Uncharted 2 Review

Uncharted 2 - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 8/10
Mastery: 9.5/10
Overall: 9/10

If you've been following the hype and reviews of Uncharted 2 in the news, it should come as no surprise to you that Uncharted 2 is one well-executed game. For those that don't, Uncharted 2 is a behind-the-shoulder shooter/adventure hybrid that succeeds in almost everything that it does. From its well-written and genuinely funny story to its cutting-edge technical graphics and its streamlined, cohesive gameplay, Uncharted 2 ultimately delivers an excellent, well-polished experience.

I first played Uncharted 2 during the tail end of the free multiplayer demo and was blown away by the tight controls, effective utilization of cover, and variety of game types and maps available in the game. To be precise, most of the game modes that you will find in the game are similar to other multiplayer offerings in the shooter genre, but with subtle tweaks that make Uncharted 2 feel fully distinct, especially once its cover and climbing mechanics are accounted for. In several levels, there are portions only accessible by climbing or jumping, and moreso than other shooters, knowing jumping or climbing shortcuts allow you to move around much quicker.

Although I knew I would continue to enjoy the multiplayer aspect of the game, the quality of the singleplayer campaign was a pleasant surprise. Composed of both adventuring and shooter segments, the campaign is paced brilliantly and features an outstanding story based on Marco Polo's legendary expedition to China. The adventuring segments are probably the weakest aspect of Uncharted 2's singleplayer offering, due to their highly linear nature. This, in my opinion, is generally due to the fact that while some paths are obvious, other paths are forced onto the player. Multiple times during the game, I repeatedly attempted a very makeable jump simply to find that Nate would not grab onto the ledge or grip the wall because it was not how I was intended to proceed. Nevertheless, the adventuring segments do break up the action effectively, allowing you to destress yourself between Uncharted 2's intense shooter sections.

The shooting segments of the game, like the adventure segments, are usually on rails. As in Halo (another favorite game of mine, notice a trend?), the linear style of the shooting sequences allow the developers to more tightly script the action sequences, making the second-to-second play much more enjoyable in these segments. With that said, there are often several ways to move through the action sequences. Although you'll rarely notice it, there are oftentimes many different ways to tackle an encounter, and when I died, I often attempted to tackle the encounter another way. For example, in one sequence you approach a city center from one direction, and are trying to work your way around to the other section. You can stay where you are, and try and fight at a distance, move clockwise around the circle and attempt to take out a gun emplacement before the enemies swarm you, attempt to move counter-clockwise around the circle so as to avoid the stationary gun's fire, or charge right into the middle of it all and stay behind cover while shooting the enemies up with your close ranged weaponry. Oftentimes, your tactics will be dictated by the weapons you happen to be holding at a time.

Stealth is another way to tackle some of the game's shooter segments, and at times Naughty Dog forcefully pushes you towards it while at other times you are left to decide what is the best way to proceed. There are many times in the game where enemies will walk by a ledge you are hanging off of, allowing you to throw them down a cliff. Each of these clips comes with a snarky line courtesy of Drake, which definitely reinforces and rewards this behavior. While it is rare that you will be able to complete most of the encounters in the game using stealth, there are definitely several points in the campaign where you can accrue ten or fifteen consecutive stealth kills if you are careful and patient enough.

The plot of Uncharted 2's campaign is also worth applauding, as it is another of Uncharted 2's high points. Without spoiling too much, the plot revolves around Marco Polo's return from his expedition to China, and ties into the legend of the Cintamani stone. While this basic plot serves primarily as a vehicle to move from exotic locale to exotic locale, the finer details of the campaign are very well put together. First and foremost is characterization, which is easily the best in any game I've ever played. Drake is a very funny and lovable character, and his unique personality really makes the game's plot shine, even outside of cutscenes. His co-stars are also done well, each has their own priorities and system of beliefs, and are usually relateable in their own unique ways, although the game's main villain could have been developed a bit more. One of the biggest complements that can be paid towards a game's story is that it would make a great movie, but in this case, I would go one step further and actually see it in theatres (and I never see movies in theatres). It is just that good.

Like Uncharted 2's singleplayer, Uncharted 2's multiplayer is also a complete and satisfying package. There are several game modes including an impressive twist on capture the flag, king of the hill, a king of the hill variant in which only one hill is up for grabs at a time and teams must capture all five in order to win, deathmatch, team deathmatch, elimination, and two different cooperative modes. In the first cooperative mode, players attempt to bring a treasure back to their base as many times as possible, with the caveat that each successful attempt makes the next attempt harder. The second is basically a cooperative version of the best segments in the Uncharted 2 campaign. Each of these modes also contributes to a participation-based levelling progression system similar to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's skill system, along with unlockable multiplayer character models, giving players added incentive to lengthen their play sessions.

These modes are supported by a well-balanced weapon system and Uncharted 2's terrific cover system. The weapons all feel fairly powerful and are all useful for different occasions, although I personally feel that grenades are a little too powerful, and should be made weaker but more plentiful.

Overall, Uncharted 2 is a platform-defining game. Although I only purchased my PS3 in September, Uncharted 2 is the first game I have played that validated my purchase, comparing favorably to Metal Gear Solid 4 and Valkyria Chronicles, two of the PS3's staple games. The singleplayer game is gripping and genuinely funny; the multiplayer is well-paced, refreshing and balanced. Anyone who owns a PS3 needs to play this game. Uncharted 2 is the very definition of a killer app.

-Jon

Halo 3 ODST Review

Halo 3 ODST - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 7/10
Mastery: 8.5/10
Overall: 7.5/10

Before I begin this review, I should state unequivocally that I am a huge Halo fanboy. Although I try to play every well-reviewed game on the systems I own, the genre that I cover best is the First Person Shooter. The genre has come a long way since Wolfenstein, the first game of its type that I played. We've come from having a wide variety of strictly-better-than guns at hand to limiting ourselves to a handful; we've added vehicles and stationary guns; moved from a static health health system to health which returns over time; greatly improved artificial intelligence; progressed from not reloading to reloading mini-games. Not all of these changes work for every game, and in my opinion, Bungie's Halo franchise has just about perfected the genre.

Halo 3: ODST's campaign is a hastily-put-together, rough-around-the-edges experience that just so happens to contain a few of the most fun moments I've ever had within the genre. While the campaign is short and the out-of-mission point A to point B sections of the game are awful, the in-mission segments of the game are absolutely brilliant. There are two very well put-together vehicle missions, a great stand on the top of a tower in the center of the city, and several other highly-controlled and well-scripted missions that Bungie excels at. Of course, if you are a fan of open-world, sandbox gameplay experiences, you might resent how linear these missions are. But linear missions also allow the developer to create a more cohesive, tightly-knit narrative or experience, and on this occasion, there is definitely a great payoff. They also compare favorable to the more open-world experiences, which I found to be tense but ultimately unfulfilling.

I'll be the first to admit that Halo 3: ODST isn't exactly a value-packed purchase. Even at $50 (which is what most places are charging for it now), there is not all that much content to go around. I spent around 8 hours playing the game on my first play-through, and while I didn't look behind every corner, I wasn't going for a speed run either. The side story doesn't add much at all to the value either; it's basically a series of sound bites that you listen to while you're traveling from point A to point B.

Still, there are some other bright spots to the game. As the owner of a 360 with a paltry 20GB HD, I actually thought that the disc with all of the campaign maps wasn't a terrible inclusion; I was able to clear up a lot of space that had been used for DLC. And for all of you new Xbox 360 owners, ODST is actually a better value in my opinion than Halo 3, since it comes with everything you need to play 100% of Halo 3's multiplayer with no additional fee. Just keep in mind that your health is going to be working differently in multiplayer than it did in the campaign.

Firefight is the last thing I should talk about. For those of you not in the know, Firefight is Halo's take on Horde mode from Gears of War 2. And, like Horde mode before it, it is a ton of fun when you are playing with your friends. However, for some reason Bungie decided that it would be a bad idea to include matchmaking for Firefight. Let me say that again. Firefight has no matchmaking support whatsoever. This means that you will need a few friends if you want to play Firefight, which can be tough to get together, especially if your schedule is not incredibly open (read: not in high school or college). To me, this is a huge deal-breaker, as matchmaking support for Firefight would have added immensely to its value, and is a no-brainer. Oh well.

Overall, Halo 3 ODST is a middling game with some outstanding single-mission experiences and Firefight sans-matchmaking in store for the Xbox 360 and Halo faithful. For players who don't own a copy of Halo 3, ODST is a must-buy, since it includes everything that you'll need to enjoy Halo 3's multiplayer, Firefight, and, in my opinion, a campaign that is superior to Halo 3's.

Shadow Complex Review

Shadow Complex - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 8/10
Mastery: 9.5/10
Overall: 9/10

Once in awhile, a game comes along that redefines and reinvigorates a genre. While not always perfect, these games remind players of previous experiences, and ideally import novel ideas and modern dynamics into the gameplay of yesterday.

Chair Entertainment's Shadow Complex is just such a game. Based on Orson Scott Card's "Empire" universe, Shadow Complex is set in a near-future scenario built around a new American civil war. While the story-telling leaves a little to be desired, the gameplay in Shadow Complex is phenomenal, making Shadow Complex the best side-scrolling adventure of its type that I've played since Super Metroid (and possibly ever).

In Shadow Complex, you control a character named Jason Fleming, a nice enough guy who happens to be in the wrong part of the woods with his girlfriend at the wrong time. After stumbling on a secret complex, Jason eventually unearths and terminates a radical group bent on taking control of America.

Players begin the game armed only with a flashlight, but over time acquire many weapons and items which allow Jason to double-jump, run at blinding speeds, swim great distances underwater, and generally wreak havoc. Many of these items are left to be discovered in secret rooms and chambers, and generally involve the employ of the various items Jason stumbles upon in his adventures. Players also face down a legion of soldiers and several monstrous battle mechs, all of which move fluidly and are properly imposing.

The graphics are great for a downloadable title, and certainly do wonders in drawing players into the universe. While the game will occasionally hiccup after a large amount of speed-running (the ability), the frame rate generally holds up when it counts.

What makes Shadow Complex particularly impressive, in my opinion, is its speed running (the practice) potential. While I've never been one for it myself, I have from time to time had to pick my jaw up off the floor after watching some Braid, Mario, and of course, Metroid, speed runs. While it is theoretically possible to "sequence break" according to Chair, Shadow Complex has some very interesting abilities which enable the player to progress through the game's many puzzles in odd or unusual ways.

For my part, there were only a few things that I wish had been improved in-game. Shooting enemies who are not directly in front of you or behind you can be a frustrating experience, particularly early in the game with the pistol (later in the game, your guns are powerful enough that you won't mind). There are also a few items which are hidden in specific areas that don't show up on the game's map, like others do. Finally, a few bosses seem a little too simple (the axle one in particular), while another is actually frequently accidentally skipped over by players.

However, most of what Shadow Complex does, it does very well. The enemies are cool and fun to beat down on, the weapon upgrades are always rewarding, and item acquisition in general suitably makes the player feel more and more powerful. The music and graphics also reflect the game's atmosphere, and draw the player into the action.

While not perfect, Shadow Complex is and outstanding game that every self-respecting Xbox 360 owner should enjoy.

-Jon

Battlefield 1943 Impressions

I must confess that I have been waiting some time to comment on Battlefield 1943 because I was thinking about doing a full-fledged review for it. However, I've decided that this game, although it has and will change gaming, does not do so from a traditional gaming perspective.

Before you think that I'm down on this game, though, I would like to say that I think Battlefield 1943 is an outstanding game. Most of the time that I have spent playing games over the last few weeks (that I can talk about) has been playing this game with a few friends over Xbox Live.

Simply put, Battlefield 1943 is a well-done download-only first person shooter that brings me back to the glory days of Battlefield 1942. Available on both Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, Battlefield 1943 is a great-looking and relatively simple first-person shooter that is tons of fun to play, especially with friends. The weapons are simple and relatively well-balanced in my opinion, though many people are quick to criticize the infantry-stopping capabilities of the semi-automatic rifle. In addition, the ability to squad spawn makes it easy for players to get back into the action quickly and team up with friends. Vehicles are fun to ride in and drive, and although the mechanics can be a little wonky (collisions seem to have pretty weird physics), this may be because the engine is borrowed/simulating the BF1942 physics engine.

The game shipped with three different maps, though a fourth map has since been unlocked on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 which features a dogfighting game mode. The original three maps are outstanding in general, and will immediately validate your $15 layout. The fourth map seems to be hit or miss with people (I wasn't a huge fan, to be honest). There is a lot of value here, and although there is certainly less content than say Castle Crashers, the replayability factor is very high. Therefore, as a game, Battlefield 1943 is a fun but not wholly revolutionary adventure that is well worth the cost of admission.

What is more interesting to me, as a game designer, about Battlefield 1943 is its download-only format. One of the best aspects of the download-only system is that it is never a pain to switch between games when a friend of mine signs on to begin playing. Several times I have been watching a Netflix movie while doing a little work on my laptop, when a friend signs online, sends me a party invite, and whisks me away to the Southeast Pacific. As a fan of the Halo series, I remember often finding myself in the middle of a Mass Effect marathon when I was interrupted by the same friends, but didn't feel like breaking out the new CD, loading it into the drive, waiting for the new game to load, etc. In Battlefield 1943, no matter what I'm doing, I'm only a party and game invite away from the action. Ultimately, this makes it much easier for me to consider dropping my campaign progress for a little down and dirty Wake Island action.

Ultimately, its clearly the distribution format that is truly revolutionary here. While I don't know what kind of cuts are taken from sales of the game, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that EA and DICE make about as much money off each sale of this $15 game as they do from a $50 game purchased at retail (okay, maybe a little surprised).

Regardless, the proof is in the pudding and Battlefield 1943 has proven to me that a company can release an outstanding AAA title as a download-only purchase on consoles. While I would hope that everyone and their grandmothers don't immediately abandon traditional distribution methods for their games (my 360's hard drive only has 20 GB of space, dagnabbit!), I am keen to see what other offerings lie on this road in the future, and if these offerings can be supplemented by additional downloadable content packs.

Hopefully.

-Jon

Race for the Galaxy Review

Race for the Galaxy - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 9/10
Mastery: 9/10
Overall 9/10

I was up at a friend's house for the 4th and we played one of my favorite games, Race for the Galaxy, which reminded me that I haven't written a review for this game yet for this blog. As you can tell by the above scores, I think of this game quite highly.

Race for the Galaxy, or "Race" as we call it, is an outstanding economic development game which is dripping with complex mechanics and heavily codified. There are few to no words on most cards besides the title. Yet all of them are fairly easy to parse once you begin to understand the symbols used on the cards. This is one thing that I really like (although when I played this game with my parents, they couldn't understand anything).

The game mechanics are fairly complex, but the simple overarching theme is that the cards in your hand are game resources in two senses of the word: they can be played from your hand to the table but they can also be used to pay the costs of playing other cards which are more relevant to your current strategy.

The other key mechanic is the turn structure system. Turns in Race are shared, meaning that no one person is the "active" player at any one time. I strongly prefer these sorts of games as it means that everyone is pretty much in the action at all times unless the group is waiting for one or two people to make their decisions for the turn. What occurs in the turn, however, is not always (and actually is quite rarely) the same. At the beginning of each turn, all players may select one phase that they wish to occur in the turn. There are five phases, with one additional subphase which occurs only for the players that take the particular subphase, meaning that in a standard three or four player game, not all of the phases will occur. Even in five player games, usually only three or four occur, and I've played quite a few games where all players take the same phase.

In addition, players who take each phase receive an advantage when that phase occurs, which incentivizes the players to think about what bonuses they need the most and not always care about the actions other players will take. Still, there are plenty of opportunities for gamesmanship, as I often rely on another player to take the settle action so I can settle a windfall world and trade away the free good.

In addition, the game is reasonably well balanced; although not every strategy is as powerful as every other, all of them are good enough to win with if you draw enough of the cards that you need to pull it off.

Race is definitely a game that makes you think on your feet. While you may have one plan at the beginning of the game, all too often you don't draw the cards you need and need to modify or even completely scrap your old strategy. While I think some people find this annoying, and think of it as being too luck based, to me it is a point of excitement.

Race for the Galaxy, in my opinion, is one of the most unique and interesting boardgames (can I call it that) out on the market today. It is a must-own for anyone that is interested in trying many different types of games, as there is very little on the market like it.

----End of Review---

One of the interesting things that has come out of my games of Race for the Galaxy with my friends is that there are some people who can't stand this game because it is entirely too luck-based. While I see some merit in their arguments, I can't help but wonder if they are simply approaching the problem in the wrong way. In my opinion, to win Race, you need to constantly re-evaluate your strategy whenever you draw new cards, as they often don't quite mesh with the plan that you had before.

One of the things that I've noticed about a few of these players is that they are for the most part Magic: the Gathering and Poker players, two games with an "out" as a central concept. In Poker or Magic, an "out" is a card that wins you the game if you can draw it, or at least keeps you in. Given their background, and although I will be the first to admit I've never actually watched them play a hand, I think that they may be overcommitting to a strategy, and not realizing opportunities which arise in the first few trades or explores in the game.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about this. Since they didn't really like the game, my experiences of playing the game with them are rather limited. Still, it is an interesting theory, and something to keep in mind in the future.

-Jon

Kodu Game Lab Impressions

So, word on the street is that Best Buy is going to be selling PS3s with Metal Gear Solid 4 and Killzone 2 for $400 tomorrow, and I'm thinking mightily about buying them. But in the mean time I have been playing a little more of the 1vs100 beta, Europa Universalis II (one of my favorite games of all time) and an XBLA Community Game called Kodu Game Lab which is the topic of today's post.

Kodu Game Lab is basically a simplified gaming editor for the Xbox 360. It is available in the community games section of Xbox Live for $5, and to keep my thesis succinct, it generally kicks ass and is absolutely worth your $5.

I've fooled around with other game creators from time to time, authored a Warcraft III map and Starcraft map (and I once joined someone else's game who was hosting a game of my map, spike!), and of course do game design for a living, so I was pretty excited to try the game out.

The game creator is a little tough to work with, but it does a good job of easing you into all of the options by having you program AI, place objects and more in a few sample missions which resemble a bit of a campaign of sorts. After that, there are a few simple finished and unfinished games for players to play around with and mod, but the meat of this whole proposition is the ability to make your own game from scratch. The assets in the game are a bit limited (and by that I mean that there are only a few different objects that you can use for the main character or enemies) but that doesn't detract from the game too much.

So far, I've spent a bit of time modding one of the included Galaga-esque games to make it a little more exciting and challenging, but haven't come up with anything really interesting or creative. I should have more time to mess around with the game in the coming weeks though, so hopefully I will think of something exciting.

I really recommend that you give the game a try. There are very few games on the market which offer so much value for such little money. The included games are nothing really special, but they're probably worth the $5 if you don't have anything better to do. Still, if you would like to play around with a pretty simple level and game creator, Kodu Game Lab might just be an Xbox Live offering that fits the bill.

-Jon

Magic: the Gathering Duels of the Planeswalkers Review

Let me preface this review by saying that since it is a timely review, I'm not going to bother to evaluate this game in a long term sense. This review focuses mainly on whether or not you should buy this game. If you want to save yourself some time, I've copied and pasted the final three sentences of the review here for your convenience:

Although in several areas it can disappoint, overall it is impossible to argue with the value proposition of Duels of the Planeswalkers. Whether you are new to the game, playing for the first time in five years, or already play in local FNMs or PTQs, if you own an Xbox 360 there is no reason you shouldn't also own this game.

This week, I was sick as a dog, which gave me a good opportunity to play Stainless Games' new Xbox Live Arcade game Magic: the Gathering Duels of the Planeswalkers. Right now, the game costs 800 MS Points, which is the equivalent of $10. At that price point, this is a fantastic game that should be in every gamer's collection. This is especially true if you also play Magic: the Gathering in paper, since you get a free $15 card (my friend's estimation of the value, not mine) with purchase.

Singleplayer Campaign

The singleplayer campaign for this game is pretty straightforward: challenge each of the decks to two duels and beat them over the course of the campaign. You will be playing against the AI, which is reasonable but nowhere near perfect. After each win, you will get a card to add to your deck. The confusing decision that the designers made here is that they allow you to grind victories against the same AI-controlled opponent over and over again. While you have to beat all of the opponents in the ladder in order to unlock all the decks, once you have unlocked all of the decks you can just play the same easy-as-pie opponent over and over again, depending on which opponent your deck is strongest against. Although I did not beat the entire campaign with all of the decks, I did beat all of the opponents with the Elf, Jund, and mono-green decks, which were the only three I attempted it with.

AI

The AI is probably one of the poorer parts of the game, overall. It is difficult for me to criticize it entirely, since I'm sure it is very substantial. It does make good decisions most of the time. However, there are many areas it could definitely improve:

1. Mulligans: I'm not sure that it actually takes mulligans. I've seen it missing its second turn land drop before. It may take mulligans, but I've never seen it go to 6.
   
2. Attacking, causing it to be dead on board: I can't tell you how many times I have three guys in play, and the AI has three guys in play with a few meager points of life left, but one of them is phantom warrior. In this case, regardless of my life total, or his, he will swing with it. In many of these circumstances, the AI literally causes him to be dead on the board, regardless of any tricks I may be holding. It seems like there should have been a line or two of code telling it not to attack if the extra creature that gets through deals lethal damage.
3. While getting in for an extra 3 with giant growth is nice, its much better to 2 for 1 with it by making your attacking or defending creature 2/2 a 5/5, which is bigger than the other guy's 4/4, thus making him down a card while you are up the creature (which you would have normally lost) or the damage (4 points of life ~1 card) and down the card in hand. 2 for 1.

Magic: the Puzzling

Another play mode of the game is Magic: the Puzzling. This gameplay variant is interesting and definitely showcases some of Magic's potential. Unfortunately, certain considerations (like card drawing) convinced Wizards and/or Stainless games that all of these puzzles should be a "can you find a way to win this turn, after drawing your card" question, which to me reduced their complexity. A few of them took me a couple tries, but most were fairly easy. I beat them all in a single sitting. I wish that I had earned a deck unlock or something more substantial than simple achievement points doing this, though. Overall, this was a quick addition to the game that didn't add any long-term value to me.

Multiplayer

The multiplayer modes are, in my opinion, the highlight of the experience. As of the second night after release, there were already a fair number of people playing the game online, although actually joining a game is a bit finicky (this may change as more people begin to play online). There are several multiplayer modes available:

• Coop campaign (not online)
• 1v1
  
• 3 player FFA
• 4 player FFA
• 2v2 2 Headed Giant

One of the reasons that the multiplayer stands out as the game's best mode is simply because it feels like the Magic I know. I'm the kind of guy that would rather win big occasionally than win consistently and multiplayer is, as a result, one of the formats that my playstyle is particularly suited for. The use of headsets also makes multiplayer stand out, because it gives you that sitting around a table feeling that not prior Magic virtual game has done before. It also fits better with the cards, which tend to be on the not constructed playable side of things (i.e. you would never see most of these cards at a PTQ in paper Magic). My favorite mode, specifically is probably the 2v2 2 headed giant mode, which is a nice combination of teamwork and slow paced play (yes you get to see both player's hands, so you can help your partner play).

Coop Campaign

The Coop campaign is also awesome, because it's a great way to get your friend to play with you without having to worry about them being intimidated by your prior experience with Magic. While you can't play it online (to my knowledge), a friend and I played through most of it and it is quite a bit of fun. The elf deck is absurd in this mode, btw. One interesting thing to note is that you can unlock cards for decks in the Coop campaign, so you can use this to approximately double your unlock rate vs. single player play.

Deck Construction/Balance Issues

Deck construction in this game is not what you would expect given that you are playing Magic: the Gathering. While in the paper game, you have almost complete control over everything you play, in this game each deck has a core deck which you can unlock additional cards for, and then you may choose which of those unlocked cards you wish to play. Since most of the decks' unlocked cards are of the bomb variety, you end up playing almost all of them. The notable exceptions, however, are the "tooth" cards which basically all give you an additional point of life whenever someone plays a spell of a specified color. While these cards are alright in multiplayer (particularly 4 player FFA), in singleplayer or 2v2 they're atrocious and should almost never be played.

My theory for these deck restrictions is this: Stainless wanted to delicately control the balance of the metagame, and the best way to do that is to have all of the decks' potential under control. Because there are a couple of bad/undesirable cards in most of the decks, it is basically impossible to modify the decks into unstoppable, efficient killing machines. If everyone could take the elvish warriors from the elf deck and put them into the green deck in the grizzly bears slot, or move the grizzly bears into the dragon fodder slot in the Jund deck, you could risk improving one deck too much and throw off the balance of the metagame.

However, if this was the reason, or even if it wasn't, Stainless should have done a better job of balancing the metagame. Some decks simply seem to be much better than others, particularly the elf deck, with which a decent draw can destroy almost any deck in the metagame. The blue, black, and red decks barely seem to be in the game at all, and the white deck is basically a FFA only affair, since its bombs are basically Serra Angel, Wrath of God (I'm told, haven't seen it yet), and Mass Calcify. The Naya deck seems to be completely trumped by the green deck, which simply trades some creature efficiency (no 3 mana 5/4) and removal for no mana issues and Overrun.

Expansion Opportunities

The most promising aspect of the game are the expansion opportunities it seems to present down the road. Adding onto this game should be fairly simple: just release a new deck for another 100-200 MS Points. Assuming that enough people download the base game, I'm sure future expansions are in the works. Heck, there's already a deck in the campaign that player's can't unlock yet. (Maybe I need to beat the double Tezzeret decks at the end of the Coop campaign, haven't done that yet).

Overall Impressions

Duels of the Planeswalkers is simply an outstanding value for 800 MS Points. While it's not perfect, it is certainly the most attractive Magic: the Gathering client ever, and gets most of the important aspects of Magic right. It is also easy to learn, beginner friendly and generally a rewarding first Magic experience. While it has its faults, these are more than made up for by the innovative, streamlined experience it provides and the enormous amount of content that you are purchasing for ~$10, even before you include the promo card which is worth the cost of admission alone. If you've always wanted to learn Magic, or even if you simply want to see how much better Magic Online's interface could be, I highly recommend that you take a look at this game. Although in several areas it can disappoint, overall it is impossible to argue with the value proposition of Duels of the Planeswalkers. Whether you are new to the game, playing for the first time in five years, or already play in local FNMs or PTQs, if you own an Xbox 360 there is no reason you shouldn't also own this game.

-Jon

Coop, Continued

I have spent a little time recently talking about the resurgence of cooperative play as seen in Left 4 Dead. This weekend, my cousin and I have been playing Gears of War 2 in coop, which I have never done before, and have been having a really fun time. In some sense, Gears of War 2 is a much better coop game than most other FPSs in my opinion, with L4D being the notable exception.

As a single player game, I have never been terribly impressed with either of the Gears games. This is not an insult to Epic, but for some reason the series has never really been exciting for me. Personally, I think the guns lack personality (which is saying something when the assault rifle has a freakin' chainsaw on it, see above for a double chainsaw assisted kill). Basically, all of them feel more or less the same. There is the single-shot rifle which I usually use mid/long range, the aforementioned fully-automatic AR/chainsaw creation, a handful of pistols, and some awkward weapons which are always interesting but a little awkward to use effectively (mortar, et al.).

You also have the Gears themselves, who are big, hulking nasty brutes with hearts of gold. Unfortunately, their body armor slows them to the point that controlling them can sometimes be a pain. While the controls are a far, far cry away from the "please kill me now" control experiences of games like Stormrise, some aspect of the movement system has always put me off. It lacks the clean, smooth, responsive movement of Halo 1-3.

But Gears of War 2 is an absolute blast to play coop. It's still no Left 4 Dead, but it's a great experience working with the teammates, reviving them when they fall, and flanking enemies or racing to get a chainsaw kill/bash the head in of the last baddie who is barely clinging to life. The all-too-common forks in the road also work masterfully in the game, allowing you to cover and set up on your best buddy's flank. This is a much more fun coop experience than Halo 3, which for some reason always felt a little watered down and not very tactical, probably as a result of the level design and the respawn system.

The Xbox Live system, of course, really makes the magic happen, as you get about two-thirds the benefit of having your ally right there with you, but don't have to split off any precious screen real estate.

I haven't really gotten into horde mode much yet, but our experience with it has been very positive thusfar, and I'm looking forward to trying it some more in the next few weeks.

-Jon

Golden Joystick GotY Awards

Well, I started taking my blog seriously a little too late to post during most of the GotY awards earlier this year for 2008, but I can use the Golden Joystick GotY awards as a proxy for those, I suppose. The awards are supposed to be awarded to outstanding games released between May 22, 2008 and May 22, 2009. I say "supposed to" because some of the chronology in here is a little messed up, and some of the games that shouldn't be on the ballot are. Some games that should definitely be in more categories, like Braid, also are suspiciously absent from some categories.

Anyways, I'll go through my ballot (pictured at right) and talk about my decision. I know, in fact, I hope, that some of you vehemently disagree with my position. It is, after all, inevitable, but also fosters creative and enlightening debate. With that said, on to the awards!

Family Game of the Year - Free Realms: This one was one of my easier decisions. While World of Goo was certainly a tempting pick, I couldn't get past how different a game like Free Realms is from the average MMO, and how much potential it has to change our perceptions of MMO games. From beginning to end, it is designed to be a safe and fun place for the entire family. Players of all ages can get into the game, and it is simply a phenomenal game.

Handheld Game of the Year - Grand Theft Auto Chinatown Wars: I didn't get to play many of the games that were up for this award. While I liked Pokemon Platinum and Chrono Trigger, neither of these titles really added substantially to gaming. Rhythm Heaven was probably an excellent alternate choice, but I didn't have a chance to play the game. However, GTA Chinatown Wars re-examined the original GTA games and reworked them to be much more entertaining, intuitive and exciting. I really enjoyed the time that I spent playing this game.

Mobile Game of the Year - Bejeweled 2: This was definitely the category that I am least familiar with, but Bejeweled has really taken hold in casual gaming and my bosses (for whatever reason) really love it. I am not as big of a fan, but I certainly cannot deny how popular this game is. I didn't feel bad voting for it because there was nothing else that really stood out to me.

Multiplayer Game of the Year - Left 4 Dead: This decision, for me, was a complete layup. No game has defined multiplayer gaming so much this year as Left 4 Dead. A year ago, I would have told you that competitive multiplayer, much as I might not like it, was the preferred choice for the vast majority of gamers. L4D was perhaps the single most important game in the shift towards co-operative play that has occurred in the last year, and has completely changed the way that at least I view multiplayer gaming. While I can't say that most players now prefer co-op play, we've definitely at least moved in that direction. The game is also an absolute blast to play, which always helps for these sorts of things.

Nintendo Game of the Year - Okami: Again, another category that I am unfamiliar with, but this is one where I felt Okami was simply the best option. The second best option on the ballot, if it had been there, would have been Mario Kart Wii, but despite coming out a week or so after Okami, it wasn't. Decision made. Sorry Mario. Awkwardly enough, neither should have been on the ballot. The other game I was thinking of, Wii Fit is MIA. It has certainly sold well enough to be here, and unlike Okami or SMK Wii, released during the correct timeframe. Does GJ really think it isn't a game?

The One to Watch - Diablo III: I'm sure Diablo III in this spot will be one of my more controversial picks, but I am definitely an ARPG kind of guy, and really enjoyed Diablo II and D2X. More than that, the game looks and seems to play great. It is definitely the game that I am most looking forward to, though some upcoming MMO's like Global Agenda, the new Star Wars MMO, and other games are certainly outstanding nominees.

Online/PC Game of the Year - World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King: I picked the World of Warcraft Expansion in this slot due to both its popularity and the quality of the game as delivered. WoW, to me, is clearly the best MMORPG out there, and is certainly deserving of the online award. For the PC, the biggest contenders in my book were WoW, Braid, Fallout 3, L4D, and perhaps Warhammer 40K DoW II and Empire: Total War (they probably aren't, but I am a big fan of both games). WoW was simply a quintessentially PC game that continues to define gaming and online play with every release.

Playstation Game of the Year - Metal Gear Solid 4 Sons of the Patriots: Another category I wish I was more familiar with, but MGS4 seems to be a hot pick for GotY overall and certainly looked outstanding to me. I wish I owned a Playstation, but don't, and this was the only release this year that really made me want to buy one. Positive word of mouth was probably the biggest reason for this selection.

Publisher of the Year - Rockstar Games: This decision was easy because this studio was responsible for not one but two award-winning games this year. Although I found the car controls and framerate issues in GTA IV annoying enough that I didn't really want to give it any general GotY awards, I certainly don't feel justified in denying this award to the fine folks at Rockstar Games.

Retailer of the Year - Valve (Steam): No single retail outlet has had as dramatic an impact on game sales this year as Valve's Steam Client. Steam has brought games back from the dead, spurred game sales, and become a one-stop-shop for all varieties of PC games. In addition some games only work through Steam, making it tough to discount this platform as the most important game deployment and distribution platform since Xbox Live and Apple's online store.

Soundtrack of the Year - Braid & Burnout Paradise: This is not something I'm really concerned with, but Burnout Paradise has a fantastic soundtrack. My first choice for this award was Braid (and I did write in to GJ over it), but I certainly don't feel bad about picking Burnout Paradise here either.

UK Developer of the Year - Criterion: The quickest connections that I made here were Rockstar North to GTA IV and Criterion to Burnout Paradise. There was no Lionhead Studios (Fable II) option. Given that restriction, I simply feel that Burnout Paradise was the better game for me. Although GTA IV certainly has an immersive and well-developed world from beginning to end, great foot controls, and an outstanding story and cast of characters, framerate issues and awkward car handling (am I faulting a game for being too realistic? Yes.) really detracted from my enjoyment of the game. While the storyline and shooting controls were good enough to get me to finish the game (this is a huge compliment, I almost never finish games unless I really enjoy them), I really wished that the car controls and graphics were a little bit more appealing to me. While Burnout Paradise was a huge step forward from Burnout Revenge, I couldn't say the same about the transition from San Andreas (one of the best games I have ever played) to Grand Theft Auto IV. Needless to say, I have a great deal of respect for both of these studios.

The Ultimate Game of the Year - Left 4 Dead: This decision was really tough. I feel like if I had played MGS4 I might have a different pick here. To me, it came down to Left 4 Dead, WotLK, Braid (which wasn't an option, sadly), Burnout Paradise, and Warhammer 40K DoW II (again, a personal favorite that probably shouldn't win). Of these, I simply felt that L4D was the most complete and revolutionary gaming experience here. It was certainly a tough decision.

Xbox Game of the Year (why is this here and not with all of the other system awards?) - Braid: Sorry Call of Duty fans, Braid was simply the best 10 hours of game that I played all year. While it was tough to pick Braid as an overall Game of the Year since it was so short, I certainly didn't feel bad about picking it in a more narrow category.

Whew! That was a long one!

-Jon

Defense Grid: The Awakening Review

Defense Grid: The Awakening Review
Innovation: 5/10
Mastery: 9/10
Greatness: 7/10

Tower Defense is a simple game system that is casual-friendly and can be quite advanced when you get down to it. I've been playing Tower Defense games since the Warcraft III days, and they are one of the best time-wasters I know of. Widely available on websites such as Kongregate and Newgrounds, there are literally hundreds of different Tower Defense games out there, which for the most part have their own special game elements to them. Plants vs. Zombies, PopCap's newest game, is an interesting take on the genre. However, if you are looking for the "best of breed" Tower Defense game, look no further than Hidden Path Entertainment's Defense Grid: The Awakening.

I purchased Defense Grid last weekend on Steam for a paltry sum of $5 (It's still on sale for $5, this week only) after its graphics piqued my interest, I read a few reviews, and played through the game's demo on Steam.

Like many other Tower Defense games, in Defense Grid you are given the task of deploying towers along a path to protect an area from an unending assault of mindless mobs. While most TD games allow you to either place towers in predetermined areas out of the mob's path or allow you to create your own path for the mobs within a certain area, Tower Defense features both types of gameplay. You have a variety of towers (10, with three levels each to be precise) with which to inflict punishment on the baddies, and each has its own strategic purpose. Most enemies (particularly as the game goes on) have resistances, immunities, or special aspects that make them resistant to certain damage types.

Defense Grid starts out pretty easy, but ramps up the difficulty significantly by the end of the game. In addition, since you can receive bronze, silver, and gold medals based on your performance in each level, there is a fair amount of replay value for most levels. In addition, you can increase the speed of the game at any time by holding down the F key, which is great for figuring out a level quickly or fast-forwarding through the time between waves. Lastly, the game saves your progress for you in the middle of levels, allowing you to load previously saved progress. This is something that is pretty unique for the genre and definitely a welcome addition if you don't have the time to play through some of the later levels several times over.

Although the balance of the various towers and the monster variety make this game stand out, it is also Defense Grid's cores system that makes this game the best Tower Defense game out there. In most TD games out there, monsters begin on one side of the screen and make their way to the other side. In Defense Grid however, monsters begin at point A, move to the power generator where the cores are stored, pick up cores and either return to point A or advance to another point B. If you kill them while they are returning cores, the cores will slowly waft their way back over to the generator. However, if all of the cores are gone from the generator, mobs will be able to pick up the cores which are making their way back, which significantly increases the pace of the game at some points, and acts as another factor in your building decisions, since it is no longer always best to build at the points along the path that mobs will pass the most en route to their final destination. While this sounds pretty elementary, in the later levels of the game this delivers a true challenge to the game, and significantly increases the intensity and exhilaration that the game provides, while somewhat helping with the game's immersion factor (something lacking in nearly all TD games).

Defense Grid isn't terribly innovative, but completely master's the Tower Defense mini-genre, and is worth the purchase for any fan of Tower Defense games out there. In short, if you are looking for the current definitive Tower Defense experience, look no further than Defense Grid: The Awakening.

-Jon

Twilight Imperium Impressions

News has been a little slow lately, which has been unfortunate because although I've wanted to write up a few more entries, I haven't been seeing interesting enough content worth discussing as of late. I've spent the last week or so playing Left 4 Dead, which I finally spent enough time playing to really get into. I've also been replaying the campaign for Dawn of War II, a game that appeals to me personally and I think has been underrated by the gaming public.

This weekend, I spent the week up at a friend's house near Albany NY. We saw the Star Trek movie in IMAX (which was insane by the way, go and see it now) and geeked out on board games.

We played one game of Power Grid, Puerto Rico and Twilight Imperium 3rd edition each, and several games of Colossal Arena (which is a great game for casual gamers and also great when you only have three or four people. I don't recommend playing it with more than four).

Power Grid and Puerto Rico are two games that we have played before and have really enjoyed. Power Grid in particular is a fantastic game, though our first few game experiences were significantly hampered by one of the worst rulebook layouts I have ever seen.

Twilight Imperium, though is the topic of the post. Twilight is one of those games that tries to be the "game of the ages" and attempts to bite off more than it can chew. The game costs about $80, and the rulebook for this game is intense. The basic jist of the game is that you control a space faring empire that is trying to take over the galaxy. The gameboard is built during each game and can be balanced or very one sided. There is battle, trade, sabotage, exploration, technology, alliances and mission systems which must all be understood by each player, and a lot of book-keeping to go along with the game's relatively slow pace.

It took us about two hours of explaining the rules to the new players (only three of the players knew how to play the game) before we finally felt comfortable starting the game up. We had taken some time beforehand to make sure that all player's starting stacks were somewhat balanced (so one person didn't have too much production, influence, etc). We were also playing with all of the errata for the game (yes, there is a lot of errata in this game), including a custom change for the Imperial action to make it require players to control Mecatol Rex in order to get the 2 Victory Points.

Still, after all that errata, it really wasn't a good play experience. The game becomes bogged down with several of its elements, and many mechanics seem to reward sitting back and hoping that the other players take each other out with you moving in for the kill. We quit about 5 turns into the game simply because noone wanted to make an aggressive move until we got bored enough and had played nearly all of our units.

The biggest problem with the game for me was simply that I got caught between the two "best" players at the table in my estimation. I had a pretty defensive race, which I didn't realize when I picked it but was made abundantly clear as the game went on. At one point I wanted to move on the player to my left, but the best that I could do was attack one of the worlds adjacent to his homeworld, beat up his small fleet there, and get counterattacked by his fleet at the adjacent sector after he had built at his homeworld in the interim.

The whole experience made me realize one thing about game design: design games that encourage people to take risks and PLAY THE GAME. By the time we stopped, no-one could tell who was in a strong position simply because it was so difficult to identify all of the ships in one space, so even evaluating attacks required us to broadcast our intentions to the rest of the group.

I think TI might have worked better in another group that was more risk-taking and perhaps had a better grasp of the rules. Still, it is sometimes fair to judge a game on the merit of a single playthrough, and although I will probably end up trying TI again at some point, I can certainly say that the game would be better off if it was a bit easier to understand and encouraged players to take risks.

-Jon

Demigod is not DotA

So, I've spent the last few days playing Demigod online. Just played my first online match this morning.

I'm not sure I'll ever get around to reviewing the game, but I felt it was worth my time to comment on it at this point.

First of all, this game is NOT that similar to DotA, or Death of the Ancients, a popular Warcraft III custom map/mod. This game is really more similar to the Aeon of Strife games that came before it. For starters, there are many more units on screen in a typical game of Demigod than in a typical game of DotA, and there are more than just melee and archer creeps. There are also angels, which are basically flying creeps, siege weapons (and they appear every wave as opposed to every 3 or 4), and healing creeps. In addition, like in the AoS lines of games (there were quite a few variations), you can upgrade your creeps, adding extra unit types and making them stronger. Like in AoS, these upgrades are essential to winning the game.

In addition, the emphasis in this game seems to be much more on the right click abilities than the left click abilities. What I mean by this is that when you are fighting against other heroes in this game, a higher percentage of your damage comes from white damage (your regular attacks) than spells, which is a pretty significant change. In addition, movement is much slower in this game. It takes forever for your unit to cross the screen (but a screen is a much bigger portion of the map in this game too.

The last thing that makes this game like AoS rather than DotA is the item system. To this point, I haven't seen a single recipe in this game, nor have I seen items with really crazy use effects (like hex staff or wind stick, or even Aghanim's Scepter aka Ult Staff).

When all is said and done, I think that this game is probably less skill intensive overall than DotA. The item system isn't as intricate, the heroes are a little bit blander (but much more customizeable), and the pacing of the game is a little bit slower overall.

That's not to say I haven't been having fun with the game. The graphics are very good, and I did really enjoy the various AoS mods in their heyday. The four "Generals" in this game can be quite challenging to use effectively, though I prefer the four "Assasins", particularly Regulus, aka Sniper. See the screenshot above for more information on how much I like him (In the screenshot, I am JohnnyJohstneft).

In short, if you like DotA but haven't played AoS, played AoS and liked it, or just want to try something new, this game can be quite a bit of fun. The online multiplayer still seems to be a little laggy, but the state of the game has improved substantially in the last few days.

-Jon

Braid Review

Braid - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 9.5/10
Mastery: 10/10
Greatness: 9.5/10

So, it has been awhile since I've posted a formal review. My roommate and I have spent a good deal of time playing this game which you have probably heard of called Braid. While Braid appears at first to be a run of the mill side-scroller, don't let first impressions fool you. Braid may just be one of the most fulfilling gaming experiences that I've had the pleasure of playing. From beginning to end, Braid is one of the most finely crafted, innovative, and polished games on the market today, if not the most, ever.

Simply put, Braid is a side-scrolling puzzle game that plays with the concept of time in fascinating, dynamic and non-intuitive ways. Braid presents a relatively simple story--that of a boy/man/prince trying to find his princess, who is always, as a friendly walrus will frequently remind you, in another castle. To find his love, the protagonist plays his way through a series of worlds, each of which forces you to play with the flow of time in a unique way. There is the introductory world, a shadow world, a world in which movement affects time, a world with an object that slows time, and more. Each world is made up of several stages, in which there are several puzzle pieces to find. By obtaining all of the puzzle pieces from each world, players finish a picture of that world, and by finishing pictures in all of the worlds, proceeds to the final world in which the plot is resolved(?).

Braid is so unique from a game design perspective that it is easy to stop there and forget some of the other things that its creator, Jonathan Blow, has done.

First, Braid has an elegantly crafted and ultimately mind-blowing story. While it might not be that gripping at first--trust me--just keep reading the books as you go along. At some point in your experience, there will be a complete 180 degree shift in your understanding of the story. When that moment occurs, it's hard not to sit back and gaze in awe at how well you are led through the game, then violently shaken and forced to accept a second reality. In addition, there is at least one entirely different and revolutionary interpretation to the story which was brought to my attention by my roomate. It is crazy, and the more that I hear about this "alternate" understanding, the more I believe that it may be intentional. The plot, while not initially promising, should not be dismissed as one of Braid's strongest aspects.

Visually, the game is artistically profound and, again, well designed. Kudos to David Hellman, the lead (only?) artist, for creating such an impressive work. While technically, the graphics will not astound you, the visuals are fantastically crafted, and fit in with the game's storybook setting perfectly.

The sounds and music in Braid are outstanding as well. The music in particular, really brings out the somber, lost, and confused element of the game, and draws you in to Braid's fantastical world and sets the tone for the game. The sound design is strong as well, though there are few sound effects that really stand out (the ones that will always do it for me are the bunny/cat sound effects).

Puzzles are mind-bending and complex, but rarely too difficult to figure out after a long period of time. Many of them have multiple solutions. Most importantly, however, none of them are rehashes of other puzzles. Though some of them put you in similar situations (the boss battles come to mind), each of them has a different execution strategy. Moreover, the solution that you find first to a puzzle is rarely the best, as my roommate proved to me during his speed run (although I'm sure some of you have done better, I was more than impressed with his 39 minute completion time). All of them are elegantly designed, and force you to really tinker with your understanding of the flow of time in relation to the game world you are currently progressing through.

All of this would make for an outstanding recommendation, but the final piece of the puzzle to me lies in the fact that Braid's designers and developers seem to be truly wonderful people. Jonathan has given several speeches at gaming conventions, David has released the game assets for public consumption, and the music is available online. Braid has now been ported to the PC and Mac, where players can even create their own masterpieces using Braid's new level editor.

While Braid isn't exactly the only game you'll find yourself playing this year, I highly encourage you to go download a copy yourself. Regarding the statement that video games can indeed be art, I would submit Braid as exhibit number one in its defense. Braid is so phenomenally designed and executed on so many levels that it is hard to label it anything but a masterpiece.

My Brute

I usually don't do two posts in one day, but with tax season behind me, I have some time to do a little extra posting, and this article ties in pretty well with some of the complexity posts I have recently written.

I found a simple flash game the other day thanks to one of my coworkers, who commented that it was a cute little game. Another coworker of mine and me both signed up, just to see what it was like.

Character creation is fairly simple. Simply select a name for your character, and then click the change appearance button (it's not actually labeled, but its to the bottom-left of your avatar) until you find something you like. Then click the recolor button (just below your avatar to the right, looks like a bunch of splotches of paint) until you find something that looks acceptable to you. Click validate, and you're done!

Whatever you do, don't customize your avatar and then choose your name. Every time you type a letter, it changes your avatar completely. Don't ask me why. It's completely mind-numbing why they would do this, and I wasted a few minutes trying to find another avatar I liked.

Once you're in the game, there's nothing to do except find an opponent to battle. Simple and clean. Just select your opponent from a list of six, or type in a friend's character's name to initiate a battle against them. If you win, you will get two experience, if you lose you will only get one. You have three battles a day (though you get 5 on the first day).

The battles look great. The battles are simple and fun to watch, with cute characters holding a variety of weapons fighting to the death in a large room. As the battles play out, you get a good feel for what each of the abilities and weapons do, which is very nice, in my opinion.

All of this so far is great. But that's it. Those among you may have noticed that you don't actually do any configuring of your character in the game--that's right, you don't get to customize your avatar any way except for cosmetically. When you begin playing, you are given some stats, abilities, and weapons at random. When you level, you receive another stat, level, or ability at random. There's no equipment, no talents, nothing for you to do.

Why would you "play" a "game" like this, you might ask? I have no clue.

Look, I'm all for simplicity in games, but I still require that there is actually a game to play. I don't want to simply roll random characters and battle those characters against other players.

That's not to say that no-one will like the game. The coworker of mine that played the game ended up playing it for a few days because he liked watching the battles play out. I could totally see players getting a good character and playing the game daily just to watch their characters win battles. But I can't imagine anyone playing this game for such a long time.

It's so disappointing to see a game that initially appealed to me so much be so utterly worthless. All it would have taken is a little more weapon balance and giving players the ability to level up their characters or equip them with weapons and armor.

Sadly, this is not the game as-delivered. Maybe some day someone will make something better.

Civony (Renamed to Evony as of 5/12/09)

So I have been playing a bit of this new game, Civony, over the past few games. Civony is a browser-based nation simulation, but instead of limiting the number of things you do a day, encourages you to play it for a minute or so every 15 minutes, and encourages you to spend about an hour or so a day doing dedicated gaming. I've played a number of these games before, all the way back to Earth 2050 in my high school days, but I found this game in particular interesting because you are constantly doing things, and receive continual feedback from the game.

The beginning of the game is also fairly beginner-friendly thanks to a series of quests at the beginning of the game that allow you to chain up development until you are about ready to go conquer a neighboring plot of land. This is markedly different from other games in the genre, which generally require you to figure the system out before you can actually be a productive member of society. In most other games of this sort, half of the reason to join an alliance is so that you can figure out how to keep even a basic country afloat.

At the same time, this game is fairly complex, and extremely time demanding. I apparently joined this game on opening day, and got into a very good alliance (I totally lucked out, we just happened to get pretty good recruits). In the process of trying to understand the game's economy, I got my civilization (is that what you call it) into the top 100 for about a day.

However, the novelty of the game has begun to wear off as I realize just how much of a time commitment this game requires. Generally speaking, in order to act relatively efficiently, you need to log in two or three times a day and spend a good deal of time doing actions. However, you are never actually "playing" in the traditional sense. Instead, you are simply queuing things to build and research in each of your cities, allowing each action to work until completion, at which point you take a new action.

The game's economic model also seems to need work. Because of the way that beginner quests reward players for completing objectives, some resources were much scarcer than they should have been on opening day, while others were far too plentiful. This likely has to do with the intended long term balance of the game, in which technology factors largely into success, but at this time, causes players to be frustrated with the game, as everyone seems to be always trying to trade their items for gold.

Still, the game appears to be phenomenally successful thusfar. According to people I spoke with in-game, Civony's first server went live only a week before the second server, and the second server had only been up for a little over a day before Civony launched a third. It will be interesting to see how much revenue can be driven off the game, but it certainly has an incredibly strong userbase for this point in it's life cycle.

As for me, my time with Civony has probably come to a close. Although I found its economic model to be interesting, and I liked that it rewarded active participation on my part, it is consuming too much of my time for something that I am not finding to be rewarding. You can certainly accuse me of not giving the game a fair shake (the 7-day beginner's protection period has almost expired), but the other cities in my immediate area's power pales in comparison to my own (many of them have never even played, it appears), and I have no doubt that steamrolling them would simply require me to exert the effort.

I encourage all of you to check this out (unlike most of the free online games I have tried, this game was actually something I could see myself playing over the long haul if I wasn't constantly trying to find new games). I could certainly see many of my friends become absorbed into this game world. You can find it at http://www.civony.com/

If anyone tries it, let me know how it goes.