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…

Gaming rambling

It's been a while since I've written anything on my blog.  I'd like to keep things gaming related but nothing has crossed my mind as of late.  When I'm not LPing, a lot of my thoughts tend to be focused on my project.  I have been thinking of making this blog about my general thoughts about various subjects but I don't think I'm ready to share THAT much.  While I do believe that my thoughts are worth noting, showcasing them is another matter.

Over the week, I have been putting a lot of thought into formulating an answer to a question someone brought up.  It's gaming related so why not post it here?  Before I delve into it, though, (yeah I'm splitting the blog in two because it's taking me way too long to write this in one sitting) here's some random gaming related rambling (you know, besides The Elder Scrolls):

- Diablo 3 beta is SO GOOD, I managed to get in the beta by meeting a Blizzard rep <3.  The problem is that you can only defeat the Skeleton King so many times… something I've done countless times already in the original Diablo game.  New beta patches keeps me coming back for a few tries but, at this moment, I'm pretty much done with it.  I'm waiting for the real thing now.

- I'm still waiting impatiently for Episode 2 of Sonic: the hedgehog 4.  Unless you dust off your Sega Genesis, Episode 1 is the only Sonic game worth playing in my book.

- Why am I still waiting for GuildWars 2?  GIMMY!

- I've played a little bit of Zelda Skyward Sword on the WII.  Zelda is one of those series I'd love to play but can't because, once upon a time, some jerk designer decided to put a 3D camera.  I played all the way to the boss fight in the first dungeon before I lost my patience.  More entertaining to watch someone play it although lifting off the sword for the first time, THAT is epic enough for you to do it yourself.

- There's this Zelda-inspired game coming out "soon" on the iOS platform called "Oceanhorn".  I'm really interested in that.

- Dark Souls.  Alluring concept but definitely not for me.  The game encourages me to stay in a single zone and grind out souls to level up.  Couldn't improve my campfire because I was missing a humanity that wouldn't drop.  I find the "white doorways" to be really cheap too and the goggles… THEY DO NOTHING!

- Still haven't finished Dragon Age: Origins.  I promised myself I'd finish it.  IT IS good but it's nowhere near Elder Scrolls good.

- Okay, this last one is Elder Scrolls related.  I managed to get Skyrim running "natively" on my Mac via CrossOver Games.  I couldn't be happier!  Before you panic about performance, it runs really well considering.  Playable, yes, but I won't record off it (won't even try it until I get my new computer and even then I'll most likely leave the LP in Bootcamp).  So, while it CAN run, I won't play on it until I finish my LP...

The worst article I've read in a long, long time.

An IGN article on Skyrim and Dark Souls was brought to my attention this morning and I've got to say it's by far the worst article I've read in a long, long time.  It's entitled "Top Five Reasons Dark Souls Will Eat Skyrim's Face" and that's something that'll grab immediate attention to anyone who calls themselves a gamer on multiple fronts:
- Fans of The Elder Scrolls series.
- Fans of Demon's Souls.
- Gamers in general who enjoy reading and/or starting flame wars.

As you might have guessed, I fall in the first category but it's not so much the taunt that grabbed my attention but, like some others (I hope I'm not alone here), I noticed that a title like that promises a lot of biased and unfounded nonsense.

Maybe Dark Souls deserves the praise, but not in this fashion.  If this article represents some form of "victory" (because, you know, it's important for some folks to have a winner in this stupid debate - because the debate needed to exist in the first place) then it is very much a shallow one.

Let me go out of the way and say "TLDR: I think the article is a pile of shit written by an uneducated tool".  You might be thinking "relax man, there's just doing it for attention". Well, yeah!  It still sucks and now I'm convinced that I should never find myself reading an IGN article ever again.  Mission accomplished, I suppose.

So here we go with the dissection:

"Here are five reasons why Dark Souls will save gaming"

Wow!  Just wow.  That quoted sentence alone establishes the tone of this article and I don't even need to elaborate.  I could stop my ranting right now!

1) So the first argument that Dark Souls is supposedly better than Skyrim is that it offers and "TRUELY innovative" multiplayer.  The article even goes as far as demean Bethesda for trying (and failing) at implementing any at all.

My first thought is that "well, yes!  It's definitely easier to implement multiplayer in a DUNGEON CRAWLER!".  Of course multiplayer is going to be one of the most compelling features of Dark Souls and if it compromised the single player experience IN A DUNGEON CRAWLER then From Software fails at basic game design.

"From Software has innovated while others have passed on making the effort."

You need to play more games, dude.  That's all I've got to say.  Multiplayer in RPGs is a very difficult thing to do both from a design and technical standpoint.  I can't think of any good ones that actually pulled it off.  You can't fault Bethesda for playing on their strengths.

"Hey!  This game has a feature that the other lacks!  Then it must mean that it's more fun and, therefore, way better, right?"

2) Oh god!  That's the second "Top list" I've read/heard in two days that had "DLC and pricing" as an argument.  Although, to IGN's credit, they seem to know a little bit about the games they're talking about.

You either have a good game, or a bad one.  Content that may or may not exist (or pricing for that matter) doesn't change that fact.  It might be an incentive to purchase, true, but it doesn't magically make the game better or worse.  Do you know what's the most shocking part of all that is?  The writer of the IGN article says that Dark Souls won't have any DLC and, because of that (and a lower price point), the game will be better.

Mind-blowing fail!

Enough of stupid shit, I say!  Let's move on!

3) The size and scope of the games.  I'm going to give some credit here merely due to the fact that I honestly don't know how each will measure up compared to their respective predecessors and from one another.

To me, this was an okay argument despite being more subjective than anything or going purely based on speculation.  That is, until they mentioned that Dark Souls was better because the game showed improvement over it's predecessor while Skyrim looked (to them) very much the same as Oblivion.

I'd argue against Skyrim's scale but I really don't have to.  That's a stupid point to make and is completely irrelevant.  Besides, let's give the benefit of a doubt that Dark Souls is as vast and unique as IGN claims.  Does the quantity and size of the game really matter?  Sure, it helps but it (again) doesn't make or break a game.  It merely puts more VALUE to the purchase and we've already established (see #2) that this was a mind-blowingly stupid argument.

Using his argument, does this mean that Daggerfall trumps Dark Souls? How old is that game, 1992?  Solid argument, there IGN, bravo!  /sarcasm.

4) The difficulty and combat.  See, if the writer had entitled this article as "The one reason why I think Dark Souls is better than Skyrim", then all he could've written was how much he preferred old-school gaming and how challenging they were and I would've nodded in respect.  Hell, mention how Oblivion was obnoxiously holding our hands with quest message pop-ups and quest markers while you're at it and I still wouldn't have flinched.

The Elder Scrolls have been plagued with sub-par combat and, as much as I love the series, I'll be the first one to admit that.  But then, by #3 logic, Skyrim should prove to be superior because it has improved (and the IGN writer even confirms that) while Dark Souls is pretty much on par with Demon's Souls.  Do you guys see where I'm getting at?  The article is just everywhere and any form of logic that was used to write that garbage can be used to counter a different argument...  And I'm not jumping forward either; I'm using previously established logic (set by IGN) and using it against the following point.

Enough of that, though, the article brings up a good point so I'll give it to them.

5) "Some fans are praising the game, simply because it has Dragons.  Have they seen Dark Souls?"

You mean, "Have I seen scripted boss fights involving dragons before?"  Yeah!  Plenty!  The reason why people have been praising Skyrim for their dragons is due to the improved Radiant AI that's making them "go".

Idiot.

Anyways, the main argument here is that Dark Souls is better because the designs are more exotic and varied.  Sure!  Have a cookie.  Now go away; you're giving me a headache!

It's not a BAD argument, really.  It's just that the way he shrugs off Skyrim's dragons just seems like he didn't do research on the game.  Maybe it's the The Elder Scrolls fan in me that's crying out this time, I don't know.  We won't know Skyrim's dragons until we see them in our own games and Skyrim might fail to meet our expectations just like Oblivion did based on the 2003 E3 demo.

Besides, the dragons showcased in GuildWars 2 are the ones I'm REALLY interested in.

So just how much of Dark Soul REALLY is better than Skyrim?  We just don't know.  What we do know is that the writer of the IGN article has a preference to more challenging and action-oriented, twitch-based combat.  Sure, Skyrim might be action-oriented, but we're here for other things...  For me, that's playing an RPG where I can be and do whatever I want without having the game punishing me from playing it my way.

"There's your bag of chips. What more do you want?"

Your resignation, that's what!

Reading 'n Gaming

Over the recent years, a lot of people have told me that my English was very good.  Pronunciation and grammar could still need some work but they thought that I had a strong vocabulary.  I have books and Star Trek to thank for that.  I watched Star Trek even before I could fully understand the language; it's people in colored uniforms shooting laser beams at aliens.  As a kid, that's all I need!  Reading books, on the other hand, I picked up much, much later during my college years 11 years ago (makes me feel old just thinking about it).

Anyways, I read a lot of books.  Paper-back novels to be precise and most turn out to be of the fantasy genre.  You know, orcs and elves.  It's kind of a huge U-turn from colored uniforms shooting laser beams but, whatever.  While not being the very first series I've devoured, R.A. Salvatore's "the dark elf trilogy" is probably the series of books I've liked the best.

Now a days, I tend to read novels based off video games.  Games such as Diablo, Warcraft, GuildWars, Starcraft and even The Elder Scrolls.  You know what the strange part of all this is?  Every time someone sees me reading these books they get all curious until they see the title.  "Oooh what are you reading?  Tha--  Oh!  It's one of your games isn't it?  Bah!"

... And then they drop the topic.  It's always the same thing.  Why?  What's wrong with my books?  I get more interesting characters and story than any of these folks would ever get from their TV shows (which, for a lot of people, consists of nothing but drama - especially those reality shows) and on top of that, it keeps me involved in my hobby when I'm away from the computer and they're snubbing my reading?

I hate hypocrites!

Why is anything related to gaming perceived as this inferior thing?  Those people never played a video game since PAC-MAN!  No!  Chances are they never even played that either!  You know what's really stupid about all this, these people think that way because video games "are meant for little kids" and they're the ones complaining about video games being murder simulators...

To these folks, I say: "It takes an open mind to read my kind of books; that you're not reading these is probably for the best."

If you've never played PAC-MAN because, you know, some of you might be too young for that time, go play it now!

On Anticipations

I think it's obvious that I'm a gamer.  Those categorized as such will often succumb to a very maddening shortcoming: impatience.  Impatience  has many ways of manifesting especially in gaming.  While most end up annoying the heck out of those around you, there is at least one that really only affects oneself.

Waiting for a game to come out in stores is painfully annoying.  I had to think for a while to see if "painfully" was the right choice of words to describe it.  What is the symptom of anticipation?  A constant reminder that one has the time to play said game despite being unavailable and, at the same time, one doesn't feel like playing anything else during the wait.  It's painful because the time wasted thinking about it or reading about it could've been spent on either playing another game or doing something else (and possibly more productive) and the person in question is AWARE OF IT.  It's disrupting and I think we've all been there.

I consider myself lucky because that feeling is very new to me.  When growing up, I played the games that were available to me and those games were rarely new.  In fact, I don't recall receiving video games as presents or going to a store to see rows of games on the shelves.  All I know is that I had games and I played them.  They were just there.  It wasn't until I was in my teens that I was introduced to the concept of going to a store to get games.

Marathon and Warcraft comes to mind; and then I discovered sequels.  The thing is, I was so "late in the game" (get it?) that I didn't have to wait for the sequels to come out.  They had already come out one or two years prior.

A very good example of this is Diablo.  After playing the game for two years, I happen to come across Diablo II in stores.  So I bought it and started to discuss the awesomeness of the game to my new friends in college who, to my surprise, informed me of Lord of Destruction (Diablo II's expansion pack).  I was still playing through Act 1 at that time and I already had new features and more content.  While I secretly hoped for a Diablo 3, it never was a game that I was anticipating until Blizzard Entertainment announced it back in 2008.

The Elder Scrolls is a mystery to me because it was one of those games that people always told me about back when Morrowind was the new thing in RPGs but I just shrugged it off thinking I wouldn't be interested.  Can you blame me?  I had my Diablos; TWO of them!   Then  World of Warcraft showed up.  While I knew WoW was coming, it didn't think I'd be willing to pay a monthly fee so I didn't wait for it (in fact I was playing Neverwinter Nights in online persistent realms).  When I decided to play WoW (after trying the beta), the game was out.

I bought Oblivion on launch day (in 2006) including a DVD player for an old PC that was donated to me by a friend.  That was the biggest video game related purchase I've ever done even to this day... It's also my first PC game purchase.  That's the real big mystery for me.  How does a Mac user just go out and buy not only a PC game (and a single-player game at that; I'm a multi-player guy), but PC hardware for a machine that was barely making the minimum requirements to play said game... On launch day?  The E3 demo did it.  It had completely sold me on the concept and while the video looked too good to be true, I figured that if I could experience a fraction of what I saw in the demo, I'd be satisfied.

Since then I've bought GuildWars, Dungeon Siege II-III (the original being available on the mac) and Magicka.  And now I find myself "caught up" and for the first time in my life, I'm eagerly waiting for my games to come out in stores.  It's a strange feeling and I laugh every time I think about it.  What's stranger still is the shift of priorities in my games.  I find myself anticipating Skyrim much more than Diablo III (a game I've been wanting to play for 10 years now).  It's almost embarrassing, actually, but it really illustrates the quality and magic of The Elder Scrolls.  Maybe it's because I don't really notice the wait for Diablo III as much anymore......

Not only that, I've been writing these blogs on the go with my iPad 2.  I've had it since it came out and, like The Elder Scrolls, it has also shifted my habits.  Other than doing my 3D work and record Let's Play videos, I don't really use my laptop anymore.  The iPad completely took over my lifestyle.  As a Mac user, that sort of shift is not uncommon.  But the strange part is that I'm now considering buying a PC to play Skyrim.  I hate the Windows platform with a passion.  I sound like a grumpy old guy at work when I have to use my PC machine (I also work with a Mac).

Skyrim is a "killer app" for a platform I despise.  The idea would be to "live" with my iPad and play a select few games on the PC.  The thought of buying a console has crossed my mind.  They're decently priced, having no mods never bothered me and it would do the things I'd want it to do save for the awkward controllers.  Perhaps I could even get into the Halo games if I got an Xbox.  I've been wanting to try out firefight for a while now... Then again, I'd be missing out on GuildWars 2.  Its funny to consider that, despite being very good, the other games don't have the same effect as The Elder Scrolls.

Regardless, The Elder Scrolls might be my biggest video game related purchase once more and I know it'll be worth every penny.

Here's my list of anticipated games:
- Skyrim.
- Diablo 3.
- GuildWars 2.

Now I have to find the time to play them all as they're all coming out around the same time-frame.

Diablo 3 going to hell?

To put it bluntly, Blizzard Entertainment has announced recently that Diablo 3 will require a constant connection to the Battle.net servers in order to play.  As  disappointed as I am by that fact, I had to take some time to think about it.

Would I really play in single-player?  No.  That's not my thing.  I'm a Battle.net guy after all.  So why am I bothered by lack of single-player, or even LAN for that matter?

The answer is in two parts:

Firstly, as a consumer, I expect MORE features in the products I buy.  Diablo 2 had eight player CO-OP, 5 character classes, a more robust online experience, a personal stash, more variety of item mechanics (gems, weapon sets, tomes, etc), a better presentation and a more polished gameplay (the ability to run).  I probably missed a few but that's a lot of improvements over the original.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Diablo 3 won't have it's share of improvements, but it seems that they're taking a few steps back at the same time.  You have to stop and think about the reasoning behind their design choices; at least the one they're feeding us.  To prevent hackers and cheaters.

Before I talk more about my opinion on this, I have to point out something about this logic.  It's a very good one.  One might say: "why don't you separate the characters between offline and online?  That'll prevent the cheating, right?". It's not about whenever or not a character is online that causes the hacks and cheats, its how the game handles the information that allows these things to exist.

When playing multi-player games, the computers involved have to send each other information.  Character location, health, items, attacks, etc.  It's all encrypted but it's a heck of a lot easier to decode that when it's happening on an isolated network (read : LAN).  Online games have a security advantage because it's all run by the servers... The servers tells your computer what's going on and your computer can't change that.

That's why Starcraft 2 doesn't have LAN support.  It's also a bitch to code so no LAN = simpler code.  If Starcraft 2 had LAN, hackers would be able to figure out the intricacies of the code and ruin the game for everyone.  Anything that's client side can be easily hacked.

But here's the second part:  Starcraft 2 is a COMPETITIVE game.  Diablo 3 is not.  In fact, it's practically exclusively PvM (player vs monster - or PvE for the young folks).  So why can't Diablo 3 have an offline mode when Starcraft 2 does?  For security reasons?  Bullshit!  Of the two games, Starcraft is the one that needs the uptight security.  It's a game designed to play against people.

"Well," you might say to yourself, "Diablo 3 does have an auction house involving real money.  You wouldn't want that to be cracked and abused."

That's true.  One might be able to crack the code if the auction house was part of the SINGLE-PLAYER experience...  What?  Hello?  You're going solo and your offline, just make your auction house a server-only deal and your problem is solved.  If your playing solo, the last thing on your mind is trading with other players.  Sure, you'll be able to do that in Diablo 3 but at what cost?  The lack of offline mode?  No thanks!

As disappointed as i am, I'm still buying it.  Curse you, Blizzard!