Planescape Torment is the kind of computer RPG that any fan of media and art, digital or otherwise, should experience. A personal, genuinely complex RPG whose brilliance outshines its bugs and foibles.

I just finished the game. Wow. It was an excellent game with the most authentic role-playing I have seen. Role-playing, story and dialogue are the most important parts of an RPG game for me, and this game has it in abundance. The story line deals with issues regarding acceptance of oneself, fate, free-will and morality.

There are choices that influence alignment, many ability checks in conversation, and very enjoyable conversations. This game had full companion banter and conversation, and had done it better than any other game to date. Companions interject in conversations, talk to each other, and you can also talk to them. Each companion has extensive dialogue trees, and by learning more about them and conversing with them skillfully, you unlock new dialogue trees, experience and abilities. I was astonished to how well this was implemented several times, one notable example being when I talked to a companion about Morte, revealing more information about him. Confronting Morte with this new information earned me new dialogue options. Every attribute has an impact on gameplay, even a fighter can use intelligence, wisdom and charisma. This allows you to roleplay any kind of Nameless One.

There are flaws, though. The system was designed for dialogue, and thus is unwieldy in combat. But combat is inevitable in some areas that feature mobs of enemies that you cannot talk to, therefore you are forced to deal with the weird combat system. Although the cities are superb, some dungeons are badly designed, mostly consisting of getting swarmed by large numbers of enemies of the same type, although the boss fights are better. They should have gone all the way with the role-playing focus and reduced the combat to a bare minimum, or made more effort with the combat design.

It would be nice if the game had more customization, but being focused on a set character, that is inevitable. It seems like some options are a bit overpowered. Although this doesn’t matter too much in a game that focuses on character growth, not being able to access the most awesome equipment if one is not lawful good is a bit of a bummer, and some character building choices are clearly superior to others.

There were a lot of bugs in the game, a huge amount. Even with the official patch, items would disappear for no reason, quests would be closed off because of faulty scripts, and there were major graphical bugs involving spell use which took a while to learn how to fix. There was also massive slowdown in some areas, with signs of lag and memory leakage. This tended to spring up after playing for a long time, in some cases whenever I scrolled the screen it would take two seconds of freezing for the game to respond. The game works perfectly fast when this bug does not rear its ugly head, and my computer is relatively new, so it definitely should have no problems with the game. The developers said the patch fixed the lag issue, but it did not completely fix it. I realize there is a community patch which is said to be very, very, good, but I always play a game pure my first time and there should not be this many bugs.

I realized that, even though dialogue, story and role-playing are the most important things in an RPG, they are not enough. Convenient interface, smooth gameplay and level design does have a huge impact, since it is a game being played and not a book being read. Planescape’s torments flaws are minor compared to its brilliance, the journey left me revitalized as a fantasy-fan and avid reader and lover or stories. ‘Wow’ is the best word to describe my feelings after seeing the credits roll. It does not dethrone BG2 for me as the no.1 RPG, but is a very, very close second.

9.5/10

 

 

Arriving at the rustic inn, the polite and understated innkeeper confirms that the funeral parade was indeed for the enigmatic Anna Voralberg. Thus the first complication of the story occurs. In writing this description of the game, I will narrate the events from the perspective of one who has finished the game and is highlighting the crucial points. This approach is necessary for succinctness, as much of playing a game involves exploring the same areas, solving puzzles both minor and major, and speaking to a variety of people, some of whom are granted small parts in the journey. This detail must be left out of the description, which would otherwise become a walkthrough or guide, and be experienced through one’s own playing of the game.

 

The passing away of Ms. Voralberg complicates Kate’s job, but it is nothing our young lawyer has not dealt with before, and she soon sets off to see the town lawyer and clerk. Valadilene is a snowy, well-kept town with rustic wooden buildings. The town was prosperous in the hey-day of its industry, but the abandoned buildings and rusting automatons speak of a community left behind by change.

 

The handful of remaining residents go about their lives amidst the decaying beauty, still using the few remaining automatons (such as the elaborate, small figure attached to the door of the clerk’s house, arm outstretched to hold official documents, and binoculars raised for the clerk to read them from inside). The residents are obviously hanging onto their history of automation, but are nonetheless gracious to Kate and quite eager for the business deal to take place, so the town can be economically revitalised and its young people return.

 

The formal, portly clerk calmly explains that normally in a case where the last remaining estate holder dies, the town would inherit the Voralberg factory, and the process of deciding whether to go ahead with the acquisition could be completed in the town through local community representatives. Unfortunately, a letter left by the deceased Anna Voralberg throws a cog into the mix, as she reveals her brother Hans, thought to have died years ago, is still alive somewhere in the far reaches of Siberia. Without the signature of the last heir, the clerk apologetically informs Kate, the deal cannot legally go through.

 

Thus, a quick trip to the middle of nowhere to complete a simple, yet immensely profitable, deal becomes more complicated. Kate’s mobile phone acts as a passageway between the surreal world she currently is adventuring in, and her normal, modern life in busy New York. Calls from her boss make it clear she works for a rude, demanding employer. Her personal calls reveal a caring, casual relationship with her feisty, sometimes embarrassing mother; and seemingly good, solid relationships with a best friend and boyfriend. Her relations with these New York connections will be emblematic of Kate’s journey between the ordinary, adult world of Kate the lawyer and the surreal, dream world that awakens the imaginative and idealistic side of Kate.

 

The Voralberg factory is in decline, and documents make it clear the company is going under, as well as shedding light on the touching sibling friendship between Anna Voralberg and her brother Hans, who suffered brain damage as a result of an accident. It becomes clear that their father shunned Hans after the accident, mourning the loss of the ordinary, adventurous boy who was to take over the family business after Mr. Voralberg’s death. Hans and his sister went exploring in the wilderness near town when they were kids, stumbling upon a prehistoric cave where once lived a prehistoric family. On a high natural shelf sat something interesting, a toy woolly mammoth, made perhaps out of bone and animal fur. Made by a loving father or mother for their children to play with thousands of years ago, and left behind untouched on the rocky shelf- until being discovered by the intrepid kids. It is while trying to acquire this precious item that Hans had his accident, hitting his head on the unyielding rocky floor.

 

The last thing Hans saw, or wanted; before the accident, was the woolly mammoth figurine. The now brain-damaged Hans huddles away in corners of the factory and his house, wilting under his father’s disapproving stare. The boy develops an obsession with mammoths, drawing them and building automaton miniatures of the long-gone beasts. Since mammoths were the last thing he saw before the accident, they seem to have sparked his imagination and a secret part of his brain that is normally hidden in people (or perhaps silenced, by the mundane nature of ordinary life).  For now the once ordinary boy has developed a genius for designing and building automatons. His father once again is disappointed that his boy would rather build toys than commercial automatons. Hans reaches out to his sister, building beautiful automaton figurines for her, creations that can play music and recreate events. Hans runs away in his teen years, and his father, unable to bear the shame and grief, engages in a conspiracy with the town priest to fake the boy’s death.

 

It is revealed that Hans constructed an extremely advanced automaton train and conductor, Oscar, to take a very special passenger on a ride to meet the emancipated Hans. That special passenger was to be his sister Anna, and Hans wanted nothing more than for her to join him in his search to find his dream, his fate, whatever it may be.

The abundance of motion-controlled game devices has radically changed the scope of the game industry. The idea of workable, in-depth motion controls in video gaming is something that should excite anyone with its potential. Shooters where your hands hold the ‘gun’, where your footwork and crouching are reflected on the screen, while bullets whiz past. Strategies where you control your units ala Minority Report, like some hi-tech battlefield commander. Why, then are all the games cutesy animal tending simulations or basic sports games?

 

The Playstation 3 has some games which tried to create truly complex motion controls, without much success. Complex games using motion controls need more than a decent idea for gameplay, effort needs to be taken to provide a large variety of different movements that provide an effect on gameplay, and making sure that movements are recongised fluidly. After all, motion control technology has been around for decades, what makes this generation of motion controls revolutionary is that the software and hardware have the potential to actually work well and reliably.

 

Let’s digress for a moment. I am not saying there is anything wrong with casual games. It is my natural bias as a core gamer to wonder why so many casual games are needed. Just as many casual gamers get away with believing all core gamers must have serious problems or a lack of employment. These biases are not true of course, so let me state that casual games are an important market. I enjoy playing Kinect Adventures, and the potential for the Wii to involve family and friends in accessible and sociable fun is a pleasure I have enjoyed. Casual games are a great entry point for people not interested in spending too long with games as a hobby, and that is fine.

 

More objectively, I guess my argument is that when platforms only focus on one type of game, the system fails to meet its potential. Motion controls are great for providing accessible, immersive casual experiences. But they also would be incredible when implemented into core games where your body becomes that of the character in intense situations and through epic storylines. That way there are games for everybody, and the potential of the platform is reached.

 

The future holds promise. The Nintendo Wii, while focused on family friendly fare, does have some mature content and complex games. And the forecast for the future is great for the PS3 Move and Xbox 360 Kinect. On the inverse, the PC is sporting more and more casual games. It’s raining games!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There has been debate about whether video games can be classified as art, with both gaming’s detractors and fans giving their input. Some claim that the interactive nature of games stops it from being art, others have played many games which have genuinely touched them or affected them. In my opinion, art is something that makes you think or affects you in some interesting or profound way, and many games have done that for me. Perhaps this discussion will be re-visited later on, but for now I would like to discuss two computer adventure games, in the same series, that struck me as being particularly profound: Syberia and Syberia 2. This blog will focus on these games, not the games as art debate.

Syberia was released in 2002 and Syberia 2 came out in 2004. They were released for the PC, but ports were made for the Xbox (original) and PS2, and a more recent adaption for the DS (for the first game). The games are, however,  outstanding and old-school examples of the computer adventure game genre. What do I mean by adventure games? Adventure can mean so many things nowadays  including action games with exploration elements, but that is not the kind of adventure game I am referring to. These games are point-and-click, inventory and puzzle based adventure games. You control a character, wandering around different environments, picking up a ludicrous number of items (that your character could not realistically fit on their body!) and interacting with characters and environmental puzzles. The Syberia series is more than its gameplay, if that makes sense. It is a beautiful and moving experience with a poignant story to tell and a timeless message, the endlessly bleak yet evocative windswept environments of the game mirror the delicateness, isolation and slow pace of the unraveling story. Syberia would not work nearly as well as a movie or book, the interaction inherent to gaming actually adds to the uniqueness of the story.

Your protagonist, Kate Walker, is an ambitious, hip, resourceful lawyer from New York whose outward confidence hides insecurity and a kind streak. She has arrived in the small, quaintly picturesque French town of Valadilene, hidden away in the European Alps. The game world is set in modern times in a slightly altered timeline: one where automatons were, for a brief time in the 1800s, extremely important and widespread inventions in the fields of toy-making, industry, transport and war. Automatons are wind-up mechanical inventions, ranging from moving figurines to wind-up trains to automated workers. These automatons became obsolete with the onset of electricity, and by modern times, they are nothing but a faded memory. Valadilene happens to be the home-town of the Voralberg automaton factory which was the most popular and profitable automaton producer back in its hey-day.

So why is Kate in Valadeline? She is a lawyer for a large law firm which is currently representing Universal Toy Co, a toy mega-corporation. Their client wants to buy-out the Valadeline factory to acquire its historical name, and convert it to a modern producer of electric and battery-powered toys. I assume taking over and modernizing a company with nostalgic appeal in Europe would have appealed to local customers as a brand name. In any case, the deal seems simple. Voralberg Toys is on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to pay its debts. The current owner, Anna Voralberg, cleverly mitigated the decline of the industry by advertising the company to obscure, wealthy art-house clients. This enabled the company to barely eke out an existence for years, but recently this meager source of income is no longer enough to even pay the company’s debts. An offer to acquire the company for a large sum, from a wealthy corporation, seems like an irresistible offer, especially considering the potential economic revitalization of the fading town. And Anna Voralberg did agree to the terms, Kate is there merely to take care of the formalities, the contract and signatures required.

Naturally, as stories tend to go, Kate finds out her newest job will not be so straightforward. Upon arriving at Valadeline, she witnesses a funeral procession for the recently deceased Anna Voralberg…

 

 

 

 

 

The Chilean Mining crisis of 2010 held our attention as purported global citizens for a long while, with widespread commercial media interest reporting on the personal details and quirks of each miner, in addition to a breathless reporting of the unfolding facts. It’s no surprise the story was so interesting, it combined danger with human interest, words which have a lot of traction in newsrooms. However, the story experienced a high rate of geographical penetration compared to similar disaster stories. Of course as humans we are happy all the miners emerged with no casualties or permanent injuries, a seeming miracle; and that they can return to their families. And of course, during a disaster, the situation and statistics are typically narrated, along with footage; the grief and prayers for survivors are given because of the unspoken knowledge that these are humans in trouble. But what interested me about this crisis was the focus on specific human details.

On top of essential supplies, miners were accommodated other requests such as one’s request to have Elvis Presley songs blasted into the hole; and that man upon release was invited to a free trip to Graceland.

We felt joy as we saw a little girl reunited with her rescued father, and there were some more humorous and risque moments as one miner’s wife and mistress ran into each other outside the mine, as they asked authorities about his welfare. Upon rescue, his mistress was waiting there but not his wife, and he greeted her with a brusque hug and kiss. Who knows how that situation will turn out for them?

These situations often end in death and tragedy, so it is a miracle no one died. But perhaps to distract us from the grim realism we focus on human details, even humorous ones to distract us. Media and corporate interests were all over the miners with offers and free vacations. Was it purely for advertising reasons, or were the media corporations genuinely fond of the resilient miners? More importantly, were we comforted by the triumph of life over death because it made our own problems seem less tangible, or were we sincerely  touched by the rescue? I like to think it can be both.

One thing is for sure, a lot of people who previously knew nothing about Chile, were tuning into the story and sending their prayers.

With the economy the way it is these days, people are perhaps more ginger about throwing down 60-100 dollars (depending on your place of residence) for a full-price video game, perhaps even more so for MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online role-playing games). MMORPGs require a monthly fee of around $15 or so, paid continuously, in order to continue playing with your character(s). However, MMORPGs add the noteworthy feature of a continuously expanding world with a constant stream of new content- very distinct from the patches we have come to expect for all games. The genre that is lead by WoW (World of Warcraft) has undergone a recent trend of change, with more MMORPG developers adopting a free to play model.

 

No gimmicks here, many games have a completely free to play model which lets you embody your  character in the game world and enjoy the full game experience, for nothing more than using your internet space. There are paid donations which give you access to more character slots, new items, more storage, exotic pets, and the like. Dungeons and Dragons Online: Stormreach, and Warhammer Online are games with a full-featured free gaming option, with optional donations. The industry behemoth, WoW, recently introduced a more limited free to play option where you may play a character up to level 20, and have limited gold and skill options. Paying removes all the limitations.

 

Offering a product for free is a bizarre concept to most people’s sensibilities, particularly when talented people have to work for years to craft it. Is it a sign of an increasingly demanding and selfish consumer base for video games, one who wants access to a game for free before they plonk down cash? Developers are volunteering to use this model to attract a greater number of users, and hope the donation options will provide a sustainable salary (it does seem to be profitable for some companies!). Video game consumers are used to paying a lot of money for their product, and are often restricted in the use of their medium more than partakers of other hobbies. So perhaps the consumers are not getting too demanding. Perhaps the free to play model is an increasingly attractive financial option in the crowded MMORPG market, especially with walltets tightening for many people.

 

Either way, the consumer wins. Despite the access to bonus content for paying customers, there are a lot of free to play MMORPGs which feature full worlds and huge amounts of play time for anybody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social media has opened up communication in a big way, by providing an omnidirectional, accessible and unrestricted communications configuration. Users can post their opinions and hold discussions with anyone, at any time, and, significantly, there is no start or end to the discussion. Through the transitory power of links, discussions move from one person to another, from one perspective to another. Anyone can squat down on a chair in front of an internet enabled device and let loose, without being subject to qualifications or standards. Of course there are exceptions, as Facebook, along with other social mediums such as forums, have their own privacy options and rules. In fact, I guess much of the preceding text should be followed by asterisks and footnotes. The point being made, however, is social media is associated with freedom of discourse.

Reality check for some today, as a juror was charged and sentenced to eight months incarceration for shooting the breeze with the defendant on Facebook, during the trial. Jurors are forbidden from having personal discourse with defendants during the deliberations, or engaging in behaviour which may influence the ultimate verdict. The juror, who also searched for information about the defendant’s boyfriend online against confidentiality instructions, claimed she felt some empathy for the defendant and did not mean to influence the verdict. Extracts from the conversation sound uncannily like casual Facebook banter between friends, one commiserating the other over a trivial personal problem: ‘what’s happenin with the other charge??’ (defendant), to which the juror asked for clarification, then replied ‘cant get anyone to go either no one budging pleeeeeese don’t say anything cause jamie they could all miss trial and I will get 4cked to0’.

Except this was a very serious criminal trial, and the topic anything but trivial. The judge released a statement explaining the grim, but arguably necessary decision to jail the juror, reiterating that jurors have, and always have had, a sworn oath not to engage in communication that could jeopardise judicial integrity. It was true with traditional media, and holds true with social media. Additionally, the trial is being reexamined because of the indiscretion.

Social media is a different type of medium than the phone or the printed press, and, controversially, is not always subject to the same regulations. But, there are some major legal regulations and standards involving touchstones like judicial integrity (in this case), as well as others, such as defamation, which we must assume applies to all communication mediums.

 

Like the iconic Billy Goats of fairytales, users of social media and other forms of Internet-based communicative media, are often waylaid by trolls when they access the bridges of communication. Whenever people use bridges to reach the ‘green grass’ of enlightened discussion, these beasts always seem to pop up to ‘gobble up’ Internet discourse.

Inflammatory comments, deliberately misleading or time-wasting posts, harassment of users, these are the scourges of the message board and social media experiences. Internet boards often have moderators imbued with the power of banning and suspending  misbehaving posters, and these boards often grant users  the ability to report in miscreants.

Blizzard entertainment recently tried to implement a requirement that all posters on its WoW (World of Warcraft) forums display their real first and last names when using the forums. This was suggested as a way to reduce the rampant rudeness and trollish behaviour on the site, such as personal, vulgar attacks stemming from seemingly any minor disagreement between posters. Posters were infuriated by the plan, with some one user posting all the personal details, including phone number and address, of a Blizzard employee who gave his full name on the forums in order to demonstrate how harmless the change could be. The worry among users was that forcing people to display their real names would jeapordize safety and would enable posters to stalk and harass people who they dislike on the forums.

This writer believes that the users were right to complain, and the proposed naming system by Blizzard was unwise, and was cavalier about the security and safety of posters. Some advocates of the now repealed change stated that if you posted respectfully you would have nothing to worry about by displaying your full name. This ignores the fact that people can be, and have been, harassed or insulted on the Internet even if they make an effort to be polite and considerate in their posting.

Reduction of ‘trolling’ is important, but sacrificing people’s anonymity is a no-no. Another thing to consider is the definition of trolling. Some forums and users have a form of elitism regarding their pet forum, and an over-zealous expectation that new users will adhere to all and every standard or norm, resulting in often fascist or oppressive forums. A decent, normal person who did not read the labyrinthine rules, or who had a slightly different style or opinion from others on the site, could be labelled a troll. Social media is a place to spread democratic discussions about various issues., and posting opinions and different takes on an issue are part of the Internet democracy and the character of a user. Trolling is very real and negative, but should be used to describe obviously damaging, disrespectful or hostile behaviour. Something has to be done about trolling, but what is a reasonable step?

 

Nintendo’s seminal motion sensing device of 2006 introduced responsive motion controls- enabling a whole new interactive way of playing original games, as well as beloved Nintendo franchises brought to the system.

Now a brand new successor to the Wii, the Wii U, has been introduced. The system, introduced at this year’s E3, seems to be an answer to criticisms about the Wii’s basic graphics, as well as the system’s longevity considering the success of the Move and Kinect.

The Wii U sports high-definition, up-to-date graphics and a fascinating controller incorporating a touch-pad with stylus, as well as traditional button layouts. On the edges of the screen-like controller are two circle-pads for movement, a d-pad, four A,B,X and Y buttons, as well as bumpers and triggers. There are also the obligatory, start, select and home buttons. The bulk of the controller, however, is taken up by a rather cute-looking touch-screen.

Several exciting features of the Wii U controller are that:

Whole games can be played on the controller screen, if someone else is using the TV in your house, with the graphics and audio streamed wirelessly from the console itself, to the controller in your hands.

When playing with the TV, which seems to be the optimal experience, it seems like the interface and menus can be manipulated on the controller, with the TV being dedicated 100% to displaying the game play, without any HUD. One can imagine potentially playing a shooter or strategy game, where the TV screen is devoid of any distracting HUD or buttons, those aspects being handled by the controller.

The Wii U controller has some innovative applications in co-op games, especially when we consider that the Wii U console is compatible with older Wii controllers. With the already announced game Chase Mii, one player controls a character by staring at and controlling their Wii U remote, receiving instructions that nobody else can see. The other characters have the job of chasing after this character and tagging him/her, but they play the game by staring at the TV. The whereabouts of the target player is not visible on the TV, whose screen is split between the ‘chasers’. This kind of flirtation with the practical and simple joys of social play, such as the withholding of key information, shows how Nintendo can evoke the same fun groups can have playing board games or charades, and adapt it to an electronic medium. Other developers sometimes can’t see the forest for the trees when designing social play experiences, focusing too much on software and hardware, instead of designing them around a desired experience. It will be exciting to see how more complex and graphically impressive games play out in co-op.

The Wii U controller has motion and voice controls and a built-in-camera. While we have yet to see exactly how these will be used, the motion control features will no doubt be less comprehensive than the original Wii remote, due to the heftiness of the Wii U controller.

White, smooth and rounded seems to be the aesthetic direction taken for the organic-looking, but surprisingly bulky-looking console. Although the graphics had all the current-gen features and remarkable resolution, they seemed to barely match what the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are already offering. As always, Nintendo’s edge will be in the innovative ways of controlling their games and experiencing their worlds.