Well, here. Except for the ridiculous nod to “Game Informer staff” (Come on, guys. Put your name down. Stand up for your opinions. Afraid of backing up those scores divided into .25 increments?), I have no real problems with the list. Well, two.

First, putting Scott Kurtz in the same game-writing category as Jerry “Tycho” Holkins is puzzling since PvP has become more a traditional (but still funny) workplace comedy more than a game or gamer satire. (Check out his archives for how much more frequent the game humor was at the beginning.) As hit or miss as the Penny Arcade comics can sometimes be, the commentary is always worthwhile.

Second, I didn’t make the list.

I’m the type who usually waits for official patches. The idea of using user created mods to fix game issues usually puts me off for some reason, and patches that are “in progress” are even more worrisome. Why apply a piece of software that isn’t finished to a game that mostly is? Enter Paradox and the beta patch.

For quite a while now, Paradox has been working on a patch for Crusader Kings. This medieval strategy game is my favorite Paradox title since Europa Universalis II because, as I noted in my review, it’s like a soap opera set in the Middle Ages. Royal dynasties by way of Dynasty, if you will.

Still, the retail game had some major issues on the strategy end, especially regarding the Crusades which gave their name to the game. The 1.04a patch fixed a lot of this, but there was a general consensus that another patch was needed.

Paradox has never been afraid of patches. EU2 has eight. The first EU had 10. I think they only stopped at 3 for Victoria I think because that game is probably unfixable. But the constant testing of patches to satisfy one of the most vocal communities in the strategy game world probably took a toll on the development of new product. So they took advantage of that vocal community in the most constructive way possible. They designed a beta patch process where interested players could apply patches in progress and offer feedback along the way.

The one obvious problem with this is that people who don’t know it is going on because they don’t frequent the official forum are stuck with an older patch and miss a lot of the cool stuff going on.

The best thing about this process is that user input has meant that there is a lot of cool stuff going on.

Most of the changes in the Crusader Kings beta patch are related to the role-playing element that makes CK the most personal of the Paradox grand strategy games. There are now events that make regencies more full of intrigue, that force your lord to deal with the politics of having a bastard and that make changing your laws to suit your game more dependent on the support of your vassals or the church. The domestic side, always the richest part of the game, is now infinitely richer.

There are some stability issues with the beta patch (dated June 3rd if you are interested), but this patch is one of the best improvements to a peronal favorite game that didn’t come in an expansion pack. If you haven’t looked at Crusader Kings in a while, take another look with the beta patch. It’s one of the best examples of community pickiness being used for good instead of evil.

It’s important to emphasize that Paradox can do this because they have devoted considerable time and effort to cultivating a strong connection with their fans. At times the forums are like echo chambers – parroting the official line and shouting down dissent. But most of the time, the Paradox community shows its strength through a deep understanding of what the game designers are trying to do. I can think of few communities that have such general goodwill for the developers of the games that they have been drawn to. (Only Bioware comes immediately to mind.)

If I was giving a review of the beta patch, it would get a 4/5. The beta patch process would get four and a half.

If you still want to wait for the official patch, they are aiming for 1.05 by the end of summer. That will probably spell the end of the patching process, but at least it is going out on a high note.

The third Carnival of Gamers is up at Man Bytes Blog. (What a great name for a blog.)

Enjoy all the unfiltered opinions.

A different type of post here. My sometime writing home Game Method is looking for more writing staff, preferably people who can contribute to the site in other ways as well. Here’s the link. They cover consoles and PCs, so whatever your poison is.

The payment for this? Well, nothing except seeing your name on a byline or a staff page. The occasional game.

So why do it? Well, if you want to ever get paid for this, you need a portfolio of work to show and you can only get that through writing for free. Bleak, but true. There is an art to this sort of thing and it takes time to find your own voice.

Why do it for Game Method? Because I like these guys, I guess. The site has been in a bit of a slow period after E3 (recovery period, I suppose), but I can vouch for the professionalism and courtesy of the senior staff. (The editor in chief even has the gall to edit me!) They aren’t Gamespy or Gamespot, but they are real pros at what they do and I want them to make their little corner of the internet something worth visiting.

If you are at least curious, drop them a line.

Does this sound like you?

“One test of how well you connect with a game like this is how much it makes you want to read background material.”

When I read this line in Bruce Geryk’s review of recent submarine games (Computer Games Magazine, July 2005, pg 65), I smiled at the apt phrase and moved on. His reviews are usually full of gems like this. His review of Gary Grigsby’s World at War in the same issue, for example, likens it to a “handful of clumsy dice.” But the truth of the book quote was only hammered into me this afternoon.

The same friend who had all those problems with Pirates a while ago is now playing Rome: Total War based on my recommendation. This time he borrowed my copy for testing before buying his own. (A wise move, even though he eventually got Pirates working.) He is now in the middle of reading a novelization of the rise of Caesar and is asking me for recommendations on other books to read about the period. This was the second time in the day that I was pressed for recommendations on Roman history to read but the only time that I could trace the renewed interest to a game.

He is loving Rome, obviously, but he is moving beyond just the game to want to know more about the society, the politics and the war. I mentioned in passing that the dictator Sulla died of natural causes in retirement and he asked the perceptive question of whether or not Caesar would have eventually retired.

Now I am thinking back to all the games I’ve played that have led me to read more about the period. I know that Europa Universalis got me interested in the Thirty Year’s War, as well as conquistadors, and my hours with Sid Meier’s Gettysburg were followed by binging on books about the American Civil War.

Since I devour strategy games at a pretty good pace, you can probably guess that I already have an interest in history – especially military and political history. (Nothing against social history. But my tastes have always been pretty conservative even if my politics aren’t.) But not every game send me to the library. Shogun did not inspire an interest in Tokugawan Japan and Age of Kings certainly didn’t make me interested in castles and knights.

Sometimes, as Geryk says, a game just strikes the right note and you want to learn more. It has happened to me outside of the strategy arena. Though I’ve always been a baseball fan, I remember Oldtime Baseball inspiring my love of baseball history. I just had to know who all these dead guys were. And that was just a stats pack for Tony LaRussa Baseball when it came down to it. I connected with Oldtime Baseball, though, in a way that I have with few action sports titles since.

As a strategy consumer, I am going to suggest that developers of historical strategy games include a recommended reading list to go with their games. That would save me bugging my friends for recommendations on Operation Barbarossa.

A guest writer over at Bastard Numbered has hit the nail on the head and coined a phrase that I think will work its way into my repertoire. Why do certain people fail at certain tasks in games?

“Frosty” says that people have blindspots in games that develop largely through getting accustomed to certain mechanics. In case, years of playing shooters that showed you everything has made him a sitting duck in Half Life 2 when enemies start hitting him from behind.

My blindspot is probably aggression in RTS games. Most of the early ones allowed you to build up a nice defense, amass a huge army and then destroy the opponent. The more recent ones discourage rushing, to an extent, but also make turtling much less effective. This new paradigm in RTS games means that my years of expertise are now useless. This is game design getting better melding with my gaming time getting shorter leading to my total humiliation at almost all multiplayer RTS games.

Anyway, read “Frsoty’s” piece and share your own blind spots.