On Extended Cuts, Open Wounds and Band-Aids

So, the Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut was released today.  I played through it earlier this afternoon, and after a very tearful experience (I swear my tears had tears!) and some dinner, I've now had enough time to think on what I witnessed and reflect.

This is extremely hard to write because I've garnered a considerable amount of notoriety since I started this blog, and I fear that what I'm about to say is going to earn me a lot of hate.  I've been flamed, attacked, and publicly humiliated at times.  On the other hand, I've also received a lot of extremely supportive comments and responses that  I can't even say how thankful I am to have received.  I don't even feel as though I deserve them, but they've been my bread and butter for the past few months, so thank you to everyone who has been so supportive.

With that out of the way, I want to say that in general, like the Extended Cut (which, for simplicity's sake, will be referred to as EC from here on).  It makes the ending of Mass Effect 3 a lot better.  It's a lot more satisfying and a lot less frustrating.  It is by no means perfect, and that is probably the center of what I'm going to say here, but it is at least enough that I no longer feel the big, empty nothing I felt before.

Naturally, it is difficult to talk about it without mentioning spoilers, so, while I intend to avoid spoilers as much as possible, I would suggest not reading further if you are concerned.

The claim that there would be no new endings to the game is a bit of a stretch of the truth.  There is a new option at the end of the game aside from the original three, and it is what most of us wanted from it.  It's even a lot more satisfying than I could have expected it to be, though by no means is it a happy ending.  On top of that, most of the plot holes have been filled in, with one or two being left vague clearly by design, which I'm okay with.  Perhaps not thrilled, but it's enough that I can live with it.

Now here's where things get a little controversial.  I forgive BioWare, and thank them for what they have done with the EC.  A lot of people want to remain angry and stomp around, talking about how they can't forgive BioWare for messing things up so badly.  They'll continue to go on boycotting anything and everything BioWare creates, and that is their right, but I personally feel that is the wrong way to go about it.

Many critics will describe this as a band-aid for an open wound, and they would not necessarily be wrong in that assessment.  However, I personally don't think anyone could have reasonably expected much more than that, nor could anyone have reasonably asked for more than that.  No matter what BioWare did, there will never be any way to satisfy everyone.

Allow me to explain: the ending was set in stone, to some extent, after it was released.  People had formed opinions, developed theories, and become devoted to various clashing ideas.  I witnessed the severity of this on the HTL forums myself.  The Indoctrination Theory had grown to a point that it had an almost rabid following, and while the theory itself is fine, some of the ways in which the people that subscribed to it treated people that didn't were so fanatical and, at times, hateful that it threatened to create a massive rift in the community most of us working with HTL had tried to foster.

The thing is, no matter what happened, BioWare could not undo the endings that had been done.  If the Indoctrination Theory was declared canonically untrue, the IT supporters would have revolted fervently.  In the same way, if it was declared canonically true, then those opposed to it would have had the same reaction.  Essentially, this was a theory that had become so polarizing that to change the endings enough to discredit them both would have made the effort of creating the EC entirely pointless.

That said, BioWare made an honest effort to show they didn't like disappointing their fans, and I think they deserve credit for that.  That's not to say that we can't question how this mess came about in the first place; by all means, I feel that is a fair thing to be concerned about, but I feel it is unreasonable to say that BioWare didn't at least care enough to try.

Don't take that as any means to give BioWare a pass, however.  If anything is clear, there needs to be a closer observation of issues of interest to gamers in the industry.  This is a victory for those of us who were upset by the ending and spoke out, but the fight is far from over.  This is merely the end of this battle, but there will be more.  I intend to stick with the HTL community and continue to stay on the front line, fighting to support the cause of gamers everywhere to the best of my ability.

I have communicated personally with Jessica Merizan, BioWare's Community Manager, and I believe she is being sincere in everything she says.  I take her at her word, and I've gotten a lot of flack from some people for supporting her.  But, the fact remains that she's had a rough time and has worked her ass off, and she deserves credit for that.  She's human, as is everyone at BioWare, and I think it would be cruel not to realize that and appreciate them for the things they have done right while admonishing them for mistakes they might make.

Keelah'selai.

Advanced Recon: Civilization V: Gods & Kings

With the rise of downloadable content in recent years, true “expansions”, as we have known them in the past, have become far more rare than they used to be in video games – not that they were ever terribly common to begin with. It used to be that certain types of games would be released, well received, and then expect additional content to be added some time later in the form of an expansion – a large package of new features, expanded single-player content, and occasionally even some graphical tweaks.In recent years, however, DLC has become the expected norm – small content updates, usually for a small fee, that add perhaps a few extra hours worth of content, if that.

Civilization V has not evaded this fate.

It should be noted, however, that expansion packs do come, and this week saw the release of an honest to goodness expansion pack for Civ V, entitled Gods & Kings. I have now had the chance to play a few games with the new content, and can provide some insight into whether the game is worth it or not.

I have greatly enjoyed playing Civ V since shortly after its initial release. The expansion, however, has made the game, in my opinion, a lot more interesting. Naturally, since Civ V doesn't have a true “story” mode to it, there is no additional story added. There are, however, a whole bunch of new and interesting features that make the game, both single-player and muliplayer, a lot more fun.

There are, of course, several new civilizations to choose from, each with their own leader traits, unique units and buildings, including several old favorites from previous editions of Civ like Boudicca of the Celts and newer ones like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. There are also new wonders to be built and new units to build, some of which fill some gaps that I had previously felt were oddly empty before the expansion, such as the new Composite Bowman, an intermediary unit to fill the large technology gap between the Archer and the Crossbowman. There are even some new luxury resources, like citrus and crabs (go ahead, laugh. You know goddamn well I did!), though I'm not entirely certain why these were added as they don't seem to add much to the game.

Some unit functions have been improved for combat, as well. Naval combat has gone through a complete overhaul, introducing “melee ships”, ships that need to engage directly against enemy ships the same way a melee land unit would, though obviously not graphically identical. This fixes the issue of having a hard time invading coastal cities on a continent you haven't yet settled, as you can now take over enemy cities with your navy alone. There are also more ranged units in the late-game, like the gatling gun and the machine gun, that are extremely useful against enemy infantry but have only a one-tile range, meaning they can be very vulnerable if not used to flank against melee infantry.

The AI has also seen a huge overhaul. Much of the enemy AI has been revamped to develop more diverse militaries, making it so that you will have to adapt to confront the enemy's differing military units. I was actually caught off-guard on an easier difficulty when Washington nearly creamed me. I finally gave up on that game because I felt so humiliated by the AI.

One feature that was greatly altered was the City-States featured in the game. No longer do City-States offer one quest that does not change until it is either completed or no longer possible. Instead, City-States will offer multiple quests at a time, any or all of which can be completed to gain influence with them. This means no longer do you get stuck with 5 City-States all asking you to eliminate each other and just deciding to pay them all off instead. It does, however, create some confusion, as you now have so many available quests that it can be hard to remember which ones you were trying to complete in the first place.

The feature of the game that really shines, though, is the added feature of religion. This was something that was in Civ IV and seemed sorely lacking in Civ V. Now, religion is back in the game and plays much better than ever. Religions are founded by gathering Faith, a new resource that functions similarly to gold, but is only generated by particular buildings or traits and can only be spent on specific things. Once enough Faith has been earned to earn a Great Prophet, you can expend the Great Prophet to found a religion. When you found a religion, you can pick “beliefs” for that religion, which are bonuses provided by that religion. These beliefs fit a lot of different strategies; there are some that would aid your military, some that would benefit you culturally, and so on. Some work better when you spread them outside your borders and are more suited to a small empire with a wide ranging religion. No two religions can have the same beliefs, so it's a first come, first served deal, meaning that the sooner you found your religion, the better choices you'll have available. I found myself having a lot of fun exploring new strategies and ideas with the religion mechanics and finding ways I could benefit from particular beliefs.

There are also some new scenarios available with the expansion, though I haven't yet had a chance to try them. I don't generally play scenarios; I'm usually more interested in just the regular game. There is apparently a steampunk-themed scenario, which sounds really interesting.

Anyway, I feel like I definitely got my money's worth out of the new features, and am still enjoying it. Hopefully, this will help you decide whether these new features are worth the price tag.

Why I Don't Give A Fuck About E3

Well, it's that time of year again: time for the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or, as it's more commonly referred to, "E3".  In past years, I honestly would have been very excited to hear the news from E3.  It was both entertaining and informative, and I genuinely enjoyed watching the live webcasts of the various companies' conferences as they display the major project's they are working on.

But this year is different.  Last year, I watched the Microsoft press conference from E3 while it was being webcast, and as I watched, I couldn't help thinking how much ridiculous crap Microsoft was pushing.  Seriously, not a single thing they showed did not mention Kinect compatibility, and the grand majority of it was casual gamer garbage.

Now, let me be clear here: I don't think casual games are a bad thing, nor do I think they shouldn't be made.  Casual gamers deserve to be catered to as much as anybody, and it is definitely a market worth expanding.  However, there is a reason the average casual game is lower priced than games that require a little more dedication to play: casual gamers are an extremely unreliable section of the market.  It is in the name: "casual", a word that literally means "without definite or serious intention" (thank you, dictionary.com, for that).  Casual gamers play games in their free time, usually when they are bored, but if you crank up the price to the usual 60-70$ most mainstream games go for, most of them aren't going to give a crap for your game any more.  If they do, it's usually only because it's a game that can be played with friends, such as Mario Party or Super Smash Bros.

But the reason I don't give a fuck about E3 this year is not limited to the emphasis on casual games.  In fact, I don't even have a big problem with the casual games, I just think it's a poor business strategy.  The real problem in my opinion is the fact that literally everything in the press conference used Kinect in some form or fashion.  You know, Kinect: that thing that tracks your movement and your voice and takes pictures of you and isn't used for anything except the most gimmicky of gameplay and still, for some reason, costs a hundred bucks.

Now, is Kinect bad?  Not at all.  I haven't used it much myself, but by all accounts it is a perfectly fine peripheral for the Xbox 360.  I even see the fun that can be had with it, though I honestly don't see myself ever being interested in it enough to want to fork over a C-note for it.  But does it really need to be used in everything?  I mean, it basically amounts to a glorified controller for the console.  Some of the things it can do, like allowing voice commands in games or the ability to direct menus with your hands, are pretty nifty, but no one will give a shit if your game still sucks!

It has become a meme in the gaming community, in fact.  Microsoft had such a hard-on for the Kinect that its slogan, "It's better with Kinect!" has become shorthand for "Hey, you know what would make this game suck a whole lot less?  A bunch of gimmicky crap no one wants!"  It's the joke that, in a few years, will be more memorable than the device it was conceived to mock.

Mass Effect 3 was "better with Kinect", but does that make it so that the fans of the series feel any less cheated by the ending?  And how about that Star Wars Kinect title that got so many "rave" reviews for its nonsensical dance routines and musical numbers?

But you know what the real problem is?  It's not for the gamers.  These press conferences are designed not to sell games but to sell the company.  They're out there putting on these shows to convince their shareholders, most of whom don't know jack shit about gaming or the game industry, that they're going to expand their customer base.  They're out to make things sound like they're more interesting to the average consumer instead of the dedicated market that already exists, and because of that they've decided to sell to the shareholders instead of to gamers.

The irony of this is that it's going to have the exact opposite effect from what they want out of it in the long run.  In a few years' time, the industry will be in a massive slump similar to the infamous E.T. Depression from the 1980's because these large developers and publishers are alienating the market they've worked so hard over the past three decades to build in favor of a broader appeal.  That "broader appeal", in the end, will be just as unreliable as it sounds.  Casual gamers won't care enough to go for microtransactions and buy more useless junk to make their progress in the game go a little quicker.  Casual gamers won't have the time or interest.  Casual gamers will play for a little while, get bored, and move on to do something else.  Meanwhile, all the hardcore gamers out there will have stopped caring about what you have to sell and will have moved on in their own ways.

But don't worry about that, because apathy is better with Kinect!