I hate consoles. I really, really do. The “whys” are way too many to list. Suffice to say that the core reason is what consoles have done to games in general (read dumb them waaaay down). Well that and Deus Ex 2. I will never forgive the X box for blasphemy like that. But what I hate more than consoles is Macs. Don’t get me wrong now, I’ve got nothing against Mac users or all of Apple’s devices (I’m currently on my 4^th iPod), but I do hate the whole “we are the best and anyone who disagrees is a moron so fuck you” attitude. Hence, I was a little taken aback at Valve’s decision to support the Mac with their new Steam (beta) client. The state of PC gaming being what it is, i.e., vibrant but not as economically viable as a platform, I saw the decision as negative. Why you ask? After all, since all Macs are essentially PCs now, it should be seen as positive step for the PC games industry. Sure. There is just one little problem.

Macs are CONSOLES!!!

Think about it, once you buy a Mac, you have a piece of hardware that you can NEVER upgrade (Sorry Mac fanboys, upping the RAM or HDD isn’t much to shout about).  Just like consoles. You can add tons of peripherals, but never upgrade. Again, just like consoles. But once the nerd rage played itself out, I realized something; Valves decision is actually going to be a good thing. My hatred for consoles notwithstanding, there are some genuine reasons as to why they dictate the direction of the games industry. It’s a lot easier to code for a platform that is “locked”. The hardware stays unchanged, the core OS is the same, the same tools are used over and over again till developers become very efficient with them. On the consumer end, it’s a lot simpler to hook up a PS3 to a TV than it is to keep track of which driver is compatible with a game on whatever version of windows. And plopping in a DVD and playing is always better than having to wait for 10 gigs of data to be installed on a hard drive. If anything, its always boggled my mind that the Mac has never taken advantage of its unique position. The power of a PC along with the convenience of a console? That’s got to be a win right there.

The point is I don’t care what platform I’m playing on. The games are all that matter. I want to be able to actually use my skills and headshot an opponent than have the stupid program “assist” me. I like having the option of binding any of a keyboard’s 104 keys to any in-game action. I expect any game I purchase to take full advantage of modern tech rather than be hampered by the limitations of 5 yr old hardware. I demand that the game have some semblance of AI rather than shit like this.

As long as developers are not forced to gimp their titles because of hardware, I’ll be happy.

Ubisoft: Hi there! Welcome to Ubisoft.

Me: Thanks.

Ubisoft: What can we help you with today?

Me: Well, I purchased this game from you today called “Assassin’s Creed 2”…

Ubisoft: Ah yes, isn’t that a fine game?

Me: I wouldn’t know, I haven’t been able to play it yet. And actually, I don’t think I want to either. In fact, I want my money back.

Ubisoft: What?! Why?

Me: Well, after all this crap about your stupid DRM hit the internet, I’ve sorta changed my mind. I can live with having to authenticate my game online once while installing it or hell, even once before I start playing, but this whole “you gotta be online at all times to play the game” thing sucks ass. I’m sorry but my internet connection cannot be relied upon 24/7 and to be taken to a grey screen midway through a game is not my idea of fun. And what happens if your servers are down? Nope, this isn’t what I paid for.

Ubisoft: Sir, we understand your concern but we do have an obligation towards our employees and shareholders to protect our intellectual properties from piracy. How would you feel if someone stole from you?

Me: I understand. May I ask you a question?

Ubisoft: Of course sir.

Me: Did I steal from you? Coz I clearly remember forking over 50 bucks.

Ubisoft: No, obviously you are a valuable customer. But, you have to understand that…

Me: Piracy, yeah, I know. And I understand, really, I do. But lemme ask you this “Are your hands clean?”

Ubisoft: I’m afraid I do not understand.

Me: Coz if you must insist on grabbing me by my balls, the least you could do is clean your hands.

Ubisoft: Sir there is really no need to…

Me: BEEEEP! Wrong again asshole. There is a DEFINITE fucking need to get this point across. DRM should not screw with a paying customer. It should screw with a pirate sure, but, not someone who paid you for your precious intellectual property. You aren’t alone in this; I will grant you that much, but that doesn’t make this shit slide. This “I’ll fuck you till you love me” routine may be good for Mike Tyson or prison. It’s not good for me.

Ubisoft: Sir I really think…

Me: Shut the fuck up, I’m not done yet. You know what you have effectively done here? Do you? You are basically telling me that by paying you 50 dollars like a good little boy, all I have done is look forward to is a substandard experience. Had I pirated this thing, I wouldn’t have to deal with this shit. I could have saved my game like a normal person. AND I could have done it for free. Hell, I think that exactly what I’ll do from now on. So fuck you too.

Ubisoft: What?! Filthy pirate! You are the reason PC gaming is dying etc etc…

—

Somethings not quite right with this picture.

Pissed as I am at Ubisoft’s choice of DRM, I do see their point. Piracy is and always will be a huge issue. What I can’t understand is why paying customers have to be at the receiving end. The fact of the matter is that Ubi could have their DRM coded by the goddamned Borg and it would STILL be broken in a week. Publishers need to stop looking at every downloaded copy of a game as a lost sale. There never WAS a sale. These guys were never going to pay for your product even if you priced it on the cheap. A thief wouldn’t think twice about jacking a car if it was cheaper. He just sees an opportunity for ill gotten gain. Asking the legitimate owner of the vehicle to check in with the manufacturer via radio every mile while driving is not a solution. The same applies here.

I do not expect publishers to ship games without any DRM. But I do not want to be screwed with either. It should not be that hard a nut to crack.

The following isn’t really a blog post. It’s an excerpt from an email conversation I had with some like-minded folk about the state and direction of gaming in the Indian context. Credit for this goes to NT Balanarayan. He is the one that got the ball rolling on this one. Some of the questions asked were :

What’s holding back India as a market to develop games? What can we do to popularise professional gaming in the country?

Here is the guilty party:

Anand Ramachandran, blogs at bossfight.in is a columnist for The New Indian Express

Chirantan Patnaik, blogs at neuralchaos.com. He set a record by playing GTA for 40 hours straight!

NT Balanarayan, blogs at gamebashing.com and writes for DNA.

Bharat Joshi, yours truly.

BHARAT:

“What’s holding India back as a viable game development destination? There are many factors to be honest.

1) The way I see it, our education system is structured to create a professional army of drones. Essentially, we create some of the best software coders and IT specialists that are great on a technical level but crap from a creative standpoint. Game design is a lot more than just writing stable code. Hell, coding isn’t really a part of the creative process till much later. The concept is key, everything else follows. Unfortunately, in India’s quest to create a professional workforce, creativity is the first thing that is killed off in a student. If you want more proof, ask yourself when was the last time you played a decent mod created by an Indian for any game. (Mods NOT maps)

2) Gaming has yet to become accepted as “normal” in this part of the world. In Korea, if you claim to be a person who does not game in anyway, people look at you funny (trust me on this one; I’ve been there about a dozen times). It does not matter that the average US gamer’s age today is 33. Here, an adult that confesses to being a hardcore CS player is seen as being brain damaged or, at the very least, “immature”. Can you gauge the reaction of a standard parent when their kid walks in and says “I’ve really thought about it Dad, I’ve decided I do not want to be an engineer. Instead, I want to create the next Duke Nukem.”? Nuff said.

3) Lack of funding. This ties in closely to the lack of any professional talent. There isn’t a single game developer in India worth mentioning. I hasten to add here that I am not including flash/browser based games. Even if there are some brave souls with the balls to put their careers on the line to back up their idea, their budget would be slim indeed. The average title costs a few million dollars to develop, not counting marketing etc. I’m pretty sure Ghajini “the game” didn’t cost that much.

4) Piracy. Most of the leaked code you find tends to get through during the cloning process, i.e., it’s when DVDs are being manufactured that some asshole nicks a copy to sell to pirates (usually a factory worker). India is notorious for not having a legal system in place to protect intellectual property. Why the hell would anyone set up shop here?

I could go into further detail but these are the biggies.”

ANAND:

“The Indian gaming industry grew out of IT roots, not entertainment roots. These typically value processes over people, numbers over creativity. Our development studios simply don’t have the DNA to build competent entertainment content – just look at animation for a parallel.

Things will change as the kids take over – but it’s not going to happen in a hurry. I met several young development studios at NASSCOM this year, they’re all making okay games. But not ONE of them, in my opinion, has the capability to create decent, contemporary game – even something like Machinarium or Plants vs. Zombies for instance, leave alone high end stuff.

I think it will be at least three to five years before we see world class casual games, and ten before we see a top-end title from India (complete – not outsourcing based)”

NT:

“Interesting, meanwhile there’s this talk of prices of EA games for consoles going up by Rs. 800, do you think it’ll have an impact on gaming in India?”

ANAND:

“In the short run – probably yes – it will prevent growth. The numbers we do are so small anyway, that there’s probably no major impact in terms of revenue. But it certainly will reduce / limit the number of games people will buy, for sure. That’s Economics 101. But in the long run, not really. Once the recession is truly behind us, and companies start thinking long-term again, they will not be able to ignore India as a market (it’s the largest untapped gaming market in the world) and will do whatever is needed to boost sales.”

CHIRANTAN:

“Bharat had an intriguing point of view on seeing games through a ‘normal’ perspective. In fact, most of the issues raised around cost and maturity of development are directly proportional to the fact that video games are still considered a geek’s sanctuary and domain. This definitely has to change. Development woes and lack of creative talent in the Indian gaming industry is often blamed for intriguing titles. Before I talk about the year that went by, I’d like to stick my neck out and say this: Consoles may yet be the closet thing to an answer for the lack of interest/market.

I have been a PC gamer throughout and have only in the recent 2 years or so started playing on consoles. I wanted something that I can immediately switch on and play on a big TV instead of having to constantly upgrade my PC and install arcane system drivers.

The experience of pick-up & play is really what the console industry is pushing for. It is via this medium that most of the casual consumers can reach out to some of the blockbuster AAA titles that next-gen gaming has produced. I can’t be bothered to keep up with every damn NVIDIA card that comes up.

So there: More penetration in the homes of people, would directly impact gaming sales in the region as well as pique interest amongst smaller developers to make interesting home-grown content.

As far as the year that was, I totally loved it, and hated it. Indian games that came out were lacking in almost every department. A franchise like ‘Hanuman’ could’ve been totally mind blowing had it been made with an iota of interest and storyline. Why does a game only have to involve punching and firing guns? Plot out some radical RPG elements into the franchise, and we might as well be exporting these games like Japan has been doing since the past 10-12 years.

I still believe that most of the development in India is stymied by the belief that a creatively led game would only appeal to the niche. Let’s face it, we are a very ‘mass-market’ oriented culture. From political strategies, marketing plans of companies to bollywood; everyone aims for the ‘lowest common denominator’. However, I refuse to believe that individual and creative content does not get into the mainstream. Take a look at some of the movies that have done well despite having interesting stories and shoe string budgets. The same can be said of games, make something truly creative and engaging and you are bound to get noticed.

How about a well structured RTS game based on the Mahabharata? Or perhaps a dark yet tactical FPS located in the streets on Mumbai. This is obviously an oversimplification but hope you get the drift. What do you guys think ?”

BHARAT:

“I agree with consoles being a lot more convenient. The plug and play aspect is something the PC cannot compete with (at least in the short term). Also, from a strictly cultural standpoint, it would be much easier to get a family huddled around the home TV rather than the PC in Dad’s den. As Anand rightly surmised “India is the largest untapped gaming market in the world”.

That being said, from a purely Indian perspective, ask yourself this, “How many PCs are sold for every Xbox?” Furthermore, console games are a lot more expensive. Even the “plug and play” nature of consoles is changing. Mods are becoming common; games have to be installed on built in hard drives etc. Besides, PC penetration here is ridiculously high; I live a few miles from the biggest IT hardware market in Asia (Nehru Place, Delhi). Just take a look at how many “Farmville” players are from this country. This is where I think things are going to start turning.
The interest generated around browser-based games is pretty much impossible to ignore. The span is global and it’s instant. Compare that to the supposed 25 million dollars Valve spent on promoting Left 4 Dead 2. How many posters or ads on TV did you see for the game in this part of the world? Modern Warfare 2 is the biggest selling IP in the history of entertainment. THE HISTORY OF ENTERTAINMENT for crying out loud!! The PC version of the game is STILL not available in India. I want to be optimistic, I really do, but the fact remains that there is something very, very wrong here.
(Totally on board with the Mahabharata RTS though. That would be awesome. As would a Ramayan MMO)”

ANAND:

“Small nit-pick – but it’s simply the biggest launch, in terms of revenue, not units sold. Consider a movie ticket as a unit, which costs about $10, as opposed to a game, which costs $50 or more. The numbers here don’t always tell the complete story.

Harry potter / Star Wars are still by far the largest selling entertainment IPs – sellling books, comics, games, toys, clothing, merchandise and more. MW2 still has a loooooooong way to go

Also – completely agree with Bharat on PC / Mobile and other high-penetration devices for growing gaming in India. With consoles, the entry barrier is simply too high for a mass-market penetration in the near future.

It’s simple – in mature markets, games do the numbers they do because of one reason – the general middle-class can afford and buy them. In India, this will only be possible if we broaden the ambit of what we see as ‘games’ and a ‘gaming market’. Facebook and Farmville is a good example of where to begin.

Having said that, we aren’t even tapping into a decent percentage of those who CAN afford them. This can surely be done with better pricing and smarter marketing.”

The musclebound psycho has no idea that I’m right above him. From the shadows, I watch with a smug expression as two of his gun toting buddies walk right towards the motion sensitive trap I set for them. BOOM! The explosion sends one of the idiots flying over the railings in a spectacular show of rag doll physics, the other hits a wall and is knocked out. The target under me is scared out of his wits. I revel in the moment; I’m drinking deep from his terror and savouring the hunt. A split second later I swoop down, the cape surrounding my prey within its embracing shadows. In one smooth motion he is strung up from the gargoyle I was perched on. Level complete. This Dark Knight’s job is done. For the umpteenth time I’m left in awe with the game’s (Batman: Arkham Asylum) brilliance.

And then it all goes to shit.

A small whirling icon in the corner of the screen tells me that the game is auto saving. No probs, it’s done it a few dozen times already. This time however, the screen goes black. My heart stops for a second. As a PC gamer, I have seen this happen before. Computers can crash due to a million reasons. Usually it’s no more than a minor annoyance.

Saving regularly is something you learn fairly early on this format. A corrupted save just means you lose a few minutes of progress. You still have a bunch of other saves from not too long ago (at least, you should). But what if the game does not give you the option at all? Batman is a perfect example. There is just one save slot. One. That’s it. And the game saves automatically. I frantically start the game again, hoping against hope that the worst isn’t true. No such luck, the save file is corrupted. I was 12 hours into the campaign. Now I have to start from scratch. (If the game wasn’t as awesome as it is, I wouldn’t even bother.)

The fact that it worked 99.99% of the time is not the point. I’m playing on a PC. And PCs are … mercurial. Things do go wrong. Hell it happens on consoles too. The point then, is simple: “I shouldn’t have to go through this crap”

More and more developers are turning to auto saves/checkpoint saves as a means of keeping the gaming experience uninterrupted. Not that auto saving is a new feature; it has been around for decades now. It’s the implementation of said feature that is becoming horribly flawed. Older generation consoles have had to deal with shitty save systems (checkpoints every 30 mins for instance) because of their hardware limitations. And regardless of how “next gen” a console gets, it will always be limited when compared to a gaming PC. Just because a title is developed as a cross platform release does not entitle the devs to shaft PC gamers with features that have no business being on their platform of choice.

Quite often, formats have nothing do to with it at all. In many cases, “difficulty” is stated as a convenient excuse. If anything, this is even more absurd. Giving limited saves within a game does not make it any harder. It only makes it a lot more annoying. If a player feels that a game is way too easy, there is nothing to stop him/her from NEVER saving at all. The rest of us need something that allows us to play for 10 mins before saving and going to answer the door.

Apart from the nightmare scenario that I went through, there is another reason as to why having a single save point is stupid. What if the player wanted to replay a certain level again? I do this frequently with my favourite games just as a way of reliving a good time. Good luck with that, you will have to start a new game and play through the entire thing again till you get to the part you really like.

I may not be a programmer, but when I see a game like Soldier of Fortune 2 come up with a perfect solution to this problem as early as 2007 (the game let you choose difficulty level and the number of saves available before each mission), it does make me wonder why something like this isn’t even an option any more.

Ultimately, developers need to realize that a game needs to make full use of the advantages inherent to every format it is to be released on. A half assed compromise is not just detrimental to the experience, its downright insulting to the community as a whole.

Real time strategy games (RTS’) have come a long way. There was something inherently addictive about old school RTS titles like Age of Empires and the ridiculously popular Starcraft. The mecahnics were simple enough.  Build a base, collect resources, build an army, go forth and pwn. This is obviously a gross over-simplification but it serves to prove the point that all RTS’ share certain core mechanics.

There is always a base.

There are always resources to manage.

There will always be different unit types that need to be employed to make an effective army. (Tank rushes do not count.)

There is always some sort of “tech tree” used to unlock better weapons and such.

Somewhere down the line, however, things began to change. Gamers began to see that once you removed the shiny new skin, every RTS was essentially EXACTLY the same. It did not matter if you were fighting cyborgs or elves. You were still going through the exact same motions. In short, it began to feel just a tad bit boring, and very, very dated. Some developers tried to shake things up now and then but the core experience did not deviate. Throughout most of the late 90′s all changes were essentially cosmetic. There were exceptions of course; Empire Earth and Warcraft 3 did bring some fresh ideas that were implemented well. But it was Relic Entertainment’s Warhammer 40,000 : Dawn of war (2004) that marked an important turning point in the evolution of the genre. Here was a game that put the emphasis on constant aggression. The player absolutely had to keep moving forward, constantly claiming “strategic points” to gain more “requisition” (one of only two resources to manage) and though there was a base of operations and the usual “gather-research-mobilize-rush” element to things, the focus was always on the action.

In my opinion, this was the first game in which the player’s attention was forced towards the next attack as opposed to building the base (turtling). Not that one couldn’t do it, but rather, it always felt like it was the wrong thing to do. The game didn’t revolutionize the genre per se, but, it did sow some very important seeds. The lessons learned from Dawn of War (DOW) came through in Relic’s own Company of Heroes (COH). A game that has pretty much raised the bar for RTS’. In many ways it was refinement of the DOW formula. If anything there was a marked shift towards focusing even more on tactics as opposed to strategy. The strict unit cap in COH meant that the player had to really think about keeping a good mix of units within his army. Tank rushes failed to work (that alone was a worthy enough achievement in itself). I was expecting pretty much the same thing from DOW2.

Before I continue, let me make it clear that I love the game. This post is far from criticism. In fact, I believe Relic deserves to be given credit for trying something very different from what the industry has seen so far. However, let’s look at how the game actually plays out:

There is no base whatsoever.

There are a handful of squads (anything between 1 to 5 guys per squad). No armies. At no point does the player control more than 4 squads total.

There are no resources to collect. Only strategic points that replenish fallen squad members.

There is a levelling system with generous amounts of loot drops. Wait…what?!

Yep, that’s right, sounds more like an RPG. Because that’s what it is in my opinion. Not a Real Time Strategy title but a Tactical Role Playing Game. The only “strategy” is deciding where and how to attack. Oh, and how to equip and outfit your motley crew of hard asses. The “Risk” type world map used in the DOW Dark crusade expansion makes a triumphant return but the strategic value of that in DOW2 is damn near zero. Throughout the entire game, I kept getting reminded of Fallout Tactics (FT). A brilliant little gem from the good old days. Like FT, the positioning of your troops and how they were levelled made all the difference in battle. Hell, the combat aspect is closer to Dragon Age more than the original DOW!

All this begs the question: is this a sign of things to come? Are all RTS’ from now on going to have a more “tactical” approach to game play? There haven’t been many RTS titles out to give a clear picture. The CnC universe is still sticking to its old school formula and it looks like Starcraft 2 will do the same. Regardless, I personally think that the present day gamer’s appetite has been whetted enough by Relic’s work to demand more action oriented RTS’. I only hope that it does not water down the genre permanently to the point where the mere idea of an old school RTS becomes economically unviable.

Dragon Age will be hitting computers around the globe in a couple of hours.

There have been a few reviews out already and the initial responses from the critics have been excellent. One thing about the game that I was always dismissing as hype was the whole “spiritual successor to Baldur’s Gate” thing. Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d have to say “Umm, I don’t think so”. The good news is that I’m sure it does not matter. This is going to be a real good game regardless. It did get me thinking though, what made the Baldur’s Gate series so unbelievably good? In fact, what makes any RPG worthy of the genre, good at all? Here are a few things that I think separate the merely good from the real classics (in no particular order):

DISCLAIMER: I must stress here that I personally do not consider games like Diablo (which I love btw) & Titan Quest, etc., to be true RPGs in the real sense of the word. Those types of games fall into the “Action RPG” genre which is a totally different kind of beast. Also, there will be some spoilers about various games here; those will be highlighted in red like this.

1)      Story. This is where it all begins. Pretty much every RPG that I can think of has the same premise, i.e., the world is in peril, you need to man up and save it. When you consider just how contrite this narrow minded vision is, it’s always refreshing when a developer takes it and gives you a genuine surprise. Baldur’s gate delivered a shocking revelation about you being a Bhall spawn, a bonafide child of the God of freakin murder himself! Mass effect had a space ship being the actual villain. KOTOR 1 hit you on the head with the fact that YOU were the bad guy. Its stuff like that which create water cooler moments that we gamers so love.

2)      NPCs. Every RPG has them and most are merely passable at best. The real gems give you fleshed out characters that you genuinely care about or better yet, hate (for the right reasons). Any interaction between the player and NPCs and indeed, among NPCs themselves, goes a long way toward making the virtual seem real. BG2 and Vampire Bloodlines in particular stand out here (For instance, remember this?). In both cases, the voice acting was perfect; the dialogues were a testament to a high quality of writing. Recently, Bioware has effectively used cinematics like this one to give the same effect. This is one thing I expect Dragon Age will nail.

3)      Choice. This one is hard to get right. Even Bioware has yet to get this down perfectly. For the most part, an RPG will let you feel like your decisions have made on impact on the world. It’s rare to see a game where your choices will actually alter the way the story progresses (Deus Ex excelled in this). The truly outstanding games will accomplish this while making it hard for you to decide if a particular choice is the “right” one at all. Such as whether or not to turn Heather into your ghoul in Bloodlines or killing agent Anna Navarre in Deus Ex. In my opinion, Obsidian does a better job of managing this aspect than anyone else in the industry. This is why I think KOTOR 2 was a better role playing experience when compared to KOTOR 1, even though the latter was on the whole, a better game.

4)      Character development. This is a key element and one, which boils down to : balance. The old 2^nd edition DnD rules employed by the BG series were pretty hard on newbies. I still wince at the memory of how the game handled dual classing. Recent iterations have made character development a lot more accessible. However, regardless of the system used, one thing is certain; having a character that’s still a wimp even at the end of a few levels is just no fun. On the flip side, having a godlike character midway through a campaign takes away all challenge. The real trick, however, is to use a system that allows level progression to be an organic process that feels right. An assassin that uses divine magic and wears heavy armor might seem like a good idea, but any system that even allows this as a possibility is erring on the wrong side of freedom imo.

5)      The world. Graphics can go only so far. An average engine can still deliver an excellent role playing experience if all the other elements are in place. It irks me to see any RPG harp about its engine before anything else. What really makes the world come alive in a game are the people in it and the way the inhabitants behave even when you are not actively engaging with them. Architecture is another dimension that you don’t really tend to notice until it’s done poorly. Besides, how likely are you to care about exploration or the “world coming to an end” if you don’t think much of it in the first place? Now, consider a world like Oblivion’s where almost all the key elements were married to an excellent engine. Now you have something special.

6)      Loot. Random drops are all well and good but an epic item must be the reward for doing something, well, epic. I clearly remember getting an awesome sword for killing my first dragon in BG2. That was a battle that literally took me a week to beat and the reward at the end of it was well worth it. Hell, that game even had a talking sword for Hood’s sake! I can’t remember the last time I was salivating at the prospect of new gear the way I did in BG2.

7)      Combat difficulty. This one is a personal preference; some people like their RPGs to be not combat centric at all. Others won’t touch a game that does not have a deep and complex combat dynamic. The battles in BG were bitch hard (the first time around at least). This was one of only two games that had me strategizing about the battles even when I was not playing (other being the Commandos series which wasn’t even an RPG). From whatever I have read so far, the combat in Dragon Age should feel the same way. About bloody time.

8)      Emotional impact. This obviously has a lot to do with the story and the writing in general. Having twists in the plot is no major achievement. But a twist that resonates with you long after you have finished the game, now that’s something. Consider the way Deus Ex reveals how you were playing for the wrong team, or how horrifying the death of Dogmeat felt in Fallout. The way a game ends also has to be equally satisfying. Cliffhangers hardly ever work in RPGs. A sense of completion should go hand in hand with that of contentment.

9)       Music. It would  be easy to think of this as the icing on the cake if it wasn’t a key ingredient. A good musical score will take an emotion and expand it exponentially. Every RPG I’ve loved has had a soundtrack that’s haunted me for days if not months. (Updated)

I’m sure there a bunch of other stuff that I haven’t listed but, these are the key elements of a great RPG for me. Are there any other elements that make an RPG work for you?

Man talk about mixed signals. Just last week, I was convinced that Activision / Infinity Ward really don’t care much for the PC community at all. And now, I end up reading this. Now, I’m no programmer, but I’m pretty sure that integrating Modern Warfare 2 with Steamworks like this would not have been a cakewalk. At the very least, it would have cost them time AND money. But they did it anyway. When you consider just how few titles (even PC exclusives) do this, it sheds some light on where IW/Activision’s going with their franchise. More importantly, it expresses how they view the platform in general. This does not seem like the action of a publisher that considers the PC a defunct platform. Suddenly, Twofourzero’s claim of MW2 being the “biggest investment Infinity Ward has ever made into the PC” does not smell of pure bullshit. Does this mean that I have completely reversed my stance on the petition? To put it simply, no. But, I am now willing to give IW a chance to substantiate it claims. At the very least, it does give me hope that the multiplayer aspect won’t suck as much everyone expects. The technical aspects of why we should have dedicated servers still stand of course but, if IW is genuinely concerned about the PC (and the Steamworks integration does point to this), then perhaps IWNET isn’t necessarily the death knell of community building. Mind you, upping the price of the game by 10 bucks still bites (I’ll probably wait for a sale on Steam) and no mods is damn near unacceptable but at the very least we aren’t being told to f@#k off.

Launch date cant come soon enough.

The L4D2 boy-cotters were a bunch of idiots. There. I said it. They were certainly passionate about what they felt, but they were still idiots. The original L4D was a darn good game; and even without any further updates, NO ONE could complain that they didn’t get their money’s worth after having played it for over a freaking year. It was petitions like that which made me think of all online petitions as a joke. Which is why I’m a little surprised at how soon I signed for the CoD Modern Warfare 2 petition that is demanding the inclusion of dedicated server support for the game.

Let’s look at this logically for a minute. If IW is focused on delivering an exceptional single player experience, shouldn’t the gamer be happy with that? No one is charging me for the multiplayer so technically, the dev does not “owe” me anything. Don’t get me wrong, I play cod4 multiplayer virtually every day and no dedicated servers basically means I won’t touch the online mode in the sequel. But what if Infinity Ward turns around and says “OK we will give you your dedicated servers IF you pay us a monthly fee”?  But hey, you guys upped the price for the PC version anyway. Hmmm, maybe there is more to this than I previously thought.

The PC is all about freedom. We won’t settle for second class products that use their console heritage to pander to some decision making suit. Or rather, we shouldn’t have to because; well let’s face it, that’s precisely what’s happening. Ultimately, while Infinity Ward’s official stance seems diplomatic enough, it still does not change the nature or intention of their decision. They simply do not care about the PC market. Or rather we are just not as valuable or lucrative as the console market.The fact that we as community are passionate to the point of absurdity does not really dent their bottom lines enough to warrant any real attention. This game is going to be challenging GTA4’s sales figure records (which sold 3.6 million copies sold on day one ONLY on consoles) and all of it will be accounted for by consoles. The fact that the PC release is being pushed back is proof enough for me.

At first, reading TwoFourZero’s explanation did seem like the whole thing wasn’t so bad, I mean, no aimbots? That’s reason enough to be celebrating right? Some of the ideas put forth actually do make a lot of sense. I honestly WANT to believe we are not being shafted here. But then, this reminded me that the truth is going to suck.

At the very least, IW owes this community a better explanation. And please, no more bullshit about “bifurcating the community“. Without the ability to hold dedicated servers that can accommodate 30+ players with minimum lag, or adding to the life of a game via mods, there IS no community.