On RPGs and their unfortunate flaws.

In reply to my last blog entry, Foto Efekt asks what are (in my mind) the fundamental flaws of computer RPG and what needs to be changed. While I won't necessarily discuss what I'm planning on doing for my project, I am willing to point out the problems that the genre tends to suffer from. At least that might give you an idea of where I'm heading. Will I be able to rectify all of the issues? Am I just talking out of my ass belittling the gaming industry only to realize that what I'm suggesting can't be done? Time will tell. This post isn't really about that. It's about admitting that there's a problem, look at the cause, and try to improve game design philosophies overall. More importantly, it's about making cool games.

First and foremost, I think that there's a huge problem in the industry and how they handle storytelling. Most games (at least the big budget ones) are a few quick-time events short of becoming nothing more than interactive movies. Do any of you remember FMV games ([f]ull [m]otion [v]ideo)? There's a reason why that genre is dead and why most gamers don't like quick-time events in their games.

There are times when, depending on how it's executed, we don't mind the occasional quick-time events. So why do we normally despise them, though? Well, my reasoning is that the storytelling of the game is so not involving that it's the only way for the game to keep our attention. No one ever says "Hey, you know what would be cool? Quicktime events!" That can also be applied to many brawler-type games. It's so bad that those quick-time events remind us of how bad it is. That's my theory, in any case.

It's because the relationship between the gamer and the game is a one-way channel enforced by the designer. Do X or don't continue... or worse: fail. What -IS- failing, anyways? Is it death? Is it alternate objectives? More often than not, it's neither. It's just "BAM! Game Over! You didn't do what you were expected to do! Try again!" That's a major problem and it goes all the way to how the game's story is being told. This is true for even awesome game series like The Elder Scrolls. In Oblivion, for example (I mention Oblivion because it’s one of the games that I’m most familiar with), a lot of the events in the game follow the same pattern: The world is going to end, talk to Jauffre or nothing will happen... So, by logic, you shouldn't do anything!Tada! No Oblivion gates!

Diablo 2's storytelling (as awesome as it is) got a lot of flak back when it was released in 2000 because critics use to say "You're a hero, yet you're just following the flow of the story, not really contributing anything to the plot". I thought the way Blizzard and Blizzard North handled the storytelling in Diablo 2 was really cool. It works brilliantly for the kind of game that it is. However, it's not an RPG, is it? It's a mindless hack-n'slash and, at best, it's a campaign module. That's the case for nearly every game that has plot these days. Ever felt like you had to do everything to save the world and nobody else within that world was willing to lift a finger? Ever felt that all you had to do was NOT participate and the world would be fine despite what every NPC is telling you?

Or is that only happening in open-ended/sandbox games? Are we stuck between tunnel-vision design and stale freedom?

Is that the best that our favoured medium is capable of? I don't necessarily have issues with the method per say, generally speaking, but to see that happening in RPGs is just sad. RPGs are the pinnacle of choice. While the story should engage the player, it's important that the player is driving the story. That's what the dungeon master in a Pen&Paper game (read: Dungeons & Dragons) is for; to adjust the campaign to his or her players' choices. That's what makes D&D so fun. There's more to RPGs than having multiple "alternate endings" (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). Dungeons & Dragons is what every RPG game is trying to emulate.

Let me rephrase that last sentence to emphasize the more disturbing and/or disappointing truth: Every RPG (from Ultima to all the way to JRPGs such as Final Fantasy to current games like Skyrim and, now, Dark Souls 2) is a developer's interpretation/adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons. A game developed in 1974. A game designed to be played with pencils, dice and paper because, at the time, people didn't have easy access to computers if at all.

I mention "people didn't have easy access to computers" because we have to understand WHY people used dice, pencils and sheets of paper to play games. Why did players have to keep track of how much strength and how a 1-8 sword with a +1 modifier affected their characters... and how much experience points they have/need; it's because they're doing the math in their heads.

You know what that is? It's essentially a game engine. The user interface is a sheets of paper and the graphics/sound is the imagination. We're in 2014 and we're still using game mechanics from the 70s. Is that all we can do? Is this really what "Next Gen" gaming really is? Right now, "Next Gen" only refers to the new generation of consoles. Okay; fine. What does the Xbox One or Playstation 4 offer that the previous generation of consoles couldn't? A new paint job? We're talking about video games, here; they run on computers. Computers... COMPUTE things so that means that they can handle all the math we want. Why are we still playing games that were designed with old gen mentality? Why are we still playing games with tooltips on the weapon telling us how much damage it deals? It's a sword! A sword can be better than another sword but the game is still communicating that through dice roll potentials. NPCs are empty shells that are there for you to click on them so that they can say their one or two line of dialogue... I saw that kind of behavior in the original Final Fantasy.

"Don't fix what isn't broken" is a very safe way to look at it. We're used to it but nobody seems to challenge it. Is it really the only way to do things? Isn't there a better way?

That also has a side-effect of making the focus of RPGs into a spreadsheet game. Everything (the story, the characters, the motives) becomes blurred out because the game encourages you to look into your stats and be as efficient as possible. "Can't kill that monster?" level up a few times and try again. If you meta-gem the socket into a whippo-blue-spectraltron (I made that up, by the way), your attacks will double and you can keep the monster permanently stunned! That's where the strategy is; in the spreadsheets. If you didn't have to do that, the game would then be too easy. I'm not saying that if you like that kind of stuff that you're either stupid or that you're playing the wrong games. Tactical RPGs are surprisingly fun. I'm just saying that if you want to play an RPG where you truly have the sense of adventure and want to save the princess, the spreadsheets have to go. The focus from a game design and player point of view needs to be on the adventure.

Is Morrowind really better than Oblivion? What about the Baldur's Gate series? Mass Effect? Ultima? Forget all that! No matter how you feel about The Elder Scrolls or RPGs in general, from the UI to the loot design, the TES series is the closest to being true RPGs the way people imagine it when they play Dungeons & Dragons. That's why it's one of my favourite video game series. We still have a long way to go, mind you, but I believe it's because each iteration of the series puts more and more emphasis on the adventure. You might prefer Morrowind to Oblivion but, looking at it objectively, Oblivion is a far simpler game than Morrowind; the spreadsheet is still there but it's very trimmed down. As a fan of Morrowind, you might say to yourself "Yeah! Take THAT Oblivion!" but this trimmed down spreadsheet is what makes Oblivion a better game to channel the adventure; it's just a shame that Morrowind features many more game elements that compliment RPGs that its sequel lacks.

To reiterate, when I talk about spreadsheets, I'm talking about stats that your character wouldn't see but that you need to see to understand what's going on in the game. A "1-8 sword", "hit rating", "block and critical chance", "50 spell resistance", "level 30 in Conjuration", "NPC disposition", "level 20 lock", etc.

You don't have that problem in Dungeons & Dragons because your imagination and ingenuity will always trump the stats. If your dungeon master is good, he'll promote that and, if he's bad, the experience is so organic anyways that the stats are just there to regulate everybody involved. Even if your D&D session is all about killing monsters (as some like to play), the dungeon master is describing everything to you so your imagination is the key element that makes it fun. What you remember at the end of the day is how you and your friends defeated the demon... and how you managed to jump on his back and tie a rope around his neck and everybody thought that was the most awesome thing you ever did.

It's a question of focus.

Peter Molyneux, a game designer behind the Fable series (and many, many other great games), had the right idea about trying to get the players invested in characters like the infamous dog. Or that creepy kid tech demo he had a prototype of for the Xbox's Kinect. It's a dog because it saves them the trouble of making you converse with it. Talking characters that are universally likeable are super hard to do and, when it happens, it's often times a fluke. Not to mention an animal is a great way to hide a clumsy AI if they realize halfway through production that the AI is subpar or that the computer can’t handle it. The dog is Mr. Molyneux's attempt (amongst many) at making a connection between the player and characters in his virtual world. I believe that he had the right idea, but ultimately attacked the problem from the wrong angle... because, he essentially forced that connection to the players as a gimmick. At the end of the day, regardless of the success that the dog might bring, it's still a spreadsheet game; albeit one with fart jokes.

You know what annoys me the most about spreadsheet games? It's that it doesn't make good use of the medium. Show, don't tell. If you visibly show that a sword is on fire or that heat waves are emitting from it, a player is smart enough to figure out that the sword deals fire damage especially after a few combat situations. It saves you the trouble of making a stupid tooltip. Make the victim scream in pain or have him/her engulfed in flames or even just have a fiery sound effect when you swing. You probably couldn't do a lot with ASCII graphics back in the old days but, again, we're in 2014 now. We have the technology. We had it for years! Of course, now, it'd just look better. NPC disposition is high? Make the NPC look like he's happy to see you. Have the NPC say how much he enjoys your company. Don't just give me a rating.

The counter argument I hear sometimes is "how do you communicate to the player how much damage he/she can deal? If you communicate that the sword is on fire, how much damage does that fire deal?" and, to me, that's the wrong way of seeing it. In fact, saying stuff like that just means you don’t get it. You have to think outside the box; especially in RPGs. I mean, we expect the players to think outside the box to solve challenges so why are the developers taking the easy way out?

The fantasy is feeling like a hero, not a manager. "Visual presentation" is the answer. It's not so much telling the player how much he/she can deal, but showing the player the damage he/she IS dealing. The early first-person shooters did this rather well, actually. Grab a shotgun and you can kill enemies in one glorious shot! There were no tooltips and it was done with very few graphical sprites. How much damage the shotgun shells actually did is pretty irrelevant, at least to the player. It was GORY!

It's so strange that, for a genre that's so number-crunchingly intensive, combat is getting faster and faster as the years go by. Like both of these things are supposed to work harmoniously somehow. Are we playing a strategy game or an action game? There's an issue with pacing, here, but RPGs circumvent the issue by pausing the game either by accessing your inventory (Bethesda) or by pressing a pause button that allows you to activate spells and abilities (Bioware). JRPGs are traditionally turn-based but even some of them tread in real-time waters (FFIV ?, FFX?). They do this because they want to deliver an exciting cinematic experience… yet they still want you to be able to figure out what you have in your inventory and spell books.

While there's nothing wrong with wanting to deliver a cinematic experience (I mean, those ARE cool, right?), as a game designer, you're stuck in this proverbial ditch; it requires you to craft your story which makes it linear and basically pigeonhole-ing the player into doing exactly what you've planned them to be doing. Traditionally speaking, you can't have "cinematic experiences" and "player-driven" in the same sentence...because one requires you to take control from the player. Unless you're just talking about the presentation (like a massive epic combat scene in the background, or just being inside a majestic ancient ruin). A player might end up doing something that is epic, or found himself (by his actions) in a situation that is so out of control that it becomes "cinematic"... but you can't plan that. If you can't plan it, it's not something game designers can consistently offer. However, it's part of the organic nature of what RPGs should be… or, at least, what they should strive to be.

Think about Minecraft for a second. Ok, it's barely what I'd call a game, but it's 100% player-driven. That's the kind of stuff our favourite media can do and it ignites the imagination.

The issue with player-driven gameplay is that it's hard for developers to make characters or events that the player will be invested in. Lets face it, most NPCs are still acting like robots. More often than not, because of this higher-paced combat, the AI seems inept. An encounter is challenging not because the AI is clever, but because the enemy hits harder or has more health points... or has spot-on accuracy. But even outside of combat, characters act like robots. Those that move have a routine. Aside from their short-term reactions to what you do around them, the player's actions hardly (if at all) influence that NPC's routine... with the exception of you murdering them. I think the closest we've seen in that regard is in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. You steal all the gold and food from an NPC and they'll eventually turn to crime... and then die from the brutally unsympathetic guards.

That's great! We need more of that! The entire game should revolve around stuff like that.

So, with the linearity of the story design with little to no player-driven content and "spreadsheets mechanics", I believe that RPGs are a shallow representation of what they truly stand for. They're still incredibly fun (for the most part) but with the Xbox One and Playstation 4 settling in more and more houses and this wave of new "next gen" games, all of it has me rolling my eyes. It's just a new paint job.

I have plenty more to talk about on the subject, but I'll leave it at that for now.

This isn't even Alpha

Alright, so I figured I might as well tell people at least WHAT I'm working on.  I mean, what could possibly keep me away from playing video games such as Morrowind, Skyrim and even close-to-the-heart Diablo?

I'm trying not to be too hyped up as I'm writing this...

A couple of close friends and I are gathering forces to make our very own video game without any of the corporate issues that tend to strangle development teams.  Because strangling creativity is stupid.  Cutting features due to deadlines is stupid.  Because most games seemed to be designed to be played once; and that's stupid.  So yeah, that's the big reveal: A video game.

The coolest part of it all: I'm at the helm.

So we're essentially building the video game I've been planning since I was in high school (if not before then).   A dream project.  The guys liked my pitch and the fact that I have years worth of design documents in hand really convinced them to go with it... that and the really, really crude prototype helped.  So the idea is to build it, test it, fix it and repeat that process until it's golden.  Production is where we feel most comfortable at.

My game is an role playing game and the mission statement is to essentially rectify what I believe is fundamentally flawed in RPGs.  Cocky?  Yeah, it sure sounds like it but I came up with something really cool.  You think that's crazy, the more ambitious part of the project is that we want this to truly be worthy of the tag "next-gen" but not in the shallow "lets make prettier images" kind of way; we're talking next-gen game mechanics.

It seems like the trend is to either look back and make "homage" to the classic games or just make a game as lean as you can and polish it as much as possible.  What?  It's another run-of-the-mill game?  No worries, we'll write a really cool story to draw the players in.  NO!  That's bad!  While I'm all "if it worked back then, it should work today"; that's not next-gen!  The guys and I are very frustrated with this and the previously-mentioned prototype and our current build are giving us hope.

I won't write on this blog with day-to-day updates of our progress but I just wanted to share a little bit on the four major game mechanic milestones that we have planned:

• World building
• NPC/Monster AI
• Combat
• Story

These milestones are independent from one another because we want each one of them to stand on their own in case one of them fails...  like "oh shit, we can't do this; now what?" kind of scenario.  If one of these four milestones fail, then the whole "next-gen" thing is pretty much dead, but at least we'll have a good game on our hands regardless.  Yes, I've labeled world building and story as game mechanics.  That's intentional.

We've been working on world building since august 2013.  While we basically achieved what I initially had in mind within the first month (c'mon man, I came up with some of this stuff in 1998), we've drastically been improving; adding more and more detail.  That's what's great about working in a team of passionate people; they take your thing that you've been dreaming of and then they go "let's make this better!" and they deliver.  I fully expect world building to take the entirety of the year to complete... we are making an RPG after all.

NPC and Monster AI will most likely take another year as well... but that's just me throwing numbers out of my ass at this point.

I'm projecting a prototype reveal in the summer of 2014 at which point I'll gradually talk more and more about the game.  I actually wanted to do this for Christmas 2013 but we've made so many improvements that it makes more sense to simply wait.

Just for you guys: here's a sneak peak of what the december build looks like:

This isn't even in Alpha...  this is like... Prototype 5.  Yes, it's in first person.

Kick-starter?  No plans for it; the idea right now is to take our time and get it right.  The moment you involve money into this, project goals tend to skew a little.  I'm personally backing a few other games and the idea of adding "yet another game in the kick-starter list" for other folks kind of disgusts me.

Hey, would you look at that?  A decent log entry although I probably shared too much.  Oh well.

SNEEZE! Voila! Post done!

It's been a while since I've written anything here.  There's just so much going on right now that I really haven't had the time to sort my thoughts.  It's still a mess "up here" but I figured I'd start typing regardless.

I've been trying to upload more content recently but it's hardly a fraction of what I used to way back.  With that said, 4-5 years ago (when I started the Morrowind LP series), I had just finished a BIG contract (I've mentioned this once or twice, maybe, but I worked on the movie G.I.-Joe: Rise of the Cobra.  Not the greatest movie, but probably one of the best projects I had the pleasure of working on). After that, I had all the time in the world to just sit back, play and upload.  The word "contract" feels so odd to say now since I've had a regular employment for roughly two-three years now.

Nothing crazy, you know; a modest and comfortable job.

A couple of months ago (actually, probably something like fours months), I was in contact with someone who could potentially work on a project with me.  It turns out he couldn't/didn't but that still ignited something inside me.  That project was something I've been meaning to start for a long, long time; probably way back from early high-school if not since before that.  Thanks to him (even though it didn't work out), I've been working on the project practically every evenings/nights after work since.  This, unlike every other project I've ever worked on, is something I'd be willing to share with the world and if I'm being very vague /cryptic it's because I don't want to reveal anything yet, not until it's ready.  Not until I can prove to myself (and my peers) that what I'm working on is within the realm of possibility.

I say this because, well, it's pretty ambitious....  pretty fucking crazy when you think about it, actually.  Yet, it seems so simple I'm surprised no one attempted this before... maybe that's why I have doubts.  It's got me very excited, though... so excited, in fact, that I can work during the day, come back home, work on my project and feel refreshed the next morning.  I consider myself pretty lucky; not many people have the energy or willpower to do this... and as far as willpower goes, I don't even need to push myself.  It just happens.

So, long story short, I'm working on something big.  It's game related, though, so you guys will probably like it.

Speaking of games, there's a lot on my mind:

• If you're missing the Morrowind LP, no it's not canceled.  I've been struggling with it.  I've caught myself deleting entire recorded sessions because I realized that I was making no progress what-so-ever and I was just getting frustrated.  3-4 sessions in a row.  So, yeah, I'm stuck.  I'll figure it out eventually, though, hopefully sooner than later.
• The Diablo 3 LP series will continue (whenever you guys enjoy it or not).  This LP is taking the sidelines due to my big project and whenever I take the time to play Diablo 3, I tend to just play on another character with friends.  I'll most likely record a session within the following weeks, I've been itching to play Hardcore mode some more.
• Speaking of Diablo 3, the upcoming expansion's got me REALLY excited.
• I love Skyrim!  Haters beware!
• Nintendo announced a 2DS...  /facepalm.
• Nobody seems to be playing Guildwars 2 these days.  Oh well.  I'm still enjoying it.  I'm just not playing it as much.
• One of my college at Ubisoft is all like "you should totally play Assassin's Creed - we got boats now Edition- you like pirates!" and I'm like "not until you give me a decent PC port" asshole.
• I think I'm going to start ignoring every video game (or any media for that matter) which features a well-endowed woman on a cover or as a playable character.  I'm so sick of seeing that sorceress character from Dragon's Crown in ads wherever I surf the net.
• Grand Theft Auto 5 is out now, there goes 3-4 of my buddies...
• I've never been so uninterested in the "next-gen" gaming in my life.  All the good upcoming  stuff are from indie developers...  oh god!  I'm a hipster now!  Noooooooo!
• Final Fantasy 14 is enjoyable.  Twinnings' dragged me into it but, so far, I'm not regretting it.
• Chivalry: Medieval Warfare was gifted to me and is crazy fun.  I like bows.
• I haven't played any good iOS games in a long time, I'm still waiting for OceanHorn.

That's a good amount out of my system...  until next time.

Legend of Grimrock

There's one thing very particular with the Elder Scrolls series and that's its perspective.  The series is, to my knowledge, the only RPG that is specifically designed to be played in first-person.  Yes, I know other games can also do first-person like Aralon: Sword and Shadow for the iPad, the Two Worlds and Gothic series but it's obvious that the developers had first-person more as an afterthought just like 3rd-person is for the Elder Scrolls series.

It CAN work, but is it ideal?  I just saw gameplay footage of Two Worlds II and it has a very odd camera for first-person view.  So much so that it feels like a 3rd-person camera with an invisible character.

When Oblivion came out, I immediately connected to the game.  Let me back up a little: At the time, my experience with RPGs was with the Bioware formula such as Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, games with Fallout, as well as the seemingly indefinite yet painful collection of Final Fantasy games.  None of which I've EVER come close to completing with the exception of the first Neverwinter Nights game.  Why?  Well, quite simply, there were two problems:

1) I know it's all based off table-top D20 games like Dungeons & Dragons and I can't really blame the games either for this because RPGs were known to be very limited in their presentation but I had a VERY hard time playing these games because they were all in third person view.  I just can't connect.

Oddly enough, I never had a problem with Diablo...  I haven't really figured out why but I guess it was the geometry-wars aspect of it that made it more like an arcade game.  Although, I do distinctively remember thinking how cool it would be to play Diablo in first-person back then.

2) They all had characters I didn't care about.  Party of six, managing inventories, etc.  I don't like playing nanny.  I know that's what a lot of folks care for, to min-max each character to be miniature gods but that isn't my cup of tea.

RPGs weren't my thing but Oblivion caught my attention.  There's a lot of things that the Elder Scrolls series did right in my book and the first-person perspective is one of them.  They're the closest thing to what I believe are true RPGs.   I mention Oblivion specifically because that's the game that made me fall in love with the series.

When I first started doing my Lets Play of Morrowind, I noticed a problem: combat didn't feel right.  Oblivion (and even Skyrim) have a feel that most people would associate with the shooter genre.  Now, I'm not here to debate whenever or not it made them less of an RPG because of it but I will agree that the combat is more akin to a first-person shooter.  It's not so much the camera but the responsiveness of the actions.  Skyrim feels very close to Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, essentially a FPS with swords and sorcery.  I'm fine with that.

So what was "wrong" with Morrowind's combat?  Well, to put it bluntly, it's archaic.  I didn't see it at first because the presentation was misleading; it looked too much like Oblivion.  I realized something, though: "I've played games like this before...  I just didn't have mouse-look then".  It was then that I made the connection to dungeon-crawler games like Wizardry and Ultima: Underworld.

The Elder Scrolls is an evolution of those games; it just has more RPG elements thrown in.  The resemblance is even more blatant with Daggerfall.  With games like Legend of Grimrock, it's funny how we've gone full circle.

If you didn't know already, I love dungeon crawlers.  Legend of Grimrock was on my radar pretty fast. I never really played much of Wizardry and I never saw a copy of Ultima: Undeworld in my life but I know that Legend of Grimrock is the same kind of beast.  My dungeon crawlers were games like Rogue, Nethack and Diablo which share similar concepts but are executed completely differently.  When I saw Grimrock's trailer, I knew I had to get it despite having some concerns.

"Wait," you might ask "having party members in RPGs isn't okay but it's okay in dungeon crawlers?"  Well no, that was my main concern.  To my pleasure, this game keeps the management to a minimum.  You have dudes, they need weapons, you feed them, that's it!  I would've preferred to be a single character but I found that there wasn't anything in the game that made it a chore... like most RPGs do (hell, I spent HOURS setting up the AI in Dragon Age: Origins so that I wouldn't have to be bothered controlling them in combat).

I am truly loving this game because it brings back the dread of encountering monsters.  I've always considered Diablo II a lesser game than the original Diablo due to it's focus on killing rather than survival.  Hell (get it?  it's a pun!), even the original Diablo is weak in this regard compared to other dungeon crawlers.  I'm kinda over it now and I'm still insanely excited for Diablo III because the monsters so far in the beta are really fun to kill... some are genuinely challenging.  It's got cool characters with unique abilities from one another and an awesome story to boot.  Basically, I play Diablo for different reasons now.

Nonetheless, as much as I'll most likely forget about this game once Diablo III finally comes out, it's REALLY good to see a modern game with old-school ideals.

No.  Dark Souls doesn't count.  The controls are horrible and the invisible barriers once you start fighting bosses is really cheap.  I want to fight monsters, not control schemes.  I know there's a PC version on the way so I might try it again then.  I believe that's where it belongs; not that there's anything wrong with people who enjoy the console version.

Legend of Grimrock even has a mode that forces you to draw your own map!  I'm not crazy, I play with the automated map but it's a cool option to have.  I think my biggest disappointment with the game is the lack of randomization.  I love randomized content, especially in my dungeon crawlers.  Oh sure, the puzzles are intricate and you couldn't do that with randomized content, but I would've loved to have a second dungeon to select at the start of the game that was entirely random even if it was void of puzzles.

That would've been perfect!

There's a few things I don't like in Legend of Grimrock, though. mainly the timing puzzles where you're required to flip a switch and manoeuvre quickly to get by a door; it just doesn't work in a grid-based game.... oh!  and those god-damned spiders!

I'm playing with a bear-handed minotaur up front with a duel-wielding assassin that is practically untouchable.  Behind, I got a earth/fire insectoid mage next to a deadly marksman woman.  I'm pretty happy with my crew.

Oh, and if you were wondering how I can manage to not loot everything when my play the Elder Scrolls.  Play Legend of Grimrock for a while and you'll know exactly how the games I used to play got me into the habit of only looting what I needed.

Gix - Skyrim

I was waiting for a video to upload and I started doodling on my iPad.

Lots of mistakes but at 1:30am; what do I care?

On Valentine's Day.

Like a lot of folks, I really don't enjoy Valentine's Day although the day itself is never to blame.  The first thing you can think of as to "why that is" is most likely spot on.  I've come to accept the fact that I may never find that particular someone and, more importantly, I realize that I'm not the type to be constantly looking to try to fill some gap.  I just didn't grow up that way.  With that said, Valentine's Days continues to sting; there's a nagging sense of loneliness and sometimes regret.  Much to my mother's chagrin, she has two very similar sons.

While I don't really know how my older brother copes with it.  In times like these, I always think about how odd romance within video games are as a distraction.  Dating Sims, multiple love interests in RPGs, being able to marry characters (Fable and now Skyrim, I've heard), etc.

Dating Sims, I really don't get.  From the ones that I've seen, they essentially play like simultaneous Tamagotchis.  I say "simultaneous" because most games feature multiple girls to courtship (or boys, depending on if the game is tailored for girls or if… you know… whatever…).  Try to interact with a few and then go for the one you like.  I heard that a lot have interesting stories, however, and some aren't even focused strictly on a romantic plot.

The first time I've seen the concept of multiple love interests within RPGs is with Final Fantasy 7 (or was it 8?  Blah!  I can't tell them apart).  Granted, as far as RPGs goes, I'm hardly the expert.  Here, there's a decent amount of NPCs to join your crew and a fairly good portion of them are female.  What I find interesting here is that most of them are infatuated and/or in love with the main character and the player has some freedom to be able to chose one.  Maybe it's the way most Anime and Manga are written, but that kind of scenario annoys me.  Does it ever affect the outcome of the game later on?  Hell, I wouldn't know.  I doubt it, but the choice (or the tease) is there.

It probably works the same way as Mass Effect and Dragon Age does.  Relationships with various characters will unlock side-quests and rewards.  In my Dragon Age: Origins game (which I have yet to finish, by the way), a lot of the choices that I would make throughout the game pleased Morrigan to the point where she started being flirty with me.

"Whoa, lady!  I like when you burn Alistair with your witty remarks, and you're a very useful ma-I mean, apostate but you kind of creep me out when you're flirty."

At least it wasn't that crazy I'm-following-you-because-I-had-a-vision Leliana.  If I remember correctly, Isabela outright suggests to sleep with her when I wanted to be a Duelist.  Damn!  Thanks but no thanks!  You've surely been around!

*Does a quick google search*  Holy crap!  There's a way for a foursome!  You guys are DOGS!

You know, I'm one to care a lot about the characters in my games even when they're not designed to be cared for.  However, the ONLY female character that I've been close to caring for in ANY game has been Tali from Mass Effect 2.  Not that I've played much of it, mind you.  I don't even know if there's a love interest involved with that character but if there was (and given the chance through natural course), I would probably go for it.  That's messed up because she's an alien (and you can't even see her face).  Does that say anything about me?  Maybe it's her soft voice, I don't know.  When she was charged of treason (which is pretty much as far as I got into the game.  Man, I need to play this some more), I genuinely wanted to help her out.

When Peter Molyneux introduced the concept of marriage in his Fable games, I understood where he was going with it but the way he explained it felt like he was going to make us care for something by simply adding a function within the game.  That's not how it works, man!  The dog!  Now, THAT was a good idea.  I don't know if it really worked because I never played any of his games post-Bullfrog.  Whenever someone mentions marriage within a video game, I just roll my eyes.  I mean, it's a cool thing to have; I'm not arguing that.  I just feel like people on the development team could've focused on other elements of a game if they had the time to spend on adding mechanics like these.  In the case of Skyrim, apparently, you can only wear one ring because of it.  Way to go  : \

Some people have wondered if my character in Skyrim will marry.  While I can't say for certain since I'm nowhere near that bridge yet, the chances of that happening are practically non-existant.  As a player, I wouldn't and, as my character, he wouldn't be the kind to settle down.  That could be a nice way to end the LP, though… you know, ten years from now or however how long it takes me to play through the game(s).

Now, why wouldn't I?  Well, simply put: as awesome as The Elder Scrolls games are, none of the characters are written with the depth needed for me to care; at least romantically.  Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, though.  Most of the time, though, they're written in such a way that is more akin to comic relief…  like Bosmers…

I feel like they're a joke.  It's kind of like saying "Michael Jackson".  "Bosmers!"  There's my punchline!

"Man, I don't like Valentine's Day… BOSMERS!"  Bah-dum-tssh!

Anyways, I've said plenty on the subject.  Happy Valentine's Day!

Top 5 Most Favourite Video Games Per Category

So now to the "interesting?" bit; what question kept me pondering for roughly week, you might ask.  Essentially, it's just a top-5 list but the kicker is that it's a top-5-per-category list; something I've never really considered.  You always think about stuff like "Yeah, this one is one of my favourites!" and then someone mentions another one and you're like "Oh yeah!  I forgot about that one!  Man, that rocked!"  The real challenge is to be fair, honest and being able to remember all the games you've played over the years.

So here's my Top 5 Most Favourite Video Games Per Category:

Remember: if I didn't play it, I can't list it.

- STRATEGY -

Runner Up: Civilizations V.

5) Warcraft III.

- It's a real shame that this game came out just before widescreens became standard.  A game that focuses on small army play; something I've always preferred over Starcraft 1's "build en masse" gameplay.  I never really found many people to play with, though, but that's mostly because someone at Blizzard thought it'd be a good idea to rewrite battle.net for Warcraft III and have players manage their own firewalls.  I always felt that the camera was zoomed in a little bit too close.  This could easily jump as my #3 if naval combat was implemented like it was in Warcraft 2.

4) Age of Mythology.

- It's the best "Age of" in my book and that's mainly due to the fact that each race plays differently.  It's a solid game that plays REALLY well for a non-B developer (Bungie, Blizzard, Bioware, Bethesda) game.  A nice bonus is how the transition to 3D didn't lose the fidelity of AoE2's sprites.  It plays a little slow but that's what I like about the "Age of" games.

3) Starcraft II.

- I wasn't a fan of the original and I'm almost ashamed to admit that I've enjoyed my competitive experience in Starcraft 2 far more than ANY OTHER RTS.  The computer is interesting to play against and it accomplishes that without cheating too.  It's familiar yet completely different than the original.

2) the Majesty series.

- I hardly ever mention this one; not a lot of people like it.  It doesn't matter which version you play: The Mac, the PC, the mobile version, the first one or the sequel.  If you're looking for a serious challenge, Majesty is the way to go.  Gold is your only resource and you're trying to manage NPCs you can't directly control.  It's a game of smarts over reflexes.  Watch your people grow and equip them by building shops, give your people goals by placing bounties and they'll earn the money to buy items.  The Android version of the game was ported to the iOS and it's by far the best RTS experience on the iOS you could ever have, Starfront lagging far behind in second place.  I love these games so much!

1) the Myth series.

- The absolute best, period.  It's the only RTS that I feel the terrain (and where you position your dudes) has any real impact on the game.  Zombies can be hidden underwater.  Formations matter.  The physics is still top notch.  The game speed is just about right.  Limbs can be picked up and be used to stun people when thrown.  Your units can be named and get better over time (notice that 3 of my favourite strategy games involves character growth) which can be brought into your next game/map.  If it wasn't for the fact that Majesty is "almost" strictly single-player (co-op games are near impossible to complete), I'd say that Myth is the only strategy game where I play the campaign.  It is SO GOOD!

- ROLE PLAYING -

Runner Up: Baldur's Gate.

5) Fallout 3.

I don't play RPGs all that much, despite how the Youtube LPing community sees me.  I play so very little that I can't help but list a game I haven't played long and will most likely never play again.  It's not that it's bad (otherwise it wouldn't be here) it just doesn't have that pull to bring me back.  Maybe it's the desolate environment(s), I don't know.  I love the humour, love the idea of scavenging/surviving but it's on the list mainly to thank it for giving me one of the best RPG moments I ever had…  but it was more like playing Left4Dead against the inhabitants of Megaton… so… it's a shooter?

4) Neverwinter Nights 1.

- I first played the campaign in co-op with a very close friend of mine; lots of fond memories (it's what it's all about, really).  I bought the expansions because I could join persistent servers and it was essentially my first MMO.  With the Dungeon Master client, this has the potential to match a P&P experience.  I'm always keeping my CDs close by.  Looks ugly as sin up close, though, but it was designed to play like Baldur's Gate.  I should install it and play through the expansions… one day.

3) Dragon Age: Origins.

- It's the traditional RPG formula at its best; with a strong focus on character story.  It's super crazy hard without a healer and each victory is gratifying.  I don't like linear corridors, though, and I know it wants me to play nanny.  What I love about it is that I can set up some tactics for the AI so that I don't have to bother with them once they're programmed.  This is one game you can't play with distractions around, put some headphones and enjoy the dialogue.

2) The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

- You saw it coming.  The fact that a game I honestly haven't played for long happens to be in 2nd place speaks volumes to how I feel about this game.  If it wasn't for its archaic RPG-style of doing things and the overall unwelcoming inhabitants, I'd easily consider it being #1.

1) The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

- I can't put Skyrim on the list yet but from what I've seen, I think it'd be a contender for #1.  Oblivion is the first RPG I've played (and the best of) where I can be immersed and not give a fuck about numbers.  I'd apologize for the foul language but number crunching (or the need to crunch those numbers) is a huge pet-peeve of mine in RPGs and I think swearing appropriately describes what I think is bat-shit wrong with the genre as a whole.  Do whatever I want, whenever I want and have the game adjust itself accordingly.

- SHOOTER --

Runner Up: Left4Dead.

5)  Modern Combat 3.

- Say WHAT?  An iOS game?  Seriously?  Yes.  Not only is it the best shooter on the platform, but its multiplayer is actually pretty fun.  Normally I wouldn't be interested in that kind of multiplayer but it fits really well on a mobile device as opposed to a full fledged console (it controls better too).  I mean, it's comparable to a console shooter but, to me, that kind of gameplay makes more sense on the iOS.

4) Battlefield 1942.

- Sure, entering a vehicle was fun but being a medic was the best.  Possibly one of the only shooter's I've played that made me feel like I was in a war.  The best part?  None of it was scripted.

3) Halo: Combat Evolved.

- The other Halo games would probably be on this list (I play a little bit of Reach at work) but they have one major flaw: They're on the wrong platform.  Halo 1, on the other hand, got a Mac release and it's essentially a Marathon reboot.  Don't know what Marathon is?  It's like Halo with Doom 2 graphics; the biggest difference being that your shields didn't regenerate then… which is Halo's most game-defining features next to the inability to carry around more than two weapons.

2) Rainbow Six Vegas 2:

- It would've been #1 but it falls short on two things: I prefer the feeling of managing different TEAMS at once following a customizable plan instead of just having 2 following NPCs.  Terrorist Hunt mode is ruined by how the terrorist spawns.  They should spawn at random locations at the start of the game instead of "on the fly".

1) Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield.

- A Shooter that gives me the time to think?  For a strategy fan, this one is a no brainer.  It's a game where you really rely on your teammates in order to succeed.  I know that a lot of games focus on team play, but to make me feel for an NPC and plan ahead in such a way so that he doesn't get shot is amazing.  *clears room* "Is everyone okay?"  Sweet!

- ACTION & ARCADE --

Runner Up: Street Fighter 2.

5) Dungeon Siege series.

- That includes the 3rd instalment too.  I think the biggest problem with the series is that its biggest strength (the ability to shape your character dynamically as you fight, as opposed to putting points in stats) was never really incorporated in the design very well.  To the point that even the developer suggested that you focused on a single path.  The series could NEVER come close to Diablo's but they still managed to pull off some amazing things.  The potion system, the pack mule, the party system, the boss fights, they're all very good.  Dungeon Siege III even managed to spice up the combat system in a way that I think is originally pleasing…  a shame they had to screw up multiplayer the way they did.

4) Magicka.

- Filled with bugs and performance issues, it's the only game on Steam (besides Skyrim) that is worth playing if you're one of those people that don't like Steam.  I see Magicka as a party game but it's pretty entertaining in single-player as well.  The way the game allows you to mix elements to create various spells is ingenious.  Fix the bugs and performance issues and this game easily goes up to #3 on my list… maybe even #2.

3) Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

- Everything a sequel should be.  I'd include Sonic 4 in there as well.  It's one of these games that I keep coming too.  Sometimes I try to go as fast as I can, other times I just take the time to roam around.  Good thing Sonic 2 and 4 are on the iOS, because I don't have my Sega Genesis anymore.

2) Diablo II.

- Diablo II falls short to being included with Diablo.  Content wise, the game is amazing but just like they change how Starcraft II plays compared to Starcraft, Diablo II doesn't play the same way as Diablo.  It's still very fun and addicting to play but there was this Resident Evil survival feel to the original that the sequel lacks.  It's more epic, less creepy.  Act 2 alone puts this game in my top 5 favourite games of all time.  Everything about it rocks.

1) Diablo.

- You see a demon, you kill it.  Enough said.  It hasn't aged well, but I still consider it my FAVOURITE GAME.  Every year, I load it up for a play through although with Diablo III coming up soon, I don't know if I'll play through it this year.  I find it completely stupid that you can't play in Nightmare of Hell difficulty mode in single player.

-- PUZZLE & ADVENTURE --

Runner Up: Bejeweled.

5) The Humans.

- What a stupid name for a video game!  It's one of those things that's super hard to find via google search.  Fun game, though.  Most of the puzzles are platforming types.  You have a bunch of humans and you have to use tools such as spears and rope to be able to accomplish the various objectives.  It plays a lot like Blizzard's old Lost Vikings game.

4) Lemmings series.

- Who doesn't know about lemmings?  Who doesn't like lemmings?

3) Back to the Future.

- I'm not a huge fan of the adventure type games.  There's something about trial and error that really turns me off.  This game, however, is just the right amount of puzzle and story for me.  It's a little bit farfetched but it still matches the flow of the movies it's based on.  I love it.

2) Portal 2.

- I've only played through the multiplayer campaign.  That alone deserves its place here.

1) Riven: the sequel to Myst.

- This game is too hard for me to finish… but I love it nonetheless.  Makes me feel stupid, but I don't care.  Maybe one day…