My initial problems with Neverwinter Nights 2 gave way to the realization that, no matter how undeniable the faults, the fact that the game is sufficiently reminiscent of Baldur's Gate 2 makes me want to forgive it. "Reminiscent" can be taken to mean aping unsuccessfully, if you like, but recalling BG2, which I first played a good 8 years ago, was a meta-pleasure that I will associate with the even otherwise still good NWN2. My character of choice in BG2 was (and still is) a spellcaster, and I still shiver when thinking of some of the higher level spells. I don't know if I will call it the best RPG I've ever played, because there is some very strong competition for that title (and that's only games that I know of). But it is the game that introduced me to the D&D system, which appears to be the de facto setting for almost all modern fare, and as such it's the first comparison for any game in that mould.

(Spoilers in this para) There were a couple of things I liked in the endgame, both of which were incremental novelties. First, the turning of some party members to fight against you was an interesting way to incite emotions in the player. After travelling for hours on end with some people, having them turn on you at the end can really hurt. In my case, I was especially shocked because I had almost exclusively used Qara the whole way through the game, and a betrayal at the very end made me really angry. Angry enough to unleash a WoTB on her :-) Second, the ability to control all your party (save the traitors!) in the final battle definitely makes sense for me. There's no sense in fighting an evil that threatens the fate of the universe and suddenly deciding that beyond four people, control is too difficult. I think that this again lends to the epic feeling of the end fight, because you have a large group fighting in unison against an ominous enemy.

Another thing that NWN2 made me realize is that, contrary to whatever protests I might have about being offered something new in games, I'm at a stage where I'm very happy just chugging along with things that I'm used to. Effort in learning something new is looked upon with great suspicion. NWN2 has a crafting system that lets you create special artifacts, a la Morrowind I suppose. "I suppose" because I spent zero time investigating this, being wholly focussed on getting Qara that Wail of the Banshee so that I could defeat that dratted King of Shadows. (Spoiler: Turns out Shadow Reavers are immune to death magic. Ah.) From memory, even KOTOR might've had this, and there too I completely ignored the undoubtedly enjoyable side-game. Heck, in this game I didn't blink when the area-of-effect spells left party members completely unscathed; no purist would stand for such a thing. (Do you know how much easier boss fights are when you can cast Meteor Swarms with impunity?) I should feel guilty about all this, but to be honest, the mere fact that I was able to enjoy a game after such a long time was good enough. None of which is to say that I've changed my mind about the whole issue of the future of gaming. No, I think I just I don't particularly mind if this is the height of gaming for me. But the medium as a whole ought to try to do better, just so a larger audience can figure out what exactly makes games interesting, and worthy of one's time.

With the general trend of the democratization of the internet, I've noted two trends with regards to video games: (1) mainstream sites (e.g. GameSpot) have seen their reputation plummet, and as consequence, (2) there has been a rise in more independent writing on games (a relatively "mainstream" example might be the Escapist). Both are good things, I think; while I feel that GameSpot isn't as fawning as people claim, I think that the sort of critical analysis that is commonplace with books and movies has been missing from the industry as a whole. Which makes (2) a good thing. In theory.

There are a few dangers with introducing the aforementioned style of critical analysis to a new medium. Two that I can think of are that, obviously, one can go overboard, and also that one can start finding things that are not there, just because pretending they exist, or at least overstating their presence, leads to neater analysis! You might have guessed that I think some newer writing on gaming has flirted with these problems. While I've enjoyed some of the social analysis of gaming, and also the very personal meaning it has in people's lives, I think the case for the immersiveness of game worlds, and the choices that games present, are sometimes a little overstated by the new school of gaming journalists and bloggers. Instead of overhyping the case for a game based on graphics, they do it based on gameplay :-) I am a staunch believer in the power of quality games - as I've written about here before - but I must admit that this type of game comes about fairly rarely. I very much understand the wish that more games were like this, but pretending like a good game is great by attempting it to study it formally (usually with the word "aesthetic" used a few times) is just wrong. This overly academic analysis treats a game as though it's a book. It's understandable; many of these writers are probably young, either in our just out of college, maybe studying the humanities. But the danger with using this sort of analysis is simply that I don't think games are currently complex enough to warrant it, so the writing can come across as pretentious. Not to mention that it gives the impression that the only way for something to be worth one's time is if one can wax lyrical about it. Which leads me nicely onto the related subject of whether games are art.

The whole "are games art" issue came up famously with Roger Ebert's slight against gaming, and I did mention it before on the blog. Briefly, these are my updated thoughts. I think a lot of times, art becomes synonymous with something that is worthwhile; sometime that isn't a waste of time. People who play games are used to having to defend against stereotypes about the medium, and the ones who care about the issue of whether games are art are likely the type of gamers who derive more than immediate gratification from them; a Planescape lover can think about it long after the game is over, and reflect on some of the thoughtful settings in the game much like one would do with a book. Therefore, I understand their frustration when a learned critic comes along and says something that sounds like it means "You're all just wasting your time". But I'd say that gamers should be willing to admit that there in general, there isn't the same level of depth and complexity in a game compared to what is designated high-art, because this doesn't matter. The example I brought up the last time I discussed this issue still seems apt; I have no idea if The Simpsons is art, but I certainly don't believe the years pleasure I have derived from it are somehow "not good enough", or "irrelevant" compared to the pleasures of high-art. High-art might be transcendent and contain truths that we have to strive and struggle to understand, and which can genuinely warp the way we view the world and life. But high-art is not everything. Things can absolutely be instructive and valuable without needing to be art. I suspect that good video games fall in this set for the strand of "thoughtful" gamers (like me ;-)), and I think we'd be better off not really worrying whether one day Planescape will be studied in schools around the world; instead, let us hope that designers continue trying to tighten up the aspects of a game, and create something that is truly fulfilling rather than just flashy.

Those are my personal views at the moment. I might be a bit hard on the new style of gaming writers, and in part I'm willing to admit that maybe my misgivings are because I'm out of touch with many of the supposed modern classics. I genuinely think that bringing a more serious and critical discourse to gaming is a good thing. I just think we need to be careful not to make it overly academic, and not get too excited about them being the next great art-form. At some level, games are meant to be fun (though the word can be used loosely), and that can get forgotten if we try to convince ourselves that they deserve to be treated like films and books. If they do deserve such a place, and if quality games continue to be made, it will become apparent to anyone who cares to scratch below the surface.

Gabriel Knight in Windows XP

Thanks to this site, I am now able to play the original Gabriel Knight (the Windows CD version) on Windows XP! And in fullscreen, too, voices and everything...beautiful!

Probe launch successful

I've been playing a few oldie-games recently, for no real good reason. I guess it all started when I saw a screenshot of Eric The Unready on an adventure games forum, and read someone saying how it featured one of the greatest opening sequences in a (presumably adventure) game. Of course, offhand comments are pretty much all I go by in my whimsical decisions, and so it was settled - I would get every old game I could get my hands on. Or at least, I would get Eric The Unready, only to discover that my appetite would not be so easily satisfied...

Oh, and it is a fine intro, and the first "scene" if you will starts off looking like it is nothing particularly funny - in a slight twist on the fairy tale, you need to kiss a pig in order to bring it back to human form. But the scene does end very funnily; well, at least I think it was funny! It left enough of a good impression for me to continue playing.

I also tried, and to my surprise, finished Ringworld: Revenge Of The Patriarch. I started off really impressed with the game, as it features King's Quest V style graphics, except that it has character close-ups for important conversations where the portraits are usually quite pretty. However, I found this to be an unsatisfying game, for quite a few reasons. The first has nothing to do with it, and all to do with the vagaries of playing old DOS games on modern computers - it is simply that on DOSBox, I found the game to be too slow. I cranked the cycles all the way up, but to no avail!

With the gameplay, the story and depth was lacking, but then again this was made in 1992 (hmm, is that an excuse? Ultima VII...!). I didn't really feel like the story was explored in any great depth - the threat of the villain was very, very understated, and aside from your faithful companion Seeker, well...you don't feel like you get to know anyone.

Anyhow, I still have a soft spot for this game, since I was really impressed with screenshots of Seeker talking. Who knows, maybe if in the future I can run it at true game speed, I will write about how it's a lost classic!

Thanks to this post, I got Albion working in DOSBox without the right part of the screen getting cut off. One way to solve this is to not run the game in fullscreen; the other is to set aspect = true in dosbox.conf. Now the game runs fine!

I'm surprised I hadn't heard of Conquests Of The Longbow before; it is a KQ5-style adventure game by Sierra, but one that has completely slipped past my radar. A quick survey of the game makes me think that it might have potential, even though, as I loathe to admit, but must, as I grow older I find it harder to play these types of games. I haven't lost the ability to appreciate them, mind you, but I think I have lost the attention span required to sit through and play a game like this. No doubt at the fore-front of my mind is the infamous "Sudden Death Sydnrome" that plagued early Sierra games, not to mention the surprising ease with which one could get stuck in the endgame after realizing you were supposed to pick up an item a good three hours earlier in the game. They make for great memories, no doubting it, but they do make me wary of attempting to complete a similar game nowadays, where time is scarce for any type of game.

Who knows, maybe it will just take the "right" game for me to get back into the swing of things? I did manage, after all, to replay Serpent Isle a few months ago, without so much as a second thought. This leads me to think that it could just be the adventure game genre that I find it difficult to get back into - although, through it all, I still firmly believe that such games should exist, and should continue to be made. I feel one must be vigilant to not call for them to become quicker at the expense elegance (no matter how nebulous a term that is), and so I guess my interest in these games is rather "theoretical", which I suspect is something of an oddity. I have been surprised how many people there are (online) who are still interested in adventure games; the internet is nice that way. The thing about most of them is, they all seem to be rather active in engaging with games, whether new or old. I wonder where they find all the time...!

Red Alert In Windows XP

I had more luck running Red Alert (one of the early Command and Conquer games, doncha know?) in XP than I did with Bad Mojo. It takes a bit of work, but it is worth it since it lets you play one of the true classics among strategy games, or so I hope ;) I thought I'd make a note of how I got it to work, in case I need to do it again - these are not my own ideas, of course, and are paraphrased from here.

Assuming you've uninstalled any previous versions of Red Alert, first, you need to install it via the SETUP95 folder, not via the autoplay system. In the SETUP95 folder, set the compatibility settings for INSTALL.exe to run in Windows 95 Compatibility mode, and then install the game. I did not install DirectX 3.0, but I did install Westwood Chat (which you might be able to do without, but I don't think it hurts).

Next, in the folder where the files have been installed, you need to make all exe files run under Windows 95 Compatibility mode. Just sort the files by type, and select all files which are labelled Application in the Details view (for me, there were 11 such files).

Now select the RA95.exe file, and change its Compatibility settings to "Run in 640x480", "Disable visual themes", and "Turn off advanced text services". This is the main game executable file, but we can't run it just yet! The game needs to be patched first - there are two patches that are needed.

The first patch, C&CRA_Patch.zip can be found here, and you just need to overwrite the THIPX32.DLL file in your install directory. The second patch, RA108USP.exe, can be found here, and you need to run it once to extract the file PATCH.exe, which you then run (this has to be in your installation directory!) to patch Red Alert to v1.08.

Now after all this, running RA95.exe should start the game! No dwwin.exe errors or anything...simple as that ;)

I have so clearly been left behind by advances in gaming that I initially found it hard to believe that the reviewers at Good Game are able to see past the graphical brilliance of many modern games. To think I believed that graphics were still defined by Half-Life 2, maybe Oblivion - well, one quick look at Gears of War set all that nonsense straight.

What is worrying, however, is that this makes me ripe for the hype-machines, even though I try to be wary of them nowadays. Because really, what it takes is nothing more than a concept that I am half-interested in; given such a game, I am quite likely to lower my (clearly heightened) critical defenses against the horde of hype, even if momentarily. Then, all one needs to do is show me some really catching screenshots, and a few good reviews and the chances are good that I will get excited about the game, seeing as how I will probably be smitten by the graphics and let it override any critical judgement in me. 'Fristance, I do intend to play Oblivion eventually, but I sometimes wonder whether this is such a case where I have fallen for the pretty pictures. After all, I did not have it in me to finish Morrowind, so what is it that makes me think Oblivion will be any better? Drunk on the screenshots, I tell myself that they have probably made the quest system easier, and what have you, but I suspect it really comes down to the graphics...

A sad day when someone who roughed it out with Ultima Underworld falls prey to this common trap! Mind you, this is just speculation, and maybe I give myself too little credit. I don't think I have fallen for the trap completely just yet - after all, I haven't gone as far as buying any of these pretty games!

After getting frustrated at being unable to make Bad Mojo run on my XP machine, despite all manner of combinations of settings and QuickTime installations, I gave thought to installing Windows 98 on a separate partition. A quick search revealed, however, that installing 98 on an existing XP machine is not an entirely straightforward manner. A bright idea from S, however, gave me hope - why not use VM software?

A good idea, but I was still hestitant seeing as how I'd never tried anything like this before. I had no idea what products were "good", how they worked...nothing! I was quite happy then when it turned out that Microsoft themselves have a free program, Virtual PC, which lets one do all the basics of VM management, including creating a new VM. It seemed simple enough from the positive reviews, and indeed it was quite simple (if time consuming) to install 98 on my machine - I was quite impressed with the ease of use.

However, the game is more adamant than I imagined; while it now runs, it still crashes on occasion. The problem is again with videos I think, for it seems to stuff up only when I get to a cutscene. I don't have any idea what else to try!

But I am still impressed with Virtual PC!

I also tried to install FreeDOS in hopes of playing Ultima 8, but alas, no luck there either - I get an "Exception 14" error, or something like that. It probably has to do with the editing of the config files, but maybe I'll just wait for the Pentagram project to finish.

So maybe there is hope for gaming after all. At least, hope for my gaming experiences, which I once thought to be long-gone. Was I just being lazy in not seeking out the works of true quality? Probably, but given my lack of interest to play even games that I truly do love and respect, perhaps it was just a phase I had to go through.

Oh, hang on though, perhaps I speak too soon. Or at least, too loosely, because I think what I really mean is that the interest is back, if only for the moment; what is conspicuously absent is the actual, you know, gaming itself. The last few weeks, I've found it most entertaining reading about all manner of games at great length, but I can count on a finger the amount of hours I've actual spent playing. It might be that I am cursed to just love thinking about games, rather than play them!

At any rate, I think it is moderately safe to say that I have a year or two of this interest left in me. I wouldn't do anything silly like say that there is a foreseeable long-term future or anything, because you never know when the MMORPG will swallow everything in its wake.

I know I'm quite late to point out that Roger Ebert doesn't think video games are art, but I only just came across it by chance. It is a very interesting subject (and it is equally interesting to read some of gaming community's responses).

A common response to his comment is that 'art' is a hard thing to define. Indeed! I'm not entirely sure how one would go about calling games art - it is easy to try and see direct relationship with existing forms such as literature and films, which leads us to strong stories and cinematic gameplay. While there is no doubt that these can make up a great game with substance, I think the interactivity allows for things that you can't get otherwise. I think art can come in through the experiences we let the player have (and I think there may well be other ways too).

Ebert's complaint is that since games yield control to the player, you yield control of whatever artistic statement you are trying to make. I guess he means a couple of things. First, that there is a lack of flow - instead of walking through the door to have a deep conversation about whether the ends justify the means, the player might choose to spend a couple of hours on something largely inconsequential (upgrading armour? Although you tell me it's inconsequential when your party has fallen and that armor is all that remains between you and a Glabrezu!), disrupting the flow.

Second, that choice has the potential to make the experience rather silly, and consequently not profound - said deep conversation could be side-stepped by a mindless threat as one's first response, which would turn the supposed climax of the game into a free-for-all melee.

His reasoning that since they lack the structural control that you get with movies or books, they lose the ability to become art does not entirely convince me. I guess he is suggesting that with traditional art-forms the artist has direct control over what he is trying to impart, and how this is done, but I think that non-linearity and the control one has over the game world has the potential to create some form of art. It sounds like Ebert doesn't think such potential even exists, which I respectfully disagree with.

Now, having stated my claim - as for whether the potential has actually been realized at this moment in time, I would say thus far, probably not - at the moment there aren't any games that I will try to defend as being art. My current experience is that there aren't many artistic games that have been made (but it has been a while for me, no?), and those that are artistic I would not say contain enough for me to confidently proclaim them as being comparable to the best in other mediums. Still, to me, these games are at the very least more than just 'shallow' entertainment. I'm not sure any of them will be studied in classrooms just yet, but I do think they demonstrate that games can be intelligent, and have an interesting synthesis of story and gameplay. If one takes the average modern game to be like a Hollywood blockbuster (usually ephemeral, as it is designed to be purely escapist entertainment), then these kinds of games are from the alternative cinema - something with more depth and some amount of sophistication and artistic vision, even if not a masterpiece.

I'm afraid I'm not intelligent enough to be able to expound on why exactly I "feel" games can be art - I have to resort to vague terms like "gameplay structure" and "non-linearity", which I guess is just me dodging the question. All I can give is subjective testimony that I have played games that I have felt to be artistic, even if not quite high-art. So, with that confession made, I might as well muse a bit on my personal list of artistic games. They are a touch 'obvious' I suppose, which does make me want to try and find out more games with meaning. I don't know whether a common thread makes itself immediately obvious, but I guess what makes these games in particular come to mind is that they had some feature that somehow resonated, moreso than say just a button-masher.

Ultima VII, of course, for the sense of an active world (I was recently reminded that there are no generic NPCs - everyone, even the lowly peasant, has a name and role to play, and a unique opinion on the state of Britannia), and maybe nostalgia. There is a sense of a lot of effort put into the history of the land (all the books about the history of the place, much like how it was done for Ultima VIII), which for me left a lasting impression. It might have been made in '92, but it has not aged a bit for me (the graphics make it very playable, even today).

The sevens have it with FF7, which is supposed to be overrated but in my naivety I still consider it to be a true experience rather than just a game. The characters are strong, and I am one of those who find the story to be fascinating too - at times funny, serious, sad, and trimphant, it is to me, quite simply, an epic. It features a very famous scene that many gamers have said brings them to tears, and any game that does that has to be doing something right.

Even if I consider Baldur's Gate 2 to be a more satisfying game, Planescape is more in line with my intuitive feeling of what constitutes an artistic game. It might be the most "literary" RPG ever (it is the most literary one I've played), and like the others on the list it has strong characters and a very well-done story. When the plot unravels and you approach the end-game, you are posed with what I still think to be a deep philosophical question, which you perhaps would not expect in a game. Regardless of the constraints the game places on your potential answers to this question, reflecting on the question and the context it is asked makes me wonder whether a game has ever been this incisive.

Half-Life is probably the most cinematic game I've played*, even though I suppose the emotions it gets across are rather "obvious" for a video game (suspense, tension, and what have you). But it is simply done so well, and has many memorably tense moments that you have to get around, not to mention a few of those head-crabs that jump out of nowhere. I guess this is an example of an experience that seems like it is common to a lot of other games, but which happens to be done far better than most.

Grim Fandango is beautifully produced, and is certainly one of the most stylish games I've played. The concept is in itself interesting, and I cannot fault the execution. A very good story, and again, very good characters combine with the excellent music and atmosphere to make this one of the most unique and enjoyable games I've ever played.

Another game that I think was most probably important, but not necessarily enjoyable, is Facade. It is great to see that there are people interested in making games like these, even if they don't necessarily work out. It most certainly has an artistic bent, but, as many pointed out, the execution wasn't quite there. But that's ok, because it shows that such things can be tried, and will hopefully inspire more games in a similar vein.

Of course, I can't say that any of these can be compared to some of the great films or novels of this century, but as many have pointed out, the field is young. True, it is dominated by creating something for mass consumption, but that does not mean that something good cannot come out of it. We just need a Sgt. Pepper! Or, maybe better yet, a VU & Nico...! I guess software itself is fairly young, so perhaps in the future it will be easier than it is today to try and embark on the task of creating artistic games. I guess if you want really artistic games, with no care for commercial success (now we're talking early Lou Reed, pre Loaded anyway), you need more independent publishers, or companies that believe there is some artistic potential for the medium.

But look, there is also the important question - does it matter if they don't strive to be art? Not to me - I am not a purist (not anymore, anyway), and believe there is a place for entertainment that doesn't necessarily look to have long-lasting worth, or reveal to us something crucial about the human condition. You won't see me throw away my copy of Quake anytime soon! But I think there is the potential for games as a different sort of art form, and this should at least be explored and done justice. How far can we go with them? I am not sure!

Then again, maybe I'm wrong (although, like I said, I strongly suspect not), but that just means games are no more (or not all that much more) than entertainment - it doesn't discount the fact** that they are at least intelligent entertainment (like a good episode of The Simpsons, I suppose?), and that is no shame at all. Even if something isn't "art", it doesn't mean there is no value to it!

The nice thing about this topic is that sifting through online discussions on the matter has brought up many examples from other gamers of games they consider to be artistic. It seems as though there is an avenue for me to explore yet!

* Sigh, that was a fair while ago. Yep, it's true, I am not a gamer anymore!

** Fact? Arguable as always, but I think it is hard to argue otherwise...so yes, a "fact in my opinion" :)

I'd be a liar if I were to call myself a gamer in any form these days, but time was when games were what it was all about. I came about this realization when P was chatting to me a few days back ("Played MDK2?" / No, haven't a clue what it's even about. "What about Deus Ex?" / Got it, but haven't played it. "You know that bit in GTA where..." / Umm sorry, but I don't particularly like GTA). The tag of "gamer" is something that has latched onto me, even as the number of games I sit down and play has fallen to, well, zero.

Is the interest still there? A little bit; when I think back to some great gaming moments, I do visit games websites and see whether anything on the horizon looks promising. Most of the games I'm interested in seem to be at least a few years old (one exception would I guess be Oblivion), though I wouldn't read into this too much - in particular, I don't think it says anything about quality of games. It says more about my attention span and tolerance of perceived mediocrity these days, which is most assuredly on the decline. Especially the latter, which is not restricted just to video games (right now, I'm living with the bitter belief that 90% of what I used to watch on TV is pure tripe).

But really, about the only genre that I still have an interest in is the good old fashioned RPG*. Except, if I think about it, I haven't played all that many RPGs anyway - the holy trinity of FF7, Baldur's Gate and Ultima (7/8/9?) are about the only real RPGs I've played. I suppose I've been lucky to have gotten my hands on such good ones. The good (great) impressions these have left on me have made me want more of the same, and so it seems that every new RPG that comes out with high scores is a promise of the same level of experience; but year after year, these golden children fade from my memory and I am left thinking about those three great games, and wondering why there aren't more like them.

Maybe the end of gaming that I have often predicted is less from the state of games today, and more about the state of me today! It's hard to imagine that I've lost the gaming drive, but the evidence seems pretty convincing. And yet, I don't think I will ever completely lose interest in regaining it - even now, there is still the hope that a game will come along and take me back to those days gone by.

*I don't see myself getting into FPSes anymore, but there is hope for strategy and maybe even adventure games. Trouble is, the world seems to be into online gaming these days, which is no good for the introverted.