Virtual Legos

I never really did like Legos much as a kid. I would always get frustrated by how easily those rainbow colored blocks came apart and dismantled whatever I was building at the time. Plus I hated it when this happened:

Really, the one thing I enjoyed doing with Legos was following the instructions to build the in-box stage piece, which I then used to make up stories with the included Lego people.

The reason I bring this story up is because the latest indie game to set the world on fire, Minecraft, is essentially a virtual Lego simulation. You gather materials from the randomly generated environment and you build stuff with them. There's a game mechanic where you're supposed to be building a fort to defend yourself against monsters during the night cycle, but most people tend to ignore that mechanic in favor of just building things. By all accounts, I should not like this game. I don't have the patience to build a 1:1 replica of the Starship Enterprise. Nor do I have the creativity needed to build a 16-bit processor within the game. There's also the fact that anyone can mess with what you create if you're playing on a multiplayer server, which means griefing has never been easier. If I didn't like playing with real Legos, then I shouldn't like playing with virtual ones right?

Well, the strange thing is, I actually like Minecraft. And I'm still not truly sure why.

Despite everything Minecraft has going against it, the game has become oddly endearing to me for some reason. I find the more time I spend with the game, the more I appreciate its nuanced design.

You see, there's a rhythm to the way a game of Minecraft unfolds that seems to keep me excited about playing. It starts with the aesthetic style of the game. I'm going to try to explain it, but first, let me simply show you what the game looks like before it gets touched by human hands.

This is the style of Minecraft: cubes and incredibly low resolution textures. This art style adds a lot of charm to the game. It might be the nostalgia factor or it might be the fact that I like Cubism, but the game's aesthetic design is very warm and inviting. It encourages me to explore the rest of this world and see what it has to offer.

Which leads me to the second part of Minecraft's "rhythm" of gameplay: exploration. At the start of every single player game, a new world is created at run time. This means that every new game is a chance to explore something new. And since I consider myself to be part spade gamer, this is perhaps my favorite part of the game. Exploring the world, and getting lost only to find something completely new and unexpected is a great experience. During many play sessions, I'll find myself aimlessly walking around and taking in the environment before I even realize I need to build something to protect myself at night.

The final piece of Minecraft's gameplay is the way in which you manipulate the environment. As I stated before, you destroy blocks to gain materials, which you then use to build other tools and items for your impenetrable fortress. It's a simple and enjoyable mechanic on its own, but it's the previous two parts of the game that really help the building portion stand out. Here is how I think the structure of Minecraft works:

The aesthetic style and the unfamiliarity of the world encourages the player to explore their surroundings. This allows players to find new and essential materials throughout the world. The player can then use these new materials to build the things they need to survive the night cycles. The possibility of finding stronger and rarer materials for building new items keeps the player exploring the world.

It's this structure of gameplay that makes Minecraft an entertaining game. Very few of the ideas in Minecraft are that unique. Randomly generated levels are nothing new in game design, and many of my friends have described Minecraft as "Dwarf Fortress Lite." But the fact that each portion of the game is influenced and built upon the previous gameplay "beat" is a key element to keeping the game fun. Because I was intrigued by the design of the world, I decided to explore it. And through exploring the world, I feel there's more of a purpose to gathering and building in Minecraft that I never really got by playing with Legos. So maybe this is why I like Minecraft; it offers a purpose to building blocks.

Or maybe it's just because I don't have to search for that one piece for twenty minutes.

Aside: I would like to take this moment to apologize to Garrett for accidentally blowing up his replica of the Parthenon the last time I was on the server. I totally wouldn't have used dynamite if I had any other materials. :p

I bought Battlefield Bad Company 2 for 6.75! And Now I'm Done With It! :)

Of the modern warfare, unrealistic, fun fun in the Sun multiplayer shooters, Battlefield Bad Company 2 is critically considered the best. This is so because the NYTimes video game critic Seth Schiesal said so, and he is God.

Gleefully I waited four hours for BBC2 to down and load onto my PC, and, after playing it for ten hours, I am glad to say that I am never going to play it again.

"Why?" I, my only reader, ask myself as I read this post I've written. Well, it's because I get it. I played it, played every map, understood that the weapons you unlock are pretty similar (with the main difference being that some are good and some are suicide). The game sounds great over a sub-woofer. And the coolest thing about the game is that you can blow up everything except people. Wait. Actually, that's lame. Also I just remembered that, even when I played badly, I ranked among the top five on my team because I'm awesome (this is not good because it means that basically I'm at the top of the game and have no skill-based progress to make. Being awesome sucks :(

Anyways, I'm done with it. I don't want to learn how to fly the helicopters. And also I don't like how the game makes me feel sick after playing it for an hour (this is a big turn off for some people). I think it may be because, now and then, the frame rate dips under 30fps. Or maybe it's because I keep feeling disoriented while playing, since everything during battle constantly changes, causing me to focus super intensely, causing me to stop breathing, causing my brain to have damage. Could be that.

Any who, I'm done with it. I'm not going to play it ever again. Unless one of my friends wants to play it with me, or until I can get its Vietnam War-themed expansion for a discount. My friends and I could form one of those four man squads, and not talk to each other because talking is too distracting and leads to failure.

Why I won't finish off Super Meat Boy

I stopped playing Super Meat Boy (no it's not what you think Chrystal) because, after a while, it evolved into being the same experience over and over again. And it's too long (no Chrystal). But it's not really too hard (Chrystal).

It just gets too samey over time. I don't care that it has an original story (it has squirrel genocide); I don't care how good the music and artwork are; I don't even care that the gameplay is super tight.

Actually, one of the problems is its celebrated gameplay! Which has one, big, throbbing inadequacy: Succeeding in Super Meat Boy means, to a large extent, memorizing the various positions you must get your avatar to, and at what exact moments. You have to memorize and precisely, PERFECTLY jerk your controller's buttons to get Super Meat Boy from one position to another, until you cross the map; and you will do this a billion times, going back and forth, back and forth -- restarting and doing it again! This is the case on most maps. And the game is entirely composed of maps. And I think there are 300 of them.

Although my desire to suck this hard game down prematurely came to an end -- Those of you who have an XBOX 360 controller, I recommend that you buy Super Meat Boy, and beat him! Because, as gratuitously hard and long as it can be, Super Meat Boy has a lot of love to give you, and for a low price (15 bucks, and sometimes less!).

The Problem with PC Gaming

In comparison to Console gaming, I usually say PC gaming kicks console ass. Because it does. But! there is one area where it doesn't kick console gaming ass. (Or two areas if you count the Rock Band factor)

I'm talking about the way PC gaming makes you sit. Yes. Many PC gamers consider the way PC gamers sit one of the master race-making qualities of PC gaming (this I learned from Computer Gaming World, a defunct magazine). But let's be real, bitches. Most of us sit like PC gamers too much in other activities! For example, work stuff. Or me typing this (actually I'm in bed sitting on my heels). Driving. Getting your social security number stolen so that once you get back from volunteering in Costa Rica for one year, you realize that you have to spend like three months freeing yourself from fraud. Etc.

Console gaming doesn't have this problem. The stereotype image of the person lying down on the couch, all comfortable, is not necessarily the most beautiful image, but it's healthier than hours of back pain-creating sitting, each day, followed by X more hours of back pain-creating sitting.

In short, the problem with PC gaming is that: Back pain can be painful. For your back.

(But some games are better on PC)

Company of Heroes Online Vs. StarCraft 2

I still think SC2 multiplayer is more fun than Company of Heroes Online. SC2 matches are faster paced, and that game has more players with which to make balanced matches; these qualities make it much more likely for the SC2 player to get into a perfect state of Flow [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) ].

Plus, StarCraft II may actually become a balanced game. Company of Heroes Online will always be like this: If the German players survive long enough and get enough resources to upgrade all their units to veterancy lvl 3, than the American players are at a disadvantage, as each American unit or squad gains veterancy only by killing enemy units, and when a squad gets veterancy-upgraded, only THAT squad gets THAT veterancy upgrade, the one it has earned. The Germans buy their veterancy in bulk while the Americans earn their veterancy per unit. Relic's balancing answer seems to be that: the Americans have a stronger early game, so they can contain the German players into a smaller part of the map, making it less likely for the German players to be able to afford veterancy upgrades; plus the American players, while they dominate the map, can set up traps all over the place. Also, the American players tend to have better access to artillery.

But despite SC2's fun and balance advantages, Company of Heroes Online (this free game I recommend you not play because it is half as addictive as Diablo and WoW) has more tactical depth than SC2, better sound design, realistic graphics (not necessarily better), and is 90% micro, 10% macro (while SC2 is half and half); the nice thing about this is that the 10% macro is pretty much spent on actual strategy, an ideal difference from SC2's pressing-buttons-a-zillion-times-to-get-more-units-building or getting unit-producing structure #10 built; although, many players LOVE mashing those buttons.

I'd say that the artificial intelligence of both games is equally smart. Both games feature a retarded unit (the German's motorbike, the Protoss's Immortal). Neither game features a useless unit.

I read somewhere that the original Company of Heroes took Relic Entertainment as long as it took Blizzard to develop StarCraft II. Five years. That's a lot of life dedicated to making an RTS game! Good thing both games turned out awesome