[The Niles]

Charmed,

Last things first. When it comes to Doom3 vs. Half Life 2 discussion we could start a whole new discussion topic but I will say this here. Doom 3 was honest in what it wanted to be and stayed with that. Doom 3 is a first person SHOOTER and a dammed good one. It is not an interactive narration. Half Life 2 is also a first person Shooter but it desperately and, at times, clumsily tries not to be. What Doom3 turns into is repetitiveness but then you know that when you buy a game like that. Half Life 2 turns into a highly linear game that never gives you the kind of options you were lead to believe where available (puzzles can only be solved in one way and all that crap about being able to block doorways and the interactiveness of the AI in response to that is AWOL). Both games are very enjoyable in their own way but neither pushes the limits of the FPS genre very much further (Doom3 at least came to new heights when it comes to graphics, HL2 has the underused and over hyped physics engine (which isn't their own btw) but nothing we will not have forgotten in a years time). But then is whole episode gives us a good indication about the lengths developers are willing to and need to go to, in order to stay alive. Doom3 could not fail or it would mean the end of ID, the same is true for Half Life 2 and Valve. Publicity (in its extreme form we call it hype) makes more certain these games are going to be a success. Magazines are eager to get a scoop over the other magazines as that means their survival. The public falls for it every time as they are eager to play these games and in absence of that possibility at least about how great it will be. It is a win, win lose situation. I too have read about how great AoE3 will be and was exited with what I read. Unfortunately there is this little voice inside my head that tells me the end result will not be as rosy as we are lead to be believe it will be now.

Nothing as subjective as a review. In my opinion Half Life 2 got too high a score in my personal favourite magazine but there are many who think it should have been even higher. It does happen that a game is given an unfair review. I have read reviews about games in which the reviewer mentions how bad the previous game was from the same publisher as a reason to not buy that publishers latest game (what does that have to do with THIS game?), or where the reviewer casually disqualifies all games in a given genre because he does not like them. More insidious are those instances where magazines are paid to give favourable reviews to games (it is hard to prove but it happens). There is this Belgian magazine where I always subtract 10 points of their score to come up with a score I would give a game. This is all true but what you cannot claim is that reviews determine the success of a game. Many games have been given high scores (mostly deserved) and later became bargain bin fodder forgotten by all but a few. My personal favourite, Max Payne 2, suffered this fate as did Chrome and many others neither of us will ever hear from again. It isn’t easy to predict the success of games. Graphics are more important for some games then others. A FPS with lousy graphics is never going to sell. A high level strategic game is not hurt as much by the same flaw. That said it is possible for a reviewer to be less then linear in his or her reasoning. Many times a review is made at the last minute to meet a deadline and the first words on paper stay there, no time to think them over (I know what I’m talking about here). Not the prettiest acknowledgement but, there it is. Luckily a review is nothing more then an opinion anyway so take it for what it is.

Sequels to games are generally a good thing. I explained why this is in my previous post so I will refrain from repeating it here. In extreme cases like the FIFA series they are not however, I agree. These series are money makers designed not add anything significant but to make as much money as possible with the least amount of effort (Doom2 falls in this category, Doom 3 does not). Changing player names, in the case of FIFA, to reflect the current state could have simply been done by a free downloadable add-on. The other changes could have waited for a mayor overhaul once every few years. These money makers are regrettable but no one is forcing anyone to buy them. It is easy to knock publishers like EA but then we are not paying their huge bills. The thing I regret about EA is that they have not released a game in years I unconditionally liked.

870 words later my non-linear, ill constructed rant ends.