Civilization: Beyond Earth

Civilization: Beyond Earth

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2014/104/5/3/sid_meiers_civilization_beyond_earth_by_vgwallpapers-d7ei40x.jpg

Civilization: Beyond Earth is the newest installment in the growing Sid Meier's Civilization franchise. This new game changes from the historical fiction inspired gameplay of its predecessors to a futuristic, science-fiction inspired game. As a franchise well-beloved in spite of consistent reiteration, this was a risky switch of genre for Firaxis Games and, while I appreciate the developers trying something new, Civilization: Beyond Earth ultimately leaves something to be desired.

My own experience with the Civilization franchise began many years ago with Civilization III. While not the first in the series of games, the first five iterations all kept to a single premise--reimagining world history. It was this aspect which drew me to take my first turn far more than the turn-based strategy style or the thrill of planning to crush my foes over LAN. I spent the most time with Civilization IV and still some 150 hours with Civilization V, which I liked less in general for its changes to the gameplay and specifically for the way diplomacy worked. My quibbles over Civilization V aside, Civilization: Beyond Earth has done something that no other Civ game has ever done--moved from history and to prophecy.

This past weekend, Civilization:Beyond Earth was available to Steam users for a "free weekend". Previously, I had played the demo of the game also available through the service, but had not felt enticed to purchase the game. Now, having completed an "epic" length game, I'm satisfied with that decision and would like to share my thoughts on why.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/civ-beyond-earth/b/b7/2014-10-26_00017.jpg

Gameplay:
The very first thing that struck me as I started up Beyond Earth (after getting past some curiously long loading times) was how similar it seemed to be to Civ5. In terms of appearance, user interface, and options much of the game felt familiar.

As I took to exploring the map I found that there were far more impediments than before. Mountain ranges stretched further and canyons scarred long stretches of terrain which I could never cross. Beyond simply limiting movement, these impediments also served to diminish the effectiveness of ranged units. I see this change as a positive one on the aggregate. It asks the player to balance his military units differently, invites new strategies to approaching points of interest, and most of all gives the map a bit of character.

Choosing how to advance my civilization meant choosing between three "affinities", calculating how I wanted to mete out my civilizations "virtues", and developing technology along new, more complex lines. Affinities decide what ideologies your civilization takes on as it advances deeper into the future. The choice between harmony, purity, and supremacy on a new planet is a matter of philosophy, but none restrict your playstyle. For example, in my playthrough I chose to pursue harmony in order to reach transcendence and commune with the intelligence of our new planet, yet in order to do so I killed most of the indigenous life and repelled the miasmic gas covering much of its surface.

Virtues can be likened to Social Policies from Civ5 with the only new mechanic being bonuses for pursuing a single branch or a single level (i.e. taking the starting virtues in each branch). In my game, I made every effort to expand my civ while making its health (like "happiness" in Civ5) my priority. The addition of new cities far outweighed the effect that buildings and virtues could have in increasing my overall health and I was left struggling to get a positive score for most of the game. While it was frustrating to experience, this left me feeling like the designers had paid some mind to balancing the new game against landgrabbing and in favor of civ development.

The technology trees were refreshing, however, as there was no longer a single path to a given tech but rather a web of paths. There is a steep downside, however, because most of the new technologies would have fallen under the category of "future tech" in previous iterations, the tech web becomes a mire of neologisms that isn't intriguing when considered from the historian's perspective. While this isn't purely a bad thing, it diminishes a part of the game which I, for one, deeply enjoyed. All in all, the depth provided by choices of affinity, virtue, and tech leaves the player with many ways of experiencing a single style of play; whether you like to play a diplomat, a warmonger, or a cultural phenom, you can do so in a variety of ways.

While the new virtue system led me to believe that city management would be emphasized, in actual fact it didn't seem all that important. Rather, the biggest new mechanic was the management of trade routes to and from individual cities. It was no longer a matter of a road connecting two civs, but instead of a worker-type unit carrying resources between individual cities both domestic and foreign. Due in part to my inexperience with the new game, building city improvements was largely a "build it and see" experience. I knew that I wanted buildings which increased my civ's health, but the difference between building an aqueduct and a cytonursery is a matter of fact versus fiction. This was one of many instances where the lack of concrete imagery and history diminished the experience I have come to enjoy and expect from a Civ game.

Overall, the gameplay in the new Civilization leaves me wanting something more. Turn processing takes too long, especially later in the game, and the game itself hasn't done much to invite new playstyles or refresh old ones. While things look a bit different at the end I'm left feeling like I haven't played a new game. All in all the changes and improvements don't amount to much more than I could have seen coming from  robust DLC or an expansion.

http://dispositiv.uni-bayreuth.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Tec.jpg

Visual Effects/Art Style:
Even more than Civilization: Beyond Earth's gameplay reminded me of Civ5, the graphics felt exactly the same. I'm sure that side-by-side I could see some improvements, but there was nothing new in this game that made an impression graphically. With an entirely new planet to play with, that's a big disappointment. It's not that things aren't different, it's that they're the same. New units and new buildings have different skins, but operate and behave the same way. Combat looks a little smoother, but not in any ways that stand out. The maps themselves look and feel more dense than before, but the entire palette relies too heavily on green and blue leaving too little contrast and vibrancy for an exciting, alien world. This is even more true if the player chooses to follow the "harmony" affinity as I did, which makes units and some buildings take on this same overused color palette.

http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/949/9490474/2504221-3purity+marine_study+copy.jpg

Sound Effects/Music:
With the singular exception of the occasional audio clipping during loads, the soundtrack in Civilization: Beyond Earth is terrific. As I played, the music brought me to reminisce on Mass Effect, Halo, and even Jurassic Park. It created a wonderful ambience such that at times I preferred to listen rather than play the game.

Yet that's not the whole story. While the soundtrack is great, it often felt disconnected from what was going on in game. It was immutable whether I expanded, developed, or waged war. In times of peaceful trade and bloody warfare it didn't meld itself into the background of the experience and instead just hummed along over the top of everything. So, while I would absolutely recommend listening to the soundtrack on its own, there is no greater level of appreciation to be had from taking it in alongside the game.

The soundtrack is quite possibly the best part of the new game.

Story and Narrative:
In a game traditionally defined by the player's choices, story and narrative can vary wildly or not at all from game to game. In my games I often find myself considered a "warmonger" by the other civilizations by the time the game is ended, and I've come to embrace that. It's the way I choose to play the game and in Civilization: Beyond Earth I am given a variety of ways I can go about playing in that way. The variety of possibilities in the game is something to be applauded. It's not as simple as "this player plays like this and that player plays like that" because there are many ways of going about things and many ways of coming to the same conclusions. Pursuing different tech or different affinities can make the same essential story feel different.

Now while this is satisfying in theory, what is lacked is a significance to it all. Whether one wins by diplomacy or warfare, the story that one has told still has no characters and no setting. The alien planet and the post-earth civilizations have no historical basis. While I appreciate a good piece of science fiction at least as much as the next guy, there was an important aspect of the old Civilization games which came from seeing history interact in new ways. It was a sort of enlightenment to see how the course of a civilization might be shaped by its leaders and ideologies and Civilization: Beyond Earth seems to assume that fans of the franchise were ready to move beyond that rather than deeper into it.

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4773828/Human_hive.jpg

Entertainment Value:
So far I've spent about six hours with Civilization: Beyond Earth and I have invested $0 in it. Given what I have experienced I am satisfied to leave it at that.

While Civilization V changed gameplay elements and upset the way the game had been played for years, it was still the same experience at its core and that was the experience I was paying for when I bought a Civilization game. Civ5 wasn't my favorite iteration, but it was a true successor. Civilization: Beyond Earth feels like an entirely different game borrowing Civilization's gameplay (and, to a point, it's graphics as well). It's the odd cousin, the ugly duckling, the sore thumb, in a well beloved and long-running franchise. While it opens up the game to some very exciting ideas through the Steam Workshop and modding communities, the game alone is not worth the investment of time and money.

I hope that in a few months there will be another free weekend and that modders will have infringed on copyrights from games like Halo and Mass Effect, but I just don't have any desire to own the game by itself.

http://i2.wp.com/www.matchstickeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CivBE-Victory.jpg

Conclusion:
When I reached the end of my playthrough (about 150 turns later than expected) I was welcomed with a single pop-up congratulating me. Feeling like I had accomplished all that I desired to in the current game (again, about 150 turns before the actual end...), I chose to exit the game expecting a few pages of statistics and time-lapses. When I saw that I was in fact just being returned to the main menu I was disappointed and a little mad. It wasn't a big deal in previous games. It wasn't like I spent hours mulling over where and when I could have and should have expanded or attacked, it was just something nice to see--a reminder of where I had come from and where I had ended up. The end of a game in Civilization: Beyond Earth is like a song which has already gone on for too long missing the last beat. It's a sour way to wrap things up and doesn't appreciate the time and energy the player has spent playing the game.

More than anything the game is missing "final touches" that would make it look and feel polished. The units behave the same as they always have, the cities are just as static as they have always been, and the environment doesn't feel alien with the single exception of miasmic gas hanging over some tiles. If they really wanted to sell players on their new environment and mode, then more attention should have been paid to entertaining and delighting them rather than giving them what they were already accustomed to seeing. Civ5 took some major steps away from its predecessor in terms of gameplay and maybe Firaxis didn't want that kind of heat from its fans again, but Civilization: Beyond Earth already upsets so much of what was done in previous iterations that leaving much of anything the same doesn't serve the interested players.

Personally, I hope that the franchise returns to the historical fiction inspired gameplay of its roots, perhaps taking some of this newest game's improvements along the way. As of today, however, a new announcement has been made for the franchise:

Sid Meier's Starships looks like an "all-in" from the franchise on its new mode. While not explicitly a turn-based strategy game, Starships looks like an announcement which prophesies the direction that the franchise plans to take. This leads them away from the fans who have supported them in the past and into a new genre already mired with half-finished kickstarters and well-beloved indie titles. It's not that leaving your fans behind to do something new is a travesty on any level, it's just that it's a big investment to make into a genre which already has it's darlings.

Post E3 Rant

It's been awhile since I made a post, so here's a short one about E3 and what I've been playing these past few weeks.

Even after E3, I haven't found something new to be really excited about. That isn't to say that there weren't plenty of new announcements, nor is it to say that I won't want those games more when more information on them is available, but the sheer number of new games that are sequels in established franchises is what gets to me: Assassin's Creed 5, Batman Arkham Knight Borderlands the Pre-Sequel, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Civilization: Beyond Earth, Dragon Age: Inquisition (sound), Fable Legends (sound), Gears of War 4, Halo 5, The Legend of Zelda for Wii U, Mass Effect 4, Starfox for Wii U, The Witcher 3. If you're a gamer with shallower pockets than you'd like, these are all games to wait for. Pre-ordering any of these (or, for that matter, believing any of their hype) is a mistake and is going to leave you disappointed. For now, let the critics sort them out and just forget about their (game-breaking) pre-order bonuses.

Now, Assassin's Creed is set up for reiteration and some others, like The Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight, have only drawn upon a fraction of their total lore, but it is clear that many of these sequels are only being made for the security of their namesake. Both The Legend of Zelda and Starfox for Wii U are pointless entries in an already protracted catalogue, for example. Sure, many gamers are (inexplicably) excited for these new games, but I find it highly unlikely that those gamers are really interested to see anything new in them. Remember Starfox Adventures? The one where Fox isn't in his Arwing for most of it? It was awful. So while more of the same thing isn't always bad (like with pie!) it leaves me altogether nonplussed.

And then there are games like Mass Effect 4 and Halo 5. Both original trilogies have ended and it's as though no one learned anything from Star Wars. A new beginning is the answer to a good ending, but apparently the heads over at Electronic Arts and Microsoft won't let a good thing go when it's over. And from a business man's perspective, their sunk costs in advertising the previous games will make the public more receptive to their next marketing campaign--so, why shouldn't they? 

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/271298-mass-effect-3-endings-reception

Because anything that climaxes has to then fall, which means things are wrapped up and the story should be ended. The story that Mass Effect promised to tell is over. The ending wasn't the best part, but that doesn't mean you can take it back and it doesn't mean that the story isn't over. All Bioware can do now is try to prolong the life of a dying franchise and hope that they can turn it into some kind of money-vomiting zombie like Call of Duty or the Sonic franchise. EA ought to let Mass Effect go and invest somewhere else, but I'm relatively certain that they won't. And, for that matter, Dragon Age didn't see much improvement the last time they made a sequel--so it's time for some new title all around.

And as for those poor souls at 343 Industries, I hope they've all come to terms with the fact that they'll be making Halo games until they quit, die, or more likely get fired. The sheer merchandising efforts poured onto Halo over the last few years is evident of a powerful company throwing its financial weight around: Books, Audiobooks, Action Figures, Animated Movies, Live-Action Movies, and Animated Movies That Look Like Live-Action Movies! The artists working on Halo have done wonders for growing the lore, but over the next decade or so that won't save the franchise from its doom. They can tell new stories until they're blue in the face, but they can't relight the fire that made Halo the exciting, new game franchise that it used to be. That means they are relegated to selling a simpler, less exciting product to an older, less exciting market.

If you can produce a game every 5 years for 30 years, then by the time you're done you'll have attracted the attention of at least one solid demographic. In theory, as that demographic ages, you can target your products to their age bracket and keep profiting. In reality, me at 5 years old was interested in entirely different games than I was at 15, and I can't imagine myself at 15 is going to have much in common with myself at 30. That's the problem with franchises like these, we tire of them after awhile. Call of Duty and EA's sports franchises are great examples of just how quickly a franchise can become tired if you release annually, and, likewise, are good examples of how to survive in that afterlife. Mario, the patron saint of long-lasting game franchises, has found that the best way to remain relevant is to innovate the game itself while leaving the established story on the liminal edge. Smash Brothers, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy--they all focus the players attention on the innovation to the gameplay itself and away from a rather unimportant narrative. This will not work for a franchise wherein the narrative is meant to drive the gameplay i.e. Halo, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fable, Gears of Wars, etcetera).  Their best chances at reiteration come from their multiplayer aspects, but nothing can cure the fact that you can't leave the story out of a game about a story. Halo has been tried as an RTS title to little success, and BioWare shelved their own Mass Effect FPS project before anyone got a good look at it. Fable Legends looks poised to try and change its skin with its new 4v1 play-style and some pre-fabricated character classes, but I hold little hope for this one to do anything important in the land of Albion (I did sign up for the multiplayer beta on their website, though).

But let's not focus on just the negatives. I don't think all is lost for these franchises if they can change the way their DLC packs are perceived by the gaming public. With a few notable exceptions, most of the DLC that I've played in my life has been underwhelming (i.e. Horse Armor). But this needn't be so; I've felt for years that if EA, for example, should support their sports titles with roster updates even after the newest iterations were released for a nominal fee? I'm more willing to buy a game that I can continue to use for two or three years at a time--much more willing than I am to buy one full game every four or five years. The point I'm making is this: I'd rather buy good DLC for an older game like, say, Mass Effect 2 than another entry in that series sans Shepard. I would rather be the Master Chief again than some colony-world bumpkin who idolizes him. I would rather have the titles I'm invested in supported than be asked to buy a new one. Selling new games is important too, but those should be new games instead of the high resolution reiterations that the industry is seeing over and over again.

 The lesson here is this: Let a good story be over once it has been told. It's better to trust a game company to make good, new games than trust an old franchise to hold everyone's attention.

/rant

http://fanboygaming.com/a-fangirl-weekly-discussion-dlc-worth-buying/

As for what else has been going on these last few weeks, I still think Smite is a great game that is well-supported and worth your time, but Elder Scrolls Online has been having a tough time vying for my attention lately. My brother recently went back to playing Rift after being disappointed by WildStar and I dabbled a bit when he asked me if I wanted to play too. However, to my surprise I found myself wanting to go back to a different universe--a galaxy far, far away in SWTOR. What I found there was EA up to its old tricks--adding gambling to an already addictive genre of game in what I can only assume is some depraved, cash-mad sociology experiment. I did get a cool chestpiece out of the deal, though.

I'll elaborate more on why EA is evil in another rant in the near future, but I would like to take the chance to mention their recent summer sale, which was something I hadn't expected from them. Typically, EA only sells their games for top-dollar, but a few weeks ago they put many of their games on sale for around 50% off. I snagged Titanfall and a PC version of the original Mass Effect, both of which I have been enjoying a great deal. It was Titanfall on sale that really shocked me. It's their newest big game, though I guess they have mostly been pushing it for Xbox One. I'll share more of my thoughts on the full game in a future post. In any case, their sale was likely an attempt to grab a little attention before the slurry of internet chatter began to focus exclusively and reverently on the Steam Summer Sale (going on now!). All in all a smart move from EA  to license some digital rights and a welcome opportunity for me to get some games I've wanted at a price nearer to their real value.

And before I sign off I should mention the Steam Summer Sale at least one more time. It's pretty great and all, but this year I'm just not seeing many games that I really want to buy. Even the super-cheap indie ones either don't appeal to me or I already own them. Still, there are a few days left and it only takes one super deal to make all the time and attention I've payed worth it (because the trading cards certainly aren't doing it for me).

Space Engineers

There's nothing wrong with loving space, so I'm going to follow up my post on Shattered Horizon with another on a game which I expected would be similar, Space Engineers. The game is still under development by Keen Software House, but is available for early access through Steam for the hefty sum of $19.99. Now, generally, such a price on something that isn't done yet would deter me, but after thoroughly enjoying the concept I found in Shattered Horizon, I was eager for a more satisfying game with the same "lost in space" feel to it. So, before doing any of the appropriate research, I bought Space Engineers. To say that I regret buying it and that the only good thing I'll be getting out of the game is this blog post might be too harsh so early on, but at the moment I'm a bit sensitive about getting someone's hopes up before they're utterly dashed.

And now that I've set your expectations as low as I can, let me expound on the good aspects of Space Engineers. It has multiplayer. You can swap between first- and third-person camera views. You can build things and then look at them. So, now that that is done...

The game manages to be reminiscent of Minecraft, Robocraft, Shattered Horizon, and Kerbal Space Program all at the same time. It refers to itself as a sandbox game about engineering, construction and maintenance, yet it is, in essence, merely game about blocks (at this stage in development). If you've played Minecraft in creative mode then you've played Space Engineers, except that this game is in space which apparently means you inevitably float away from whatever you are working on (Oh, and don't bump into things or those will float away, too!).

I do think there is a market for games like this one, but I am sure that I am not a part of that demographic. Minecraft is quite popular among some groups and to fans of that game I'd recommend taking a look at Space Engineers, but if you're like me then those games lose your interest astonishingly fast. Don't get me wrong, I like to build things, I used to play with Legos for hours, I found construction to be the best part of Robocraft, but this game feels aimless. The trouble is that I don't enjoy the building process. For one thing, it's infuriating just trying to stand still as you can never quite get your inertia back to zero. True, you can stand on a platform while you work for some stability, but then you move like an over-encumbered dragonborn. I understand that these things are part of a realistic space simulation, but Space Engineers is a block-building game (at the moment) that is only made more frustrating and less fun for all the realism in it. I'm supposed to be frolicking through my imagination, not struggling to get close (but not too close!) to the slab of bricks I built to take me back to the space station.

Still, Space Engineers isn't a game without hope, it's just a game that they shouldn't be selling yet. I'm hopeful for the engineering and maintenance aspects which I have yet to see added to the game, and I do believe there are gamers out there who would enjoy this game as it is more than I do. If Space Engineers can find that audience it stands a chance of entertaining some folks, but it would also be wise to avoid a more massive market unless the game has a good deal more to offer in regards to narrative and variety than is currently available.

Shattered Horizon

"Shattered Horizon" is a first-person zero-gravity space shooter by a Finnish software development company called Futuremark Studios. As a leading producer of computer benchmark software, one might expect that Futuremark's "Shattered Horizon" is a game designed for cutting-edge PCs but it seems that they've elected a safer, simpler approach to their game design.

Gameplay: The first hurdle the player faces in Shattered Horizon is the control scheme.  The game's tutorial consists of four images explaining the keybindings, the HUD, and the game modes, which altogether does little to prepare the player for the experience. It takes a game, maybe two, to adjust to the spinning and rotating which make this game special. Unfortunately, that is typically about as long as you'll be playing this game unless the number of players online picks up dramatically. Single player is simply a match versus bots and, since I have never seen another player playing online, the multiplayer mode is virtually identical. This might be related to the fact that there is no clear means of creating a multiplayer lobby. Beyond this, the game itself includes just five generic classes ranging from shotgunner to sniper.

The zero-gravity element, however, adds flavor to all of this blandness. Once you've learned to land, roll, lift-off, and boost the maps become playgrounds of skill and strategy. The first time I encountered an upside-down AI bot firing away I was convinced that the concept of this game was its strength. Not only is the zero-gravity element exciting and refreshing to a genre that is beyond stale at this point, it invites a gamer to imagine how awesome first-person zero-gravity games could be. The experience of this game is one that does not entirely serve the game because the best parts have nothing to do with the objectives. There is an undeniable joy and an immutable sense of freedom in jetpacking around structures in space which overshadows the combat-centric game modes. The fundamental flaw in Shattered Horizon is that winning the game asks the player to ignore the most enjoyable part of the game's experience--the atmosphere.

"There is an undeniable joy and an immutable sense of freedom in jetpacking around structures in space which overshadows the combat-centric game modes."

Visual Effects / Art Style: Shattered Horizon relies on the atmosphere it creates to deserve your playing time. To this end, it is important that the game's visuals serve both as interesting spectacles and entertaining battlegrounds. Satellites, shipping containers, and asteroids create an environment which is desolate, eerie and captivating. The cold silence of the final frontier can be felt best when the player deactivates their HUD (purportedly to make them harder to detect for enemy sensors) leaving them in the soundless vacuum of space. The environments themselves are highly satisfying and provide an engaging backdrop to the task at hand, but the backgrounds beyond are less adept at maintaining the ambiance as they tend to be mere star maps. As for the visual effects specifically, the HUD is hard to read and the maps are entirely static. It would be nice to have a chance to blow up a few things or start a fire here and there in order to make the environments a more engrossing place in which to play. As it is, the map textures are pleasing, but the game lacks a deeper attention to details.

"As it is, the map textures are pleasing, but the game lacks a deeper attention to details."

Sound Effects / Music: The most powerful sound in space is silence. The darkness is vast and bleak and the game should capitalize on the opportunity to make the player feel lonely. While deactivating the HUD and drifting near your team's spawnpoint demonstrates that Shattered Horizon is capable of this, the objectives and endless respawns of AI bots counter this effect a great deal. Given the space-faring concept of this game, it is subject to the principle of 'less is more',  and yet it seems the developers did not keep this well enough in mind. It's nice that deactivating the HUD gives the player that deep-space feeling, but the game's design makes this an unreasonable strategy. Between the gunfire and audio messages a great deal of the ambient satisfaction is lost, and that's a real shame in a game which has demonstrated that it is capable of it.

"Between the gunfire and audio messages a great deal of the ambient satisfaction is lost, and that's a real shame in a game which has demonstrated that it is capable of it."

Story and Narrative: I wish there was more to say here. The simple fact is that the majority of the story that Shattered Horizon provides comes in blurbs tucked away in loading screens. While long loads makes for ample time to peruse these tidbits, they do little more than explain the motives for each teams presence. The teams themselves aren't any different, so the games have nothing beyond a simple "red vs. blue" setup. I mentioned above that the game invites the player to imagine ways that the game's concept could be employed elsewhere, as in an FPS-RPG à la Mass Effect. In short, it feels like there is a lot of potential here that's being squandered by a tired game model.

Entertainment Value: There are a few things worth experiencing in Shattered Horizons. For one, there is the atmosphere that a zero-gravity first-person game creates. For another, there is the joy of exploring the space-scape, dodging behind asteroids and peeking over solar panels. And yet for all the promise held in the game's concept, the execution leaves much to be desired. They started with a great idea and they made that first idea work, but then they followed a formula for everything else. Couple that with empty multiplayer lobbies and you've got a dud on your hands. A pretty dud, mind you, but a waste of $9.99 all the same. If this were a F2P game, I'd say download it and experience the atmosphere, but instead you're better off waiting for a better developer to pick up the idea and do something worthwhile with it.

"...you're better off waiting for a bigger developer to pick up the idea and do something worthwhile with it."

Lastly, I've got a couple 3-day passes for the game. Leave a comment if you're interested!

Papers, Please!

I first heard about Papers, Please! over the holidays. It's a puzzle game developed by Lucas Pope wherein the player is an immigration officer for the fictional country of Arstotzka. Since it went on sale, I decided to pick up a copy and try it out. I was expecting something a little prettier, but I'm not dissatisfied with what I got.

Gameplay: As an immigration officer for the nation of Arstotzka, the player's task is to check that the documents provided by NPC's are correct and match one another. Rules change day-to-day based on various conditions relating to the game's story, like whether certain documents are required for certain reasons and how problems should be processed. Overall, this makes the gameplay feel much like working. What alleviates this to some degree is the story. Throughout the course of a day, certain NPC's may offer you choices or there may be a terrorist attack of some kind. These tend to have repercussions on the coming days but also on how well you are able to feed and care for your four family members. 8/10

Graphics: Papers, Please looks like a game from the 80's. That said, if this game had been made in the 80's we would still be talking about it today, though not because of the graphics. Playing the game reminded me of playing Oregon Trail in grade school as much because of the graphical style as for the game's layout. Much of the action happens in the top-left part of the screen, with the rest being reserved for the player to manage their decisions and review documents. Moreover, the graphical style being reminiscent of the 1980's, as well as the fact that Arstotzka is a communist state,  introduces it as a sort of discourse on Cold War politics. 7/10

Sound: Sound is an area where Papers, Please really succeeds. From the menu screen through to every click you make in-game, Papers, Please responds with sound effects that are more than auditory cues. Sure, they get repetitive, but repetition is a part of the nature of the gameplay and so it deepens the aesthetic feel of the game.The words are unintelligible, but the false language of them lends the game a sense of exoticism important to the overall aesthetic. 8/10

Playing Time: The amount of time you will spend playing this game is less than you would hope. Because of the tendency of the gameplay itself to feel like work, it's very easy to quit after fifteen minutes or twenty minutes. When this is the case, a game ought to be easy to come back to and Papers, Please does succeed in this. Your progress it autosaved at the beginning of each day, so you are free to quit out whenever you please or when your day is not going so well. This is not a marathon game, but it is a game to keep around to play little by little. 5/10

Value: Papers, Please is one of those games where the aesthetics employed make it a work of art as much as a computer game. There are a number of paths  might choose to follow in the game, helping a resistance movement, helping immigrants in need, or just helping oneself to make ends meet. In every case, there are moral issues to wrestle with and subtle discrepancies to inspect that engage the player in his role. For it's regular price, $9.99, one should already have an interest in Cold War politics in order to find that value, but on sale for half that price the game is entertaining enough for anyone. 6/10

Overall: I like this game, and would recommend it if you can get it for five dollars or less. There's no hurry to play it, but the next time Steam puts it up on sale it will be worth picking up. It is interesting conceptually, but the gameplay itself lacks entertainment value. Grade: 74 D 

SolForge, Again.

Since my last post was a repeat, I thought I'd make a thing of it. SolForge is another game that I've kept on playing since I posted about it. That's where the similarities end.

My last post praised Smite for its updates and innovations, but I can't say the same for SolForge. Still, I will begin with the positives. SolForge has had two things going for it after their most recent update. First, they added a few new cards and changed both the art and abilities of a few existing ones. Stuff like that makes me feel like the game is getting worked on, getting polished, and getting ready for a full release. Second, Stoneblade Entertainment's latest e-mail blast informed me that the game has been released on iOS. I have an iPhone, so this was great news for me, but my brother (who plays the game with me) is not so lucky. I was pleased to find that the game is nearly identical on an iDevice, but that left everything feeling a little cramped. I'd think that on a bigger screen that wouldn't be much of a problem, and considering that I think it would be great to play on an iPad. Games can be played between iDevices and PCs which is convenient, as your ongoing games and saved decks are available anywhere.

But the game is stagnating. The new cards are few and the balancing they tried to do did not even touch Grimgaunt Predators, which is one of the strongest creatures in the game. Still, new art and new cards are what the game needs right now, and I'll take anything over nothing. I feel like I've run out of things to do in the game, and that's a huge no-no. Sure, I can play a few games every few days and earn a few chances for the rare new cards, but I have no reason to desire those cards. I can keep using the same deck I've been using for weeks now to win game after game, or try something new only to be faced with a variation on my last deck. In short, the game is not yet balanced. There isn't enough of a "come back and win" feel to most of the matches. They end up feeling tedious. Like reading short sentence after short sentence. There's too much punctuation--not enough flow. Nothing to excite me. Nothing to entice me.

Simply put, I wish there was more I could say about SolForge at this point. In the weeks since my first post on the game nothing has gotten me excited to keep playing. New cards, I feel, are something that the game needs and so the most recent update is a step in the right direction, but it's like giving a starving man a cracker. There has also been a "campaign" button grayed-out on the main menu since release that I would like to hear more about. There does seem to be some backstory to the game (some explanation of just what a "SolForge" is will be nice) and I would hope the campaign aims to explore that, but obviously at this point it is impossible to know. Maybe Stoneblade is planning to wait for an official release before bringing out the campaign mode, which would seem to make sense, but why sacrifice the opportunity to get feedback on it? Furthermore, as the game is starving for attention at the moment, it seems like it would be a better idea to make what they have available sooner than later.

I hope that SolForge will make some improvements and expansions soon, because my interest is waning. It's the kind of game I want to like, but I don't see the developers making the effort for me right now.

Smashmuck Champions

If you've played Monday Night Combat, Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends, then I can describe this game to you rather easily: Smashmuck Champions is to LoL as MNC is to TF2.

But that's oversimplified and, anyway, I don't think many folks have played MNC. So here are the basics of what Smashmuck Champions is: Isometric camera angle, Character "Champions", minion waves, and a few game modes across fewer arenas.

Nothing stands out in this game, and there isn't anything that brings you back to it day after day. I played it three times and, although I enjoyed it, I think I'll be uninstalling it soon. I just don't have any desire to go back.

I think about SolForge, which had a rocky start to say the least, but has a daily reward system that keeps me interested. Daily rewards are common in games these days, (particularly with F2P games) but they need to offer something you want in order to be effective. In SolForge, the prospect of getting lucky with a big pack of cards in my daily reward is enough to keep me earning them day after day.

Smashmuck Champions is altogether too forgettable. To be fair, I haven't tried all the champs, but I don't really care to, either, and in all fairness that's a bigger problem. It's not that the game doesn't have it's quirks, it's idiosyncrasies, and it's not that those aren't a nice change from the games I play every day, but there isn't enough there that's pulling my attention back.

All in all the game has two major problems: the gameplay, which doesn't stray far from the usual and fails to excite, and the relative obscurity of the title. The latter is a disadvantage not to be critical of the game itself for, but in the realm of free-to-play multiplayer games it's a hurdle that has to either be jumped or worked around. Smashmuck Champions does neither, and as a result the game is all too forgettable.

SolForge

I've been playing a bit of SolForge recently. It is free-to-play, and an open beta is available on Steam, so I can recommend it without any qualms.

When I first started playing, the interface was heart-breakingly slow. You would wait three times as long for the game to load as it took to assess and play your hand. It's better now, though still not exactly quick.

I say "heart-breakingly" because the game has been enjoyable since I started playing it. The gripe most new players seem to have is that a starter deck isn't very strong, leaving the player helpless against the CPU's much stronger cards. In my case, I've played enough to have one good deck and one mediocre deck, so the problem isn't one which can't be overcome. You'll need to collect a few stronger cards before taking on "hard" CPUs and online players, so it's not well suited for an immediate binge.

But that plays into the game's charm. It's the kind of game you can play for a few minutes to an hour (at most), and then you'll be more than ready to go do something else. You can come back tomorrow for a daily log in reward and a chance at strengthening your deck, play until you win three games for another daily reward, and then move on.

If you want to play multiple games at once (if you're going to play online, you do), you'll be back and forth between games and the main menu constantly. It would be better if you could have a window open up for each game so that you could keep an eye on all of them at once. I'd love to see that happen in the future.

New cards are coming out and surely some changes are coming to old cards (grimgaunt predators are way OP). The game is still in its early stages and all the problems are certainly not ironed out just yet, but it's free-to-play and games are quick enough that you won't have much trouble keeping the daily rewards coming. The game is easy enough to play that it can appeal to a casual gamer with enough strategy to appeal to old-school tabletoppers. I'd say this game is definitely worth a try, and if you like it you can recommend it to gamer and non-gamer friends alike.