to forget it has entered in to this agreement).

With the introduction of a large number of games, a door has been opened for a new type of gamer. One who is not solely dedicated to their game, but instead leap frogs across the genre, dipping in casually to a number of games that span all sorts of themes. A subscription, however, makes this rather difficult. Many players probably find it difficult to justify paying 15$ a month for a game that they login to maybe 5 times a month. Does this make subscription games out of reach for the leap frog gamer? Not necessarily. Lately, many companies have been making the jump to not only next-gen games, but to next-gen subscription methods.

What exactly does this mean? Where the common approach of providing a free month upon purchase has gone straight past regular toward almost required, many companies are finding new unique ways to handle the situation. Take for instance the upcoming Age of Conan, a game many are describing as having next-generation features. According to an interview from mmorpg.com, game director Gaute Godager states

It is important to tell players that the first 20 levels, the single player experience, will not feature a subscription fee. If you buy the game, you can play this portion for as long as you want, without subscription. It is only in the next 60 levels, the more “normal” MMO portion (though this game is no true MMO, but rather an Online Action RPG) there will be a subscription.

This ‘hybrid’ style game is certainly not alone though. Many games, such as Dofus, have mixed it up by doing a similar in-between method: the game is free to play, but if you want to experience all the content, you must subscribe. There are many aspects to this ‘optional’ subscription choice that players must find appealing.

And while there are many players who instantly turn away from a free game, and many who simply refuse to be charged monthly for playing a game, almost all will be relieved to see new trends emerging in the way companies charge their players. So rejoice MMO players; new options are becoming available, in the form of new subscription plans.