Enter Diablo!

Over a decade ago now, having shed my Acorn computer for a legitimate PC that could play actual PC games a couple of years prior, I was still experimenting with games that I might like. Usually I was drawn to curiosities, like the Oddworld series. A hugely frustrating set of games, that just seemed to reel you in for more with their off the wall humour and glorious and inventive world design. I think Oddworld lay some of the groundwork for what I like in games, as I'll admit that I'll happily put up with tedious mechanics and gameplay that I may not particularly enjoy all the time for an engaging world, a good story and interesting characters. Going back to Oddworld, the timed bomb sections, where you had a row of bombs that could only be deactivated by hitting them when the lights on top of them flashed green and if just one blew you to tiny little meaty pieces, you had to go back and not only do them all again, but a ton of platforming sections as well, almost drove me off that game completely. 

I often find myself in much the same kind of scenario in modern games too - Bosses with unfair mechanics built into them to make them artificially harder, timed missions that can only be completed with a scant few seconds to spare so you have to play them near perfectly to progress, obligatory vehicle sections that barely work, repetitive side missions, all hallmarks of bad game design. But all things I'll put up with if the game world is interesting enough. 

During this time I was also prodding at the world of RTS. I was already deep into Red Alert 2, and once the gleam started coming off that and I realised I couldn't make good custom maps for it to save my life, I started looking for something else. I'd played the game based on War of the Worlds, which was a rock solid RTS that let you play as both martian and human alike accompanied by extracts from Jeff Wayne's glorious rock opera as a soundtrack. I owe that game for introducing me to that musical triumph, but I also owe it for feeding my imagination with beautiful cut scenes like this. 

Sadly rather poorly recorded there, but you get the idea. I soon found that I wasn't particularly interested in modern warfare, in Red Alert I loved the weird science elements and exaggerated Cold War vehicles that gave the series it's character and in War of the Worlds I loved the Victorian sensibilities of the humans, with their steam powered tanks and primitive submarines, and the elegant, alien war machines of the martians. It wasn't until a tiny company that you might have heard of called Blizzard released their latest game that I found another RTS that I could really sink my teeth into and get hooked on, and that game was Warcraft III. 

At the time, Warcraft was unlike anything else I'd played. I'd never experienced a Warcraft game before, and found the slightly cartoony graphics and colourful, expressive art style to be a delight. Getting deeper into the game, the mechanics were fun, the initial units all seemed to have their own quirks and then I got into the story I found myself getting attached to members of all factions. The story of Warcraft III wasn't just a matter of all four factions fighting against each other, there were splinters in the factions themselves and each character was not only struggling against their external enemies, but often internal squabbles and betrayals. I found myself attached to Illidan and Kel'Thuzard, despite the fact there's a case to be made that they're both terrible people, and I found myself a tiny bit heartbroken by the eventual fate of Sylvanas and Grom. And of course I hated Arthas with a firey passion.But who didn't? Not to be inflammatory, but idiots, that's who. The fact I could get so involved in the world and story of an RTS was mind blowing, and I absolutely loved the fact you had a hero on the battlefield you could level up throughout the mission, giving it an RPG element to it as well. 

Once I'd finished the expansion The Frozen Throne, I was more than ready for Warcraft IV to come along. It was one of the first games I could imagine myself being truly hyped over, and I'm sure you all know how that turned out by now. Since then I've had very little to do with Blizzard as a company. I was never really able to get into Starcraft, even though it was dripping with fantastic humour and both Jim Rayner and Kerrigan were fantastic characters, I just didn't find the gameplay or overall story as engaging as that of Warcraft's. I also have no interest in MMOs, a game genre that seems to take the worst parts of RPGs and put them front and centre, so World of Warcraft was never going to be for me. I kept tabs on the lore for awhile though, but with each new expansion bringing about the death of a character I once loved, I soon just gave up on that too. I was curious about Starcraft: Ghost, and have played a little Hearthstone recently, but with WoW being their one big product and Starcraft II not drawing me in as I'm afraid I might be a little lost having not finished the original, Blizzard and I haven't really crossed paths much in the intervening years. 

Until a few days ago. 

About a year ago, Blizzard released the third game in their other big tent pole franchise, Diablo III and from what I gleamed at the time it was a disaster. Always online DRM and in game loot that seemed to be programmed to bolster the online auction house instead of enhance player enjoyment made the game sound like a terrible deal on launch. I'd also never been into dungeon crawlers, but Torchlight II had opened my eyes to just how fun they could be and when I started to hear that the latest patch ahead of their expansion for the game was making Diablo sound a lot more fun and a lot more playable, well I had to give it a try. 

Upon it's arrival, I couldn't help but notice how pretty the box art was. Certain PC games seem to have taken an unusual approach to packaging their games. They have a box that opens out at the front, revealing very pretty art and... Nothing else. To get to the game itself you have to open up the top, as per usual, and more often than not are met with a standard issue plastic DVD case. That being said, Diablo's cardboard inlay is a rather beautiful affair that opens out into even more beautiful art and some gameplay screenshots from here. 

Inside I hoped to crack open the DVD case proper to find a big, meaty manual - Mainly because that's the kind of thing I like with my RPGs, even if I never read most of it. It's nice to have something I can just quickly reference without having to load up Google, but alas nothing here. What I did find though, was these. 

Oh Blizzard, you savvy corporate whores, you! 

Getting into the game proper, after a standard issue install, registration, log-in, etc. All the joys of PC gaming that have been around as long as I've been PC gaming, basically! I was treated to a rather impressive opening cinematic. I feel like I can't give Blizzard too much credit for this, as they've practically honed it down to an art over the years. They are the company that gave us gems like these. 

Character creation is nothing to really shout about. You have a choice between Barbarian, Demon Hunter, Monk, Witch Doctor and Wizard. You can also choose Crusader, but only if you buy the brand new expansion Reaper of Souls. Which was prominently advertised to me before I started the game, and I feel like having the Crusader sitting there on the selection screen is just taunting me in and of itself. The character creation amounts to each character class having two character models, a male and a female, with no option to customise them beyond that. I'm a touch disappointed in this, as even Torchlight II had limited character customisation on it's various classes, and for a company as big as Blizzard with their extensive experience in the MMO field to come out with such a basic system is a touch baffling. I was also rather disappointed you couldn't put spaces in your name. What if I wanted to be a barbarian called Conman The Boobarian? Or just wanted to give myself a surname? That's a basic thing that can add just a touch more depth to your character, but unless you want to be known GeraldHarrison throughout the game it's impossible. 

With thanks to vicogaming.com for the image.

Eventually I chose the female Witch Doctor, based on the fact that she had a pretty kick arse mask. Of course, my first mistake was assuming that the gear I was looking at in the character creation was my starter gear. Oh no, friends, as soon as I was dropped into the game they stripped all that away. Literally. 

With thanks to the Something More Than Sides blog for the image.

I was in my underwear. *sigh*

Once I was over that madness, I began to get into the actual game play and I have to admit - It's really fun. I think the Witch Doctor was a good choice for me, as I really enjoyed her initial blow dart attack and her first passive, which grants you three protective demon hounds, has been pretty helpful in not getting me killed. She also kind of reminds me of the stoner trolls in Warcraft III, which is possibly problematic when we're talking about the only black human character in a game and not a bad Jamaican stereotype hiding behind a bunch of skinny blue trolls, but I have to admit it makes me smile anyway. 

One thing that did baffle me, and that game manual I talked about earlier would have come in very handy to explain, was that once I gained my second power it wiped my standard melee attack from my hotkeys and I couldn't find a way to get it back anywhere. I've read that if you're playing a caster weapons become largely obsolete as things you hit people with, and instead their stats bolster your spells and other abilities. My mind can see how this logic makes sense, but on the other hand, sometimes I just like having the ability to bash something over the head with my sword. I think I might have to play as a Barbarian at some point, if only because I'd like to see how the weapon animations work at some point. 

That being said, Diablo's dungeons are fantastic - Both the quest dungeons, and the optional dungeons you can walk right past if you like. I was charged with finding a crown in a crypt, and there were three choices of door to go down to find it. The first door I went down turned out to be on the one the crown was in, but for a lark I explored the other doors and I'm glad I did. They had the best loot in them that I'd found in the game, a variety of interesting enemy types and some of the other optional dungeons I've been in were rather sprawling and bore exploration in their own right. Considering this is the meat and bones of the game, I'm glad they nailed this. If I have one complaint so far, it's that the game is too easy. I'm not sure if that's just because I have decent gear and it's early game, or if I need to up the difficulty a bit, but we'll see how things go and I'll adjust accordingly. 

There are a few other nitpicks and praises I could level at that game, but I think having spent a couple of hours on it the highest compliment I can give is that I'll definitely be playing more. Character customisation seems to come more from loot and gear than anything else, and while I'd prefer the colour palate to be a touch brighter, at least the darker, moodier tone they've gone with fits the world and story. Overall, I like it, and if I could send but one message to Blizzard it'd be 'Something as fun as this again, please! Maybe Warcraft IV afterall?' 

A man can hope, a man can hope...

Filthy, Dirty Casuals: The dark underbelly of mobile gaming.

This may be old news to many of you, and for all intents and purposes it is last week's news, but it's been stewing away in the back of my head and I feel that even though it may be a little out of my depth to discuss, I want to say something on the matter anyway. So let's talk about King! For those of you who don't know, King are the developers behind Candy Crush, Pet Rescue, Bubble Witch and other such gaming classics that routinely clog up your Facebook notification page with invites from elderly relatives. Most of you are probably already turning your noses up thanks to the aggressive, friend sharing and micro-transaction based business model they've adopted, but oh no, that's not why I'm here. Afterall, they're far from the only ones guilty of this and that kind of business model only works as long as there are players there to throw money into the pot. No, I'm here because they have recently attempted to trademark the word 'Candy'. No, scratch that, not attempted, have succeed in trademarking the word Candy at least as far as the US trademark office and the European Trademark Agency is concerned.

No, this isn't a joke or an April Fool released early, even Forbes is talking about it.

Now I have to say I'm not really surprised, or even particularly annoyed, by this move. Oh, it's ridiculous, don't get me wrong, and so shady it may as well have been taken right out of the corporate play book of EA or Microsoft (at least, recently!) in terms of sleazily throwing your weight around. But I get it. I understand the desire to want to protect your product, even over-zealously, especially in the budding, still developing world of IOS and Facebook gaming. As long as we allow companies to make moves like this (and in this case, by 'we' I mean the trademark offices of the world) they will, and ultimately I take the rather optimistic stance that it'll sort itself out and common sense will come to rule in the end.

It's going to be a tough process getting there, and my heart goes out to those who get screwed over in the process, but as the indie developer interviewed in the gamezbo article noted - He also discovered that he can't use 'Memory' in his game title on IOS either. There's only going to be so many of these silly, suggestive trademarks that Apple can help large developers enforce before the IOS store becomes untenable for most smaller developers and they go elsewhere. This may not be a problem for the platform in the short term, but considering most of the big guns of casual game development rose up the ranks off the back of one big game that happened to catch fire with the public and became popular, what's going to happen when the big games on their devices get tired and stale and they've scared off the new blood to replace it?

I'd hope it wouldn't get to that point, and King would reign it in, but that confrontational title up there? It isn't up there for nothing. While the trademarking of Candy doesn't get under my skin another word that they've set their sights on trademarking has. That word is 'Saga', and not only that but they've already started to come down hard on developers daring to use it. The reason I find this far more repulsive and despicable than the trademarking of 'Candy' is at least, when it comes to that, I can see where they're coming from. Just typing 'candy' into the Google Play app store gets you this:

But saga? King's spokesperson makes the point that the word saga is integral to their branding, as it ties their products together, and something they need to protect even if it means going to draconian measures to do so but... I'm sorry. That's just a big pile of corporate BS and I, for one, am not buying into it. Nobody refers to Candy Crush as Candy Crush Saga outside of advertising and quite frankly, it sounds awkward and clunky when you do. There's a recent advertisement for the new features on Amazon's Kindle device, where the woman manning Kindles virtual help station admits to a 'Candy Crush Saga addiction' and that extra word there just sounds wrong. It takes away from the snappiness of the title, and feels tacked on and unnecessary because frankly, it is. It's why I chose not to include the 'Saga' on any of the titles I listed above, because the only one it suits is 'Pet Rescue Saga' and even then just plain old 'Pet Rescue' works as well, if not better. It's not what the people who play it refer to it as, and as an attempt to form some cohesive brand between their games it's as naked and transparent as they come. The only thing King's games have in common is they take gaming formulas that are old as dirt and put a new sheen and polish on them, beyond that their catalogue just reads like the back cover of one of those collections of '1001 PC Games!' you can pick up in any supermarket across the country.

But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe there is some justification here I'm just not seeing. Maybe the saga at the end of King's games is not related to them seeing their game library as a whole as a saga, but that each individual game is a saga in it's own right. Okay, let's break out the Oxford English dictionary and grab some definitions;

Saga

Noun

a long story of heroic achievement, especially a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic:a figure straight out of a Viking saga

Okay, a complete strike out on that one. Let's try another!

a long, involved story, account, or series of incidents:launching into the saga of her engagement 

I suppose one could argue that King's games are indeed a long series of incidents, but you're floundering in pretty shallow water there. Especially when the Banner Saga? A game that is inspired directly by Viking Saga's of old, has a much stronger claim on the word than they will ever have. In fact, every story based game with a long, winding narrative would have a stronger claim on that word than they would. Trademarking 'candy' in the video game industry isn't disastrous because I don't think there's a game out there that can't just swap out the chocolate and marshmallows for something else and still be fine and when it comes to names? Just call it 'Sweet Shop Crush' and you're probably good. But trying to trademark the word 'Saga' in an entertainment media is like trying to trademark the word 'Fable' or 'Folktale' or 'Parable' or even just 'Story' itself. Stories and narrative are one of the very core features of games development, yes you can just as easily change the title of your game to 'The Banner Fairy Tale' as you can take candy out of a name, but you shouldn't have too. When you exist in a storytelling medium these words should be as free to you as the words apple and persimmon should be to a grocer.

Imagine if Pixar tried to trademark the term story off the back of their Toy Story movies. The idea is simply monstrous, and the idea that King could potentially drag a small indie developer like Stoic (a three man team who had to Kickstart their game, I might add!) to court over this, or would even dare stand in their way over something as absolutely insane as trying to trademark a synonym for story, the one thing King's games do not and never will have, is just as barbaric in my mind.

A lot of this brings to mind another casual game company that actively managed to sleaze itself out of business, Zynga. Zynga were the minds behind Farmville, a few casino games adapted for Facebook and the App store as well as Dream Heights. That last one, by the way, was mired in controversy as it turned out to be a blatant copy of a game from another company Zynga had attempted to buy. The big names of the game industry employing underhand tactics to an absurd degree isn't news, but I'm starting to wonder - Is there something inherently rotten in the make up of these casual games markets that give the companies that emerge on top of them the impression that this kind of thing is more okay than most? Mobile and facebook games are, afterall, an extremely derivative sub-section of the already highly derivative business of gaming as a whole. Almost all of Rovio's Angry Birds franchise (including spin off's such as Bad Piggies) are essentially flash games or older IOS games with a better art design. Candy Crush itself is just the good old match three formula with a lick of paint and a more questionable use of incentive systems to keep you clicking those candies. Even Doctor Who Legacy, a game I have been really enjoying of late, could draw unfavourable comparisons to Puzzle Quest. Although I would like to add, the developers of that game are incredibly customer friendly and seem quite genuine about the love of their product, which is always nice to see.

One has to wonder, does this paranoia of copycat games and other companies riding to glory off the back of their hard work feed directly into their corporate culture when they grow to become the big fish of their respective pond? Do they feel like they need to work harder not only to protect what they feel is their own, but also to beg, borrow and steal as much as possible so that they can produce the next big hit to capture their audience once the novelty has worn off and everyone grows tired of their last one? I can't imagine that there is as much brand loyalty in the casual fanbase as there is in other areas of the gaming market. It's like asking somebody who only watches films from time to time who their favourite director is, most people don't pay attention to that kind of thing, they just like the kind of films they like and don't pay much heed to what's going on behind the camera. King and co. aim for this kind of market, the one that isn't interested in the mechanics of gaming or that companies behind it, but just wants something fun and addictive to play on their lunch break. Perhaps that also plays into why they think they can get away with these kinds of shenanigans, their fans will probably never hear of it and never think less of them in any case, because they don't care. They don't read gaming websites, don't buy gaming magazines, aren't connected to the industry in the way people who invest more time into gaming are.

Or, much more likely, there's nothing intrinsically special about the casual gaming market and this is just another example of a large corporation pushing the boundaries of what it can and can't get away with, simply because it can afford too. I can only hope that King, like Zynga before them, push too far and wind up out of business, because frankly? This whole affair has left a rather sour taste in my mouth.

THE END IS LOADING

Ah, the Winter Steam Sale. A glorious time when PC gamers can pick up all kinds of marvellous titles for a fraction of the cost. I, myself, picked up a couple - Trying to limit myself to picking up only a select few titles, under three pound and not going over that unless I really wanted it. Well, it turns out there was something that I really wanted, and have only recently got around to playing. The Stanley Parable is a game that I have been utterly fascinated with for months now. It's not just that it gets rave reviews, even from those who are usually no fans of the 'Here's a big environment, walk through it and discover!' variety of game, but it's the nature of those reviews. There's an element of secrecy surrounding The Stanley Parable, like it is an enigma that can only be unwrapped in the playing. Unlike every other title we might hear about, where reviewers, critics, lets players and all and sundry inbetween will be happy to divulge every single detail of every single mechanic anybody could possibly be interested. There was only one, single unifying response towards going into detail about the game from all corners.

Don't.

Just don't look for details. Don't ask for details. Here is a bare bones of what it's about, a tease of the experience, now go and play it for yourself and experience this absolutely bonkers creation!

The question does come to mind - How on Earth can something even begin to live up to hype like this? When you're actively told to expect the unexpected, to have an experience that is only relatable through the gameplay, is it possible to come out anything less than disappointed? Like entering Cadbury World and finding that, for all the polish and the anthropomorphic cocoa beans they want to litter the place with, it's still a factory where very heavy, industrial equipment makes chocolate overseen by some very bored looking employees in white smocks. Not an Oompa Loompa in sight.

So, to be foolish enough to keep chasing this analogy, what is The Stanley Parable? John Cadbury, or Willy Wonka? Well, my friends, in my experience if it's either, it's most definitely Gene Wilder at his most charming and his most deranged.

What is The Stanley Parable, you might ask? Well, Total Biscuit's 'WTF is...' above gives a good run down - But to give the very short version, you are Stanley. You walk out of your office one day to find all your co-workers missing. Go through the door on the left.

That is the game in a nutshell. Or at least the springboard that takes you on an experience that leads to... Who can really say? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the general consensus here. This is something that needs to be played, and if you ever see it on a Steam weekly/daily sale, or indeed the upcoming Summer Sale? Jump on it. Just do. The only thing I can tell you is how it made me feel. It's a strange thing, really, because in any other game I'd point to a great set-piece, or a moving narrative moment, or a really exciting piece of gameplay. In Mass Effect 3 I'd point you to Mordin Solus' storyline as one of the most moving, and well written, moments of the game. In Saints Row IV I'd tell you a story of the hi-jinks myself and a friend got up too abusing the Black Hole Gun and the Abduction Ray. In Sonic The Hedgehog 2 I'd talk for days about the amazing soundtrack that, even now, a decade an a half later still gets stuck in my head. But my one, prevailing memory of The Stanley Parable will be how it made me feel.

On the surface, it's a game that's a lot like Portal in a way. You go through it, and a voice from above tells you what to do - But as you go on the sardonic nature of the narration begins to make you wonder. At least, this was the impression I got on my first play through. On subsequent ones, I've found that this aspect changes depending on your actions. I decided to write this blog after I played the game as it is 'supposed' to be played, always expecting some kick in the tail, some sudden surprise. But aside from some very subtle, and very pointed bits of dialogue - It was a very underwhelming experience. Which, in it's own way felt right.

Where the game truly shines, is what happens when you go off the track, and really I suspect is the way this is all supposed to be played out. Afterall, given the choice, when do gamers do as their told? I know that as soon as I got to a certain point in any Elder Scrolls game, I just wave goodbye to the main quest and load up on sub quests, leaving the kingdom to save itself while I got kill some rats in some guys basement or deliver beer halfway across the world. The mad thing is, I take pride in this! As if I'm beating the machine, as if it cares. As if, in Skyrim, the Stormcloaks and the Imperium are both cursing my name because I'd rather doss about in the mountains than get rid of all these pesky dragons from the land.

That is the impulse I suspected the game was going to take great joy in mocking. It's exactly what Totalbiscuit describes in his own video, and those elements are there. If you really want to get into this aspect, go and buy the game then try to get the 'Knock Five Times' achievement. It's the game in a nutshell, and is absolutely hilarious. However underneath the hilarity, I also found it deeply disturbing on some levels. I've played a good two hours so far, and have found at least three endings where I've just had to stop, push my computer chair back from the desk and walk away. It hit me that hard. As I said above, I went through my more vanilla play through expecting something very hard hitting - And to be quite frank, it's a good job this game is all psychological, because I think if they went in for just one good jump scare I'd have a heart attack. That's how much of a wreck some of the endings made me into.

Yet the mad thing is, I know there are more and I suspect there are things I've simply glossed over. I was sceptical at first, because I thought the two doors were the be all and end all of the game - But when I progressed further I found there are more environments to explore, more things to tamper with, just more to this game than meets even the most inquisitive of eyes. It may, at times, make me consider and question more than some would say a game has any right to, but I want to go right back and play more of it regardless. As the loading screens remind us, the end is never the end is never the end is never the end is never the end...