Looks impressive, until you realise this is virtually all the units you can spawn at any one time.

Carving out a successful acting career in the games industry is a bit like trying to build a fortress out of soggy cornflakes. Sure, you get the odd big-name actor doing voice work such as Patrick Stewart’s brief appearance as the doomed Emperor in Oblivion, or Lance Henriksen, whose gravely tones can be heard in Aliens vs Predator and Modern Warfare 2. But both were well-known actors well before they made forays into videogames.

Joe Kucan is different. In 1995 he took the dripping leftovers of his breakfast and constructed something really quite impressive, gaining a similar sort of cult status as Leonard Nimoy and that bloke who played Boba Fett in Star Wars. In fact, such is Kucan’s popularity he has become the main selling-point of the Command and Conquer series.

For the uninitiated, Joe Kucan plays Kane, the shiny-headed megalomaniac infamous for his unceasing strive for world domination and well and truly hamming-it-up in C&C’s now legendary cutscenes. Fifteen years on from the original game and the Tiberium saga is coming to an end. EALA promised an epic conclusion to the saga that would leave fans feeling satisfied. Sadly, what they have delivered is something of a damp squib that will probably enrage the majority of C&C fans.

This isn’t to say that C&C4 is a terrible game. It’s quite enjoyable once you’ve worked out what the hell is going on. The main problem is that C&C4 isn’t really a Command and Conquer game, and it’s not entirely sure what it is instead.

The Command and Conquer strategy template is simple, you build a base, create an army of units, and then destroy the enemy’s base before he can do the same to you. After three games which all play this way, the mechanic has become rather tired. It’s therefore understandable that EALA would want to make some changes. So what they have done is taken every innovative strategy game over the past five years, put them in a pile, and then repeatedly stamped on them until everything has compressed into a vaguely workable strategic mush.

Aside from the live-action cutscenes and a few recognisable units, absolutely everything has been changed. Gone is the base-building, replaced with three slightly different “crawler” units which act as command centres, unit creators, and useless tanks on legs. Enemy bases are also a thing of the past; victory now requiring you to capture control points around the map. Tiberium – the crystalline fuel-source which is gradually consuming the Earth – is now collected for upgrade-points rather than harvested to build more units. Underpinning all this is a system of experience accumulation, unlockables and upgrades.

Strangely, all of these changes don’t seems to make the game anymore interesting. The best “strategy” is still to build as many units as possible and charge directly at the enemy – the only difference being that your base follows you around. Although, these changes don’t have anything to do with rebooting the franchise. The real reason behind these alterations is mind-bogglingly weird. Simply put, the game is built around its DRM.

Interestingly, EA claim the game has no DRM at all, but let me explain how this not-DRM works. Basically, C&C4 requires you to have a persistent Internet connection to play. If your connection drops, then you can no longer progress through the campaign. Rather than play Ubisoft’s card and simply ignore any protestation to this anti-piracy measure, EALA have tried to justify the constant-connection requirement by basing the game around online cooperative play. This is why you have three different types of crawler, why it takes you far longer to unlock all the units than it does to complete the main storyline, and why (when playing alone) the odds seem overwhelmingly stacked against you.

In a way, EALA have been very clever, because when you do play cooperatively, the game is considerably more entertaining. Yet paradoxically they have also been very stupid, because playing cooperatively also means you pay far less attention to the storyline, the conclusion to which was the  original premise for the game.

Not that the storyline is particularly fantastic. Kane is as wonderfully malevolent as ever, and Joe Kucan clearly revels in bringing a little gravitas to his usually rather pantomime performance, but it also contains an embarrasingly weak plot twist. I won’t spoil it for you, but the main character’s incredibly irritating wife gets killed approximately four missions into the game. Trust me, this isn’t spoiling it for you.

C&C4 is a very bizarre game. EA’s desperation to protect their profits had led them to compromise almost everything that made C&C what it was, replacing it with a mishmash of recent strategy innovations which in combination only work inconsistently. When everything comes together, it can be quite exhilirating. Frankly though, Kane deserved a much better send off.

Digital Rage Measurement

Ezio's reaction to Ubisoft's new DRM was perhaps a little extreme.

I only ever tried to pirate a game once. The game was Entomorph: Plague of the Darkfall, a 1995 isometric RPG about which I can only remember two things, it involved punching a lot of giant insects to death, and I really enjoyed playing it when I was a kid. I still retain the game CD, but it no longer works, hence my attempt to download a cracked version of the game. Unfortunately, that didn’t work either, and since then I’ve never really felt the desire to make another foray into gaming’s seedy underbelly. My reasoning for the dismissal of pirated games follows:

1)Piracy is stealing, and therefore wrong.
2)When I buy a game, I own it, whereas if I pirate it, I do not.
3)The games industry provides a better quality product than the pirates.
4)By purchasing the game, I help the games industry flourish, by stealing it, I hinder the industry’s development.

However, Ubisoft’s recent DRM debacle has led me to question every one of these assertions.

Read the full article here.

So far I’ve just about managed to avoid using this column as a soapbox to stand on while I bitch and whine about my own personal issues with the games industry. Therefore, as I’m about to blow enough hot air to make myself a viable option for NASA’s next spacecraft prototype – I thought it only fair to give you a little bit of warning.

I am, always have and always will be, a dedicated PC gamer. The type that scoffs at playing a first-person-shooter with an x360 pad, and is well aware that compared to  Deus Ex, Mass Effect is light years away from being the greatest RPG ever made.

I’m not blind to the advantages of consoles. It’s pretty diffcult to gather your friends around a PC for a game of Pro Evo or Mario Kart, and when it comes to Street Fighter IV a mouse and keyboard just doesn’t cut the mustard. I do however, have an uneasy relationship with consoles simply because since they entered the mainstream all I’ve heard about PC gaming is that it is either A) dying, or B) already dead.

Now if such comments were the misguided outbursts of the odd prepubescent forumite they wouldn’t bother me so much. Unfortunately, it isn’t merely ignorant teenagers who hold this opinion. Ever since Halo betrayed its originally intended platform ten years ago, game after game has either suffered a delayed PC release or been denied one entirely. This very week Dead Space 2 and Alan Wake became the latest casualties of the PC gaming cull.

Frankly, Alan Wake can go boil his pretentious head. The only reason Microsoft have made it a 360 exclusive is to shift more consoles – a preposterous decision for a company who have just released Windows 7. However, Dead Space 2 has been denied a PC release due to alleged lack of sales of the original. It is in this where the real issue lies.

Dead Space was an excellent game, but like GTA IV and many others it was disastrously optimised for PC controls – simply turning Isaac Clarke around was like trying to drag a rhino through a swimming pool filled with treacle.As a result of mistakes made by the developer, sales were lost. But instead of fixing them for the sequel, EA decided to pull the game from the PC altogether.

EA are one of many companies who use lack of sales as a reason not to release games on PC alongside the age-old excuse of piracy. Yet the sales figures they refer to do not include those made via digital distribution services like Steam, which are estimated to make up 47 percent of all PC game sales, and with ten million users on Steam alone, that’s an awful lot unaccounted sales.

If PC gaming does die, it will be because corporations like Microsoft and EA kill it, and it will undoubtedly be a mistake they regret.

Tagged with:
 

As many of you have probably experienced, gaming can be an expensive pastime/hobby/way of life, and if financially ravenous corporations like Activision and Nintendo have their way, prices are only going to rise. Already those ridiculous plastic instruments in your average Rock Band package will set you back around £100, and if you want to buy faux-wheels for Mario Kart Wii (which do NOTHING except make you look even more like an idiot) then you’re talking an additional £30 per wheel after purchasing the console, the game and the extra Wii-motes.

Of course, there are ways of making your evening’s entertainment less likely to suck your bank account dry. One method is simply to buy pre-owned games instead of shiny new ones. Alternatively, you can purchase a new game and, once you’ve completed it, sell it back to a retail store like Gamestation or CEX at a moderately reduced price. However, should you acquire your game from a digital distribution service like Steam or Direct2Drive, trading in your purchase is not an option. At least, not at present.

Step forward Green Man Gaming, the first digital distribution service to advocate digital trade-ins. The fact that nobody has considered this before might initially seem absurd, but there are very good reasons for why this has not been tried yet.

Game publishers are obviously not keen on outlets selling pre-owned games, as they don’t recieve any profits and consequently cannot afford the unicorn blood they need to survive. GMG have found a way around this, simply by giving the publishers a share of the profits of any game that is traded in and re-sold.

A more difficult issue facing GMG is that digital media does not decline in quality. Files can be corrupted and become worthless, but there is no box to scuff or manual to rest your coffee mug on, and so there is no relationship between the quality of the product and its price. Again, GMG claim to have a solution, in the form of a series of algorithms which determine the price of a pre-owned game.

GMG declined to comment on precisely how their pricing algorithms work (I suspect a roulette wheel or a dartboard is involved). Nevertheless, even if their pricing system is theoretically sound, it makes little sense to buy a new game when a pre-owned one is exactly the same in terms of quality and format. No purchases of new games means no trade-ins and resultantly no re-sales. Unless GMG can find a way to accept trade-ins not originally bought on their website, the lack of new game sales may well be where Green Man Gaming falls flat on its green face.