What Technology Could Revitalize the Industry?

Previously, I wrote about how the next generation of consoles will not revitalize the industry, but I suppose I should have put a caveat on that: the next-gen consoles will not revitalize the industry unless they manage to include a kind of creative forward-thinking that the last several generations have lacked.

The previous few generations, we were still coming out of the leap from 2D to 3D games. However, this has now come to a point where improvements in technology can only marginally change things as far as graphics, physics and gameplay are concerned. For some time, the industry has been gradually making attempts to break the current mold in meaningful ways, but nothing has truly stuck because the core of the consumer base likes games that they can enjoy for long periods of time without feeling too gimmicky.

It is controversial to bring it up, but hardcore gamers are the lifeblood of the industry. Casual gamers are important, too, but are far too unreliable a market to be the sole customers of any group. This is part of the reason the Wii did so well early on but started falling behind before long: it appealed to casual gamers, but it was a matter of time before much of the gameplay utility the motion control had became old hat and hardcore gamers wanted to sit back down for something more dedicated.

So, motion control didn't stick the way some developers were hoping it would, but that does not mean it is dead. Far from it; the Kinect, in particular, gave a form of motion control that is promising, but didn't quite go far enough.

There is basically one technology short of full on mind control or holograms that could make the next-gen consoles truly refresh gaming, and that technology is augmented reality. We have basic augmented reality capability now, but it has so far only been applied in limited forms and mostly in mobile devices. It has not been fully integrated into consoles yet, but I believe the capability is there.

For those who don't know, augmented reality is something of a middle ground between virtual reality and, well, “regular” reality. It is when you are presented with a visual of the real world, either through a camera-device or lenses with some form of display in them. It allows you to provide visual augmentations and interaction to things in the real world, such as, for instance, taking a map placed on the table and using it for references to play a form of video game with virtual characters on said map.

We have seen some use of this form of technology in Microsoft's Kinect, which can record footage of the player and map their body movements as they interact with virtual objects in a game. Now, imagine that same form of interaction, but reversed: the player now has a device of some sort, perhaps worn on the head, that would allow them to see interactive objects outside their tv set. This could be used for all sorts of purposes: HUDs, extra buttons, throwing fireballs into your tv set; you name it. It would be like the jump to 3D all over again, except that this time the 3D is both literal and fully interactive.

Sadly, I don't expect to see this sort of thing any time soon, if ever. The industry does not seem to have that kind of creativity these days and simply wants to maintain the status quo. I do not foresee that going well, but if my prediction is right, I am hoping that things don't get too much worse, either. In my mind, it seems like we're heading toward another crash in the games industry similar to the one in the 80's.

Will the Next Gen Game Consoles Save the Industry?

In my last blog, I wrote about Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello's insistence that more games is better, but now I want to talk about a similar, though equally foolish, assertion he has made: that the next generation of game consoles will revitalize the market.

Riccitiello has told investors that EA has built its business plan on an assumption that a new generation of gaming consoles would have been out by now, and that hasn't happened. Of course, that didn't result in EA actually adjusting its plans; instead they have simply doubled down and decided to adapt the plan to continue indefinitely. Cue the cheerleaders. Go team. Rah rah.

Ignoring, for a moment, the indefinite length of time EA intends to keep this going, I have to ask the question that it seems like very few are actually asking: would a new generation of game consoles actually revitalize the market?

We have reached a point in technology at which game systems don't really improve dramatically over previous generations. Yes, graphics improve somewhat, processing power improves, more active models can be on-screen at any given time, and so forth, but the technology doesn't make for huge leaps and bounds above previous generations the way they used to because the technology is already at a point where players can't expect dramatic improvements.

Younger gamers might not relate to this, but I and many of my peers grew up through the advent of 3D games. We were blown away by the sudden jump from sidescrolling or top-down games to games where you could move in more than two dimensions. That, believe it or not, was an ENORMOUS jump forward. It created whole new fields of play that did not exist before that.

The problem, of course, is that the human mind can only perceive three dimensions, excluding time, which we can only perceive in one direction. The entire history of the video game industry is exceedingly short, and much of the way games have evolved over the years is based on just these few decades. There will not be a leap forward like bridging the 2D/3D divide again. Some people have claimed that making games truly 3D, like movies, will be a big leap forward like that, but to be honest, that is a pipe dream. It's a gimmick that, while it might be cool for a bit, will ultimately be like the paint on your console, if it even sticks around that long.

A minor leap forward in graphics and processing power will be fun for a while, but unless the games themselves become better, meaning better writing, better gameplay and more original ideas, the polish will quickly fade and become just more lipstick on the pig.

What makes this worse is that better graphics and artistry also demands more man-hours. The current industry already has enormous numbers of people working on a single, large budget production and launching them out the door faster than ever. The profit margins are ridiculously low as it is. More money being spent on the development of these games, and only a small fraction of them actually earn a profit. The amazing thing is that the few that do wind up earning a profit manage to earn enough to make up for the ones that don't, but only barely. And EA wants to broaden that market, meaning producing more large budget games that won't earn enough, which means they'll have to either hire more employees or drive the ones they already have to work even harder to produce more.

See where I'm going with this? The more detailed the graphics get, the more artists are needed to work on them. Add to that the already increasing volume of games on the market and horribly low profits and you wind up with a situation where thousands of artists and programmers become badly overworked and underpaid. If the quality of games frustrates you now, imagine how bad things will be when the entire workforce is overstressed and unable to think clearly in the little time they have to actually think.

Are There Too Many Games on the Market?

I was following news about the EA shareholders meeting today, and the more I listened, the more I became irritated with the whole situation with gaming as it is. John Riccitiello continues offering “more MORE MORE!” when I can't help but feel like I want less. Here I sit, I have so many video games that I've purchased that I haven't even had time to play them all yet. I have a life, I have friends, family and other responsibilities that I need to keep in mind, so I don't have 100% of my time to devote to experiencing all these games, no matter how good they may be. And, let's be honest, even if I had absolutely nothing else in my life, I would still not devote 100% of my time to gaming because I just can't. I am human; I have needs aside from the basic food, water and sleep. I can't just ignore my need for social interaction, no matter how much I may want to.

So, I find myself wondering why Riccitiello is trying to convince people there are all these great games and projects in development and how that's going to turn EA around. Why tell us all how more is going to expand their business when I'm too busy finishing the stuff that I've already got to care? Unless they're developing “Mass Effect 4” or some other game I'd really love to see, I'm not going to care. And that's pretty much the problem with the top-tier games nowadays, it seems: none of them seem good enough to justify their price tag, and even if the price on all of them came down, I still wouldn't care much because I just don't have the time to devote to actually play most of them.

We live in a world where the majority of gamers are adults. A generation has been raised on video games, and as that generation has come of age we have found ourselves being more directly marketed to as a major consumer bloc. But now that we've reached such mass market levels, I think the real reason the industry isn't growing is because it has failed to adapt to the changing demographics. Adults have responsibilities and are far more careful about both their money and their time than children. It stands to reason that, eventually, you would reach a point at which you simply cannot produce more variety because there's already so much variety that your consumer base just can't keep up.

Video games are not movies or novels. There are not many ways you can really accurately compare them as media for telling stories, but you can compare them as time-fillers and as mass market products. Think, for a moment, about film. How many movies are released in a year? Quite a few. But how long are movies on average? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the average is about 90 minutes. That's an hour and a half, and seems pretty reasonable for an average film.

Now, how much time does a player spend on an average video game? That's a lot harder to figure out, but we can generally assume it will be much longer than a movie. 90 minutes out of your day is a significant amount of time, but not an unreasonable amount of time that a person might spend once in a while. Video games often times will be played for hundreds of hours, and even sometimes for days or weeks. Mind you, I'm not talking about days in the sense of how long you are interested in a game, I'm talking about real, total time spent playing a game can be that much. How is someone who enjoys playing games going to ever find the time to play all the games they might be interested in if all the games that are available take that much time out of their lives? And then you have DLC, which, when done right, extends the life of the game even further.

It's sort of like trying to get more advertising revenue from tv commercials by telling your audience to quit their jobs and watch tv all day. It just isn't feasible. Not that I don't love variety, but I love my DVR also because it allows me to watch the shows I want to see without having to schedule myself around them constantly. I believe this is the problem with the mainstream games in the industry: they're all vying for the attention of the same people and finding that too much competition is becoming as bad as not enough competition, like a million different tv shows competing for the same half-hour time slot.

Why is this a major problem? Well, because major publishers are cutting down deadlines and pushing games out faster and faster. The only reason this occurs is because they want to provide greater volume, more games in a shorter amount of time, but this means employees become overworked, quality and, in turn, quality assurance gets cut and we wind up with games that don't live up to their own potential. Huge budgets are being spent on games that will not sell as well as they could because they're being pushed out before they should be. At the same time, games that normally wouldn't have multiplayer are having multiplayer features forced on them as a means of extending their gameplay, meaning the games that do get played are also being played longer.

As a result, consumers find they have fewer opportunities to enjoy games they otherwise would have loved, developers stretch themselves thin to meet demand, publishers waste millions of dollars on risky investments and valuable intellectual property is drained until it is a dry husk of its former self. We find ourselves with publishers encouraging developers to produce the same thing over and over again in an effort to benefit off of what worked in the past instead of experimenting with new, innovative ideas.

In short, when it comes to the laws of supply and demand, we have more supply than we have demand for. Big budget games are being released in droves and aren't making enough money because they're not going through the rigorous testing phase that refines them into truly good games. Major brands are being mass produced and exploited instead of grown and shared. And stock prices are falling and John Riccitiello is making excuses.

Now, excuse me, I need to get back to work on reviewing The Secret World. I don't have time for this shit.

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!

Advance Recon: Diablo III

I just completed my first run through Diablo III on Normal difficulty, and I've got to say I definitely enjoyed it.  Having been playing the Diablo games since I was about twelve years old, the game certainly doesn't disappoint on the gameplay front.  The action, as always in Diablo, is front and center, and is ramped up even beyond my expectations.  In Diablo II, released over a decade ago, players were killing hordes of zombies, demons, and cows (it's a long story) in style with fancy spells and weapon attacks, but this time things become even more explosive with Diablo III being rendered in 3D, allowing for an actual physics engine.

The physics engine itself is mostly aesthetic, since the game still plays in a top-down view like the previous games and very few actual gameplay mechanics use it, but it makes the game seem that much more fun every time you manage to smash a statue, or a wooden scaffold collapses because you shot it, or an entire column collapses in a ruin.  I remember at one point laughing hysterically as one monster's head went flying across the screen after my friends and I caused what can only be described as a cataclysmic level of destruction with our powers.

Speaking of friends (and an obligatory shout-out to some of my guild mates from WoW who joined me), the game's multiplayer, the feature that made the first two games take off as online co-op hits, is still as fun as ever. I would even argue it's more fun now, as with Battle.net's features the game now has achievements and the ability to set your game so that only friends can join.  You can also now jump into a friend's game with a push of a button after logging in, making casual multiplayer that much easier.  And now there is an auction house where players can bid or buy items from other players for either in-game gold or real world cash.

That said, there are a few issues with the online service.  For one thing, the game is now permanently online as a system of DRM and a way to protect the auction economy.  This means that you literally cannot play the game, even single player, without an internet connection.  Also, your ability to play is entirely dependent on being connected to Battle.net's servers, which means that if those servers go down, for whatever reason, you are unable to play the game, even alone, which happened numerous times throughout this first week after release, resulting in a lot of fan protesting.  Finally, this also means that your play is at Blizzard's discretion.  If you are banned by Blizzard, you will not be able to play the game, regardless of how much money you may have paid for it.  While Blizzard has maintained relatively positive service in the past and not abused their ability to discontinue service for customers, it gives them a LOT of potential for abuse that I am not sure is a good thing to want to see in more titles.

As to the real money auction house, it still has not been fully implemented, so I can't say yet what impact that will have on the game.  For the most part, I didn't actually participate in the auction house, as I never had enough gold to afford anything being sold, nor did anyone buy anything I attempted to sell.  The economy is relatively unnecessary in a game so full of randomly generated loot, so you can certainly get by without using it, but so far the economy still seems to be unstable in its infancy.  With people being able to buy and sell for real world cash, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that some people may attempt to buy their way to the top at the highest difficulties, but it is still possible to enjoy Normal, Nightmare and Hard mode just fine without ever touching the auction house.

The game has five classes, which for the first time can be either male or female, and are fully voiced.  And when I say fully-voiced, I don't mean just the one-liners from Diablo 1 and 2.  They now carry on full conversations with other characters.  Throughout the game, you acquire hireling characters, a "scoundrel", a "templar" and an "enchantress", who each have their own dialogue and customization options for their abilities, but they only join you in combat in single player games.  There are also two crafters that follow you on your quest and set up in town, a blacksmith and a jeweller, each with their own personalities, and you can pay gold to level them up and make new items.

As for character abilities, Diablo III does away with Diablo II's "skill trees" in favor of a system capable of much more flexibility while still limiting characters from being "masters of everything".  You start out at level 1 with one ability assigned for your left mouse button, and as you level you gain more ability slots, new abilities, and "runes" for your abilities.  You get up to 6 skill slots, and each ability continues to unlock new runes up until the maximum level.  The runes alter the abilities in sometimes dramatic ways, allowing for an old ability to take on an entirely new function in your skill set.  This means that there are seemingly limitless combinations of abilities and runes that play very differently, and it becomes almost an art in determining the best combinations, which makes for a lot of strategic fun.  Also, your character's abilities can be changed at any time without cost, though, unless you're in town, there will be a short cooldown until they are useable, so it is best not to do it in the middle of a warzone.

And finally, on the story front, I generally liked the story of the game.  Blizzard has previously stated that this essentially brings the story arc begun in the first game to a close, and it certainly doesn't disappoint on that front.  Admittedly, the writing is somewhat predictable, but that's nothing new.  The story has always taken a bit of a backseat to the action anyway, but the story in this game does not disappoint, and the voice acting is significantly better than some in the previous games, including the always wonderful Jennifer Hale playing one of the key characters.  The drama is increased, even taking some somewhat shocking turns, but not in ways that are detrimental to its enjoyment.  In fact, some of the startling events in the game definitely serve to increase the tension in important ways.

So, I can definitely say I've enjoyed the game, and intend to continue to enjoy it.  However, I still hold some serious reservations about the DRM, as I think there's a slippery slope to go along it, and it while I don't expect anything terrible to come from Diablo III, I would not like to see the "always online" feature being added to most single-player games.  There is just too much potential to abuse that level of control, and I think Blizzard is starting to run into the first signs of a rebellion against that sort of feature.  Also, I wouldn't recommend the game if you are looking for a stimulating story.  The story is not the major selling point of the game, and unless you really enjoy hack-and-slash gameplay, you will find yourself disinterested.  That said, it's also not a bad story in spite of being a bit predictable and sometimes shallow.