Life is Strange

I've been stuck in a bit of a gaming rut lately. There are no new games out that I'm interested in so I've reverted to replaying the old reliables.  Unfortunately I can only kill so many demons in Diablo III before I get bored.  Last night, when confronted with the choice to do some bounties or clear another nephalem rift, I decided I would peruse the Steam store and see if there was anything out which looked interesting.  A notification popped up informing me of the release of the new episodic story game Life is Strange.  I decided to try it out and see if Square Enix has managed to improve upon the TellTale formula.  (Spoilers ahead regarding part one of Life is Strange)

I had read a little bit about Life is Strange and was intrigued by the idea of having both main characters be female.  This seems like as interesting choice but could be an intentional effort to gain more of a female audience.  I think the episodic point-and-click story games might appeal to some lady gamers who are new to gaming.  They're easy to learn and fairly simple while being engaging and allowing players to craft the story according to the choices they make.  Perfect for someone who is a novice gamer.

The story in Life is Strange revolves around the main character Max Caulfield.  Max is a typical teenager with a gift for photography that lands her at a trendy, private art school located in a small town in Oregon (yay Oregon!).  The game begins with Max sitting in class and listening to her semi-famous photography teacher giving a lecture.  This acts as a sort of tutorial as you learn how to navigate and interact with the world around you.  You are also thrust back into the super cliquey modern high school and are immediately bombarded with the fact that Max doesn't really fit in well here.  One of your first tasks is to navigate the hallways to find the bathroom because Max needs a minute to have a minor breakdown.

It's when you finally manage to make it there that you learn that Max isn't typical at all.  While in the bathroom gathering her strength for the return to the teenage labyrinth, Max witnesses a popular male student enter the bathroom.  She hides in the corner while he rants and raves to himself.  Then another student enters the bathroom and an argument breaks out between the two.  Max peeks around the corner and sees a girl with blue hair struggling against the male student.  The argument is fast but involves drugs and money.  Then the male student pulls out a gun and in the struggle shoots the blue-haired girl.  As this happens Max reaches out in shock and the whole world collapses around her.  She wakes up and finds that she's back in photography class listening to the same lecture as before.  It's here that Max realizes that she can manipulate time--rewinding it to go back and change how things turn out.  She can go back and save the blue-haired girl!

I know what you're thinking, and I was thinking it too.  Being able to rewind time seems pretty cliche and maybe a little cheesy.  It actually makes the game and the choices in it more interesting and more difficult to make.  If you don't like how things turned out you can go back and do it differently.  The game also points out when you have made a decision that will have some sort of impact on future events which can make you a little uneasy.  Instead of feeling that I had made the right choice I found myself going back to see if the opposite choice would turn out better.  Generally it didn't make me feel any better and I doubted almost all of the choices I made.  This is a big change from TellTale games where you are forced to make your choice (in a short timespan) and replay an entire scenario to see how things play out.

It's making me doubt my decisions so much that I think I'm going to go back and replay it.  More about Life is Strange tomorrow!

The Witcher 3 Gameplay Video

Recently CD Projekt Red released a new video showing some gorgeous new footage of The Witcher 3.  You should watch it and then try to resist the urge to immediately pre-order (I failed miserably and spent much of the time watching this video giggling with excitement and have now pre-ordered the game).

The world looks familiar with that European charm that is present throughout the series with it's thatched roof villages and gossipy peasants.  It was nice to see the notice board bursting with monster slaying quests for Geralt.  It also seems very open which could be good or bad (I'm semi-enthusiastic about open world games--bigger is not always better).  The scenery is very beautiful and I can't wait to see it on my computer. This short video very much reminds me of Dragon Age:  Inquisition but I have high hopes that The Witcher will do it better.  We have to wait until May 19 for the release but the more I see the more excited I get.

Not Everyone on the Internet is Horrible

I've had plenty of interesting experiences playing online games.  Many of them have been very positive but there have been several that have made me grit my teeth and swear to never play multiplayer games again (I've somewhat kept to that pact).  In 2006 I began playing World of Warcraft and began an almost seven year long adventure in the world of the MMORPG where the point is to interact with others.  Anyone who has played WoW could probably share horror stories about awful people they come across in-game.  People with little patience for new players, jerks who are out to prove their superiority at video games and don't care who they trample on the get there, or trolls who derive pleasure from tormenting others.  But once in awhile you come across genuinely nice people who are willing to help others.  Yesterday I came across a great story that exemplifies the kindness that can often go unseen in gaming.

According to this story, a man posted on a WoW  Reddit requesting help with learning the ropes of the game.  The unusual part of the story is that this person is a father whose son recently died and he took up WoW as a way to learn more about his son's interests.  (*Grabbing Kleenexes*) Amazingly the community responded very positively to his appeal for help.

It's always great to read stories like this.  I feel like too often people focus on all the negativity that goes on in gaming.  I've read way too many articles about how the developers behind popular MOBA's are looking for ways to muzzle toxic players.  Or all the focus on the negativity spawned by "gamergate."  It's refreshing to see people being nice to each other.  Why can't it always be like this with players offering to help one another?  Gaming would be such a different experience.

I tried to get my own Dad to play WoW and was apalled at how people treated him.  Somehow he always ended up getting talked into doing instances and this never turned out well.  He would get kicked out of groups with no explanation as to why and absolutely no one tried to help.  I did my best to stick with him, but our play schedules didn't always sync up so well.  He ended up losing interest and quitting, but the fact that people would treat him so poorly always resonated with me.

I'm sure some people would argue that it's your own decision to help others in a game and that you determine how you spend your playtime.  Not everyone wants to spend their time teaching others how to play.  I totally get that.  But think about your own experiences as a new player and how much easier things would have been if someone had helped you rather than made jokes at your expense or just kicked you out of a group.  We owe it to each other to be kind and need to remember that even though we're in a virtual world there is an actual person behind each character.

New Report Shows that DLC is a Huge Money Maker

Green is income from DLC--$921 million last year.

There has been a lot of buzz about the fact that Electronic Arts (EA) earnings report showed that an alarming amount of their income comes from the purchase of downloadable content (DLC).  This DLC can take the form of a chunk of additional content in a game or microtransactions used in many smaller digital games.  No matter how you feel about DLC it's plain that developers are making some serious cash. EA made $921 million from DLC alone.  (Here is an article)

I don't really know how to describe my feelings toward DLC and will freely admit to purchasing it, especially for the games I love.  It's a little irritating to have to pay more (and it's usually not cheap) but you do get extra content that can make your favorite games even better.  However, I do get irritated at things like release day DLC.  Really?  Why call it DLC if it's included in the game?  I think of Mass Effect 3's "From Ashes" which was included as part of your purchase and boasted adding a new teammate.  I also get irritated at games that seem to take the DLC thing to the extreme.  The Sims series is notorious for all the DLC that is offered to players--some do add new locations or experiences but others simply add-in more items.  Players could easily spend hundreds of dollars on new content for their game.  Borderlands is another series that seems to release a huge glut of DLC.  Some of it fun and some of it less enjoyable.  I am mostly selective when I buy DLC and opt for add-on's that will expand the game experience as opposed to simply adding in new items or cosmetic features.

Will I stop buying DLC in protest?  Probably not.  Some of my favorite content has come in the form of DLC that I paid extra for.  Mass Effect 3's "Citadel" gave me such warm, fuzzy feelings that it helped me get over the trauma from the initial horrible ending to that game.  Should we as consumers be outraged that companies are making such a killing from DLC?  Maybe.  I think we should applaud developers like CD Projekt Red who make it a point to avoid making gamers pay for additional content in games and focus on creating the best experiences for them.

Player Levels 100 World of Warcraft Characters to Level 100...Why?

I quit playing World of Warcraft last year but still follow some of the weirder news to come out of that game and community.  One article that is making the rounds is about a person who decided to level 100 different characters to max level--which is currently 100 (read the article here).  Is this an achievement which should be hailed or mocked?

100 characters!  Insanity!

I will admit that my first reaction upon reading this was to laugh.  What a ridiculous waste of time!  Why would anyone possibly want to spend the time doing this 100 times?  I could completely understand the desire to level a character of every class for both factions.  That comes out to a whopping 22 characters.  At least you would get some variety in the quests due to the factional changes and the different abilities of each class.  But, really?  I was one of the weird people who actually enjoyed doing quests and leveling and I can't imagine doing anything like this.

After I got over my initial skepticism regarding this person's level of sanity I realized some things.  If leveling characters was what this person enjoyed in WoW then more power to him.  Of all the different people I played with over the over six years I played WoW many of them liked doing things that others would consider boring.  Way back in vanilla I had a guildmate who enjoyed mining.  He would turn on some music and do laps around certain zones collecting common minerals to use or sell and scout for rare nodes.  And he liked it--he said it was relaxing.  Another set of friends enjoyed playing the auction house and actually got frighteningly good at it (let's just say that they have trouble transferring because they are way over the gold cap per character).  They would spend hours monitoring the AH looking for underpriced items to snatch up and put back up for a profit.  Personally, I enjoyed fishing and would often volunteer to catch fish to help make potions and food for the guild bank (because of this weird love I also managed to catch the elusive Sea Turtle mount).  I suppose that's a strength of WoW that there are so many activities to choose from.

It's amazing that people can find absolutely silly things in games to use to keep testing themselves or to keep a game fresh.  The person who leveled all these characters actually got really good at speed leveling and had a well-defined strategy for completing zones impressively quickly.  So while my initial reaction was to laugh I also have to admire their ability to take something so dry and make it into something challenging and enjoyable.  So I /salute you person with 100 level 100's!  You found what you enjoy and ran with it.

Video Game Choices and You

As a sometime teacher of psychology I wonder a lot about what my choices in a game mean about my personality.  I don't know that there has been a lot of research done about video games and the choices players make in them.  Does it mean anything that you're male and choose to play as a female character (or vice versa)?  What about the violence or non-violence option presented in some games?  Which do you choose?  Does that say something about you as a person?

I am no expert in psychology but find queries like these very interesting.  Here are my own personal thoughts about typical RPG classes and what types of personalities might pick them.  Again, I'd like to point out that I'm not basing this on any actual research but just my own opinions and observations.

If you pick:

1.) Warrior--you value strength and directly facing conflicts.  In games where you're given the option to choose between sword and board or a big two-hander it might be more complex.  In a tank role you might be someone who values protection and sees yourself as a protector.  As a two-hand warrior you dominate the battlefield with your size and strength and are usually a force to be feared.  (On a side note--when given a class choice in a video game I will usually opt for for a warrior as my initial character.  I prefer melee characters who wade into the chaos but I also like the fact that you pretty much know what to do--you hit things with your giant sword.  Sure, there might be some variation in the abilities but that's the general gist.  I also enjoy the fact that they can take more damage so you could arguably say playing a warrior requires less finesse)

2.) Mage/Magic User (non-healer)--You enjoy a utilitarian role.  You're happier on the outskirts blasting away than in the center swinging your giant sword (I like giant swords..or maces...or flails).  You might prefer abilities that pack more of a punch then a rogue-type class that does small but fast damage.  Skills are more important than strength to you.  You also want more freedom in your choices--most magic users seem to have more options than other classes (like using frost spells or fire, taking strictly utility spells like crowd control or some abilities that protect from damage).  You might be someone who doesn't enjoy being the "center of attention."

3.) Rogue/Archer--You value finesse over strength.  It's not about crashing into a group of enemies and swinging away--it's about sneaking up on them and taking them out quickly and quietly or sniping them from afar.  You're patient and wait for the perfect moment to strike.  It's also about using the correct abilities at the right time.  (I am not patient enough to play a rogue.  I am always very impressed by people who are successful at this class type because I do think it requires a great amount of skill).  You prefer indirect conflict and striking from the shadows.

4.) Healer--you have a helpful or nurturing personality.  You prefer supporting your group rather than dealing damage.  You're also more willing to take responsibility for what happens but you like playing an important role in your group.  I feel like a disproportionate number of the women I've played alongside have chosen a healing role.

What do you pick?  Why do you feel comfortable in that role?  Do you think your choice is tied to your personality?

The List

I've deleted some old pages that I had initially hoped to use but wasn't using.  I've added in a running list of games that I've played and have been taxing my brain to think of those from the past.  This is much harder than I thought it was going to be.  They aren't listed in any order of preference but are in semi-alphabetical order.

If you're interested in seeing what I've played go ahead and take a gander!  They're now listed under the "Games I've Played" tab at the top.

Philosophical Moments in Gaming

This video recently appeared on my Facebook newsfeed.  It made me ponder some of the discussed points.  I don't often think too deeply about my gaming experiences--especially right now when I'm neck deep in a Diablo III loot-grab smashfest.

Fact #1--Only 10-20% of gamers actually finish games.

Is it just me or does this number seem really low?  Are they only counting games with a single player campaign?  Think about games like Call of Duty which typically include a single player campaign but which many people play for the multiplayer experience.  What counts as "finishing?"  I mostly play single player and try to make it a point to finish the games I buy (except Spelunky--my forever regret).  I am also a staunch completionist and feel a strong need to complete as much as I can.  I know plenty of people who don't finish games, so maybe I'm totally wrong.

Fact #2--Gaming is a waste of time and you could be doing something more constructive like learning to play the oboe or how to speak Spanish.

This is a hard one for me because I partially agree.  I have had my crushing moments of guilt.  Before I quit World of Warcraft it was every time the playtime (/played) popped up on my screen.  Especially since it calculates your time played as days.  (Why do they even have this in the game?  Is it Blizzard's way of making you realize it's time to quit?).  Soul crushing.  

On the other hand I want to compare gaming to other hobbies.  Is fly fishing or collecting antique lamps a waste of time?  Sure, you might catch a fish that you're going to eat or find a nice lamp to light your house, but what's the point?  In the end I think it comes down to what value you place on your chosen leisure activities.  To me gaming has so many fun aspects--getting to experience interesting stories and characters in a visual and interactable medium, feeling a sense of achievement (literally through achievements or just through doing something silly like being able to complete all the "Hunger Games" challenges in Cook, Serve, Delicious), socializing with others who have similar interests, or a feeling of superiority in a multiplayer game.  Why should I feel guilty about something that I enjoy?

Fact #3--Developers should try to make games that are more in-tune with how someone wants to play.

I agree with this but think it would be extremely complicated.  Don't some games already offer this option?  It seems like when you first start Mass Effect and select the difficulty for the game you get to select what type of experience you want to have.  You can opt for a more story-based game where the amount of combat is reduced or choose to include combat scenarios.  Seems like a good choice for people who would rather focus on the story.  But even something like this is at least partially possible in the game it seems like everyone is loving/hating Dragon Age:  Inquisition.  It would be possible to complete the main storyline in probably 40-50 hours (that is my guesstimate) if you focused on reaching the level threshold that is required to pursue them.  You would get a more story-based experience and the length of the game is significantly reduced.  Same thing with more open world games like Skyrim.  Rather than exploring every cave on the map players can opt to just follow the story quests.  I'm sure the amount of time to finish it would be greatly reduced.

I don't think a game like Mountain is for everyone.  If you're looking for a more artistic or philosophical type of game...sure, but to me it sounds dull as dishwater.

So what is the ideal length of a game?  I feel like if a game is entertaining and you don't feel yourself getting bored it can really vary and that it depends on the type of experience you are looking for.  I've played games that are relatively short and really enjoyed them--the Shadowrun games spring to mind (10-20 hours).  I've also played games of epic length and felt very mixed about them.  Another aspect I consider is cost.  I want to know that I'm going to get what I'm paying for and don't want to feel like I'm getting ripped off.  Games are expensive.  However, I like to lean towards quality over quantity.  A game can be short if it has a great replayability factor but I don't want to spend $60 on something I'm going to play once and then shelf.

Looking for something different?

Sometimes I find myself looking for something a little different.  A game that's not an RPG or shooter but something that breaks the mold.  I've rolled the dice on a some great indie games--namely Cook, Serve, Delicious a delightful cooking/restaurant managing sim and Papers, Please an document inspecting test with moral implications.  Unfortunately not every roll of the dice has turned out well--namely Spelunky a game that received much critical acclaim but which I just couldn't get into.

My latest roll of the dice has found me venturing into a strange world that combines both RPG/dungeon crawling elements and rhythm.  It sounds weird, but it works.  And it's hard.  Crypt of the Necrodancer is no joke.  I haven't been able to make it past the first zone which feels a little pathetic and I generally rage quit after dying repeatedly.

If you haven't heard about Crypt of the Necrodancer, here is a launch video for the game.  It's currently in early access but that doesn't stop it from being awesome.

Your first challenge is making sure that you are navigating your character to the beat of the music.  This requires you to really listen to the music instead of mindlessly mashing keys.  Then it gets harder as you face off against the foes that populate the crypt.  Each enemy you kill drops a small amount of gold which can be used to buy item upgrades--like better weapons, food to restore health, or even armor to help prevent damage.  The amount of gold dropped also depends on how well you've managed to stay on the beat.  The more consistent you are the higher your gold multiplier allowing you to buy better items or unlock special characters who sell character upgrades in the lobby of the game.

Your character has a certain amount of health (you start off with 2 hearts) and can be damaged by enemies.  If you take too much damage, you die and are forced to start over at the beginning of a zone.  Some foes follow the beat of the songs and require you to pay attention to their movements and the beat.  Others are much easier to kill and can simply be attacked.  Each level also features a larger foe who guards the exit and must be killed in order to advance.  Sometimes it's a dragon, other times it's an angry minotaur.  Your character is upgradeable and diamonds that can be found throughout each area are useful for unlocking more health for your character or more items to appear in chests.

Like Spelunky, Crypt of the Necrodancer is a roguelike that alters the levels every time you play.  The game feels fresh even though you're navigating the same zones multiple times (or forever as it seems to be in my case).  The soundtrack for the game is fun and changes as you progress through the levels. In zone 1 (my forever home) the first area starts off with a song with a slower beat.  I can casually click my buttons and enjoy the music.  Once I reach the second area the music has sped up and I am clicking buttons more quickly.  It's not just the the beat speeds up--once you get to a boss the music might not have a consistent beat and require you to pay even closer attention.  Another cool aspect is the ability to add your own music for each zone.  This is something I have not attempted as I am enjoying the in-game music and because I'm hoping I'll eventually get it down.  There's also a local co-op option so you can play with a friend.  Or maybe you're really cool and have a dancepad--you can totally play using a dancepad.

Although I haven't made much progress in Crypt, I am liking it a lot.  It feels like I'm using a different part of my brain when I play--the totally underdeveloped musical part (the part that played the recorder in 4th grade). It's such a random combination of genres that I can't help but love it's quirkiness.  Pick it up on Steam or from the developers website.

The Always Online Requirement.

I've recently started replaying Diablo III and have mostly been enjoying my experience.  D3 is my go-to game when I just feel like endlessly killing and looting.  It happens sometimes.  My new crusader is progressing nicely and I've ratcheted up the difficulty a couple of notches because things just felt too easy.  I also have a crushing desire to give myself carpal tunnel syndrome from all the repeated clicking.  I played so much this summer that I seriously thought I had done permanent damage to my wrist.

The dreaded latency spike...

I have run into a roadblock that seems to sporadically affect many D3 players--high latency.  It's the worst.  I feel helpless as I watch my crusader swing and wait for the actions to take place.  My in-game latency seems to bounce back and forth between yellow and green.  It hasn't been unplayable, just frustrating.  Last night it was more stable and generally I don't have these kinds of issues as my internet service is very consistent.  This minor set of issues has made me realize how frustrating the "always online" requirement is for gaming.  It's especially frustrating when I primarily play in single-player mode.  Why does it need to be online?  The console version offers an offline option for single player games so why not on the PC version?

This isn't breaking news and I didn't get the displeasure of experiencing the botched release and server issues from 2012 (I didn't buy it till after those issues had been fixed).  I tried to look up explanations for why Blizzard put the always online requirement on the PC version and didn't really come up with a definitive answer.  Some people thought it was primarily due to the now defunct "real money" auction house and the desire to avoid issues related to hacking or illegally duplicating items.  Others seem to feel like it was Blizzard exerting their own form of DRM to avoid piracy issues.  Blizzard seemed to state that D3 was meant to be an online game (and multiplayer) and they hoped to build an online community of D3 players.  I get the whole social aspect of gaming and that seems to be something Blizzard really pitches but not everyone wants to play multiplayer games.  That sounds really anti-social, I know.  It's not that I don't like playing with friends, I do.  I have no desire to play with strangers.  None.  I found that it's really hard to stay together unless you're going to plan to roll characters who you'll only play together.

I'm not going to quit playing D3 I like it too much.  I just don't understand "always online" requirements--they seem like such a roadblock and your internet connection can definitely have a big impact on your experience.  My hope for the future is that developers will try their hardest to avoid the "always online" requirement for single player games.  I don't really see that happening, but I can always hope.

Some more Stealth Game Musings. Do you take the Lethal or Non-Lethal path?

There's another aspect of stealth games that I didn't think of earlier.  In most stealth games you are given the option to use non-lethal methods to take down enemies (except bosses--who must die).  In Dishonored, Deus Ex:  Human Revolution, and in Bioshock:  Infinite "Burial at Sea" part 2 you can put the bad guys in ol' sleeper hold as opposed to simply shooting them in the face.  Why is this an option in stealth games but not an option in other games?

That got me thinking about the moral choices I make in games.  Typically when presented with the option to go non-lethal I will take that path.  Those poor guards--they just had the misfortune of being assigned to guard a specific area and cross paths with my Corvo or Adam or Elizabeth (which would mean poor splicers....which might morally be a little tougher choice to justify).  In Deus Ex you are even presented with weapons that are non-lethal or lethal.  Which do you choose?  Strategically going with lethal weapons is probably the better choice--most bosses require shooting and are immune to any stunning/knocking out options.

The rats in Dishonored make quick work of a corpse.

During my short replay of Dishonored I found myself knocking out guards and stashing their bodies in some closet or unseen corner.  Except for one specific guard.  I silently blinked down from a ledge right behind him and proceeded to knock him out.  There were several other guards patrolling the area and no way that I could reach the same ledge.  I decided to grab the body and jump down onto a pipe overlooking an alley populated by a group of ravenous rats.  But what do I do with the body?  Hmmm...those rats would definitely clear up that problem.  So while I specifically went to the trouble of knocking out the guard I unceremoniously dumped his body over the ledge and into the rat pile.  The rats proceeded to make quick work of the poor guard.  Afterward I felt kind of bad about that guard...what a horrible way to die--knocked out and tossed off a ledge to be eaten by a bunch of rats.  Very rarely do I think twice about the decisions I make--especially something so minor as the death of a guard.  This felt morally dubious because I had made the decision to knock out the guards rather than kill them.

Have you ever had a moment similar to this where you thought about the decision you had just made and it's moral implications?

Smack you in the face!

Stealth games are my nemesis due to my total lack of patience.  After finishing up BioShock:  Infinite's DLC "Burial at Sea" which involved some stealthiness I somehow decided that the next game I wanted to re-tackle would be Dishonored.  I'm not sure what part of my brain influenced me to make this decision since I know that I get irritated with games that have a sneaky/stealthy aspect.  I'm going to blame it on being sick.

Dishonored is a game that is completely about sneaking.  I suppose you could just run headlong into foes and get creative in your evasion, but I don't see that as being very successful.  It also seems to me that the game is very actively encouraging you to use stealthy tactics--the "hints" on the loading screen state that sneaking and killing fewer people will result in a happier ending.  To me this seems to be nudging players to opt for the more "peaceful" option.  You do get rewarded for avoiding conflict in Dishonored by bonuses at the end of the mission for not killing anyone or for not setting off any alarms.  I've played through it once but decided that it was time for a replay but am having difficulty being patient.  Crouching in a corner, waiting for some guard to walk by, then waiting to make sure he isn't going to turn around mid-stride.  There's an element of tension as you wait and plan out your moves, but it is decidedly slower than a more traditional shooting type of game.  Maybe that's what's wrong--I don't want a game that forces me to plan and be patient.  I want a game that lets you smack stuff in the face.  Preferably with giant weapons.

The male and female crusader models.  Very cool.

And that's how I ended up playing Diablo III (with Reaper of Souls) rather than continuing hiding in corners in Dishonored.  There's no stealthing or hiding.  There's nothing but good old fashioned slaying.  I bought the Reaper of Souls expansion this summer (meaning the summer of 2014 in teacher years) and had played through much of the new campaign content with some of my favorite classes--namely the monk, wizard, and witch doctor.  I hadn't really touched the shiny, new crusader class so I decided to give it a whirl and it's pretty freakin' awesome.  The crusader seems to be geared toward a more tank-like role with talent options that help reduce the amount of damage taken through blocking with a shield.  If you're playing solo you can talent more for sheer damage capabilities.  Crusaders can wield a two-handed weapon as a one-hander.  This totally satisfies my requirement for giant weapons.  This combined with a shield makes you less squishy than other classes which is good for players like me who enjoy charging into a big group of demons with wild abandon.

My crusader is still in it's early stages, but I am really enjoying this added class.  For some reason I felt like I had better luck than normal with legendary drops (which don't really matter at low-levels but are still exciting--that orange just makes you want to giggle) and have managed to deck out my crusader pretty nicely for some low-level smashing.

I'm going to try my hardest to soldier through Dishonored, but I have found a nice tension release in the form of Diablo III:  Reaper of Souls and the crusader.  

Stealth Games and my Love/Hate Relationship with them.

There's something enjoyable about lurking in the shadows waiting to take out some stupidly inattentive guard.  That ability to be unseen gives players the feeling of superiority that their character is a master of elusiveness.  I revel in that sense for about...oh five minutes.  Then I just get irritated about having to sneak around when it's more than likely I'll be discovered and all the guards are going to come screaming into the room anyway.  Yeah, I'm not the best at stealthy games.  Lately, for some strange reason, I've been playing games that have required me to utilize those sneaking skills.  I enjoy the challenge of hiding and striking at opportune moments but I really lack the patience to be effective at it.

I decided to fully replay BioShock:  Infinite and all it's DLC including "Clash in the Clouds" which I hadn't even touched, but purchased as part of a season pass.  If you enjoy the combat in Infinite and want to compete with your friends you will probably enjoy it.  I thought it was alright--I enjoyed running around and shooting a bunch of stuff.  But what does that have to do with stealth....nothing, in truth.  After finishing the "Clash" DLC I moved on to the more story-based content in "Burial at Sea" parts one and two.  In part one you play as Booker so you get to go in guns blazing but in part two you play as Elizabeth.  Playing as Elizabeth is a nice change but requires you to flex those sneaking skills that you in no way use as Booker.  In order to be successful you cannot face enemies head-on and must knock them out from behind or use your crossbow to deal with them from afar.  I'm not the best at sneaking so I generally ended up sneaking around, being seen and then shooting foes with my crossbow sheerly out of panic.  It's kind of sad.

Waiting for the perfect moment to act....

This is what leads me to hate stealth games.  Most shooter type games reward you for killing foes and some will give you even greater rewards for being stealthy in your takedowns.  But what's the point in being stealthy when most conflicts end up in a shooting match anyway?  There's usually not a boss that requires you to use stealthy attacks to take them down.  At least not in any of the games I can think of.  I think of Deus Ex:  Human Revolution as a great example of this.  You can be stealthy or confront enemies head-on.  I'm sure most players opt for the stealthy approach.  Every single boss requires an in-your-face confrontation--all your sneaking winds up being for not.  Then you have to choose talents that either enhance your stealth abilities, which you will use to take down the majority of enemies, or take less stealthy, more combat ability talents that will benefit you more on boss fights.  It's sort of a lose-lose situation.

I also feel like playing shooters has trained me to opt for the "shoot you in the face" option so adding a stealthy portion just feels wrong.  I think it would be better if stealthy games had a better way to reward players for their sneakiness.  You don't get any loot if you sneak by the bad guys--but could you get a reward for avoiding conflict?  Most games aren't going to reward a player for avoiding a fight.  That's why I feel so weird about games with stealth aspects.  Maybe I'm just impatient, but sneaking just feels so oddly out of place.

I feel like I'm probably kind of weird in my stance on stealth games.  It seems like they're pretty popular.  I also took a bunch of cold medicine last night and feel weird.

Steam Reviews to get New "Funny" Rating Button.

I like to write reviews for video games in my Steam library.  My hope is that someone will read my review and it will help them make a choice about purchasing a game.  I would really love to brag that I've written a review for all 102 games in my library.  One of my completely ridiculous life goals is to write reviews for all the games in my library.  I'm not even close.  I've written five.  Yup, just five.  This is partially due to the fact that every time I write a review I end up with people downvoting my reviews.  I'm not overly sensitive, but I just don't understand why.  It's irritating when I write a decently descriptive review for a game and someone writes "has goats 11/10" and their review gets more favorable votes than my thoughtful and helpful review.  Nerdrage!

 Disliking Skyrim didn't stop him from playing 1,300 hours.

If you're like me and write a review only to have it shot down by angry Australians (I'm sorry that I feel that the humor in Borderlands:  The Pre-Sequel was Australiacentric and that I didn't get it.  I also just made up the word Australiacentric.  I have nothing against Australians.  I've never really met any, but you seem cool) you should be thrilled about this change.  Now all those people who are reading reviews sheerly for the laugh factor won't pollute the review feed with their nonsense about "you dont have to ware pants 12/10."  You can read about some Steam changes here.

Now to finish writing the other 97 reviews for the products in my library....

New GTA V Release Date for PC. To Pre-Order or not to Pre-Order?

PC gamers have been waiting patiently (or not so patiently) for the release of the next episode in the Grand Theft Auto series.  The PC release was originally scheduled for January 27th but was bumped back.  The new official release date is now March 24th.  Mark your calendars!

Free copy with Steam Pre-Order

I'm a big pre-orderer even though I know that it's generally not recommended.  If you pre-order GTA:  V on Steam before February 1st you get $1,000,000 in game cash with the promise of an additional $300,000 (I don't understand why they're separating them) as well as a free copy of Grand Theft Auto:  San Andreas.  I thoroughly enjoyed San Andreas but it has been years since I've played it.  I would recommend playing it to anyone who hasn't.  The setting is great, fake Los Angeles in the early 1990's with all it's gang warfare.  This game featured some unique ideas that have since been dropped--your character had to work out or else they'd get fat and you could send him to the tattoo parlor to get inked with some cool....or completely uncool tattoos.

I think I'll hold off on pre-ordering.  It's been ages since it originally came out on consoles and the PC release is obviously not a huge priority.  I wouldn't be surprised if the release date is pushed back yet again.  Maybe I'll even wait till the summer sale and hope it ends up as one of the great deals.

Round #2 of BioShock: Infinite Complete. Still confused.

Last night I finished my second full playthrough of BioShock:  Infinite.  I enjoyed it just as much or more than the first time.  I upped the difficulty for this playthrough and found the combat slightly more challenging, but still doable.  1999 mode is my next option.  Even though I finished the game again I am still not 100% clear about the ending.  (Spoilers.  Big spoilers.)

Firstly I must express my complete respect for the powers of Elizabeth/Anna.  She's no superhero, but seriously, the ability to alter time and space has got to be the most amazing set of powers.  After you destroy the siphon she can enter any world that ever existed.  That's....just....so awesome but so confusing.  It's the same confusion I had with the Lutece twins who are technically dead in one of the versions of Columbia that you enter--but they're obviously not dead because they continue to pop up and give you helpful tidbits of information from time to time.  How are they alive in all these possible worlds?

The whole part with Elizabeth/Anna's origins is also confusing.  If Booker is really Comstock then he's stealing his own child?  Where did this child come from?  Did Booker steal it?  I don't get it.  What did the Lutece twins have to do with it?  They designed the device to allow Comstock to go back and get Elizabeth/Anna.

Let me piece together what I think is going on.  There is an initial reality with Comstock and his wife--no baby.  Rosalind Lutece is doing all this quantum physic-y stuff and creates not only the ability for Columbia to float but also the device that creates the tears between worlds.  In doing so she opens an alternate universe where Booker/Comstock has a child.  The real Comstock decides to steal the baby (Elizabeth/Anna) so he can raise his heir to be his successor.  Elizabeth/Anna possesses some special abilities (how she acquired these abilities is also questionable--a result of her exposure to Lutece's device?).  As she matures her abilities develop and Comstock is forced to use the siphon to keep her under control.  Rosalind Lutece sees what Comstock has become or feels some guilt and decides to use her device to bring Booker into the reality with Elizabeth locked in the tower.  Rosalind and Robert Lutece falsely plant the idea of freeing Elizabeth with the intent of Booker breaking her out and unleashing her full powers.  Then Elizabeth can use her powers to eliminate Comstock once and for all.

My one last lingering question is about Elizabeth's existence.  Would she still exist if she killed Booker/Comstock?  Wouldn't she be eliminating her own presence?

Never has a game made me puzzle over so many of the details.  I want to figure it out. Maybe I'm weird that way....

Shadowrun Kickstarter Campaign

I was excited to hear that Harebrained Schemes is working on another episode in the Shadowrun series.  The project to create the next entry in this series has warranted my first ever contribution to a Kickstarter funded project.  That's how excited I am!  You should do it too!  A pledge of $15 will land you a copy of the game on Steam (or other digital distribution sites--including some DRM-free sites), the soundtrack from the game, and some wallpapers for your chosen device.  That's not too shabby for $15.

Two of my most exciting purchases during the Steam Winter Sale were the previous games in the series--Shadowrun Returns and Shadowrun:  Dragonfall.  There is so much to love about these cool Indie games.  The settings are fun--a dreary future Seattle and the semi-anarchist Berlin.  The characters are interesting, especially in Dragonfall where you had more of a set crew of shadowrunners and had the opportunity for more interaction and to learn about their individual backgrounds.  The combat is turn-based and makes you use your strategy skills to figure out the best way to spend your action points.  And it's cyberpunk--but not just your typical futuristic/sci-fi type but an interesting blend of traditional fantasy and futuristic technology and enhancements.  The artwork is beautiful, the music is great, and you really should just check it out.

Hong Kong looks amazing.

The next entry in the series is going to take place in Hong Kong.  The developers, Harebrained Schemes, even conducted a poll that let fans choose where it would take place.  Getting input from your fans?  Just earned some serious points from me.  I've really liked some of the games that have locations based in China--like Deus Ex:  Human Revolution.  You get a sense of the cultural differences and you also get that business/corporate feel from their burgeoning economy.  According to the Kickstarter description of this new game there is a "supernatural" threat to the city.  Magical dragons?  Ghost dragons?  DRAGONS, please.  There also seems to be aspects directly related to Chinese culture as they mention something called "guanxi" which seems to be centered around gaining reputation or "face" in order to become well-known.

The Kickstarter page also promises some memorable new crew members with specific talent "tracks" that can affect the spells and abilities each character possesses.  So who are your new shadowrunning teammates?

Your new shadowrunning crew.

Gobbet--An orc "rat" shaman whose talents can be honed to either control the battlefield through use of barrier spells or focus on spirit summoning or control.

Duncan Wu--(Looks like a troll, but race isn't included) Described as a "security specialist," Duncan's abilities seem to focus on stunning abilities for crowd control or ranged combat skills.

Is0bel--A dwarf decker whose abilities can be improved for better performance inside the matrix or outside.  (That can be a tough choice--not every combat situation includes the ability to enter the matrix)

Because they exceeded their initial goal of raising $100,000 they also added in two additional characters.

Racter--A human rigger with a special drone.  The talents you pick for Racter determine the abilities of this drone, it can be used for melee attacks or ranged attacks.

Gaichu--A red samurai who apparently is a ghoul.  Like any street samurai you can choose skills that make them either a melee powerhouse or a long-range asset.  Since Gaichu is supposed to be infected with the same virus as ghouls his melee abilities are somewhat unique.

The actual game isn't expected to be released until August this year, but I'm really looking forward to another cyberpunk adventure from this small Northwest based company.

GTA V (PC) Delay and General BioShock: Infinite Confusion

For the last few weeks I've been anxiously awaiting news about the upcoming release of Grand Theft Auto V for PC.  It was slated to be released on PC on January 27th, but according to news yesterday the release has been pushed back until March.  This is disappointing, but not surprising.  I thought it was weird that the Steam page for the game wasn't allowing pre-orders.  Oh well, we've waited for  years, what's a few more months?

I am continuing my second playthrough of BioShock:  Infinite in an effort to not only find things that I missed the first time, but to also gain a better understanding of the game.  Overall I have paid much closer attention to my surroundings and some things are making slightly more sense but I still have many questions.  I am also refusing to look up theories and explanations in an effort to puzzle it out on my own.  Knowing my usual weak will when it comes to looking up information like this I have a feeling I will cave and look up many of the answers I seek.  Here are a few that have been in the back of my mind as I've navigated Booker and Elizabeth through Columbia.  Some of them are new discoveries from my most recent playthrough and some are lingering questions.  (Possible spoilers ahead!)

1.) Is Songbird a different version of a Big Daddy?
In this playthrough I have listened much more closely to the many voxophones that I have picked up.  It becomes obvious from listening to many of them that Fink and his brother are taking advantage of the many tears in Columbia.  Fink's brother Albert is stealing music from the future and selling it in the past.  In one of the voxophones Fink mentions that he has seen a Big Daddy and that it would be useful to guard Elizabeth in the tower.  For some reason I didn't catch onto this fact during my first playthrough.  Other things should have stood out--the changing colors of Songbird's eyes, much like the colors of a Big Daddy as you approach it.  Songbird and Elizabeth also seem to have a strong bond similar to that of the little sisters and Big Daddies in Rapture.  But then what does that make Elizabeth?  The original little sister minus all the weird Adam sucking from BioShock?

By coeykuhn.  Nice interpretation of the twins.

2.) Are the Lutece twins the same person?
I do not understand the Lutece twins and the general quantum physic idea of them being able to alter space and time.  In another voxophone it is suggested that Rosalind Lutece was an only child and it was never recorded that she had a brother.  Later you find another voxophone where she mentions that she has gone to a different universe and found her brother "all that separates us is a chromosome."  So in that universe did she have a brother or was she actually born male?  I really like the Lutece twins as characters--they're quirky and fun but I don't understand their relationship.

3.) How are the Lutece twins able to be in all worlds?
In another voxophone clue it is revealed that the Lutece twins were killed by Comstock in an effort to cover up the origins of Elizabeth.  Their device for travelling between worlds was tampered with (also by Comstock?) and they were dispersed to all worlds but are dead in the original world.  I think, anyway.  Ugh--all this quantum physic-y stuff is creating some cognitive dissonance.

My brain hurts from trying to figure out BioShock:  Infinite.

Blizzard's "Overwatch" LFNT (Looking for new title)

I was really excited when I learned about Blizzard working on a new FPS that seems to be a cousin to Team Fortress 2.  This is something new for Blizz and it's a genre that we haven't seen from them.  According to this article the game, which is titled Overwatch, might have to find a new name due to a patent conflict with a similarly titled video game product.  I wonder if this happens very often.  No matter what the title ends up being, I look forward to hearing more about this new title from Blizzard.  The trailer for Overwatch looks awesome.  (Some people felt it was a little Pixarish--but if you just consider the characters who are doing the fighting...it looks like there will be some interesting classes and options.)  Here is the trailer in case you haven't seen it:

 I have sporadically been playing Team Fortress 2 with a group of students in a gaming club I lead at the school where I teach.  TF2 is still a lot of fun even almost eight years after it's release and still has a large fanbase and very active community.  I am curious to see how Blizzard will improve upon the TF2 formula--will Overwatch be as cartoony?  Overwatch looks more sci-fi but still has a sort of cartoony flair.  What about game modes and maps?  I would really like to see something different--some new variations of capture points or the traditional attack/defend.  Will it follow the free-to-play formula?

I am going to continue keeping an eye on Overwatch (or whatever it ends up being called).  It's nice to see something new from one of my favorite developers.

A Cute and Funny TF2 Short Movie

If you're a fan of TF2 then you are probably familiar with many of the short films (fan made or otherwise) that are floating around the interweb.  What if there was a much longer short film?  And what if it embodied all the amazing qualities you looked for in a TF2 video?  Goofy cartoon violence...check.  Classic Red vs. Blue conflict...check.  Funny references to other videos....check.  Cute cats...check.  OK, that last one was just me.  If you've got an extra 15 minutes you should check out this great TF2 video "End of the Line."

Pretty awesome, right?

My Gorgeous Re-Introduction to BioShock: Infinite and the history within.

BioShock:  Infinite is a game that seems to exist solely in the black or white for gamers.  It seems to be one of those games that people either completely love or hate.  If you read reviews on Steam there is very little agreement on the game.  Much of that vitriol seems to be directed at the ending.  I'm still not sure I really understand the ending, but I thoroughly enjoyed my first playthrough of the last installment in the BioShock series.  I realized last night that I had only played through it once and decided it was time to go back and see what I missed.  (Possible spoilers ahead.  Read with caution if you haven't finished it before.)

One of the beautiful locales in BioShock:  Infinite

The first time I played through BioShock:  Infinite I was playing on my 6+ year old computer.  Miraculously it could still run the game, but I do not remember it being as detailed and gorgeous.  The hummingbirds flitting around your head as you stand on grassy verandas and the cargo containers gliding along the skylines--I couldn't help but take my time as Booker makes his initial explorations of the floating city of Columbia.  I was immediately taken in by the old-timey atmosphere--the women in their long skirts and huge hats, the kinetoscopes with their silent messages, and the blaring images of the "prophet" Comstock.  Since I had finished the game I also noticed things that should have stood out to me immediately.  A barbershop quartet is singing "God Only Knows,"a song by the Beach Boys which clearly wouldn't have a place in the 1912 world of Columbia.  How come I didn't see that the first time?

Another thing that I started thinking about were the complex and controversial themes that seem to be present throughout the game.  As a historian I can respect the fact that they really tried to accurately portray the era as it would have been.  Columbia, according to a history lesson from a kinetoscope, came into being in the 1890's.  This would have been an time period that was very absorbed in colonialism and Westernizing other cultures.  Americans and western Europeans viewed themselves as being the "civilized" cultures who were tasked with bringing both Christianity and Western values to the rest of the world.  This theme became very obvious as I progressed through Columbia and reached the odd temple belonging to the Order of the Raven with it's messages of "protect our race!"  As you lurk on the balcony you are able to listen to an oration by the leader of this strange group about the duty of white men to civilize other cultures.  I was very strongly reminded of the poem "The White Man's Burden," by Rudyard Kipling (you can read it here).  It's amazing that they included such an accurate depiction of this era which today would be considered racist at best.

That's a little deep for a video game, I know.  I'm going to continue my new adventure through Columbia and try to take in as many of the details as I can.  I always loved Rapture from the earlier BioShock games, but Columbia seems to be just as grand.

 

Original Commander Shepard was Female

MaleShep of FemShep...that is the question.

I ran into this article about a Tweet by a former animator from the original Mass Effect.  The initial animation tests for the Commander Shepard character were female!  As a big fan of FemShep I think that's pretty awesome.  Later he did clarify his comment by stating that it was always the intention that players could pick a character of either gender.  I'm still intrigued by the idea that they started off with a female character.  Would the series have been different if Shepard were meant to be a female character?  Would fewer men play it?  Do guys even care about having to play a female character?

Awhile back I posted about FemShep being one of my all time favorite lady characters.  Only 18% of players actually choose the female character!  That means that the other 82% are making a huge mistake.  The voice acting for the female character is so much better--I spend a lot of time cringing on my playthroughs with the male character.  Even though Jonathan Cooper stated that the intention was that Shepard could be male or female, I think the preferable character is the female version.

Does it matter to men if they have to play a female character?  In my World of Warcraft days many of my guy friends would play female characters.  When I asked them why many of them stated that they would much rather stare at a female character than a male one.  Others said that they simply wanted a change of perspective.  On the other hand, I very rarely ran into women playing male characters.  It's kind of weird.

Does the gender of the character you play in a game really matter?  I'm curious, but will probably never know.  I personally will pick a female character if given the option but don't have a problem playing a male character.  I don't know much about the decisions that studios make when picking the gender of their main characters, but now I'm intrigued.

Classic Gaming for free! Sounds sketchy, but is legit.

"Conquests of the Longbow:  The Legend of Robin Hood"

As someone who tries to avoid the variety of viruses, trojans, phishing attempts, and other Internet tricks I was very skeptical when I read about the release of thousands of classic MS-DOS games for free.  I had heard about an effort to add these thousands of now completely outdated video games to the free Internet Archive but hadn't checked it out until yesterday.  It appears that my caution is unwarranted.  There is nothing to download--it's run on an emulator (DOSBox) in your browser and seems to work pretty well.  I only messed around with it for a few minutes so I have no idea how save files work or anything like that.  The games listed include some great classics from my childhood.  It may be daunting to navigate the 2,296 games that they currently have listed on the site. Here are my recommendations for what to check out from this amazing gaming database.

1.) The Oregon Trail (or the "deluxe" version which is much more challenging )

The Oregon Trail is a semi-educational game that allows you to learn some facts about pioneers who traveled on the actual trail.  It also acts as a sort of strategy/simulation where you have to plan out and make decisions to keep your party alive.  Didn't take enough wagon axles?  Guess you didn't make it to Oregon and died a horrible death from your poor planning.  From what I remember in elementary school, the highlight was always hunting.  You have to option of hunting for food in areas with plentiful game and can bring back a certain amount of meat for your group.  You can only carry so much weight, but we all know you try to shoot everything on the screen.

2.) Wolfenstein 3D

This is the granddaddy of modern shooters and was a pretty advanced and controversial title in it's day.  My brother and I played it with reckless abandon and have both turned out fine despite the violence.  There are so many mechanics in this game that have remained in modern games that you can't help but feel like you're playing a part of gaming history.  Just looking at it makes me feel like mowing down some pixellated Nazi's.

3.) SimFarm

If you've ever felt the urge to drop everything, buy a farm in the middle of nowhere, and raise pigs for the rest of your life, SimFarm is perfect for you.  As the title implies this is one of the many "Sim" games that was released during the post-SimCity craze.  In it you will be tasked with running your own farm and making it profitable.  It's harder than it sounds.  Plant strawberries.  That's my advice.

4.) Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?
Another educational game with a focus on geography.  The story was that you were working for a detective agency and had to use geographic clues to try to locate the mysterious Carmen Sandiego.  In the process you learned some fun facts about different locations around the world.  It spawned a spin-off TV show that as a child I used to watch religiously.  Brush up on your geography facts!

5.) Conquests of the Longbow--The Legend of Robin Hood

This game was one of my favorites as a kid.  It is an action RPG game where you play as Robin Hood.  It is one of the first games that I can remember where you were given choices about how you wanted the story to play out.  It has a great story that's very exciting and will keep you busy for hours.  I remember the manual as being somewhat important in this game (your pre-digital DRM) and hope that it's available on the archive or somewhere.

6.) Lemmings 2 or any of the  Lemmings games on the database

Lemmings was an early puzzle game that required you to use different objects to navigate a danger filled landscape in order to get a group of suicidal "lemmings" to their final destination.  It requires some problem-solving skills and some creative thinking in order to accomplish your goal.  For some reason the music from this series really sticks in my mind.  It may be from the original Lemmings game which is, unfortunately, not currently listed on the database.

Those are some of my top picks.  I am hoping to spend some time taking a more thorough look through the list to see what's really available.  Get your classic game on!

Some Fallout Laughs

The holidays are over and it's time to return to the real world.  No more game binges or crazy late nights.  Up early and nose to the grindstone!  If you're starting to feel the post-holiday blues related to returning to work or feeling the effects of your decision to eat various cake-related items as a meal (me) then you need to laugh.  Here are some funny moments courtesy of the Fallout series.  I hope they at least get a snort.

1.) NCR 3-Pointer (Fallout: New Vegas)

This brief video clip leaves me with so many questions.  Firstly, how did this guy come up with this idea? Never once in my hundreds of hours playing Fallout have I thought "hey. I think if I put some explosives under this corpse I can totally make it go into that dumpster over there."  Mostly when I see a corpse I think "ooh free loot!"  Secondly, how many tries did it take to make that happen?  I can imagine hours spent trying to make this ridiculous (but awesome) feat a reality.  Thirdly, why is this character in his underwear?

2.) "Wazer Wifle" (Fallout 3)

It has been several years since I've replayed Fallout 3 but I think this video does a great service to the game and to one of it's more weirdly named weapons. Fallout 3 is all about the killshots and the random characters you meet along the way--even small children with speech impediments and random energy weapons for sale.  I cannot even remember this weapon and only have the vaguest of recollections of Lamplight Caverns.  I definitely don't remember any sweet dance moves.  After watching this I feel like wolling a stealthy Wazer Wifle wielding chawacter (see what I did there?).  

Mass Effect 3 "Citadel" DLC--A great apology.

At the moment I'm on a Mass Effect kick.  I've been replaying the entire series and loving it all over again.  Yesterday I wrote about the controversial ending and my feelings about how BioWare addressed the outrage.  Today I am continuing that discussion with gushing approval over the "Citadel" DLC.  It makes me feel happy.

After some major fan backlash over the crappy ending to Mass Effect 3 BioWare worked to make amends to all the pissed off fans.  The "Citadel" DLC was the perfect way for fans to get some closure.  I'm at the point in my current Shepard's story where I have grudgingly brought the Normandy into dry dock for repairs and am enjoying some shore leave with my crew.  "Citadel" is a nostalgic adventure with all the memorable characters from the Mass Effect series.  I would highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan.  I don't know that I would recommend it to someone who only played ME3 as it would seemly oddly out of context with the very serious story taking place.

The premise behind "Citadel" is that the Normandy is in need of a tune-up and the crew is due for some shore leave.  Admiral Anderson graciously decides to give his fancy apartment on the Citadel to Shepard.  If you were impressed by the captain's cabin on the Normandy you will be blown away by this cool new base.  It's a huge, sleek apartment with lots of room to kick back and relax.  Another nice feature of the apartment is the ability to change the decor to reflect your own style aesthetic.  As you initially explore the apartment you can listen to audio logs left by Anderson that help expand his story in the saga.

This DLC isn't just about relaxing with your crew and also includes a short mission sequence that involves a sushi restaurant, a casino break-in, some crazy mercenaries, a massive secret archive, and a battle on the Normandy (where you are actually fighting on the ship).  There are new foes with new abilities to face off against.  There's also a super-secret bad guy at the end of it all which might surprise you.

Besides the semi-serious story in "Citadel" there is much humor and the whole thing is basically another chance to hang out with your crew.  A new area of the Citadel, the Silversun Strip, is introduced in this DLC.  The area features a store to buy home furnishings for your apartment, an arcade with a few mini-games to play, a casino with gambling games, and a combat simulator (kind of like Pinnacle station from the original Mass Effect).  After you've completed the main story sequence your crewmates will start sending you requests to hang out.  Some are content with simply swinging by the apartment and sharing a drink or having a short conversation.  Others want to meet up in locations around the area like the arcade or the casino.  I enjoyed trying to hook Garrus up at the casino bar, watching Traynor defeat a cocky Asari at a strategy game in the arcade, and freeing Grunt from police custody after a day of Krogan chaos that involved flaming C-Sec cars.  Shepard gets a little time with every major crew member from the previous games and you get a nice sense of closure with all of them.

The culminating event of this DLC is a party in Shepard's new apartment.  You can choose who to invite, but we all know you've got to invite everyone.  The evening starts on a tame note with some drinks and light conversation.  I found it enjoyable to wander around listening to the conversations of my crewmates and sharing a few more moments with them.  After you've chatted them up and complaints start pouring in about your boring party, you can choose to "step it up" a notch.  You turn some music on and the party starts to get wilder.  There are some great moments during the party--there's a dance session with a large group, a reconciliation between Miranda and Jack, a biotic brag session that ends up with James being lifted off the ground via biotics, a mock battle featuring Wrex and Javik, and an awkward conversation between Traynor and EDI about a weird attraction.

It all ends the next morning as you wake up and explore the aftermath of the party.  Everyone is clearly feeling the effects.  The DLC winds up with a cute moment where everyone crowds onto the couch for a photo.  This memento captures all the unique personalities and interesting characters that you meet on your journey in Mass Effect.  I can barely contain my "awww" feelings at this point.  And it sort of makes me want to cry.  Damn you BioWare!

If you're a big fan of the series and characters in Mass Effect you will definitely want to pick up this humorous and touching goodbye.

Mass Effect 3 EndingGate--A Reflection after two years.

After blowing through my Steam sale purchases I have fallen back into my all time favorite gaming series Mass Effect.  I have this weirdly OCD way of playing through them. I'm replaying the entire series from start to finish including all the DLC.  This is a pretty tall order considering that there is quite a bit of DLC for Mass Effect 2.  My new Commander Shepard is now 95% through Mass Effect 3 and I am preparing for my final assault on the reapers (for roughly the fifth time).  The DLC for ME3 has altered the way that I playthrough the final game in the series and before I send Commander Shepard on her last great mission I am enjoying some shore leave with my crew in the "Citadel" DLC.  All the happiness in "Citadel" makes me forget the sadness I felt the first time I finished ME3.

An accurate depiction of my initial feelings.

The ending to ME3 and the backlash that followed aren't exactly breaking news.  The game is now almost three years old and people have moved on.  I think there's a lot to be learned from the ending of ME3 and how BioWare responded to fan criticism of it's ending.  Should they be applauded for their efforts to respect fans and remake the ending or should they be criticized for caving to pressures and straying from their own artistic vision?  (Possible spoilers ahead if you've never played Mass Effect)

 The first time I finished ME3 I was really taken aback.  It wasn't that I was upset that Shepard died (two year old spoilers), it was more that there were so many unanswered questions and obvious lapses in the way the world of Mass Effect was supposed to work.  The biggest point of contention for me was the destruction of the mass relays.  In the "Arrival" DLC in Mass Effect 2 Shepard is presented with a plan to destroy the "alpha" relay.  The alpha relay connects to numerous other relays in the galaxy and destroying it will greatly delay the invasion of the reapers.  It is in this DLC that you learn that destroying mass relays will result in the destruction of all life within that specific system.  Here you are faced with the decision to destroy the relay and with it destroy a batarian colony with a population of over 300,000.  Shepard decides that the sacrifice of these 300,000 lives is necessary to allow the rest of the galaxy valuable time to prepare for the invasion of the reapers.  Ugh, what a choice--I am reminded of it when in ME3 Garrus and Shepard have a discussion about the defense of Palaven and the tough decision for the turian's to stop offensive operations against the reapers in an effort to protect their remaining forces.  Garrus refers to the "ruthless calculus of war" and how sacrificing lives in one place will save lives in another.

So now you reach the ending of ME3 and make your series ending choice--you can choose to control the reapers (the Cerberus option), you can destroy the reapers and all synthetic life with it (the Anderson option), or you can choose synthesis and bring together all organic and synthetic life (or I suppose the do nothing option, which I think is the worst option of the three and one I have accidentally embarked on through some angry shooting of the star kid).  As you remember from the pre-patched ending you then witness the crew of the Normandy trying to outrun a colored burst from the Crucible--red, green, or blue depending on your choice.  You watch as your beloved ship is engulfed in the explosion.  The next part of the sequence showed all the mass relays blowing up in catastrophic fashion.  Wait, did I just unwittingly wipe out all life in the galaxy through my use of the Crucible?  Apparently not as in the next scene you witness the crash site of the Normandy on a seemingly inhabitable planet.  Joker, EDI, and Liara struggle out of the ship having survived and take in their new surroundings.  What a huge contradiction when the galactic codex even states that the energy released from the destruction of a mass relay was enough to wipe out all life in a galaxy and render terrestrial worlds unlivable.  I couldn't help but feel a little confused over this obvious lapse in lore.

Beyond this lapse I also had questions about the future of the series.  It was heavily implied that the mass relays were the sole reason why the universe was able to function the way it did and without the relays intergalactic travel would take months or years.  The door on my favorite series appeared to be closing for good.  From a business standpoint this seemed foolish since the Mass Effect series was popular and had a large fan base.

Many people were also upset about the fact that they were promised very different endings based on the choices that they made.  Initially these endings were simply a change to the color of the energy released by the Crucible.  Did fans have a right to be upset?  Sure.  You have a huge gaping hole in the carefully crafted world as well as three games worth of decisions that boil down to the same ending with different colors.  People angrily took to the web to express their outrage and amazingly BioWare chose to respond.  They released a patched ending that fleshed out the final sequence and seemed to address these two big complaints.  As a huge fan of the series I was pleased that they made this decision.  The new ending addressed the major weaknesses and also added in more content that explained how the crew of the Normandy escaped.

I also worry that the decision to change the ending might have set a dangerous precedent.  Does this now mean that every time fans don't like how a game ends they can take to the web and demand change?  Shouldn't studios have the right to make their own artistic decisions?  The Mass Effect fan in me is glad that changes were made but the artistic integrity part is a little twitchy.

Does open world mean a weak story? (Dragon Age: Inquisition reflections)

It seems like every new major release is leaning toward a more "open world" type of setting.  I think it's great that technology has reached the point that developers can create these gorgeous, massive worlds to be our playgrounds.  On the other hand I am someone who enjoys games with a strong story and I don't feel like the two mix extremely well.  When you think back about the storyline in a game like Skyrim can you remember much about the actual story?  I know it had something to do with dragons....but oh!  There's a cave full of enemies and numerous forks to loot.

Loot everything so your house can look like this.

Can a game truly balance the strong story-telling aspects I enjoy with the enormous worlds that seem to have become standard?  I think it's a tall order and I really don't know that anyone has done it well.  I was reading this article about how Dragon Age:  Inquisition had a lot of content (a whole lot if you really tried to do everything--well over 100 hours of gameplay) but that it felt completely extraneous.  Did you really need to waste time hopping over rock outcrops to collect 1,000 ridiculously placed shards?  Or completing the plethora of step and fetch sidequests that rewarded you with a paltry sum or some other disposable piece of loot.  This article really accurately reflected the way I felt about DA:  I.   I missed the strong character development that is the hallmark of BioWare games and too often felt bogged down in exploring the huge world.  It was way too easy to spend 15 or 20 or even 30 hours completing content that had absolutely nothing to do with the main storyline.  (Read my review here)

Sera, a character from DA:I.  She's no Tali.

I've been replaying my ultimate favorite series, Mass Effect for the umpteenth time.  After feeling a little disappointed by DA:  I I decided to revisit it to feel what was missing.  I recently played through the part of ME3 that has you making the decision about saving the quarian homeworld and in the process deciding to either eliminate or save the geth.  I actually felt myself tearing up when Tali removes her mask in celebration of the quarian return to Rannoch.  The difference is that I care about what happens to the characters in Mass Effect--by the third game I felt an actual connection to them, I wanted to see a positive outcome for my crewmates.  Maybe this is part of the reason there was so much backlash after the initial ending to ME3.  It was painful saying goodbye to Commander Shepard and the crew of the Normandy.

I didn't feel the same way about the characters in Inquisition and that was a shame.  They are actually pretty interesting--Sera and the whole "Red Jenny" weirdness, Dorian with his troubled background in the world of Tevinter, Iron Bull and his seeming rejection of the qun.  There's so much potential there, but I just didn't feel it.  Maybe it's partially due to the fact that many of them are semi-new characters?  I think it's mostly due to the way that the open world diluted the story.  The previous games weren't completely linear, but definitely were more directed and focused on the story and the characters.

As a major BioWare game fan I have felt so conflicted about DA:  I.  I have absolutely loved their other games and have replayed through them way more than I care to admit (I have over 400 hours in Mass Effect 2--for realsies).  I just don't feel that same pull with this new game and I am blaming it on the more open world design.  There, I said it.

Would you rather have 20-30 hours of meaningful play or a massive, open world to explore?  Is there a game out there that has managed to keep the story in the forefront while also maintaining an open world?   There are also deeper questions there about the price of games.  I agree with the author of the Kotaku article about the cost of games.  Games are expensive and I want to get the most out of my $60, but does it have to be empty content plugged in for the sake of being extra content?  Would you still be willing to lay down $60 for a 20-30 hour game?  This is a really tough issue and I'm torn.