At Crispy Gamer, Tom Chick and I worked together on a couple of RTS outlooks for the coming year. If you’ve heard our latest podcast, these opinions won’t have anything new. But you do get to see outdated photos of both of us.
Crispy Gamer Outlooks for 2010
January 15th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Crispy Gamer, RTS
→ 2 CommentsTags:
Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War
January 13th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Ancients, Indie Games
My friend Kevin pointed me to this a couple of days ago and only now have I gotten to spend some time with the beta demo.
The first thing that strikes you about Hannibal is the art. It’s sort of a Bayeux Tapestry thing, I guess. Very stylized and not entirely clear all the time. But I can think of no other game that looks like this.
I’m still trying to figure out whether I like the demo. Forced March Games (great name, by the way) has made some odd interface decisions for activating units and the tutorial is one of those things that locks you out of certain actions in an infuriating way unless you do everything you are told in the right order. But movement and combat is straightforward and it captures Hannibal’s strategic genius and peril nicely.
Still in beta, and you know how I feel about playing those. But, hey, it’s Hannibal. It’s hard for me to say no.
→ 8 CommentsTags:
Three Moves Ahead Episode 47 – Looking Ahead to 2010
January 12th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead
Troy, Tom and Rob look at the big 4 RTSes coming out this year (Command & Conquer 4, Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander 2 and RUSE) as well as the return of Norb Timpko, the future of Facebook games, the battle between Victorian Age games. And Tom makes Troy sing.
Apologies for the sound issues. It was a bad connection that we tried to fix a couple of times without much success.
Listen here.
RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.
Greed Corp
Scourge of War: Gettysburg
Sid Meier talks to Julian Murdoch
Paradox buys AGEod
Vainglory of Nations
Victoria Developer’s Diaries
→ 23 CommentsTags:
The Limits of IGF Judging
January 11th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Awards, Indie Games
AI War was not nominated for any Independent Game Festival awards. This is does not surprise anyone, even the creator. (Spotted at RPS.)
Chris Park makes some observations about the IGF judging process that echo my own experiences with the indie awards.
IGF winners generally tend to be very short and have a clear and immediate hook. They might be hardcore-ish or casual-ish, but they’re the sort of thing you could immediately pick up and play while walking around a convention hall. Can you imagine trying to pick up and play AI War at a convention hall, let alone really learn what makes it unique?
The judging, from what I can tell, is done on pretty much the same sort of system: a large panel of judges gets a large selection of games each to review, and they play each one for as long as they can to get their impressions. I had an email from one judge on the very last day of judging looking for a link to AI War, since it had temporarily been messed up. This is not meant to be a slight on that judge in any way (everyone has other things going on in their lives), but I think it is indicative of the mindset of the judging in general. If you can’t pick it up and figure out whether a game is worthy in a spare hour or two, it’s probably not worthy.
None of this is an attack on the IGF itself. Like Park, I understand why AI War would not be an easy game to nominate in spite of its ingenious design and innovative approach to artificial intelligence.
But this is the sort of judging approach that gets Blueberry Garden nominated. Indie gaming is probably too big to judge fairly, of course. Hundreds and hundreds of games are entered every year, no judge plays them all, and you have to get through your list of entries in a fixed amount of time. Something as huge and intricate as AI War doesn’t stand a chance.
On the year end podcast, Tom and I talked about streamlined game play in the industry and how it has become the new modus operandi in strategy gaming. To some extent, the IGF plays a role in this. Nominees are almost always games you can immediately understand or appreciate on some level, meaning the game designers who streamline have an advantage in getting the very important IGF seal of approval.
Having not played any of the nominees, I can’t really say that AI War should have been nominated. There’s a good chance that the chosen games are in fact better than Park’s space conquest game. But Park is right to point out that the IGF may not be the best place to judge elaborate games like his – especially if he is telling the truth about a judge waiting until the final day to play it.
→ 4 CommentsTags:
Multiplayer Fail – Rise of Nations Edition
January 9th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Me, Multiplayer
Late last night (or early this morning), I was all set to play a skirmish game of Rise of Nations with my good friend and fellow Canuck Jenn Cutter. This is for an upcoming podcast episode, so we need to fit in the experience before we record that show. (Yes, she’s a guest, but not the only one. I’ll explain more later.)
We set up Game Ranger to get around the annoying Gamespy stuff that never seems to work right, and were all set to kill some dudes. But we could not connect because we had different versions of the game.
Usually you would just patch and move on, but this isn’t an option for us – we were both up to date. The issue, it turns out, is that Rise of Nations Gold is incompatible with Thrones and Patriots played from its own disk. The Gold version apparently uses a slightly different version because of some No-CD thing or whatever. Good going guys.
There is an elaborate work around that may work, but it involves all kind of crap that I should not have to put up with. Time is of the essence here, of course, so I ordered a copy of RoN Gold to see if, at the very least, those two versions could speak to each other.
Yet another sad story in legacy PC gaming.
→ 7 CommentsTags:
Making History II on your browser
January 8th, 2010 by Troy Goodfellow · Tech, WW2
I’m not enough of a tech head to really make much sense out of the details here, but the announcement that next month’s Making History II will be played in a browser strikes me as something different for PC gaming. A 3D engine running in your browser?
There is a great discussion in the comments, where the piece’s author, Matt Seegmiller, explains that this idea is a fusion of ideas that are constantly mixing at Muzzy Lane.
Something that probably didn’t come across in the article is that this technology was not developed specifically for Making History II. We additionally have about a half dozen serious games currently in production using this same technology, including a DARPA funded project to create games for middle school science. We were originally founded on the idea that 3D multiplayer games could teach people something. To that end, we found integrating our games with the web almost a necessity, allowing for much more intuitive multiplayer lobbies and much easier install paths. Plus you end up with integration into existing web infrastructures, like social networks and learning management systems.
So is this tech a big step forward? If anyone here can really explain how this is an advantage for the gamer, I’d love to hear it.
→ 9 CommentsTags: