OR: The Surgeon General warns that Unrepentant Nostalgia may be hazardous to your health.

I had intended this to be another tide of derision towards the state of the games industry, spilling forth in a torrent of bile from the cavernous, unquenchable depths of my petty spite. But then, I realised that I didn't really have that much to be angry about.

You see - this all started when I was listening to a 1up Retronauts podcast from February - the one about First Person RPGs. And they mentioned System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. Two amazing games. Two of my all time favourites in fact. And I started thinking about how long it had been since I played a game that gave me such a thrill of excitement to be immersed in such a complex and amazing setting and system. I then recalled that I still had STALKER sitting in the big pile of games on my desk, waiting for me to finish it. Not to mention many other titles.

Its this kind of "eyes focused firmly on the rear view mirror" thinking that has had me mulling over the pros and cons of our current generation of titles. And also trying to determine whether games have gotten better or worse over time. And after much thought I have come to the following, shocking, conclusion:

To be honest, its pretty much the same.

"But wait!" The NES fans scream, "Clearly the 8-bit era was the most innovative - look at the massive variety of games that were created!"

"Hell no!" Shout the PS3 die hards, "Haven't you seen the Killzone 2 trailer? Isn't it goddamn hot! How could you possibly say that Metroid can begin to match up to that?"

"What are you talking about?" Asks my fiance, "Look - as long as its like bejeweled I'm fine with it. Or if it has puppies. Or is The Sims."

"Incorrect." States the legion with the TrackIR dots on their foreheads, "Only recently have we reached a point where computers can accurately model airflow and lift dynamics for a wing surface which has a procedural damage engine applied to it! It's a whole new era!"

And all of them would be right. There was an explosion in the variety of games available when we reached the 8-bit era, whether it was on the consoles, or the home PC, suddenly there was a lot more than ever appearing across old and new genres. Graphics, sound and all the other shiny, fiddly bits are getting better by the day, and it is a lot easier on the eye to watch someone playing Dead Rising on 360 than it is to watch them playing Resident Evil on the PS. The Sims, for all its heartless, evil, expansion pack exploitation is still a remarkably good game and sold like hotcakes for a reason. Similarly, there's a damn good reason why Bejeweled and its casual game ilk have everyone from the most obsessive gamer snob to their grandma playing them. And yes, more processing power means that we can start to do things that we could only dream of doing on a console or PC a decade ago.

But what, if anything does all this mean? Does it mean that games are better now?

Lets look at an example cherry picked to prove a point: The platformer.

This game used to be the absolute king of genres. You couldn't blink without another dozen turning up on the shelves. But now the platformer is a rare species. Or is it?

Back in the early days we had games like the Mario franchise, to name the most eponymous of these. The pure, arcade quality, platformer. A little later came the (in my opinion at least) greatly superior Prince of Persia, from Jordan Mechner. Another platformer, but one that added puzzles and tense combat. We see splits happening everywhere since then. Some games sped up the basic gameplay (Sonic), some added a really great sense of humour (Earthworm Jim), some took storytelling and design to a new level (Another World). Others took on any license that they could find with varying success.

But I'll stick with a few key examples here. Lets follow the evolution of Prince of Persia. From the original, we then went to Prince of Persia 2. More of the same, but with prettier graphics and a few new surprises. Then years later, some bright sparks decided to try a new take on the puzzle platformer with Tomb Raider moving it into the brave new realm of 3D. This led to Prince of Persia being revisited, as Prince of Persia 3D. And though that game made use of all the latest technologies, it was by no means anywhere near as good as the original. Tomb Raider thrived, but the Prince languished. Then came The Sands of Time - brilliance, a great addition to the series. Sadly, the followed this up with Warrior Within. And then continued down the 3rd person fighter with some puzzles path in Two Thrones. But, without Prince of Persia to lead the way, would we have ended up with Another World, Flashback and Fade To Black, or the Tomb Raider series - which led to Space Bunnies Must Die and O.D.T, but also to Oni and the resurrection of Prince of Persia in a new form. But most recently, we've had the announcement that the original is being remade, sure it will have graphics, sounds, physics and all the other widgets that the 360 allows, but its still going to be that game that we played way back when.

Now lets look at the more conventional platformer. Mario may not have been the first, but he was definitely the best at the time. And from Mario, we have many clones and imitators. Then, we had Sonic - where speed became central to the game. We had licensed games ranging from the good to the average to the totally rubbish. If we want to start looking at obscure tangents, I'll bring in Ecco The Dolphin. There were many attempts to create new franchises: Bubsy the Bobcat, Cool Spot and Aero: The Acro-Bat to name a few, each with their own "spin" on the basic genre. Then there are the shooting variants - the platformers where you are armed to the teeth - Metal Slug, Rolling Thunder and one of my personal favourites, Sunset Riders [previously incorrectly named here Outlaws]. One of the shooting variants that I've already mentioned was Earthworm Jim. One of the many games from Shiny that I am happy to ramble on about at length. But I won't. I'll just say that Earthworm Jim did two things - it was one of the funniest video games ever and it put Shiny squarely on the map. Earthworm Jim led to Abe's Odyssey and MDK. Two games on completely different paths that, I feel, owed a lot to the game for a variety of reasons.

Then, now that I've mentioned MDK, we can look at the 3d world. Mario 64 and Tomb Raider were the flagships of this era. And while I've discussed the path that Tomb Raider took, I'll now talk about Mario's own dark progeny (and some of the better ones). Sony needed a marketable mascot for the launch of the Playstation, so we suddenly had Crash Bandicoot. Later Microsoft tried to cash in with Blinx. In the meantime there had been Banjo & Kazooie, Conkers, Pandemonium and NiGHTS all bringing their own take on the 3d platformer to the fore. Lately, Mario has gone back to 2d. Sort-of (New Super Mario Bros.). Well, some of the time (Super Paper Mario). Sonic has started making money where he can and everyone tried to forget about Blinx. I'm only mentioning a smattering of games here because I'm trying to make a point - so don't criticise me for missing one of your "preciouses".

And the point is this: I'm just as happy with the latest platformers as I was with the oldest of them. I still play Prince of Persia as its an unbelievably good game even today. I play Super Mario Bros on my Virtual Console. Not long ago I downloaded the rejigged version of Another World which became available on PC. And I still have very fond memories of biting guards in the face as a raptor in the original Jurassic Park game. And of swinging a lightsabre and dying horribly in the Star Wars platformers on SNES. But I also loved playing Beyond Good & Evil, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Codename: Gordon, New Super Mario Bros., Psychonauts and even the damn jumpy-jumpy segments in Half Life and Half Life 2. I want to play Tomb Raider: Anniversary. I am hanging out for Super Mario Galaxy.

Games from any era can be great, as long as you choose the right games to play. And this is where I'll leave you with some closing thoughts. If you are going to compare games from different eras: be fair. Of course you'll feel nostalgic when you see where the Sonic franchise has fallen to. And of course, you'll be happier with the smoother gameplay of the newer 3d platformers that have moved away from tile-based design. But you need to remember that Just because 3d platformers have smoothed their gameplay considerably now, it doesn't give any excuses for games like Shrek. And though Sonic was amazing change back in the day, we still have games that are pushing the genre in new directions, just look at what Psychonauts did.

I could go through these histories and genealogies and comparisons with any number of genres, and my conclusions would almost always be the same. Just because its old, or new, does not make a game automatically better.

I was once vehemently opposed to Valve's digital distribution product. This was mainly due to the horrific experiences that I and many others endured as part of our purchase of Half Life 2. You can read my blow-by-blow account of my purchasing, installation and registering woes and later, my continuing woes with attempting to keep playing the game on StarDestroyer.net (warning - heavy profanity present in those links).

But since then, I must admit that I have been turned around. Upon finally getting broadband (hah - what we in Australia are forced to accept as broadband anyway) I revisited Steam and found it to be a) working and b) a great collection point for a variety of unique, fun and (usually) good games. I am a regular purchaser of items from Steam. In fact, in recent times, probably more so than boxed products (mainly due to the fact that prices are a lot more competitive when you purchase via Steam - especially in Australia).

But there are problems with the system. And this isn't directly related to Steam, but it is a by-product of its success. Episodic Content/Distribution. This was meant to be the future - regular parcels of gameplay packaged at a lower price point and digitally distributed. Almost a return to the days of Shareware - remember the screens at the end of a lot of the old titles, asking you to send your cheque/money order for however many episodes of the game you wanted to buy. A great idea, but something that I rarely did - after all in 1992, despite having many years of gaming under my belt I was only in grade six and for whatever reason was apparently not to be trusted with a cheque account. That, and the fact that a single episode of Commander Keen was usually enough for me.

This economic model is still very shaky though. In a manner similar to the XBox Marketplace microtransaction, people are fiddling to find out how much the market is willing to bear for an episodic delivery game. And some developers are still struggling with the concept of what episodic even means. Which bring me back to Valve.

Half Life 2 was meant to be a flagship of the episodic fleet. New content being released through the "Episodes" series on a regular basis and at a low price-point. Instead, what we are presented with are regular expansion pack size content and premium expansion pack prices and on a release schedule that seems to be set by arcane lore and the readings of astral conjunctions. Valve has taken a tried and tested route: find fantastically (or even marginally) marketable IP and pump out semi-regular addons at 50% of full game pricepoint until the market is bored and stops letting you make a fat profit. To be honest, their only innovation here has been to leverage digital distribution into being the primary sales channel.

SIN Episodes was the first real test of the concept. This was not a "simple" game - this was what most people may have called a "AAA" title. A FPS where the developers (and publishers) were banking on sufficient pick-up of the episodic delivery system to recoup their original investment and make continued development viable. But therein lies the problem. First person shooters rarely give you the goodies right off the bat. How many people would have continued to purchase a Half Life episodic game solely based on "Hazardous Materials"? Can you honestly say that the first two missions in Jedi Knight II would have had you pulling out the credit card to purchase the next few levels?

SIN's experiment with truly Episodic First Person Shooters may as well be called what it was, a trial of pay-to-play demos. It not a compelling - or even a good - experience for those involved. You either need balls-to-the-wall action right off the bat (Serious Sam embodies this) or an amazingly gripping narrative and compelling gameplay (Max Payne springs to mind) in order to convince me that I want to keep playing a game that I've just forked over cash to play, what amounts to a demo.

Meanwhile, Valve needs to man-up and deal with their "Episodic Content". Just admit that if it is priced like an expansion pack, plays like and expansion pack and is released like an expansion pack, then its probably an expansion pack.

Adventure games seem to be bucking this unfortunate trend though. Sam and Max: Season 1, has fought through the mire of resistance to Episodic Content (thanks mainly to the previous failures to deliver on the promises of ongoing content). A price that reflects what you are actually getting, regular delivery of the installments and consistent level of polish and enjoyment to content throughout. Penny Arcade's: On the Rain-Slicked Precipice of Darkness will hopefully share this basic and successful business principle.

Imagine for a moment a world where Grey's Anatomy, mid-season is suddenly put on hiatus, then an episode slips out without fanfare, then another plays in a different time slot, then its back on indefinite hiatus. Now, for anyone used to Australian TV, this probably isn't that unusual, but for most mainstream TV audiences (which is why I chose that abomination of a program) that kind of delivery would frustrate them. Leading to many angry phone calls and letters to the TV station. But for the most part, we gamers, used to such abuses of our loyalty will just lie back and think of England.

Now, imagine another scenario. Sitting at home watching a movie, let's say Fight Club on DVD, having found it at a discounted price - you have just watched Edward Norton doing his tour of America tracking the spread of Fight Club. The DVD suddenly stops and David Fincher appears on screen doing an NPR inspired donation drive - apparently, you won't get to know what's going on unless you call now and give your credit card details. And then a DVD containing the final half hour will be sent to you. How can this be? Surely you've already paid for the movie? "No," you are politely informed by the person on the other end of the phone, "under our new policy, we've decided to move episodic release of movies, just to ensure that people who are unsure about paying full price when they don't know if they will like the content aren't obliged to pay full price for a movie they might not watch all the way through."

I get worried that we're going to see Episodic Content and microtransactions meet in some hideous fusion of evil technological money-grubbing collaboration. Imagine playing the next Elder Scrolls game, where each town that you visit, or dungeon you enter, requires a microtransaction to unlock - after all, why should someone pay for the development of a village that they might bypass during their playthrough?

And that's the issue that I think we as gamers may be facing - being forced into a situation where content that was once part and parcel of a game, may be broken down and delivered as separate purchases. And I'm not sure if I don't like the idea. Certainly, episodic delivery of a game is fine by me - as long as the episodes are reasonably priced, paced and delivered on time. Indeed, for gamers like myself who are short of time, but not short on funds, episodic is a good way of allowing us to pace ourselves, enjoying the limited play-time we get and anticipating our next burst. But people need to accept what Episodic Content entails - and more importantly, what it doesn't. In those situations, would it kill Gabe Newell to be honest and just admit that he's releasing expansion packs?

Unfortunately the long list of comments that went with this post were lost when it was deleted, so here it is again, for the record in a more heavily censored form. 

                                         
And now: The best games I hate.

Certain games just raise my hackles and have me swiping and spitting like an alley cat defending a discarded box of chicken nuggets.  Often I have little to no experience with these games, but even those few short hours of exposure have guaranteed my lasting displeasure with them.  It may fly in the face of critical and popular opinion, but I just don't like them.

Number 5 - World of Warcraft
I haven't played this game and I know I don't want to.  WoW players seem to be such an insular, insane and boring group that I have no idea how the hell I'd cope with such banality.  Why the hell someone would pay monthly fees to play Diablo in an uninteresting generic fantasy setting with a host of griefer morons and in-game spam boggles me.  WoW players are giving gamers world-wide a bad name.  Alright, a worse name.  But still - the number of people I've seen who were previously consumed by WoW and who have come out the other side wondering what the hell was so fun about it to start with makes me believe that I'm really not missing anything.

Number 4 - Company of Heroes
aka Dawn of World War 2.  Yet another RTS that promises all these revolutions and delivers RTS staples hidden behinds gimmicks and hi-res textures.  This game, for all its posturing and prettiness has such frightfully stale gameplay would give you scurvy if it had half the chance.  This game is yet another example of Relic's continuing relaxation upon the laurels of Homeworld.  Dawn of War at least had a geek-cred giving license.  Company of Heroes has no excuse.  And for anyone who thinks that destructible terrain in an RTS was new and cool, go back to Tiberium Sun.  It's neither new, nor particularly cool.  And in Company of Heroes, it barely even worked.  Now, if you want me, I'll be playing Flames of War.

Number 3 - Metal Gear Solid series
I played MGS on the PS when it first came out and kind of liked it, but found its plot to be tedious, the exposition too forced and the gameplay, though fun, rapidly vacillated between "be supersneaky" and "BOSS FIGHT!".  Solid Snake also never really struck me as an interesting protaganist, seeming to be the generic, gruff, super-soldier.  The first Metal Gear Solid title was, well - solid, but from my understanding its been all downhill since then.  And anyway, if I want to play a game like that, I have Thief, Splinter Cell and many others that do it far better.

Number 2 - Final Fantasy series
As previously established in my blogs, I am not really that big a fan of JRPGs.  And though the early Final Fantasy games don't raise my ire that much, from VII onwards I have nothing but loathing and contempt for this series.  Boredom incarnate is how I'd describe these.  Hours spent watching the same animation over and over on a battle scren and then getting to watch a half hour pre-rendered cutscene featuring pointless titillation/exposition/angst and then followed by characters standing around in game with 10 minutes of scrolling text talking about the cutscene.  Screw these games, I'm going to go play Final Flamewar.

Number 1 - Counterstrike
Finely balanced, well designed, fast playing and enjoyable.  In 2000.  Get the f**k over it already.  Even when it came out this mod was, in my opinion at least, below the standards of other mods and games of the day.  But somehow it still gets more players online at any given time than all other FPS put together.  And the biggest problem?  People who play Counterstrike have got to be the most change resistant group on earth.  Play another game.  At least try another game - maybe you'll realise what you've been missing.


Finally:
The games that weren't quite right

These are the games that were disappointing to me - but that I often love regardless.  They just had some dynamic, or level or just something about them that made playing them far less enjoyable and made me that little bit more disappointed.  In each of these I'll detail what my problem with it was and sometimes try and offer a solution rather than just railing blindly against "The Man".

Number 5 - Fable
Now, I'm a realist - following the change from the crazy-awesome open expanses of Project Ego to the more structured Fable, I wasn't expecting too much freedom.  But there's still an issue or four to be raised.  First off - how am I supposed to be an evil bad-arse in this game!  Its so amazingly hard to be bad as to not even be worth trying to do it.  Getting kicked out of town before you can get any trading done or start/finalise quests just isn't an incentive for me.  Then there's the fact that I'm an utterly undefeatable superhero who has cleaved through hundreds of those damn Jackal things on my way to free my mother.  Then, myself and the other greatest hero in the land are about to leave when six (or eight or a dozen - WHATEVER!) or the damn things teleport in during a cutscene and we immediately surrender.  I swear to god!  Give me twenty seconds of gametime instead of those twenty seconds of cutscenes and there would have been nothing left in that room, but me, my mother and a huge honking pile of experience orbs.  Fable 2 looks set to add a lot more and hopefully correct a few of my bigger issues with this game - but just one watch of the GDC interview with Peter Molyneux about what they cut from Fable in order to make their release dates makes me sick to my stomach.

Number 4 - GTA:SA
***** please.  That should tell you everything you need to know about why I am perennially disappointed with the newer GTA games.  For those of you who don't understand it yet, I'll elaborate.  You are everybody's *****.  It doesn't matter how awesome you are, how powerful, how well connected.  Somehow, every bum with an agenda seems to be able to get you to do their bidding with little more than a "sure, I'll do that" from the protaganist.  For example the final act of GTA: San Andreas, had the games writing and indeed - its design been up to me would have played something like this:
CJ, dressed in an immaculate tuxedo gets out of a Limo and starts walking towards his Las Venturas penthouse with large entourage in tow (even if this isn't in game, I always liked to imagine it) when he gets the call that Sweet is out of gaol.  CJ immediately gets back into the Limo, goes to the airport, hops on his private jet and flies to his mansion in the hills overlooking Los Santos.  He then climbs into another limo and drives down to police station to find Sweet sitting on the steps.
"We gotta take back the hood!" shouts Sweet.
"***** please," responds CJ, "**** the godd*mn hood.  I'm rich mother****er.  I own a ******* casino in Venturas with the Triads, car dealerships, airfields - more real estate than Donald ******* Trump."
"But-"
"Shut the **** up.  Do you have any idea of the **** I've gone through for you?"
"I've been in gaol -"
"Shut up!  I've been in Tenpenny's ******* pocket.  I've had every ****ing gang from here to Liberty ******* City after me.  I've broken into ******* secret military bases to steal jetpacks.  Blown up a ******* hydroelectric powerplant.  And lets not forget fighting my way through a ******* aircraft to jack a ******* Harrier jumpjet so I could do black ops for the ******* CIA!  All because people were using you as ******* leverage.  Where's the ******* gratitude *****?"
"But CJ man - I'm your brother!"
"Brother only gets you so far.  If you want to get the ******* hood back, go right ahead.  I'm gonna be up in my mansion, or in my private jet, or helicopter or what the **** ever - living it up with piles of money and my b*tches.  **** you Sweet.  Get the **** outta my life."
Now, tell me honestly, how would that not have been a much more satisfying ending to the game?

Number 3 - Republic: The Revolution
Ambitious cannot begin to describe this game.  To model the rise to power of a minor local politician, wheeling and dealing, plotting and politicking his way to the top.  All the time struggling against a dictator in an ex-Soviet block nation.  The level of detail was astounding - in terms of both the environments and the socio-political structures which formed the basis of the game.  Do you move up in political circles by being squeaky clean and fighting against corruption?  Do you advance by shadowy means, intimidating, blackmailing and even killing your opposition?  Do you just make yourself filthy rich and bribe your way to the top?  Everything is viable.  But - and this is a big but.  The game was hard to play, even harder to learn and because there was just so damn much to do it was difficult to keep on top of it all (especially in the later, larger cities).  If you haven't played this game you definately should, if only to see how close you can come to greatness and yet still fall short.

Number 2 - Thief
Garrett is cool.  Super cool.  So awesome that even Sam Fisher, 47 and Solid Snake bow before his medieval awesomeness.  Thief was a game that encouraged you to be sneaky - foiling guards attempts to spot, tricking their senses, using the environment to your advantage, sneaking in to steal the loot.  And then getting killed by goddamn acid spitting dinosaurs.  Or zombies.  Or cat people.  Or spider-demon things.  Seriously - what the hell?  Thief games are ALWAYS amazing and brilliant and indescribably awesome.  For the first few levels.  And then you start going up against non-human opponents and it just ruins it.  Thankfully there are many, many mods and addons and maps done by the community that let you practice your thievery in a setting not populated by things that can see you and hear you, no matter how damn sneaky you are being.

Number 1 - Black & White
A few years ago on Chez Geek, myself, Metagnome and a few guests on the show tried to name our top 10 games of all time.  And it was hard.  But at number one there was a clear winner.  Peter Molyneux.  And we knew that this wasn't really fair, but we couldn't decide which one of his games should win - and if we hadn't done this then we would have been looking at probably five out of the top 10 games being from Peter Molyneux.  That, just goes to show the amount of respect I have for the man.  Add to this that the number one game on this list is a Peter Molyneux title, while two others are from subsidiary studios or proteges and something should become clear.  For all of Peter Molyneux's brilliance, his desire to create such amazing games frequently outstrips our current capacity to create them.  Black & White is the perfect example of this.  You played as a God, interacting with the world indirectly, through your avatar - which you could teach, train and mould in your own image.  Well, that was the theory.  In actual fact it was like a simulator based on the life of an Age of Empires peasant.  In that you picked up a tree, delivered a tree to a supply depot.  Picked up another tree, delivered that to a supply depot and so on and so forth until finally, you had enough trees that you could commission a structure.  Which you had to create the framework for by combining supply crates and then position.  All the while, you'd be working to try and ensure that your people were not starving to death because they were too inefficient in bringing in a harvest.  I thought I got to play as a god?  And what about the good/evil mechanic.  Well, if you want to be good - its easy, because all of your quests involve doing something good for a reward.  If you wanted to be evil, you just have to be a dick.  And there's no reward for that.  In fact, if you are a dick most of your worshippers leave (or are sacrificed and you're left without a powerbase).  The best thing about this game was your avatar - and thankfully, we're talking about 100m tall oranguatans here - with some amazingly real personalities, otherwise this game would be in my "holy crap this is terrible" pile, rather than one of my all-time favourites.

I've recently had the urge to play a bit of cops and robbers. You know, the sort that you played as a kid on your bikes, riding like mad around the park or wherever you happened to be. This is brought on by several factors - first, my love of great chase scenes in film. Hence referencing Gone in Sixty Seconds (either version), great movies with great chases. Second, my want to play a realistic racing game. But not so realistic that I have to sit with a wheel and pedals for 12 hours doing testing, trials, qualifying and then racing for 120 laps. Third, I want action. Preferably in the form of action replay - did you ever play Stunt Island? I want that level of control over my replays.

What does all of this lead me to desire? The greatest car chase game of all time. Don't get me wrong - Calling All Cars looks like a blast, Need For Speed: Most Wanted (and Hot Pursuit, Hot Pursuit 2 etc) are enjoyable, but not the most realistic (CAR DAMAGE PEOPLE!) and GTA games though they give me the open environment I desire, but they all lack the realistic angle I crave.

Imagine for a moment a game that gives you control of a police force in a nice big environment, say for example a city and its surrounds. And it doesn't have to be a real, or even realistic city - just one filled with great locations for action. You can switch between cars at will or try and coordinate actions from a helicopter circling overhead, viewing it all from an RTS angle

Now, I realise the problems with this. First off - violence. With realistic physics in a high-speed pursuit game you are just as often as not going to end up with a chasing finishing in a fiery, tangled, steel coffin. Probably with no few numbers of civilians injured. And, of course a game like this would naturally attract criticism from certain parties. But what if your score - as a pursuit driver was directly effected by the damage done during the pursuit? With massive penalties for injuries and deaths of other drivers and pedestrians. It might encourage players to back off when the chase is in a crowded area to give the criminal less motivation to ram other vehicles or people, but to really apply the pressure when in a quieter area.

Then here's problem two - the engine. Having civilians running everywhere is going to make things graphically intensive. Add to that, the fact that you expect a very high level of graphical fidelity in games like this (especially one where the replays are going to be part of the gameplay). So graphics are a big concern. What about AI? The amount of times that driving games and open world games have been destroyed by atrocious AI makes this a primo concern for most people. And more importantly to portray accurately the chase dynamics that you would want to have involved - well, it just gets harder and harder. Then finally - the physics. I want realistic car handling, damage and if possible - as much environment damage as can be modelled (how often have you wanted to see a chase end with a guy flipping his car through a barnwall and igniting the hay inside - no, never? It must just be me). All of this puts more pressure on the developers. And finally - putting in a really good replay system so that I can have camera angles anywhere I choose, edit it how I choose and then save it in a format that allows me to send it to anyone else with the game to watch for themselves (or re-edit if they wish) or export it to a video format (preferably with a filter that prevents people putting Linkin Park on as the soundtrack). And of course, multiplayer would just be a bonus.

I know that this game will never be made - there's too many variables and potentional difficulties.. Too much to make and its by no means a guaranteed hit. But I'd like it none-the-less. In the meantime I guess I'll just have to play more GTA:SA and NFS:Hot Pursuit 2. Unless one of you know a better game for it on PC or XBox (not 360).

So, after all the healthy discussion following the first post in this series, I've been thinking deeply about my choices for this one. And its been tough - how do I define "yet to play"? Some of the ones on the list I have a little experience with, but I'm limiting this list to games that I have played less than I'd have liked (often having played just a demo or a few short multiplayer games). Then I had to pare down the list more - because there were lots of games that I wish I'd played, but many of them would hardly rate as classics. For example - I wish I'd played more Future Cop 2050, that under-regarded classic of giant transforming robot stomping fun. However, I've never seen that game on anyone's "best ever" lists. And I'd rate as at best a good distraction.

No, these are the games that I'm yet to play that I really should have played and regret missing (or not trying).

The best games I'm yet to play (You see! YET to play, I haven't missed a thing)

Number 5 - Viva Pinata
The newest game on the list. I loved games like Creatures and have dabbled with Pokemon. Dungeon Keeper was a lot of fun and I love games that give me the chancmete to control and manage and build. Viva Pinata looked to do all of that and more - while keeping a fanciful tone. I don't have access to a 360 and while sharing a house with him Metagnome refused to allow me to sully his 360 with it. Which is why its on the list. I get the feeling it would be fun, but am yet to try it.

Number 4 - World of Warcraft
I'll admit that I never was that much of a fan of Warcraft and Warcraft 2. I own them. I played them, but I wasn't thrilled. I was always a Command and Conquer kind of guy. I dabbled in Ultima Online (backyard servers) in '99 and to be honest, the MMO idea never grabbed me. I didn't enjoy UO that much, Diablo for me held no real appeal and to be honest even during my carefree Uni days I never had that much time to devote to a single game. World of Warcraft will probably remain forever on my unplayed list. I am tempted to join - for the Horde and their awesome looking Taurens calls me, but damned if I can be bothered with that much time and money.

Number 3 - Shadow of the Colossus
I played very little of Ico and was amazed by it. When I saw the first trailers for Shadow of the Colossus I knew that I had special E3 pants for a reason. This game was an example of inimitable and defining art design. It was also such a great concept - and did it in a way completely opposite of God of War. The gameplay looked to be a lot of fun and this is on my must get list for when I finally buy a PS2.

Number 2 - Total Annihilation
This is one that falls into the "I played it a bit" category. And by "played it a bit" I mean I occasionally got sucked into games at LANs where I would then receive a horrific curbstomping at the hands of more experienced players. I had always been tempted to get this, having loved the demo when I played it way back when. But it was a hard game to find and even harder to find now. Maybe I should just play Supreme Commander and try to keep up with the skill curve there.

Number 1 - Colonization
I had the dubious honour of watching this game being played for about an hour. Now, an hour in any Sid Meier game is never that long, which is why I describe it as a "dubious" honour. I found the game intriguing, beguiling and elegant. I wanted to keep watching. And I desperately wanted to play it. A more focused, refined Civilization is how I've heard it described. And it looked like it would deliver on that promise. I love my Civ games and this looks to be at the top of the pile. Sid Meier's genius with the right balance of complexity and ease of management. I must find this game.


-=-=-=-=-


Next up: The worst games I love.

This is a list that is sure to cause bitter disputes. Some of my choices here may be a little controversial, but these are games that I like to play, even though they may have been critically ridiculed or contain little to no actual game. I'll discuss the flaws of these games as well as the reasons I enjoy them. No doubt some of you will have vastly different opinions on these games, but I have spent far too much time playing all of them.

Number 5 - Enter the Matrix
A wholly underwhelming game. It looked average at best, had insanely bad driving sections which are close to being the worst levels in the history of gaming, the plot was tied into two of the most disappointing movies ever and some of the controls were awful. But, on the bright side it had a solid hand to hand mechanic, was pretty well animated, some levels were a lot of fun and you got to beat the ever living snot out of Carrie Anne Moss.

Number 4 - Star Wars Battlefront II
I've mentioned this previously in my blog as being a game where the license lifted it above mediocrity. And its the license that made me love this game. Shameless Star Wars whoring is, in fact, my middle name. This game had some great ground combat levels and some really shoddily done, but still oh-so-fun space combat. A LAN staple and featuring an enjoyable single player game. Also notable for being the game to formalise Ewok/Jawa hunting as a sport.

Number 3 - Diablo II
Probably the most contentious of the lot. I don't view Diablo II to be much of a game. That's not to say it wasn't fun. Blizzard's patented "keep on clicking mofo" mechanic was elegantly refined here and this game and its expansion gave me many, many, many hours of pleasure. But to be honest. Its really not that good. Clicking, inventory juggling and spreadsheet warrioring doesn't really hold that much appeal for me, but it can still be a good diversion for a few hours.

Number 2 - Sid Meier's Pirates!
This is a borderline case. I refer to the more recent of Sid Meier's voyages to the Caribbean here - where the numpad is god and you have but a single quest. That loops. Over. And over. And over. And over. That's why this game gets me down - I don't want to have to chase two figures all over the Caribbean time and time again. Can't I just torture them into giving me the location when I catch them the first time? After all - I'm a damn pirate! But for all its flaws, this game still was a great deal of fun with simple controls but very deep gameplay (that Sid Meier standard coming through) and a variety of game **** that you could use. Plus, you were a damn pirate!

Number 1 - Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks
Guilty. Pleasure.
I shouldn't have to say anything more than that. This game was obscenely fun. Especially when played co-op. Why was it bad? It's a goddamn Mortal Kombat beat 'em up. What more do you need to know? But the recognisable locations and enemies, leveling mechanics and great brawler controls made this game something that thought I'm yet to finish, I can look back on fondly. And, I'll leave you all with one simple phrase that sums up why this game makes me giggle like a goddamn schoolgirl every time I play: Shaolin Soccer.

You, of course, being the reader. After all, I'm such an ebullient snob when it comes to games that I'm unwilling to admit that I missed anything important. These games are all fairly recent (late 90s onwards) and are for one reason or another, in my humility deprived opinion, deserving of much more credit than any ever received.

This will be part of a series which will run for the next few weeks in which I will profile:

The best games you never played
The best games I'm yet to play (You see! YET to play, I haven't missed a thing)
The worst games I love
The best games I hate
and
The games that weren't quite right

But, back to the column at hand. Often when you find yourselves talking to other gamers about past experiences, favourite events, levels and so forth, the raconteur in you will emerge and you'll begin to describe a game only to be presented with looks of complete lack of comprehension. And then it dawns on you. They never played this game. Sometimes, they have never even heard of this game. You recoil mentally. "BUT HOW!" your mind screams, "I spent MONTHS playing that!" And then as realisation sets in, someone starts to fill the awkward silence left by your disbelief with a line like: "So, I was playing some Counterstrike..."

But anyway - on with the list.

Number 5 - Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
I mention this game as often as possible. Because it really was that damn good. I call it the best CRPG ever. Above Fallout games. Above any of the DnD titles. It was a grand role-playing experience that gave you the most powerful character generation system I've yet to see in a game. Exceptional levels of interaction and meaningful outcomes. Any character was viable and the multitude of well thought out and brilliantly scripted NPCs were a joy to interact with.

Number 4 - Outcast
Voxels were cool. Admit it. You know it. The unique visual stylings of this game (AFAIK the only action game to use an ENTIRELY voxel engine), the great level design, sprawling maps, interesting characters and complete B-movie, pulp plot all made this game more than the sum of its parts. Playing as Cutter Slade (the man with something up his jaxie - just look at how he moves), you played through a sci-fi plot that featured many puzzles, action set-pieces and fantastic locations (a desert trade centre where you want past a busker playing Star Wars tunes on a recorder - I vote yes). The designers went to such lengths to make game design part of the gameplay (gaamsaav crystal anyone?) that it moved beyond conceited and into endearing.

Number 3 - Sacrifice
Its and RTS? A 3rd person action game? A RPG? An adventure? Earthworm Jim is a god? I can steal souls? Is there nothing not amazing about this game? Simply put: no. Shiny Entertainment's finest hour and one of the strangest, yet most compelling, beautiful and enjoyable games you'll ever play. Oh wait. You didn't. And you probably still won't. But its your loss. That game featured some of the most creative character and environment design ever. Not just in gaming. EVER.

Number 2 - No One Lives Forever
Straight from the swinging 60s. It was funnier than Austin Powers, smarmier than Roger Moore's Bond, more colourful than a hippy tie-dye party and more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. Cate Archer remains the greatest video game heroine ever. The gameplay remains great even now. The simple hilarity of a weapon that induces floating multicoloured goat delusions, exploding ambassadors, level design that exceeds anything before or since, henchmen that resolutely refuse to answer a question - even if you do ask three times... Monolith's finest hour. And the soundtrack - incomparable.

Number 1 - Grim Fandango
Admit it. You never played it. Its the curse of Tim Schaeffer - make a fantastic game and then have it ignored by the consumer. Notice how I've mentioned "visual stylings" many times. Nothing. NOTHING can compare to the sheer slickness and devotion to detail of the Grim Fandango environs. This is a game that has such beaty in every feature of its design that it remains immediately recognisable and always memorable. The music is on permanent rotation on my PC and iPod, the level and character design is so wonderfully inventive that I cannot, for a moment doubt the genius of the developers to create such a unique feel. The plot was masterful, the dialogue always enjoyable and the puzzles - never contrived. This game should be in the top 10 games ever, on any list compiled. And you've probably never played it. Shame. Shame. Shame.


Also rans:
Lander
No, not the arcade original, but the 1999 Psygnosis remake. This game featured beautiful graphics (and they still look fairly nice today) which lent themselves well to its great atmosphere. It had controls which were elegantly simple, but very difficult master (during my Lander binges, even now, it takes me an hour or so to recall the correct methods again). The campaign was enjoyable, with a good mix of intrigue and action and the ability to upgrade your craft to you liking made gameplay even more fun as individualised craft led to very individualised methods.

Def Jam: Fight For New York
I had to fight to have this game played by my gaming circle when it was released. People refused to believe that rappers beating the ever-living crap out of each other could be fun. Well. They were wrong. And they readily admitted as much after just a few fights. Intensely brutal gameplay, a host of characters (real and otherwise), the soundtrack to make any hip-hop lovers ears rejoice and a plot that no other game could come close to rivalling.

So, I recently read "Fast Movers" by John Darrell Sherwood, a USN historian, this book is an oral history of the Vietnam air war. Specifically that of the jet pilots (hence the name - "Fast Movers"). Also in the past year I have read "Red Star Against The Swastika - The Story of a Soviet Pilot over the Eastern Front" an autobiography by Vasily Emelianenko, as well as countless other oral histories, memoirs, diaries and biographies. All of this feeds into my love of the sim.

You see, I read a book like "Fast Movers" and then have a compulsion to play Wings Over Vietnam, which is a lot of fun - but it lacks something. Its certainly not the most realistic of games. Its definately not the best looking. But it is very accessible, has a very large mod community and lets me use nukes on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Excessive? Maybe. Amusingly over-the-top? Definately. But, the game lacks a certain something - and its something that all sims lack. The visual acuity of the human eye.

Its the timeless saying, that the Mk1 Eyeball remains the most reliable sensor on any battlefield, and most sims try to assist you with this, giving you padlock options, targeting icons and any number of visual aids and guides to help you. But it still feels wrong. Its nearly impossible to visually ID a target at anything other than point blank range. And while this isn't wholly incorrect, it feels "wrong". There's no happy middle ground really. You can either have the visual aids turned on, which often makes it far too easy. Or you can have them turned off and never see a target because the graphics engine of these games and the scaling of ground units to air units is horribly skewed. The planes are made much larger than anything else to give an illusion of speed and, probably, to make air to air combat a lot easier for players.

But it makes players (like me) who love playing air-to-mud missions grumpy. Having to attack a tank that is minute compared to my plane is infuriating, because it breaks suspension of disbelief and because it makes my life VERY difficult.

Speaking of difficult, I would dearly love to get a TrackIR system - which would allow me much greater freedom in flying and looking around, but the cost is prohibitive at the moment. And this is where most sims fail to be easily playable - its too hard to maintain situational awareness. You either need to constantly be flipping from mouse to joystick, or using hatswitches, or keyboard shortcuts. The TrackIR is a joyous invention, but surely there is a way to make such actions easier to deal with. Don't get me wrong - I've become very proficient at the acquisition and tracking of targets, SAMS and AAMs in games using the variety of methods which I've mentioned, but surely there is some way to allow more seamless integration of the ground/air visual search mechanic into games.

I seem to recall one game which featured a "snap to padlock on SAM/AAM" button. This was one of the most useful buttons I've ever had the pleasure of using. As soon as you got the Missile Launch warning you could hit this button and see where the missile was launching from and begin maneuvring to avoid it. I like games that allow me to padlock any target - friendly, enemy, air, ground... But how about expanding the controls a little, so your thumbhat controls how alter your view around the target, rather than the cockpit, so pushing right would pan the view to the right of the target (and probably to the right in the cockpit too, but not the snap to 3 o'clock view which it is usually mapped to).

All of this lead me back to my original point (well not really, but that ramble had gone too far), and it was one that was highlighted for me last year while having a weekend away. While staying for a weekend in Launceston the Roulettes (the RAAF display team) was performing overhead. Now, with the Mk1 Eyeball I was able to clearly see the planes, and see enough detail that even if I didn't automatically know what they were (Pilatus PC-9s) I would have been able to make a VID based on colouration, patterns, design and, on nearer approaches, their markings. However, when I pulled out a digital camera to snap a picture, even on the highest resolution and bit-rate settings, the planes were little more than insignificant specs, a series of cruciform dark pixel blobs against the blue.

This lack of visual acuity in games is easily understood, after all, the human eye is not limited to 1280x1024. And the rendering requirements for the close-up LoD that the real world has is quite high. And game developers spend a great deal of time on their scaling LoD systems for a very good reason - to have this LoD at the kind of visual ranges that the eye can begin to pick up detail at is not only system-intensive, but its redundant, because there aren't enough pixels being pushed through to give you the resolution required. Its the same issue - what was easy for the human eye to see unmagnified, would be reduced to a few pixels arranged into an amorphous blob.

This is why, despite being a "hardcore" sim lover, I despise those who live in hoity-toity land and stare down their noses at people who use IFF-type icons in game. "Its not realistic" state the snobs. Well, its not realistic to have to guess from a handful of pixels what something is meant to be. Technlogy, thankfully keeps marching ever onwards and as resolutions and processing power increases we'll see more and more visual acuity in games.

Now - onto part 2 of my rambling rant on sim gaming. Multiplayer. I miss it. I miss good multiplayer. Too few games now allow for a multiplayer that is not "team based" or "adversarial" in nature. For all of its flaws, one of the greatest sims I've played was the hybrid of M1A2 Tank Platoon 2 and Gunship!, both from Microprose. Why? Because it allowed me to play a wonderful form of co-op. You could play as a helicopter pilot/gunner team with a friend, you could form multiple helicopter teams for scenarios. You could play with each person manning a helicopter individually and switching roles as needed. Then, there were the tanks. Each tank had multiple roles which could be played. And they existed in the same gamespace as the helicopters. Sure, 99 times out of 100 the tank would lose in any adversarial match, but that's where co-op became such fun. Being able to communicate tactics across air and ground forces was of course, difficult, but the rewards when a scenario was completed with no losses was well worth it.

Few games allow this kind of integration, especially in the sim genre. Aside from Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault, and to a much lesser extent the Battlefield games and Joint Operations - there haven't been any of these "cross genre" multiplayer games, at least, not that I'm aware of.

I'll be intrigued to see if Lock On will contain multiplayer capabilities with the upcoming Black Shark addon. To have a modern fast jet sim, with multiplay compatibility with an attack chopper sim will be great. But why can't we take it a step further?

Because it would be boring. That's why. Playing as a tank in the M1A2/Gunship games was fairly dreary, mainly because unless there was a massive AAA/SAM network, the gunships could sweep the map clean before you'd managed to get out of 2nd gear. And it takes a certain kind of gamer to enjoy the coordinated actions and reactions that a multi-levelled sim such as that brought to the fore.

But why not give me access to the 2nd seat in flight sims? I love playing Wild Weasel missions in any sim - so why not let me have a real backseater? Or why not let me play backseater to another pilot? Having a second pair of eyes and someone who can call targets, course corrections and manage intercepts and ECM would be a great help. Again, its that rewarding co-op experience that I crave. However its been a long time since a game delivered this in any more than the most token form.

As I am nearing completion of my multi-week in the making, rambling super-whinge about sim gaming, I feel I must make a correction to one of my previous blog posts.

 

Lyle, the Insurace Sales-Otter in Animal Crossing: Wild World, does indeed pay up on personal injury incidents.  At a rate of 100 bells per incident.  Meaning that you only need maim yourself 30 times to break even.  And after that, you can ride that train all the way to Otter-fur coat station.

 

The Responsible Gamer apologises for any misunderstandings and would like to request that Lyle now call off the two Walruses with pipe wrenches who have been reclining on my car for the past week. 

Have you seen that they (they, being the nameless, formless wraiths that control licenses and games) are making a new-Battlestar Galactica PnP RPG? I for one, am not at all conviced. They might be using the Serenity RPG mechanics, but that setting is no good. What the hell kind of game can you run? I sit around on my cramped civilian freighter with 2000 others? I'm a Refugee 2/Mechanic 5 human with an "avoid starvation and plague save of +8"? I had better hope that my GM doesn't roll high on the "your ship gets blown up in a frakking Cylon raid table"?

It makes no sense as a setting. Maybe you can play a game set on the 12 Colonies in the lead-up to the 2nd Cylon War. But then, you have the problem of massive, orbital, thermonuclear bombardment which leads to players becoming Fine White Radioactive Ash 1/Mechanic 4 or going back to the "sitting around a goddamn ship" game.

Perhaps a New Caprica game might be fun. You can play as valiant rebels, or nasty secret police. And then you can die of starvation, be killed in a suicide bombing or police crackdown. Get executed. Get betrayed, imprisoned and tortured. Or get killed in the final liberation attempt by a Viper's strafing run or a stray resistance bullet or a well targetted shot from a centurion.

But WAIT!", I can hear the legion of license lovers shout, "You haven't mentioned a campaign set ON the Battlestar Galactica itself." Because that would be just as bad. You're stuck in a place with military discipline, with a very high character attrition rate and where in your off duty hours your likely going to spend it all in an drunken haze, getting in fist-fights with shipmates. Maybe you can be a valiant Viper pilot and use some mediocre ship-to-ship combat mechanics. Or a Marine who spends most of his time having to hold guns to the heads of shipmates or civilians or suspected Cylons or getting butchered by Centurions all while being abused by an alcoholic XO.

In all seriousness, there may be room for a game there, even one set during the exodus, but it would take a really good group and an excellent GM to manage it. People just need to realise that licenses are, for better or worse, a part of gaming - but not every damn thing needs to be licensed! Not everything needs a spinoff or sequel or whatever stillborn blighted corpse of a game results from the flailing at bloated equines. Some games are made better by the application of a license - but for the most part, these are the games which would have been strong enough to stand on their own.

Take for example, Sheep, Dog 'n' Wolf. This was a crazy little 3d puzzler/platformer that played brilliantly (in my opinion at least). I wasted hours figuring out the most amusing (not neccessarily the best, let alone correct) ways of defeating the Dog and stealing the Sheep away. The game had it been released with different characters would no doubt have been very compelling, but the license gave it visibility - recognisable characters and brand recognition. This, was good use of a license.

How about Star Wars Battlefront (either of them) - this game NEEDED the license. Without it the game would have been a lot less interesting. The level and character design were uninspired as it was. Can you imagine what would have happened if the devs had actually had to generate their own IP? The games were by no means good, but they were playable and for an enormous SW-whore like me, they were a great distraction.

Some games live and die by the license - but they don't have to! Who would have thought a few years ago that some of the best sports games would not have had licensed leagues, teams or players? Lets look at the history of James Bond games - they've been up and down like you wouldn't believe. Some have soared to lofty heights (Goldeneye) others have plumbed the depths of crappiness that few others can aspire to (Nightfire).

I long for the day that someone gets offered a license and says: "No, I don't think the world really needs a 'It ain't half hot Mum' FPS". But that day will never come - because companies know that they can take a license and turn it into a giant cardboard novelty cheque for their shareholders. Why? Because we gamers are stupid enough to buy it. I know I'm as guilty as the next man to picking up branded games, but I try to curb this habit. Sadly, its not the gamers who control this market though. Its the parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents and all the others who see a Disney logo on a PS2 game and buy it for little Jimmy. Those superstore shopping masses who fill the top 10 games lists with all sorts of useless, low rating licensed tosh. Those are the ones who need to be educated. But then again, most of them read anything Oprah recommends, think Dr Phil is the best source of advice for their family issues and get their cooking tips from Ronald McDonald. Its a losing battle, but someone's got to fight it.

The crumbling brickwork provides little cover for me, my steps making too much noise as rubble shifts underfoot and the dead, dried out plants crunch and crackle with each slight movement. Cruel howls fill the twilight air, none close enough to concern me, but my prey is near and I can't afford to relax. I look at my surroundings, a ruined village, overgrown by plants, doors and windows missing, walls crumbling - its all small rooms and short engagement ranges. I remove the scope from my rifle, it would do more harm than good at these distances. My PDA beeps, distracting me for a moment, but - there! A flicker of motion, then come the short snarls.

 
The first one is so close that I jump - I start to fall back to a more defensible position, but they have sighted me and the chase is on. I stop, spinning and dropping to one knee and firing a long burst at the first spectre that I see. It comes to a shuddering halt and sprawls forward, becoming visible as it falls. I rise and begin sprinting back again, reloading as I run. I hear more snarls - I must have really stirred up a nest of the bastards. I fire short bursts anytime one of the translucent figures flits between the ruinous houses, but inexorably they draw closer. One breaks cover and sprints for me, becoming visible as it closes the gap. Another long burst and it drops almost within reach of me - its vicious claws straining towards me for a final slash as it tumbles to the ground. I see one retreating, unwilling to risk another attack against the one who's just killed two of its kind in a matter of seconds. I stand up and consider pursuit of the fleeing creature, but it has already disappeared into the warren of treacherous and decrepit edifices of the village. Another snarl startles me, so close that I can practically feel the hot, fetid breath of the abomination on my face. It leaps from it's cover and slashes my front - barely scraping me before its claws catch on my armour. It recoils slightly preparing to lash out again and I pull my rifle to the ready, and begin firing into its chest without aiming - I'm too close to really miss at this point.

Then I hear it - the dead man's click. It doesn't matter if its the magazine that's empty, a dud round, fouled receiver or any other malfunction. Its a stoppage and I'm in mortal danger. Another slash hits me hard and forces me into action. My hands release the rifle and I watch it start to fall, my right hand races down reaching for my pistol. I grab its handle and rip it from its holster. I feel the rifle snap to a halt on its sling, swinging against the left of my abdomen, leaving my firing hand clear. The pistol starts pointing in the right direction and I begin firing, pulling the trigger as quickly as I can - the pistol puts eight .45 JHP slugs into the creature which twitches and is forced back with each shot. Finally the creature tumbles backwards. The slide on my pistol is locked back, chamber exposed. The acrid smell of cordite mercifully begins to overwhelm the smell of rotting meat which permeates this ghost town. I reload my pistol and holster it, then with final, brutal intent I draw my knife and with both hands drive it firmly into the creatures skull. Any remnant spark of life that may have remained in its twisted, disgusting form is completely gone. I wipe the knife clean on a small clump of grass and reload my rifle, trudging back towards the relative safety of a nearby group of other stalkers, where I can take the time to bandage my wounds and ensure all my equipment is ready for my next sortie into the village.

That, was a description of about one minute of game time in S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow Of Chernobyl (least keyboard friendly game title EVER by the way) from my playing of it last night. That game is intensely immersive. I swear that its one of the few times playing a video game that I have been genuinely frightened by the game. That particular honour list now reads: The Legacy: Realms of Terror, Alone In The Dark, Alien vs Predator, Clive Barkers: Undying, Doom 3, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth and now, S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl (from here-on in to be referred to as Stalker). GSC GameWorld really cannot get enough praise from me on their level design. Though, I would have preferred a single massive level with Chernobyl NPP reactor no.4 at the centre, the design that they have used is very good and the levels feel like actual locations (as they should). This is probably because it is based on a real location, one that GSC GameWorld apparently were personally familiar with. But, the game captures the feel of this crumbling, decaying place so well.

The horror in seeing a place from which people have fled, never to return is quite visceral. In many places around the world you can see where this has occured without having the immediate urgency of a nuclear accident. Old mining and forestry towns from the colonial days, abandoned farm buildings. Even in some places entire towns - nearly deserted except for one or two stubborn inhabitants, overgrown and decaying, mostly untouched since the day that the big industry left town. But all of these lack that feeling of a rushed evacuation. These houses are mainly empty save for the detritus that people felt they would no longer need. There are no family photos on a shelf, no moth eaten clothes still hanging in a cupboard, no food left to spoil on shelves and in refridgerators. There is a brilliant photo essay which I have looked through many times that shows the current state of the area around Chernobyl. This photo essay should demonstrate just how well GSC GameWorld converted the area to their game. It is that horrid emptiness that I think makes the game scary. Because, in reality should you visit such a place you expect there to be monsters around every corner, the feel of these ghosttowns are so strangely, electrically "creepy" and Stalker has captured that and the game is the embodiment of that tingling feeling on the back of your neck. With occassional bouts of full-blooded action. Its sheer brilliance to experience such a great fusion of tension and action.

I think that Stalker should be the new standard for games to be held to for environmental design. The scale of the maps, their amazing complexity and lack of railroading in the levels. There should be no reason for any developer or publisher not to have this simply breathtaking level of detail and ambience in their architecture. And lets not forget, this is a game that has been on the horizon for five years. People might criticise the technology underpinning the game, but no-one should criticise the game design itself.

*edit* Now with added paragraphs - you happy now?