March 12, 2008

The New Battlefield

Team Fortress Classic was a game where the ultra-skilled dominated, and anyone who didn't know all of the many difficult techniques would be repeatedly owned. It was fun for the select few who actually did practice for hours honing their skills, but it was rather frustrating for everyone else, especially newcomers. Valve decided to change that for Team Fortress 2, much to the dismay of the ultra-skilled, and much to the delight of everyone else (myself included). The counter-intuitive techniques no new player would possibly be able to discover on their own were removed entirely, and while the sequel still favors the skilled players, it was simplified and stripped down to what ultimately makes it fun.

Whether or not EA and DICE have been taking hints from Valve is debatable, but it's obvious that they've come to the same conclusion: easy to play, accessible, and just downright fun is a formula for success. Those three traits are what they're aiming for with Battlefield Heroes, a "cartoon shooter" with lots of MMORPG influences. While it's definitely a Battlefield game at heart, it's almost hard to tell since so much has changed.


Battlefield Heroes will be an extremely different experience from the other Battlefield games even before you start playing it. The previous Battlefield games made money off of the fact that you had to drop down your very own hard-earned cash in order to start playing (as well as in-game advertising, in the case of Battlefield 2142). Battlefield Heroes is free to play, and makes money off of on-website advertising and microtransactions. So, how exactly does it work?

For starters, you can't start up the game without visiting the website. So, every time anyone wants to start the game, they'll view an ad (assuming that EA has the means to override ad blockers). There's also going to be lots of great features on the website: a territorial conflict metagame with in-game rewards to the winners, a page for your personal, customized soldier with your stats and equipment (excellent for showing off to your friends), and a sort of social network for players to communicate with each other. All of this will generate lots of web traffic, so the ads alone should be enough to make the game profitable.

Then, there's microtransactions. Anyone who's familiar with sites like OGPlanet, Nexon or GamesCampus will be familiar with this concept: the games are free, but certain items are only obtainable in exchange for real-life cash. These can range from the trivial (items that change your character's appearance), to the ever-so-slightly unbalancing (limited-time EXP boosters), to the extremely unfair (permanent stat boosters). In places such as South Korea, this business model is tried-and-true and is currently used with many different games, but it's somewhat new in the States. It's quite tricky to get it to work: if you add unbalanced items to the shop that give players a large advantage, you'll lose most of your player base because the game will be broken for players who don't want to pay, but if you only have items that don't really affect gameplay, hardly anyone will buy anything. Heroes seems to have gotten it right: they'll mainly offer appearance-changing items, and possibly things like EXP boosters. Nothing in the cash shop will dramatically unbalance gameplay. EA expects about 95% of players to never buy anything via microtransactions, so it's okay if you just want to play for free.

The game looks beautiful, and it can run on an integrated graphics card

The gameplay of Heroes combines tried-and-true elements of the Battlefield series with many new and fresh concepts. A Battlefield veteran will feel right at home with Heroes, since capturing flags and fragging enemies with tanks, planes and a vast arsenal of weaponry is still the core of the game. However, a lot more has changed besides the switch from edgy and realistic to light-hearted and cartoon-like. For starters, the camera is in third person, not first person. This complements the concept of earning (or purchasing) cool-looking gear for your character, because you'll be able to see your hero while playing. It'll also make things easier for people who are totally unfamiliar with the shooter genre, since doing simple things like going through a doorway is easier and more intuitive when you're in a third-person view. (I know, you FPS veterans probably think it's silly that someone might not be able to walk through a doorway, but remember, we were all noobs once, and this game is focusing on accessibility, and catering to every skill level.) Some might argue that the third-person view will take away from the feeling of "being there," but it's hard to really feel like you're there in a cartoon shooter in the first place. I've experienced some really fun and intense moments in Team Fortress 2, but I've never felt like I was actually there (unlike with Call of Duty 4). That's not necessarily a bad thing. We'll have to see if the unique camera view allows you to peek around corners without exposing yourself to enemy fire, and whether that effects the gameplay in either a negative or a positive way.

Another thing you'll notice is the inability to change your army or your class. Before you start playing, you'll create a character, and you'll most likely stick with him for the rest of your time playing the game. It's understandable that you can't support different armies (mainly because of the metagame), but it seems a bit strange to me that, as of now, they're planning on only one character slot per game account. Personally, I can't wait to play as a stealthy Commando, but I'd like to be able to switch to a Gunner every now and then, to rain bullets down on the enemy with a minigun while riding on the wing of a Spitfire plane. Hopefully, EA will plan for additional character slots before the game comes out (perhaps purchasable via microtransaction?). UPDATE: Since this preview, EA has shown that you'll be able to have up to four soldiers on one account, free of charge. Thanks, guys!

While you level up your character, you'll earn an in-game currency that you'll be able to spend on gear, but you'll also be able to earn special abilities. These can be anything from area-of-effect health boosts for you and your team, to cloaking that makes you partially invisible, to the ability to see through walls, to tossing 15 grenades at once. As you can tell, most of the abilities will be very unrealistic. The more powerful abilities will have a long recharge time, so you won't be able to just spam the 15-grenade toss over and over. The developers say that the special ability system actually makes Heroes the deepest of any Battlefield game, because while you can only bring a couple of abilities with you out in the field, you can collect tons of them and swap them out between games. This brings a new level of character customization to the game, and can probably lead to a new level of pre-game strategizing for clan matches, since you'll want everyone to have skills that will complement the other players, and help lead your whole team to victory.

The scoring system is basically a simplified version of the normal Battlefield scoring. Each side starts out with 50 tickets. Fragging an enemy will take at least one ticket away from the enemy. Of course, it wouldn't be Battlefield without capture points. In Heroes, if your side holds more flags than the enemy, you'll be granted a bonus that multiplies the number of tickets you eliminate for kills. Therefore, staying alive, killing the enemy, and capturing enemy flags while defending the ones you own are all essential to winning a battle.

Finally, you can always expect a good fight, regardless of your skill level. Heroes features an automatic matchmaking system that pits poor players against noobs, and the skilled against the elite. That way, you can always expect a challenge, but you'll hardly ever be completely routed. And don't worry: when you don't want to play with random people, there's ways to play with your friends, and ways to start clan battles.

Battlefield Heroes promises to be simple enough for the most casual player, and yet deep enough for the most hardcore player. But the real selling point for me is that they got rid of everything that was unnecessary in the previous Battlefield games, kept everything that was fun, and added lots of new features that'll make you want to come back for more. And even if it doesn't look like your kind of thing, why not try it anyway? It's free!


Bonus Fact: Contrary to popular belief, Battlefield Heroes isn't about World War II, and it's not the Germans fighting the British. Both armies come from completely fictitious countries (despite their familiar stereotypes), and they're fighting over the results of cyclists at the Olympics.

March 1, 2008

The PC Gaming Industry is NOT Dying

Recently, gamers, game developers and hardware manufacturers alike seem to be slowly coming to the conclusion that, sadly, the PC gaming industry is dying a slow and painful death. The fact that some of the people running the gaming industry have faith in these baseless conjectures and refuse to actually look at the facts can really make one marvel. The breakthroughs in PC gaming were wonderful last year, and if you actually take the time to see what's really going on, you'll soon realize that the industry will continue to improve in the years ahead.

I'm making a note here: Last year, Portal was one huge success out of many

Most of these rumors seem to have been started by people who compared (or attempted to compare) recent PC gaming revenue with the revenue from the Xbox 360, the Wii, and the PS3. These people, for some reason, simply looked at the retail sales for each, and thought that they proportionately represented the total sales. You would think that professional analysts would be smarter than that, but apparently not.

If a gamer goes to a store and buys an Xbox 360, some controllers, some games, and other accessories, everything he bought counts towards revenue for the Xbox 360 via retail sales. But if a gamer buys a gaming computer, a gaming keyboard, a gaming mouse, and four or five games from Steam, then nothing he bought counts towards revenue for the PC gaming industry via retail sales. Hardware isn't counted at all, regardless of where you buy it from, and software is only counted when you actually drive to a store to purchase it. Most gamers have a high-speed internet connection and a credit card, debit card, or PayPal account, and most gamers with those things prefer downloading games. I spent tons of my money on gaming-related purchases last year, and I'm pretty sure I bought nothing retail except for one or two games for the Nintendo DS. Take into account things like subscription fees for MMOs and advertising in games and game websites, and you come to the clear conclusion that, unlike with consoles, a huge portion of PC gaming revenue is not from retail sales.

Another rumor people seem to be buying is that WoW is hurting the PC gaming industry as a whole, because gamers who play it tend to not play anything else. Think about the backwards logic there for a second. WoW has over 10,000,000 players worldwide, and they each pay around $15 a month to play. That's over $150,000,000 a month going to the gaming industry. (Sure, it's all going to one company, Blizzard, but since they don't have a monopoly on the industry that's not much of a problem.) And, many people who play WoW are casual gamers, people who would otherwise not play any PC games. This means that, while WoW holds some players in and prevents them from playing other things with its addictive qualities, it introduces other players to PC gaming in general, and helps them get comfortable enough to try more hardcore titles.

It's just common sense: a popular game that generates massive revenue and introduces non-gamers to PC gaming is, believe it or not, beneficial to the industry.

Finally, we get to the issue of the cost of PC gaming to the consumer. People are under the impression that it's much cheaper to buy a console than a gaming PC. This is simply not the case. If you calculate the cost of building your own computer with system specs comparable to the PS3, and then subtract the cost of a normal non-gaming PC (because remember, you're getting a gaming machine and a personal computer in one), the price is about the same as the PS3. And upgrading your parts to meet next-gen system requirements costs about as much as trading in your old console for a new one.

People probably started to assume that PC gaming was expensive after looking at companies like Falcon Northwest and Voodoo, who charge four to five times the price of the hardware for their computers. For those who don't want to build their own PC, and don't want to go through the hell-on-earth experience that is CyberPower or iBUYPOWER, companies like Alienware and Velocity Micro offer alternatives that are expensive, but not bank-breaking. The main problem here isn't the fact that PC gaming is slightly expensive, it's the fact that many consumers are under the impression that it's unaffordable. Hopefully, that will be easily corrected once hardware prices fall.

The PC gaming industry is not dying. It's progressing just as steadily as it has been over the past couple of years, and it's not going to stop any time soon. I realized this, and so I created WASDism. This blog aims to be a breath of fresh air amidst the monotony of other PC gaming publications. I'll focus on games that are currently in development, and I'll only write about the ones that are the most exciting, groundbreaking, or just plain fun-looking, so you'll know what to look out for in the future. I'll always take an optimistic look at what's in store for PC gaming in the years ahead, because the future does indeed look good, and as gamers, we should be able to look ahead, and have fun while doing so.

Responses to Comments

First of all, if you link to your own blog in your comment and it's clearly just for self-promotion, I will not approve the comment. Don't even bother.


@james

A non-gaming computer can still run fairly hardware-intensive software such as professional video-editing programs. The PS3, on the other hand, is only good as a PC replacement if the only thing you would use a PC for is extremely basic things like word processing and email. Also, I didn't make this point before, but a modern gaming PC will naturally have good all-around system specifications, and therefore will be able to run pretty much any modern software as a bonus.

I don't debate the fact that if all you intend to do is game, maybe type some stuff up, and nothing else, consoles are the cheaper option (if you don't count additional monthly online service charges like Xbox LIVE). However, gaming PCs are really not all that expensive, and if you want to do other things besides gaming, the PC is your best choice.


@anonymous

Just to give one example out of the thousands that are floating around on the Internet: my cousin bought a PC from CyberPower that came with free liquid cooling as part of a special promotion. It broke down quickly, as most of their PCs do, and he sent it back to them for repairs. They shipped it back with the liquid cooling gone, and in its place was the cheapest fan on the market today. He called them to ask what happened, and they told him that since he never actually paid for the liquid cooling, they had the right to take it back. In a nutshell, CyberPower and iBUYPOWER build the crappiest gaming PCs on the market today, and don't hesitate to scam their customers on top of it. Their prices are insanely cheap, but they're not worth it.


@tony

I own an Alienware PC, a Wii, and a DS. My favorite genres are FPS and rhythm games, but I'll generally play anything that looks fun. The only genre I can't really get into is RTS. However, please note that when I write this blog, I'll try to be unbiased when stating objective facts, and as such, the consoles I own and the genres I play shouldn't affect the quality of my blog too much. (I'll even mention RTS games if they look excellent.)